The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

Actually, as I have mentioned before yes.

The one letter of Clement c90s mentions Paul and you have the writings of Ignatius (died c 107 CE) mentioning Paul.

Polycarp's letter to the Philippians (sometime between 110-140) also mentions Paul.

So we have three works before 140 that mention Paul.

"Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle." - Clement Of Rome c90 CE.

There is NO letter authored by Clement dated c 90 CE. You have forgotten that the supposed Clement letter is really ANONYMOUS.

There is no manuscript of the ANONYMOUS letter dated to c 90 CE and the Anonymous letter does not claim Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE.

Plus, Clement the supposed bishop of Rome is a fiction character fabricated NO earlier than c 180 CE.

Multiple Christian writers also claimed Clement was bishop c 68 CE--NOT c 90 CE which would mean that the Anonymous letter was FALSELY attributed to Clement.

Secondly, we have NO manuscripts of the Ignatius letters dated to the 1st century and none of the Ignatius letter state Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE.

Thirdly, we have NO manuscripts of the Polycarp letter dated 110-140 CE and the Polycarp letter does not claim Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE.

Maximara, you are really wasting your time.

You are presenting writings which are in a far worse condition than the Pauline Corpus.

It is virtually impossible to use writings WITHOUT date of authorship and NO actual existing manuscripts from the 1st century to confirm the dates for the Pauline Corpus.

 

[Craig B]

What nonsense!!! ALL YOU HJers BELIEVE the same Eusebius who you call "that CROOK".

1. You believe Eusebius [that Crook] when he states the Pauline Epistles are genuine.

I don't believe the Pauline Epistles are genuine (those that are) because Eusebius the crook said so.

2. You believe Eusebius [that Crook] when he states Jesus did exist.

I don't believe that Jesus existed because Eusebius the crook said so.

3. You believe Eusebius [that Crook] when he states Jesus was Baptized by John and crucified under Pilate.

I don't believe that Jesus was baptised by John and crucified under Pilate because Eusebius the crook said so.

Your HJ argument is supported by that same Crook called Eusebius.

Your argument is founded on the utterances of the MOST Holy Fathers, Saints and Martyrs of MOTHER Church, which you believe to be infallible and FREE of all error. Nobody, but nobody LIVING on this planet, believes in the historicity of Jesus because it is STATED by the persons you have listed.

So why don't you cite the verses of Paul and Luke that sustain your case? Otherwise you are depending on Eusebius and these other Holy Men of Ancient Days whom you absurdly persist in quoting as irrefutable authorities.

 

[dejudge]

I don't believe the Pauline Epistles are genuine (those that are) because Eusebius the crook said so.

I said You BELIEVE Eusebius [that Crook] when he states the Pauline Epistles are genuine.

I don't believe that Jesus existed because Eusebius the crook said so.

I said You BELIEVE Eusebius [that Crook] when he states Jesus did exist

I don't believe that Jesus was baptised by John and crucified under Pilate because Eusebius the crook said so.

I wrote "You believe Eusebius [that Crook] when he states Jesus was Baptized by John and crucified under Pilate".

Your argument is founded on the utterances of the MOST Holy Fathers, Saints and Martyrs of MOTHER Church, which you believe to be infallible and FREE of all error. Nobody, but nobody LIVING on this planet, believes in the historicity of Jesus because it is STATED by the persons you have listed.

Your HJ argument is based on the Christian Bible of the Holy Mother Church.

1. You use Galatians 1.19 of SAINT Paul the Martyr in the Holy Mother Church Bible to argue that Jesus did exist and had a brother called James the Apostle.

2. You use gMark of the Holy Mother Church Bible to argue that Jesus of Nazareth was a carpenter.

3. You use Romans 1 of SAINT Paul the Martyr in the Bible of the Holy Mother Church to argue that Jesus existed.

You are a fiction writer.

You mis-represent your own belief.

You BELIEVE the words of SAINT PAUL the MARTYR in the Bible of the Holy Mother Church.

So why don't you cite the verses of Paul and Luke that sustain your case? Otherwise you are depending on Eusebius and these other Holy Men of Ancient Days whom you absurdly persist in quoting as irrefutable authorities.

Why do you cite verses from the Bible of the Holy Mother by the SAINT and MARTYR called Paul?

You are not credible.

You depend upon writings that were produced or EDITED by that Crook.

 

[dejudge]

Your argument is founded on the utterances of the MOST Holy Fathers, Saints and Martyrs of MOTHER Church, which you believe to be infallible and FREE of all error.

