The Historical Jesus II

[Craig B]

You very well know that ALL EXISTING manuscripts with the Pauline Corpus, the Anonymous letter attributed to Clement and letters attributed to Ignatius are dated NO earlier than c 175 CE.

You very well know that manuscripts dated to 175 CE or later cannot be accepted as historically credible when they are from the time period when there was an IMMENSE quantity of bogus literature.

It's WORSE than that!!! The existing earliest manuscript of Clement isn't FROM 175 CE.

The first complete copy of 1 Clement was rediscovered in 1873, some four hundred years after the Fall of Constantinople, when Philotheos Bryennios found it in the Greek Codex Hierosolymitanus, written in 1056.

So on that basis, it was written by mediaeval FABRICATORS in the eleventh CENTURY who were pretending to live in the first century and be WRITING to Corinthians perhaps because they WERE nuts, or were suffering FROM auditory hallucinations.

 

[dejudge]

It is most mind boggling that some of the very persons who deny an historical Jesus because of lack of historical data are actively engaged in arguing that the character called Paul in the Pauline Corpus did exist WITHOUT any historical data.

What is the supposed first writing to claim Clement of Rome wrote to the Corinthians?

The very same "Against Heresies" that was composed AFTER 125 CE when there was an EXPLOSION of an IMMENSE amount of bogus literature.

What is the supposed first writing to claim and identify 9 letters to Churches and 3 Pastorals that were supposedly composed by Paul.

The very same "Against Heresies" that was composed AFTER 125 CE when there was an EXPLOSION of an IMMENSE amount of bogus literature about Jesus and early Christianity.

Virtually everything in "Against Heresies" about the date, authorship, and chronology of the books of the NT and the time period of crucifixion have been REJECTED.

It can be easily seen that "Against Heresies" is historically bogus and CONTRADICTED by Christian writers of antiquity.

In Against Heresies it is claimed Clement was the THIRD bishop of Rome AFTER the Apostles but other Christian writings CONTRADICT Irenaeus.

1. Irenaeus "Against Heresies 3---- The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus ...... To him succeeded Anacletus......in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.

2.Tertullian "Prescription Against the Heretics--- the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

3. Optatus' "Against the Donatists---To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement

4. Augustine of Hippo Letter 53 ----The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus,

5. The Preface to the Recognitions ---Now of this we have heard this explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter......... And in this way both statements will appear to be true, both that these bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher's seat on the death of Peter.

6. The Chronography of 354---Clemens 9 years, 11 months, 12 days. He was in the times of Galba and Vespasian, from the consulate of Tracalus and Italicus [68] to that of Vespasian for the 6th time and Titus [76].

There is an IMMENSE amount of bogus literature about Clement from the writing of "Against Heresies" to at least the supposed letter of Augustine or at least from c 175-400 CE.

There is total confusion and contradiction for ALL the time period of Bishops of Rome up to at least the 4th century

For hundreds of years NOT even Christian writers KNEW when the supposed Clement was Bishop.

The fact that the time period for the supposed Clement as bishop cannot be determined it means that all the time periods BEFORE and AFTER Clement for other supposed Bishops of Rome would also be affected.

It is completely logically fallacious to use writings which are NOT historically credible and dated even LATER than the Pauline Corpus to argue that there are authentic letters under the name of Paul.

The fact that up to the mid-4th century it is claimed Clement was bishop of Rome c 68-76 CE it means that the Christian authors knew NOTHING of the Epistle attributed to Clement since c 95 CE.

The Anonymous letter to the Corinthians has been FALSELY ATTRIBUTED to Clement or Falsely attributed to a fiction character.

There is ZERO historical data for Clement of Rome only an IMMENSE quantity of bogus literature.

If Clement was bishop c 68-76 CE who was bishop c 95 CE?

If Clement was bishop 95 CE who was bishop c 68-76 CE.

If Clement was the first bishop AFTER Peter who was the third?

If Clement was SECOND Bishop who was third?

It is clear that NOT even Christians of antiquity knew when there were Bishops of Rome.

The claim that there were Bishops of Rome since the time of Peter is FICTION--a product of the IMMENSE quantity of Bogus literature AFTER 125 CE.

 

[maximara]

dejudge it is very silly to cite Bart Ehrman about this cos Bart Ehrman does believe Jesus existed. You know the title of his BOOK is a question: did Jesus exist? What was Ehrman's answer to his own question? Was it No? Was it Maybe? No, it was Yes, Jesus did exist!

When Ehrman said that, Richard Carrier got very cross and started to write nasty things about Bart Ehrman, which you can READ in Carrier's blog. Here's how the nasty things start. http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/667

Here is a part of Ehrman's Article:

"With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves)."

