A critical take on Inspiring Phiosophy's evidence for the Resurrection

[seanD]

The major dating method for the Gospels is the historical picture with reference to the temple. That's the whole reason for placing Mark in 70. So anachronism is a major method. Arguments about vocabulary are a lot less objective.

I was referring to the Pastoral works. Dating of the gospels is a whole different topic.

[One Bad Pig]

we know wrote more letters than we have.

Quite likely. It seems fairly obvious, however, that those letters would also have been copied and circulated at least to some extent. I don't think it's especially plausible that someone managed to pawn off a letter (let alone 3) as Paul's 40 years or more after the fact, particularly if there were copies of these other letters floating around to check them against.

we have good reason to think the widows came latter.

The widows were already present when Stephen was chosen as a deacon to minister to them, which couldn't have been more than a handful of years after the Resurrection.

We don't start to see organized structure like that until second century. We have the other NT epistles and Edgerton 2, Clement I.

This is largely an argument from silence. No one outside the solo scriptura crowd thinks that the NT epistles paint anything like a complete picture of the church; they're written, mostly, to deal with particular problems that had arisen in the churches addressed. IMO dating PEdgerton2 to the NT era is rather speculative. I'd have to see your comments on what in 1 Clement causes it to be dated prior to the Pastorals, other than a priori conviction they were written later. I've read it, but not recently. From what I recall, the Ignatian epistles (from c. 110) have a much more fleshed out hierarchy than the Pastorals.

[One Bad Pig]

The major dating method for the Gospels is the historical picture with reference to the temple. That's the whole reason for placing Mark in 70. So anachronism is a major method. Arguments about vocabulary are a lot less objective.

The major fault I find with that thesis is that it assumes that the authors deceitfully attributed prophecies about the fall of Jerusalem to Jesus which he never really spoke.

[metacrock]

I was referring to the Pastoral works. Dating of the gospels is a whole different topic.

It's thye same method. date by what is going on in the text that could not be going on in another time, that's perfectly valid method Mention of the destruction of the temple for example would nix writing before destruction of the temple.

[metacrock]

Quite likely. It seems fairly obvious, however, that those letters would also have been copied and circulated at least to some extent. I don't think it's especially plausible that someone managed to pawn off a letter (let alone 3) as Paul's 40 years or more after the fact, particularly if there were copies of these other letters floating around to check them against.

that would explain how the author of 1 Tim had them.

The widows were already present when Stephen was chosen as a deacon to minister to them, which couldn't have been more than a handful of years after the Resurrection.

give me chapter and verse on that? the Widows in Tim are church officials not just widows to help.

This is largely an argument from silence. No one outside the solo scriptura crowd thinks that the NT epistles paint anything like a complete picture of the church;

real scholars dot include anachronism as a method. it's perfectly valid and well used method. It's not argument from silence. He's not silent about the widows list he's talking about it. it's not an extensive view of the church but it is anachronistic for AD64.

they're written, mostly, to deal with particular problems that had arisen in the churches addressed. IMO dating PEdgerton2 to the NT era is rather speculative. I'd have to see your comments on what in 1 Clement causes it to be dated prior to the Pastorals, other than a priori conviction they were written later. I've read it, but not recently. From what I recall, the Ignatian epistles (from c. 110) have a much more fleshed out hierarchy than the Pastorals.

everyone dates 1 Clem. at 95. It's the only date that works if bother to study it. this is all common knowledge among higher critics.

[metacrock]

The major fault I find with that thesis is that it assumes that the authors deceitfully attributed prophecies about the fall of Jerusalem to Jesus which he never really spoke.

How do you know he didn't? he's reported to speak them in the' gospels. do you mean the scholars are assuming he couldn't[t be foretelling the fate of the temple before it's destruction? I've thought about that myself. while that might change our dating of Gospels it doesn't change the fact of dating the Pastoral epistles. that the widows list is a late development even maybe second century.

[seanD]

It's thye same method. date by what is going on in the text that could not be going on in another time, that's perfectly valid method Mention of the destruction of the temple for example would nix writing before destruction of the temple.

