Which Paulines were Pauline and when?

[Difflugia]

Question for debate: Which Pauline epistles were actually written by Paul and in what order?

Because I want to hear more about this:

(1) I believe Romans is his first work/Thesis, which isn't the mainstream view. It just so happens that on evidence, I'm right.

[Difflugia]

What do you mean, I don't believe in the Bible? There are all kinds of evidence that it really exists and has a history.

Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of the Living God?

Answer: No.

That is what I mean.

What does that have to do with my finding it interesting? I find lots of other mythological frameworks interesting, too. I don't think any of them are magic, either.

There's even some evidence that someone named Paul wrote parts of it.

And?

And there's some evidence that he didn't write all of what was attributed to him, hence the debate topic.

Your objection is like claiming that Hobbits aren't real, so nobody should enjoy talking about The Lord of the Rings.

Oh. Think so?

You literally expressed disbelief that I'd want to debate the literary history of a fun book because I don't "believe in it." Your rhetorical question isn't sensical, let alone a sufficient response.

dead matter came to life and began to think, talk, and also fly (flying creatures).

I think you missed a few lectures. That explains a lot.

[We_Are_VENOM]

What does that have to do with my finding it interesting? I find lots of other mythological frameworks interesting, too. I don't think any of them are magic, either.

And there's some evidence that he didn't write all of what was attributed to him, hence the debate topic.

What he did or didn't write shouldn't matter to an unbeliever. That is just the way I feel.

Sue me.

You literally expressed disbelief that I'd want to debate the literary history of a fun book because I don't "believe in it." Your rhetorical question isn't sensical, let alone a sufficient response.

Yeah but it seems as if the interest is on the high end of the spectrum for unbelievers. I find it quite disturbing, actually.

I think you missed a few lectures. That explains a lot.

Oh, I missed a few lectures because I gave a simplified version of naturalism, but you had a front row seat for the lecture on the simplified version of Christianity that you provided?

Gotcha.

[TRANSPONDER]

What does that have to do with my finding it interesting? I find lots of other mythological frameworks interesting, too. I don't think any of them are magic, either.

And there's some evidence that he didn't write all of what was attributed to him, hence the debate topic.

What he did or didn't write shouldn't matter to an unbeliever. That is just the way I feel.

Sue me.

You literally expressed disbelief that I'd want to debate the literary history of a fun book because I don't "believe in it." Your rhetorical question isn't sensical, let alone a sufficient response.

Yeah but it seems as if the interest is on the high end of the spectrum for unbelievers. I find it quite disturbing, actually.

I think you missed a few lectures. That explains a lot.

Oh, I missed a few lectures because I gave a simplified version of naturalism, but you had a front row seat for the lecture on the simplified version of Christianity that you provided?

Gotcha.

You seem to have missed quite a lot, one way or the other. Ok, you approve finding many things interesting as well as the religion debate. The way you feel about what matters or doesn't to an unbeliever is neither here nor there, and as irrelevant as the invitation to sue you. Your opinion on this simply doesn't matter. Nor does your being disturbed by anything we do or think. Do you seriously think that your saying you are upset by unbelievers taking an interest in debunking a claim we don't actually think is true (which is reason enough to debunk it) is going to make us think "Ooohhh Wow..there mist be something wrong with our mindset"?

I won't comment on 'simplified lectures' but rather, note that the debate is still ongoing as to whom it is that is fit to be giving lectures at all, simple or complex. Sorry, no Gotchas for you, much as you would like to think that you pulled one. However I cannot resist observing that your exhibition crowing over your own cleverness is hardly doing you any good. In fact I have even wondered for several posts whether you are an atheist posing as a very poor Christian apologist simply discredit them.

Gotchaself.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You seem to have missed quite a lot, one way or the other. Ok, you approve finding many things interesting as well as the religion debate. The way you feel about what matters or doesn't to an unbeliever is neither here nor there, and as irrelevant as the invitation to sue you. Your opinion on this simply doesn't matter.

It matters to me.

Nor does your being disturbed by anything we do or think. Do you seriously think that your saying you are upset by unbelievers taking an interest in debunking a claim we don't actually think is true (which is reason enough to debunk it) is going to make us think "Ooohhh Wow..there mist be something wrong with our mindset"?

No, I didn't mean it that way. I was simply sharing my thoughts on the matter. Nothing more, nothing less.

I won't comment on 'simplified lectures' but rather, note that the debate is still ongoing as to whom it is that is fit to be giving lectures at all, simple or complex.

There is a debate going on here?

Sorry, no Gotchas for you, much as you would like to think that you pulled one. However I cannot resist observing that your exhibition crowing over your own cleverness is hardly doing you any good.

In fact I have even wondered for several posts whether you are an atheist posing as a very poor Christian apologist simply discredit them.
Gotchaself.

A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinions of sheep.

[TRANSPONDER]

You seem to have missed quite a lot, one way or the other. Ok, you approve finding many things interesting as well as the religion debate. The way you feel about what matters or doesn't to an unbeliever is neither here nor there, and as irrelevant as the invitation to sue you. Your opinion on this simply doesn't matter.

It matters to me.

I don't care.