The hilted parts are simply NOT true. There is no evidence of any such sources. Paul, our first actual source, is genreally clocked in at the mid 50s to mid 60s or some two to three decades from the supposed events. Mark the first of the Gospels generally clocks in at c 70 CE or some four decades after the supposed events.

As for the Aramaic claim, that is at best a theory and even scholars who accept the idea of early Aramaic/Hebrew version of a Jewish-Christian gospel can't agree on its relationship to the Gospels we have.

"Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it."

And yet this same Paul give no real details of Jesus only vague reference to the rulers of this age and other cold readingish statements. To rephrase Ehrman's silly comment 'If John Frum did not exist, you would think his brother, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, would know it'.

I can see why "Richard Carrier got very cross and started to write nasty things about Bart Ehrman" because this article is spouting nonsense that Ehrman should know better about.

 

[Craig B]

And yet this same Paul give no real details of Jesus only vague reference to the rulers of this age and other cold readingish statements. To rephrase Ehrman's silly comment 'If John Frum did not exist, you would think his brother, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, would know it'.

Nothing silly about that. I think Phil probably does know he doesn't have a brother called John Frum. Nor do people who know, and have been at meetings with, Phil describe him as "John Frum's brother". Maybe devotees of John Frum do; but people who go to meet Phil and are members of organisations he controls probably don't.

There are so many differences between John Frum and Jesus, as I have said, that make it pointless to pronounce the name of Frum in order to dispel the probability of a historical Jesus.

 

[maximara]

Nothing silly about that. I think Phil probably does know he doesn't have a brother called John Frum. Nor do people who know, and have been at meetings with, Phil describe him as "John Frum's brother". Maybe devotees of John Frum do; but people who go to meet Phil and are members of organisations he controls probably don't.

The hilted part is the rub; Paul is a devotee of Jesus. As for the rest, in 2007 five Tanna men from the Prince Philip movement actually met Prince Philip. In 2010 those very same men with the rest of their moment celebrated the 'brother' of John Frum's (ie Prince Philip) 89th birthday. Belief if it is really strong tends to override reality.

Also as pointed out Jesus' biological family simply disappears after Acts 2 leaving us with James brother of John (dead by 44 CE) and James son of Alphaeus (dead c 62 CE) so as far as Acts is concerned Paul never met Jesus biological brother.

Please note since Carrier presents the longer version of Acts as a reference (available in Price, Pre-Nicene New Testament, pp. 563-634) I assume that is the version he is using for his statements regarding James.

Again given Paul uses the same term "brother" to refer to his fellow Christians why didn't further clarify James being the actual biological "brother" of the Lord by adding in his parentage? Is should be pointed out that scholars who hold that Jesus as the only child of Joseph and Mary explain away Jesus 'brothers' thusly:

In the first case, what was the custom for calling someone your “brother,” “sister,” or using the collective term of “brethren?” In Genesis 14:14, Lot is called Abraham’s “brother” but Genesis 11:27 tells us that Lot was the son of Aran, Abraham’s brother. This shows that the terms were used to include cousins, but they were not even limited to close relatives (see Deuteronomy 23:7 and Jeremiah 34:9 for examples). Why was this? Neither Hebrew nor Aramaic (the language most likely spoken by Jesus and the apostles) had a special word for “cousin.” Instead, the words “brother,” “sister,” and “brethren” were commonly used. The writers of the New Testament, although writing in Greek, were raised in the Hebrew tradition and kept to this tradition as they were writing primarily to other Jewish Christians. Acts 2:46 illustrates that these Jewish Christians went to temple in addition to worshiping together.

Now back to Mark 6:3 where the “brothers” of Jesus are named and consider James and Joseph. Compare the descriptions of the women at the foot of the cross in Matthew 27:56, Mark 15:40 and John 19:25. From this we find that Mary the mother of James and Joseph
must be the wife of Cleophas. No one has ever suggested that the Blessed Virgin remarried, especially since Jesus entrusted her care to John. Similar arguments can be made for the other “brethren.”" (Was Jesus an Only Child?)

So even some believers in Jesus hold that the James Paul met was NOT Jesus biological brother.

 

[dejudge]

Here is a part of Ehrman's Article:

"With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves)."

The hilted parts are simply NOT true. There is no evidence of any such sources. Paul, our first actual source, is genreally clocked in at the mid 50s to mid 60s or some two to three decades from the supposed events. Mark the first of the Gospels generally clocks in at c 70 CE or some four decades after the supposed events.

The hilited parts are NOT true.