It might be the same method in theory, but it isn't the same in the sense that what you suppose did or didn't occur in the apostolic church is not as definitive as what happened to the temple in 70 CE. I'm not sure why you think there should be a clear ecclesiastical structure described in the letters when the pastoral letters are the only letters addressed to the administrators, not the general congregations. Your argument about the externals is just too suppositional.

[One Bad Pig]

that would explain how the author of 1 Tim had them.

Yes, but it would also provide a significant barrier to uncritical acceptance of them as Pauline (because, as far as we know, the early church DID accept them as Pauline).

give me chapter and verse on that? the Widows in Tim are church officials not just widows to help.

If they are (which is not explicitly stated by the text), that does not help us fix when widows started to become church officials. Arguing that this makes 1 Tim post-Pauline is an argument from silence.

real scholars dot include anachronism as a method. it's perfectly valid and well used method. It's not argument from silence. He's not silent about the widows list he's talking about it. it's not an extensive view of the church but it is anachronistic for AD64.

How can it be anachronistic if we simply have no other sources mentioning it? You seem to be more regurgitating the claims of higher critics than thinking about and responding to what I'm arguing.

everyone dates 1 Clem. at 95. It's the only date that works if bother to study it. this is all common knowledge among higher critics.

I'm confident that 95 is at best an approximation rather than an exact date. I don't care what is "common knowledge among higher critics." I want to evaluate their arguments on the merits. And when do people think the Pastorals were written? It does not seem plausible to me that they were written in close proximity to the Ignatian epistles.

[metacrock]

It might be the same method in theory, but it isn't the same in the sense that what you suppose did or didn't occur in the apostolic church is not as definitive as what happened to the temple in 70 CE. I'm not sure why you think there should be a clear ecclesiastical structure described in the letters when the pastoral letters are the only letters addressed to the administrators, not the general congregations. Your argument about the externals is just too suppositional.

we see the transition in structures from the nomadic prophet to the structured church hierarchy in works like I Clem an the Testimony of the 12 ( Didache) and Ignatius, early second century that's where we sirst see the church widows list. It's not in any other NT epistle and there are many from whyich to choose. Not in 1 or 2 Pete, not in Titus, Not in Hebrews Not in Galatians or Ephesians.

[metacrock]

Yes, but it would also provide a significant barrier to uncritical acceptance of them as Pauline (because, as far as we know, the early church DID accept them as Pauline).

that's hard to say. They didn't have a universal canon until 321 or so.

If they are (which is not explicitly stated by the text), that does not help us fix when widows started to become church officials. Arguing that this makes 1 Tim post-Pauline is an argument from silence.

there is no valid basis to assert widows as church structure before middle of second century we just don't see them. sure they could be there but basing that upon 1 Tim is begin the question. the odds are not.

How can it be anachronistic if we simply have no other sources mentioning it? You seem to be more regurgitating the claims of higher critics than thinking about and responding to what I'm arguing.

we know when the structure formed. you can see it happening in second century lit. even a sociology professor I had in undergraduate school made that argument he was an atheist, he had no steak in proving one way or the other,

I'm confident that 95 is at best an approximation rather than an exact date. I don't care what is "common knowledge among higher critics." I want to evaluate their arguments on the merits. And when do people think the Pastorals were written? It does not seem plausible to me that they were written in close proximity to the Ignatian epistles.

you are wrong. I studied the possibility of dating it both earlier and latter and it fits best at 95.

[metacrock]

why work so hard at keeping 1 Tim Pauline? it's still in the canon. Hebrews is not written by Paul but it has the authority of the canon.,

if this opens up a discussion about revelation and authority we should not hold it on apologetics board. where's a board for discussing such maters? Biblical theology?

[seanD]

why work so hard at keeping 1 Tim Pauline?