Nor does your being disturbed by anything we do or think. Do you seriously think that your saying you are upset by unbelievers taking an interest in debunking a claim we don't actually think is true (which is reason enough to debunk it) is going to make us think "Ooohhh Wow..there mist be something wrong with our mindset"?

No, I didn't mean it that way. I was simply sharing my thoughts on the matter. Nothing more, nothing less.

I still don't care.

I won't comment on 'simplified lectures' but rather, note that the debate is still ongoing as to whom it is that is fit to be giving lectures at all, simple or complex.

There is a debate going on here?

Indeed, and you are scoring us points whether you think you are participating or not.

Sorry, no Gotchas for you, much as you would like to think that you pulled one. However I cannot resist observing that your exhibition crowing over your own cleverness is hardly doing you any good.

In fact I have even wondered for several posts whether you are an atheist posing as a very poor Christian apologist simply discredit them.
Gotchaself.

A lion doesn't concern itself with the opinions of sheep.

I wouldn't presume to call myself a lion, nor even the head of a dog, but my only purpose here is concern for the sheep.

[brunumb]

There is a debate going on here?

Certainly not from your side. Putting aside the wisecracks and snide remarks, you contribute nothing of significance to these debates. You believe, that's it, and it's unclear why anyone else should care.

[TRANSPONDER]

There is a debate going on here?

Certainly not from your side. Putting aside the wisecracks and snide remarks, you contribute nothing of significance to these debates. You believe, that's it, and it's unclear why anyone else should care.

A lack of proper debate (Christian apologetics debate being poor enough generally) but trying to score cheap points by heckling was what we used to call on my former Forum. 'A Good bad example'.

[historia]

Which Pauline epistles were actually written by Paul and in what order?

On this as on many other matters, I follow the scholarly consensus: 1 Thessalonians (c. 50), 1 Corinthians (c. 53), Galatians (c. 54), 2 Corinthians (c. 55), Romans (c. 57), Philemon (c. 61) and Philippians (c. 62) are clearly written by Paul himself. Hebrews and the Pastorals are not.

There is a lack of a consensus on the remaining letters, so I suppose here we might put in our personal opinions. I'm inclined to see Colossians as genuine and Ephesians and 2 Thessalonians as pseudographical.

I don't see any problem with the present sequence reflecting the chronological order

The Pauline epistles are arranged by approximate size -- from longest to shortest -- within the New Testament, a common practice for ancient manuscripts. That this would coincidentally also be the chronological order in which they were written is very unlikely.

(Edited to provide a more considered view on the deutero-Pauline letters, as I haven't looked at these issues in depth in some time, and misremembered some details.)

[TRANSPONDER]

Which Pauline epistles were actually written by Paul and in what order?

On this as on many other matters, I follow the scholarly consensus: 1 Thessalonians (c. 50), 1 Corinthians (c. 53), Galatians (c. 54), 2 Corinthians (c. 55), Romans (c. 57), Philemon (c. 61) and Philippians (c. 62) are clearly written by Paul himself. Hebrews and the Pastorals are not.

There is a lack of a consensus on the remaining letters, so I suppose here we might put in our personal opinions. I'm inclined to see 2 Thessalonians (c. 51) as genuine and Ephesians and Colossians as pseudographical.

I don't see any problem with the present sequence reflecting the chronological order

The Pauline epistles are arranged by approximate size -- from longest to shortest -- within the New Testament, a common practice for ancient manuscripts. That this would coincidentally also be the chronological order in which they were written is very unlikely.

A very good point and something I had noticed. But I am more impressed by the evolution of the content. It progresses. Romans is his whole Thesis, argued out. Corinthians is his dealing with the fall -out and plugging the holes in his thesis. Later on self - justification as any kind of apostle. And later on particular points being made. That would account for a decrease in length without undermining the idea that they may be in chronological order, aside from the subject matter fitting that theory. I haven't made a detailed redaction as I did with the gospels, but I did read and grasp the meaning of the epistles and I think my hypothesis fits the material, even if alternative hypotheses could be made.

[historia]

I did read and grasp the meaning of the epistles and I think my hypothesis fits the material, even if alternative hypotheses could be made.

It's easy to dream-up historical hypotheses. The question historians face is which hypothesis best explains the available data.

Your hypothesis seems highly unlikely.

First, I think the internal evidence points strongly against it.

In his letter to the Romans, for example, Paul tells us he's been wanting to visit them for some time to conduct in Rome the kind of ministry he's undertaken elsewhere (Romans 1:13).

In fact, after "many years" he's now done with "these regions" (likely the Aegean if not the whole eastern Mediterranean) and now wants to visit Rome on his way to Spain (Romans 15:22-26).

That all makes sense if Paul visited and wrote his letters to the churches around the Aegean, including in Thessalonica, Corinth, Colossae and Galatia, before writing to the Romans -- especially since some of those letters include references to Paul having recently visited those Greek churches.

Your hypothesis, on the other hand, would have Paul writing Romans first before these other letters, apparently early in his missionary career, and so does not make good sense of that data.

Second, your hypothesis can't really be squared with the traditions of Paul's journeys recounted in Acts.

And, finally, it has zero scholarly support.