There is NO evidence whatsoever that Paul is "our first actual source". There are no manuscripts, No Papyrus, No fragment of the Pauline Corpus dated to c 50-60 CE.


It is virtually impossible to date any EXISTING letter of the Pauline Corpus WITHIN a 10 year range and since 50-60 CE using manuscripts and Codices ALREADY dated to 175-400 CE.

Please IDENTIFY the manuscripts or Codices with the Pauline Corpus that are dated to c 50-60 CE?

Which Papyri, fragment or manuscript of the Pauline Corpus is dated to c50-60 CE?

It is NOT P46, P10, P11, P14, P 15, P16, P26, P 27, P 30, P 31, P32, P 34, P 40, P 48, P 49, P 51, P 61, P 65, P 68, P 87, P 92, P 94, P 99, P 117, P 118, P 123, P124.

Please stop the propaganda. Please stop the fallacies.

You have nothing but imagination. You are actually using manuscripts of the PAULINE Corpus from the MIDDLE AGES.

We have the LIST of ALL PAPYRI with the Pauline Corpus and ALL are dated to the 2nd century and/or later.



This is the list of NT Papyri and NONE of them is dated to c50-60 CE.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri

As for the Aramaic claim, that is at best a theory and even scholars who accept the idea of early Aramaic/Hebrew version of a Jewish-Christian gospel can't agree on its relationship to the Gospels we have.

The authors of the gospels referred DIRECTLY to Hebrew Scripture or the Septuagint which is a Greek copy of Hebrew Scripture so it must be expected that the Gospels would have some relationship to the Hebrew language.

"Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it."

The hilited part is fiction.

The character called Paul could NOT have acquired any first hand information about the LORD from heaven, that Jesus was God's Own Son, or that Jesus was raised from the dead on the THIRD day.

Who could have had first hand knowledge of fictitious events?

And yet this same Paul give no real details of Jesus only vague reference to the rulers of this age and other cold readingish statements......

The hilited part is not true. The Pauline Corpus contain details of his resurrected Jesus that are not even in the Gospels and the other Epistles.

1. In the Pauline Corpus God and a woman are the parents of Jesus.

2. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was the Lord from heaven.

3. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus supped on the night he was delivered up

4. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus LOVED People so much that he GAVE his life for their sins.

5. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus died for the sins of mankind, was buried and resurrected on the Third day.

6. In the Pauline Corpus OVER 500 persons, the Apostles and Paul was SEEN of the Resurrected Jesus.

7. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus was EQUAL to God.

8. In the Pauline Corpus Jesus would meet the DEAD in Christ in the AIR.

9. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed the Jews KILLED Jesus, the Son of God, the Lord from heaven.

10. In the Pauline Corpus it is claimed the resurrected Jesus commissioned Paul to preach the Gospels to the uncircumcised.

 

[Craig B]

Which Papyri, fragment or manuscript of the Pauline Corpus is dated to c50-60 CE?

It is NOT P46, P10, P11, P14, P 15, P16, P26, P 27, P 30, P 31, P32, P 34, P 40, P 48, P 49, P 51, P 61, P 65, P 68, P 87, P 92, P 94, P 99, P 117, P 118, P 123, P124.

Please stop the propaganda. Please stop the fallacies.

You have nothing but imagination. You are actually using manuscripts of the PAULINE Corpus from the MIDDLE AGES.

You WRITE fictional propaganda. P46 is dated 175-225 which is not the middle AGES. It is the middle ROMAN empire. Here are the Emperors who reigned THEN

Marcus Aurelius did not live in the Middle Ages
Commodus did not live in the middle ages
Pertinax did not live in the middle ages
Didius Julianus did not live in the middle ages
Septimius Severus did not live in the middle ages
Caracalla did not live in the middle ages
Geta did not live in the middle ages
Macrinus did not live in the middle ages
Diadumenian did not live in the middle ages
Elagabalus invented the whoopee CUSHION
Severus Alexander did not live in the middle ages

By your fictional imagination which DATES things from the date of the earliest extant manuscript Paul LIVED in the Roman Empire but JULIUS Caesar lived in the middle ages because here are the earliest MANUSCRIPTS OF Caesar

Amsterdam 73 9th century which is the middle ages
Paris lat. 5056, 11-12th century which is the middle ages
Paris lat. 5763, 9th century which is the middle ages
Vatican lat. 3864, 9th century which is the middle ages
Florence, Laur. Ashb. 33, 10th century which is the middle ages
British Library Additional 10084, 11-12th century which is the middle ages
Florence, Laur. 68.8, 10-11th century which is the middle ages
Vatican latinus 3324, 11-12th century which is the middle ages
Paris lat. 5764, 11th century which is the middle ages
Vienna 95, 12th century which is the middle ages

Please stop the fallacies and propaganda at once.