Why work so hard to deny it's Pauline? So far, the evidence presented that it isn't Pauline is that the vocabulary is different and that it has an ecclesiastical structure that is not expressed in the other early letters. The former is easily squashed by the fact that a) Paul is targeting a different audience, and b) he may not have written it with his own hand (unless psstein can present me with a stronger vocabulary argument). The latter is based on an argument from silence supported by supposition of what did or didn't occur in the early apostolic church. The references to specific places and people in the three works suggest that the audience was familiar with the references spoken of. So, you would have to assume Paul was still alive but someone forged a letter to his administrators without his consent. Why should it be harder for me to believe Paul had a hand in the works than to believe he didn't in that case?

[One Bad Pig]

that's hard to say. They didn't have a universal canon until 321 or so.

They are present in the Muratorian fragment, c. 170. They also would not have been accepted as Pauline if there were evidence that they were not.

there is no valid basis to assert widows as church structure before middle of second century we just don't see them. sure they could be there but basing that upon 1 Tim is begin the question. the odds are not.

There is no valid basis to assert either way, without even bringing 1 Tim. into the equation. Dating the Pastorals to mid-2nd century is highly unlikely; they have rather less hierarchical structure than the Ignatian epistles from the early 2nd century.

we know when the structure formed. you can see it happening in second century lit. even a sociology professor I had in undergraduate school made that argument he was an atheist, he had no steak in proving one way or the other,

You are being far too dogmatic in your assertions - and I'm not sure how atheism is supposed to make someone unbiased.

you are wrong. I studied the possibility of dating it both earlier and latter and it fits best at 95.

With all due respect, I don't think you're paying much attention to what I type. Your response at best addresses the most minor premise of my comment, and in a way I explicitly rejected in the comment!

[metacrock]

They are present in the Muratorian fragment, c. 170. They also would not have been accepted as Pauline if there were evidence that they were not.

that's late3 second I said they start showing up early mid second. If Paul wrote 1 Tim it would have been around 60-64.

There is no valid basis to assert either way, without even bringing 1 Tim. into the equation. Dating the Pastorals to mid-2nd century is highly unlikely; they have rather less hierarchical structure than the Ignatian epistles from the early 2nd century.

that's pretty much when most scholars date it to

You are being far too dogmatic in your assertions - and I'm not sure how atheism is supposed to make someone unbiased.

I am not making assertions' I'm paraphrasing scholar I read in seminary.

With all due respect, I don't think you're paying much attention to what I type. Your response at best addresses the most minor premise of my comment, and in a way I explicitly rejected in the comment!

you kept coming back on it.

[psstein]

Can you give me an example of differences in vocabulary? I never understood why this was such a factor to some scholars in determining authorship. For one thing, we know they often had secretaries such as first Peter. If Paul was imprisoned, evident by the second Timothy letter, then I think it's safe to assume someone else scribed it as he dictated. Also, if Paul was writing to the leader of a church, naturally his demeanor and even use of language and vocabulary would vastly differ than if he was speaking to a general congregation. Obama wouldn't speak the same way to a head of another country than if he was speaking to a general crowd. So, I'd be interested in some examples of this from you so I can be convinced that vocabulary is a valid argument against authorship.

Also, how do you explain all the salutations and personal name dropping at the end of the letters?

I'd have to look at Timothy in the original Greek, which I really don't have time to do right now. To quote from Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), 663:

The Pastorals' use of particles, conjunctions, and adverbs differs notably from Paul's undisputed usage. Also roughly one quarter of the vocabulary of the Pastorals does not appear in the other Pauline letters.

We know Paul used a secretary to write some of his letters, largely because the secretary is identified. It seems as though whomever wrote Titus also wrote 1 Timothy; 2 Timothy is a little bit more abstruse. There's an article called "The Pastorals in Light of Statistical Linguistics," in New Testament Studies 6. If you can't get access to the article, send me a PM and I'll send it to you. I can get it within a few days.

How do I explain it? I don't really think it needs explaining. Pseudipigraphy was fairly common in the ancient world. People weren't really concerned with who actually wrote something, but rather whose authority was behind the work. If you're writing something in a Pauline style, you'd want to claim that Paul's authority was behind it.