Corpus-Paul

[Micheal Palmer <mwpalmer AT earthlink.net>]

At 11:01 AM -0500 4/2/99, George Blaisdell wrote:

>So can we place the times of the writings of Paul into the overall
>sequencing [by dates, however disputed]] of the times of the writings of
>the GNT?

We can date some of the letters with a reasonable degree of confidence
(none of them absolutely), but the dates of others are seriously debated.
Most New Testament scholars think 1 Thessalonians is the oldest (though
we've already heard at least one dissenting voice on this list!).  If this
view is correct, it would have been written around 49 or 50 CE.

>Were the gospels then written with the Pauline Corpus clearly in view?

I seriously doubt it.  There is evidence to suggest that the Pauline corpus
was in circulation as a unit by around 90 CE, but that is well after the
latest of the Gospels. It is possible that one or more of the Gospel
writers had access to individual letters of Paul, but I doubt any had the
whole collection.

>And what about the presumed "Q"?  Prior or post Paul?

If Q existed as a written document, it would probably be quite early, but
there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that it is older than Mark.  It
COULD have been, but we have no sure way of knowing.  Given that Paul
quotes Jesus so few times, I doubt he had anything like Q.  Then again, he
*could* have had something like Q but didn't quote it often for the simple
reason that the churches he served did not have a copy.  At the very least
we could postulate that Paul wrote in an environment where the words of
Jesus were not widely known.


------------------------------------------------------------
Micheal W. Palmer                                  mwpalmer AT earthlink.net
North Carolina State University
Philosophy and Religion (New Testament)
Foreign Languages (Ancient Greek)

Visit the Greek Language and Linguistics Gateway at
http://www.greek-language.com/
------------------------------------------------------------