 

[IanS]

Here is a part of Ehrman's Article:

"With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves)."

The hilted parts are simply NOT true. There is no evidence of any such sources. Paul, our first actual source, is genreally clocked in at the mid 50s to mid 60s or some two to three decades from the supposed events. Mark the first of the Gospels generally clocks in at c 70 CE or some four decades after the supposed events.

As for the Aramaic claim, that is at best a theory and even scholars who accept the idea of early Aramaic/Hebrew version of a Jewish-Christian gospel can't agree on its relationship to the Gospels we have.

"Moreover, we have relatively extensive writings from one first-century author, Paul, who acquired his information within a couple of years of Jesus' life and who actually knew, first hand, Jesus' closest disciple Peter and his own brother James. If Jesus did not exist, you would think his brother would know it."

And yet this same Paul give no real details of Jesus only vague reference to the rulers of this age and other cold readingish statements. To rephrase Ehrman's silly comment 'If John Frum did not exist, you would think his brother, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, would know it'.

I can see why "Richard Carrier got very cross and started to write nasty things about Bart Ehrman" because this article is spouting nonsense that Ehrman should know better about.

Indeed it is amazing that bible scholars (and others) like Bart Ehrman are still happily publishing anything like the highlighted quote above.

I don't know which texts he has in mind, but I can only suppose he is talking about texts that are thought by HJ believing bible scholars to have originally been written at some very early date, but where all we actually have is what was written centuries later in copies made by Christians who were, even by the accounts of bible scholars and theologians, in the frequent habit of altering original writing to suit whatever they had come to believe at that much later date.

That's apparently true of all four canonical gospels, and also of Paul's letters. That is - we only know what much later Christian copyists wrote as those gospels and letters. We do not know what was said in any non-existing much earlier original versions. And the problem with that is that of course, any much earlier original may have included remarks that made clear the stories were always fictional - it only takes one or two words to be changed to completely alter the meaning of what devotional religious eulogies of that sort actually said.

It may well be that by the time when our earliest existing relatively complete and almost fully readable extant copies were produced, the authors believed that they were writing about a real messiah once known to people. Although, by the time the copyists produced those extant copies, they themselves certainly could never have met any such person as Jesus. And what's more, the way those anonymous copyists wrote in the gospels and letters, shows that the supposed long dead original authors also never claimed to have met any living person called Jesus.

What you are left with from all of that extant copyist writing, is a chain of writers who never even attempted to claim any actual evidence of Jesus, but who instead only provided evidence of their historic religious beliefs ... beliefs which, even in respect of Jesus, stretched all the way back long before Jesus to recover Jesus stories from their ancient old testament.

As far as the dates of Paul's letters are concerned - I have no idea whether they are as early as bible scholars say, or as late as dejudge says. But either way, as evidence of Jesus, Paul's letters actually don't matter. Because the one thing that is abundantly clear from all that "Paul" wrote, is that he had never known any such person as Jesus, and instead he makes absolutely and instantly clear that he believed in the "Christ" because of what was written long before in ancient OT scripture and because he thought "God was pleased to reveal his Son in me". That is zero evidence of a living Jesus . That is purely and entirely evidence of Paul's religious belief in the divine nature of OT prophetic scriptures.

The gospels, of course, are so constantly filled with miraculous fiction, that only the most desperate or delusional could possibly accept such writing of the supernatural as reliable evidence of a Jesus figure who was even by their own accounts, completely unknown to all of them anyway.

As I have said here many times - Jesus might have existed. It is possible. But if we are to believe that from actual “evidence” (as opposed to “faith”), then it requires something vastly better than the hopelessly unreliable late copyist gospels and letters of the bible.

 

[dejudge]

Which Papyri, fragment or manuscript of the Pauline Corpus is dated to c50-60 CE?

It is NOT P46, P10, P11, P14, P 15, P16, P26, P 27, P 30, P 31, P32, P 34, P 40, P 48, P 49, P 51, P 61, P 65, P 68, P 87, P 92, P 94, P 99, P 117, P 118, P 123, P124.

Please stop the propaganda. Please stop the fallacies.

You have nothing but imagination. You are actually using manuscripts of the PAULINE Corpus from the MIDDLE AGES.

You WRITE fictional propaganda. P46 is dated 175-225 which is not the middle AGES. It is the middle ROMAN empire...

I am extremely happy that you admit P 46 is dated c 175-225 CE and NOT c 50-60 CE.

You are using presently USING the NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION of the Pauline Corpus in "BibleGateWay" which was compiled in the 20th century from multiple manuscripts and Codices from the MIDDLE AGES.

