Corpus-Paul

["David Amador" <TheVoidBoy AT sprynet.com>]

While I disagree with Stevan Davies'  appeals to "common sense" (human beings are hierarchical animals, I think a bit of common sense is called for), his conclusions resonate with my own: the only reason any historian can give for the current timeline is the timeline itself, i.e., it took so-and-such many years because we say it did.  No empirical evidence can be cited except the documents whose dates are being asserted by the timeline they help to develop.  Social movements rhetoricians of this century have explored precisely the issue of the way movements are developed both structurally and rhetorically, and it has been documented frequently that certain organizational structures become quickly identified and filled (not necessarily hierarchicalized).  Until empirical evidence from the ancient world can be used to support the conclusions of historical scholars regarding church structures, appeals to their lateness are presumptuous at best, unfounded at worst.

 

I find some of Errol Smith's conclusions interesting, but have a big problem using Acts as a reliable historical source.  I also doubt Acts was written by the same author as Luke (possibly by a "Lukan", but not by "Luke"), the two being brought together by their introductory dedications.  That makes appeals to these sources very difficult for me to accept.

 

I have no difficulty, however, dating the gospels early, and do so without recourse to Griesbach or Farmer.  Mark was written in 41/42 CE, since the only historical reference that can be verified is the reference in the Little Apocalypse to the Gaius crisis.  There is no evidence anywhere else in the gospel that Mark new of the pending fall of Jerusalem (though Jesus' "prophecy" of the fall of the Temple might be cited, it is also just as plausible that this was a dominical statement whose validity and authority were justified by the later events, hence the continuing presence of Mark's gospel itself as a reliable resource for Matthew and possibly Luke), all other supposed ex eventu prophecies being either vague or terribly wrong ("flee to the hills" completely contrary to events of 66 on).  Hence, no reason to have to date this material late, hence to reason to appeal to the lateness of this material to indicate the lateness of the Pastorals.

 

-David Amador, Ph.D.

Santa Rosa, CA