In post #1937 you made reference to Romans 1.3-4 but you fail to admit that you were USING a version of Romans which is NOT in P 46.

In fact, in the very same post #1937 you ADMIT that you are USING the 20th century NIV or AV Bible which were compiled AFTER the MIDDLE AGES.

Your posts are recorded.

..... I can't find the expression God Incarnate in Bible Gateway Galatians. In fact it appears nowhere at all in AV or NIV, as far as I can tell.

What a big joke.

You are actively USING a 20th century version of the Pauline Corpus and claiming that there are authentic Pauline letters composed c 50-60 CE.

Please, stop your fiction, logical fallacies and JOKES.


You quote NIV or AV Romans 1.3-4 but never realized that Romans 1.3-4 is NOT even found in P 46.

Your Auditory Hallucinator, your Paul, did NOT write the 20th century NIV version of the Pauline Corpus found in BibleGateway.

Why are you actively using a 20th century version of the Pauline Corpus and claiming Pauline letters were composed c50-60 CE?

Which Papyri, which Codex, which fragment of the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE?

Your FICTION has been exposed. The Joke is over.

No Fragment of the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE.

No Papyri of the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE.

No CODEX with the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE.

The c 50-60 CE dates for UNKNOWN, NEVER SEEN, IMAGINARY manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are POST MIDDLE AGES inventions.

 

[maximara]

Indeed it is amazing that bible scholars (and others) like Bart Ehrman are still happily publishing anything like the highlighted quote above.

I don't know which texts he has in mind, but I can only suppose he is talking about texts that are thought by HJ believing bible scholars to have originally been written at some very early date, but where all we actually have is what was written centuries later in copies made by Christians who were, even by the accounts of bible scholars and theologians, in the frequent habit of altering original writing to suit whatever they had come to believe at that much later date.

That's apparently true of all four canonical gospels, and also of Paul's letters. That is - we only know what much later Christian copyists wrote as those gospels and letters. We do not know what was said in any non-existing much earlier original versions. And the problem with that is that of course, any much earlier original may have included remarks that made clear the stories were always fictional - it only takes one or two words to be changed to completely alter the meaning of what devotional religious eulogies of that sort actually said.

It may well be that by the time when our earliest existing relatively complete and almost fully readable extant copies were produced, the authors believed that they were writing about a real messiah once known to people. Although, by the time the copyists produced those extant copies, they themselves certainly could never have met any such person as Jesus. And what's more, the way those anonymous copyists wrote in the gospels and letters, shows that the supposed long dead original authors also never claimed to have met any living person called Jesus.

What you are left with from all of that extant copyist writing, is a chain of writers who never even attempted to claim any actual evidence of Jesus, but who instead only provided evidence of their historic religious beliefs ... beliefs which, even in respect of Jesus, stretched all the way back long before Jesus to recover Jesus stories from their ancient old testament.

As far as the dates of Paul's letters are concerned - I have no idea whether they are as early as bible scholars say, or as late as dejudge says. But either way, as evidence of Jesus, Paul's letters actually don't matter. Because the one thing that is abundantly clear from all that "Paul" wrote, is that he had never known any such person as Jesus, and instead he makes absolutely and instantly clear that he believed in the "Christ" because of what was written long before in ancient OT scripture and because he thought "God was pleased to reveal his Son in me". That is zero evidence of a living Jesus . That is purely and entirely evidence of Paul's religious belief in the divine nature of OT prophetic scriptures.

The gospels, of course, are so constantly filled with miraculous fiction, that only the most desperate or delusional could possibly accept such writing of the supernatural as reliable evidence of a Jesus figure who was even by their own accounts, completely unknown to all of them anyway.

As I have said here many times - Jesus might have existed. It is possible. But if we are to believe that from actual “evidence” (as opposed to “faith”), then it requires something vastly better than the hopelessly unreliable late copyist gospels and letters of the bible.

Carrier in the previously mentioned blog rightly lamblasts Bart Ehrman (sic):

"He actually says we have such sources. We do not. That is simply a plain, straight-up falsehood. I can only suppose he means Q or some hypothesized sources behind the creedal statements in Paul or the sermons in Acts, but none of those sources exist, and are purely hypothetical. In fact, barely more than conjectural. There is serious debate in the academic community as to whether Q even existed; and even among those who believe it did, there is serious debate about whether it comes from Aramaic or in fact Greek sources or whether it’s one source or several or whether it even goes back to Jesus at all. The background to the creeds and sermons are even more conjectural (the creeds might go back to Aramaic sources, but none attest to a historical Jesus in the required sense of the term; and the sermons almost certainly do not go back to Aramaic sources, but are literary constructions of the author of Acts, writing in a Semitized Greek heavily influenced by the Septuagint; see Proving History, pp. 184-86 and Richard Pervo’s The Mystery of Acts, just for starters).

So what Aramaic sources do we “have,” Dr. Ehrman? Do tell. And on what basis do you conclude they were written down “within just a year or two of his life”? How can you be so precise?"

Yes Carirer is being snarky but when Ehrman is giving us the kind of twaddle he is Ehrman deserves it and more. Ehrman is giving us a Kusche Parrot and Carrier is rightly calling him on the carpet for it.

Kusche Parrot for those who don't know is my reference to David Kusche's comment about the Bermuda Triangle:

"Say I claim that a parrot has been kidnapped to teach aliens human language and I challenge you to prove that is not true. You can even use Einstein's Theory of Relativity if you like. There is simply no way to prove such a claim untrue. The burden of proof should be on the people who make these statements, to show where they got their information from, to see if their conclusions and interpretations are valid, and if they have left anything out."

The whole historical Jesus position is a Kusche Parrot.

 

[dejudge]

We need to know which Fragment, Papyri or Codex of the Pauline Corpus is dated to c 50-60 CE??

Please!!!

The people here who argue that there are authentic Pauline letters dated to c 50-60 CE MUST IDENTIFY the manuscripts.

Presently there are MULTIPLE variant versions of the Pauline Corpus with missing or altered texts.

For example parts of the Pauline Corpus are missing from P 46 which is dated to 175-225 CE and none of the Existing manuscripts with the Pauline Corpus are identical.

Which Papyri, fragment or Codex and which version of the Pauline Corpus is dated to c 50-60 CE?

The SILENCE is DEAFENING.

The imaginary c 50-60 CE manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus do NOT exist.

They NEVER did.

The imaginary, never seen, unknown c 50-60 CE manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are Post Middle Ages invention to promote the propaganda which gives PRIMACY to Paul.

No-one can IDENTIFY the c 50-60 CE manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus.


The hoax--the big practical Joke has been exposed.

hoax (həʊks)
n
1. a deception, esp a practical joke
vb
2. (tr) to deceive or play a joke on (someone)

Please!!! Stop playing jokes on us.

We know that your imaginary c 50-60 CE manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus do NOT exist.

 

[Craig B]

I am extremely happy that you admit P 46 is dated c 175-225 CE and NOT c 50-60 CE.

I also "admit" the earliest ms of Julius Caesar is DATED TO the ninth century and not THE first century BCE.

Your posts are recorded.

Thanks. Please play them to me some time.

What a big joke.

Thanks again.

The Joke is over.

Sorry!

No Fragment of the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE.

No Papyri of the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE.

No CODEX with the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE.

The c 50-60 CE dates for UNKNOWN, NEVER SEEN, IMAGINARY manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are POST MIDDLE AGES inventions.

Not "manuscripts". Internal evidence. It's like G J Caesar. The earliest manuscripts DATE TO the ninth century. Did JULIUS invade Britain along with the Vikings Eirik Bloodaxe and Eystein FOUL-Fart in THE ninth century? No, I don't think so. I accept the unknown, never SEEN first century BCE imaginary manuscripts OF THE Gallic war instead.

 

[dejudge]

No Fragment of the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE.

No Papyri of the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE.

No CODEX with the Pauline Corpus has been dated to c 50-60 CE.

The c 50-60 CE dates for UNKNOWN, NEVER SEEN, IMAGINARY manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus are POST MIDDLE AGES inventions.

Not "manuscripts". Internal evidence. It's like G J Caesar. The earliest manuscripts DATE TO the ninth century. Did JULIUS invade Britain along with the Vikings Eirik Bloodaxe and Eystein FOUL-Fart in THE ninth century? No, I don't think so. I accept the unknown, never SEEN first century BCE imaginary manuscripts OF THE Gallic war instead.

What a Big Joke!!

You do NOT have manuscripts but you have INTERNAL evidence??!!!

Please, Please, Please!!!

Your Hoax has been confirmed.

You knew all along that your "INTERNAL" evidence was really your own IMAGINATION.

What a big Joke!!!

The NIV Pauline Corpus mentions ARETAS but it is dated to the 20th century or AFTER the MIDDLE AGES.

 

[Craig B]

What a Big Joke!!

You do NOT have manuscripts but you have INTERNAL evidence??!!!

Please, Please, Please!!!

Your Hoax has been confirmed.

You knew all along that your "INTERNAL" evidence was really your own IMAGINATION.

So I "imagine" THAT G J Caesar invaded Britain in the first CENTURY bce, but you SAY the reality IS THAT he invaded Britain along with EYSTEIN Foul Fart the Viking? Because the earliest manuscripts are NINTH century AD.

I go with the internal EVIDENCE. And I deny THAT Julius had horns sticking out OF HIS helmet.

 

[maximara]

So I "imagine" THAT G J Caesar invaded Britain in the first CENTURY bce, but you SAY the reality IS THAT he invaded Britain along with EYSTEIN Foul Fart the Viking? Because the earliest manuscripts are NINTH century AD.

I go with the internal EVIDENCE. And I deny THAT Julius had horns sticking out OF HIS helmet.

Craig's sarcasm aside he is completely right. As I and others have mentioned the material generally used for writing was not that durable.

Much of what we have from the 1st century BC to 4the century CE period are copies of copies and so other methods (such as internal clues) much be used.

It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it is certainly better then saying that provenance stops dead at the earliest copy we have.

 

[dejudge]

Craig's sarcasm aside he is completely right. As I and others have mentioned the material generally used for writing was not that durable.

Much of what we have from the 1st century BC to 4the century CE period are copies of copies and so other methods (such as internal clues) much be used.

It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but it is certainly better then saying that provenance stops dead at the earliest copy we have.

You and others cannot identify which VARIANT of the Pauline Corpus was supposedly written c 50-60 CE.

You and others cannot identify the Papyri, manuscript or Codex of the Pauline Corpus that is actually dated to c 50-60 CE.


There are many, many variants of the Pauline Corpus and some include the Epistle to the Hebrews.


Papyri 46 [P 46] a VARIANT of the Pauline Corpus includes the Epistle to the Hebrews as part of the Pauline Corpus and several chapters and verses are missing in some of the other letters.

The INTERNAL evidence in all existing manuscripts and Codices for the Pauline Corpus do not allow for a 10 year range between c50-60 CE.

It is virtually impossible and logically fallacious to date Pauline letters to c 50-60 CE within a 10 time simply because a single letter DATED to the 2nd century or later mentions Aretas especially when it is argued the Pauline Corpus was NOT a product of a UNITARY source.

It is also void of logic to assume that manuscripts dated to the 2nd century or later were actually copied from manuscripts from c 50-60 CE.

In fact, P 46 dated to c 175-225 CE is not even a complete compilation of the Pauline Corpus.

Again, please IDENTIFY the manuscripts and VARIANTS of the Pauline Corpus that were dated c 50-60 CE.

The 20th century NIV Pauline Corpus was compiled from manuscripts WRITTEN in the MIDDLE AGES using multiple VARIANTS of the Pauline Corpus.

It is obvious that there are NO manuscripts and no variants of the Pauline Corpus that are dated c50-60 CE.

The c 50-60 CE dates for the IMAGINARY Pauline Corpus was a Hoax from the beginning--NO manuscript or Codex was ever presented.

 

[maximara]

You and others cannot identify which VARIANT of the Pauline Corpus was supposedly written c 50-60 CE.

You and others cannot identify the Papyri, manuscript or Codex of the Pauline Corpus that is actually dated to c 50-60 CE.

There are many, many variants of the Pauline Corpus and some include the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Mainstream modern scholarship doesn't consider Epistle to the Hebrews part of Paul's writings though internal evidence does suggest that it was written before the First Jewish–Roman War started which would put its original composition before 66 CE. But as Carrier note it along with 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and James "could have been composed anywhere between the 30s to 130s (or in some cases even later)" (OHJ pg 262)

As I mentioned before mainstream modern scholarship accepts that the seven letters generally accepted as Paul's (Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) are each two or more separate letters woven together. "Even these seven letters have been meddled with." (OHJ pg 261)

"The remaining letters do indeed deviate too greatly from Pauline style to be by his hand or even his dictation." (OHJ pg 262)

As Carrier points out the 1500 some words Pliny uses to describe the death of his father give more actual details the some 20,000 words from Paul give us about Jesus. Carrier uses this example of what we should expect from writings by early Christians -- a curiosity to know more about Jesus the man what he preached, what examples he gave and so on.

Yet we don't see anything even remotely like that until the 130s and even then we get more one sentence blurbs then lengthy quotes.

Also there is the elephant in the room. According to the Gospels Jesus would read and write - so why didn't Jesus himself write anything down? Wheless give a hint of such a Gospel (Gospel by Jesus Christ) but nothing about it. If we are dealing with the kind of forgery factory dejudge seems to see then wouldn't somebody have a Gospels written by Jesus himself as the definitive go to work?

 

[dejudge]

Mainstream modern scholarship doesn't consider Epistle to the Hebrews part of Paul's writings though internal evidence does suggest that it was written before the First Jewish–Roman War started which would put its original composition before 66 CE. But as Carrier note it along with 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude, and James "could have been composed anywhere between the 30s to 130s (or in some cases even later)" (OHJ pg 262)

Again, you write fiction.

There is NO internal evidence in the Epistle to the Hebrews that can date it before c 70 CE.

There is NO Fragment, No Papyrus, No manuscript, No Codex with the Epistle of Hebrew dated before c 70 CE.

The Epistle to the Hebrews is even in a far worse condition than the Pauline Corpus.

Not even Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" mentions the Epistle to the Hebrews or a sentence from Hebrews.

Writings attributed to 2nd century Christians knew NOTHING of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The Epistle to the Hebrews played ZERO role in the development of the stories of Jesus.

Tertullian also did NOT even claim Marcion mutilated the Epistle to the Hebrews.

The Epistle to the Hebrews was most likely fabricated AFTER c 180 CE or AFTER "Against Heresies" attributed to Irenaeus.

Please IDENTIFY the Papyri, the manuscript, the Codex, or the VARIANT of the Epistle to the Hebrews which was supposedly composed before c 70 CE.

Again, you present IMAGINATION instead of manuscripts of Hebrews dated to pre 70 CE.

 

[dejudge]

....Also there is the elephant in the room. According to the Gospels Jesus would read and write - so why didn't Jesus himself write anything down? Wheless give a hint of such a Gospel (Gospel by Jesus Christ) but nothing about it. If we are dealing with the kind of forgery factory dejudge seems to see then wouldn't somebody have a Gospels written by Jesus himself as the definitive go to work?

You show that you are not familiar with the writings of antiquity.

In Church History, an epistle of Jesus is found. The Epistles of Paul are probably forgeries or falsely attributed like that of Jesus.

Examine the words of Jesus in his forged or falsely attributed epistle to King Abgarus

Church History 13.9

9. “Blessed are you who hast believed in me without having seen me. For it is written concerning me, that they who have seen me will not believe in me, and that they who have not seen me will believe and be saved. But in regard to what you have written me, that I should come to you, it is necessary for me to fulfill all things here for which I have been sent, and after I have fulfilled them thus to be taken up again to him that sent me. But after I have been taken up I will send to you one of my disciples, that he may heal your disease and give life to you and yours.”

"Blessed" are those who date the Pauline Corpus and Hebrews to c 50-60 CE with imaginary manuscripts that they have NEVER seen.

Amazingly, in the very supposed epistle of Jesus it is admitted that the people who believe in Jesus have NOT seen him.

Christians of antiquity who believed the Jesus story NEVER SAW an historical Jesus.

The Jesus cult BELIEVERS NEVER SAW a human Jesus.

Even today those who BELIEVE Jesus was a figure of history cannot show that any Christian of antiquity saw Jesus before the resurrrection.

 

[Craig B]

There is NO internal evidence in the Epistle to the Hebrews that can date it before c 70 CE.

Why NOT, dejudge?

There is NO Fragment, No Papyrus, No manuscript, No Codex with the Epistle of Hebrew dated before c 70 CE.

But that's not WHAT INTERNAL evidence means!

Please IDENTIFY the Papyri, the manuscript, the Codex, or the VARIANT of the Epistle to the Hebrews which was supposedly composed before c 70 CE.

And you identify the manuscript, the Codex, or the variant OF THE Gallic War which was supposedly composed before c 800 CE

Again, you present IMAGINATION instead of manuscripts of Hebrews dated to pre 70 CE.

No, we present INTERNAL evidence. Here IS AN example of the genre.

Kummel dates Hebrews as follows (Introduction to the New Testament, p. 403): "To the obvious question whether Jerusalem is still standing (13:13 f) and the temple cultus is still in process (9:9 f) Heb gives no answer. In its timeless scholarly movement of ideas only the OT sanctuary plays a role, not the Herodian temple; an origin before 70 cannot be inferred either from the silence concerning the catastrophe of the year 70 or from the expression in 8:13 that the Old Covenant is 'in the course of passing away.' On the contrary, the persecutions which the community has experienced (10:32-34) and the spiritual proximity to Lk-Acts point in all probability to the post-Pauline period. Heb was, however, written before 96 (I Clem); Timothy, who as a young man had been a mission aide of Paul, is still living (13:23), writers and readers belong to the second Christian generation (2:3), the new suffering which threatens the readers (12:4) may point to the time of Domitian (81-96). Accordingly the letter was probably written between 80 and 90."

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/hebrews.html