Your statement is extremely ridiculous and void of logic.

You put forward a most absurd notion that people who REJECT the Creation story in Genesis also believe the story is free of error.

My argument that the Jesus character is myth/fiction is based DIRECTLY on the fiction and mythological accounts documented in Christian writings of antiquity.

I MUST, MUST, MUST show that the writers of the Holy Mother Church admitted their Jesus was born of a Ghost and was God from the beginning.

Nobody, but nobody LIVING on this planet, believes in the historicity of Jesus because it is STATED by the persons you have listed.

Your statement is OPEN FICTION. I am afraid that you have exposed that you have extreme problems either with veracity or memory.

Please, at least try to remember that people LIVING to day believe the Church writers WHEN they stated Jesus existed.

 

[maximara]

A long time ago I asked just what would we expect to find given what we have of other would be messiahs from Josephus.

As I said given that for some of these even when they lead large amounts of followers we don't even get their names possibly not much.

As stated before Acts is effectively historical fiction so it is useless for telling us anything about Paul. The same is true of the epistles written in his name.

So we are left with seven edited epistles to work with and their isn't much there to indicate Paul was anything more then the equivalent of Prophet Fred of the John Frum movement a relative minor figure who managed to get a small following of his own.

Looking over Josephus' list of would be messiahs they tend to attract a good number of public followers or incur the wrath of the local officials (in some cases both)

There had to be many smaller movements that Josephus didn't mention because from his point of view in the larger scene of things they didn't amount to much.

Mystery cults abounded and out siders knew next to nothing about these cults other then rumors; one only have to look at today's secret societies to see the modern equivalent of this.

From what we can put together Christianity was a conglomeration of various mystery cults each with it own sacred "gospel". In such a world Paul would have been just another would be leader of another would be mystery cult--not worth noticing.

 

[dejudge]

So we are left with seven edited epistles to work with and their isn't much there to indicate Paul was anything more then the equivalent of Prophet Fred of the John Frum movement a relative minor figure who managed to get a small following of his own.

Again, you continue to promote your presumptive propaganda. You will not be able to present a shred of evidence for your presumptions IN or OUT the NT.

We actually have Papyri 46 dated c 175-225 CE of Anonymous authorship.

P 46 mentions a character that was called the Jesus the LORD GOD, the LORD GOD from heaven, God's Own Son, God Creator who was KILLED by the Jews and that writers under the name of Paul were WITNESSES that God raised the Lord God Jesus from the dead.

The Jesus character in P 46 is obvious fiction/mythology.

It is also obvious fiction that Pauline writers WITNESSED that God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead.

Acts of the Apostles and the Pauline Corpus are historically bogus and were NOT used in the early development of the Jesus cult of Christians.

 

[maximara]

Again, you continue to promote your presumptive propaganda. You will not be able to present a shred of evidence for your presumptions IN or OUT the NT.

You completely missed the point I was raising.

There is no "proof" for any of the candidates that have been suggested for Robin Hood or King Arthur either. Doesn't prevent secular historians from suggesting them.

We know thanks to Historical and textual criticism that seven of the epistles credits to Paul were written by one person. We also know that the other epistles credited to Paul were not only written by others but many were written 20-30 years later.

It is clear that you have no idea how secular history works and like Sheff keep bring up the SAME nonsensical points as if repeating them again like some kind of religious mantra will magically make them relevant.

The seven epistles credit to Paul paint a very different picture of their author then Acts does (and we can show what Acts is a fiction at best on par with FDA: American Badass!)

As I said before we get a Prophet Fred like figure; a minor player trying to take the movement in another direction who has gotten a reasonably sized following.

If we take your argument to its logical conclusion there there is no "proof" Prophet Fred exists either. Paul Raffaele never personally met Prophet Fred and is getting his information from a man that claims to be Prophet Fred's brother-in-law and that Prophet Fred “raised his wife from the dead two weeks ago.” So using YOUR criteria how can we even say Prophet Fred exists?

Also as I pointed out before a sizable number of Josephus would be messiahs were before Josephus himself was born in 37 CE and AFAIK Josephus is our only source for many of them. So using YOUR criteria how can we even say any of these pre 37 CE would be messiahs actually existed?

Your position is ridiculous in the extreme and takes Joseph Wheless' Christian Forgery Publishing Company to strawman levels. Your argument boils down to Christians forged everything about Jesus (and Paul) centuries later and that argument results in the Christ Myth theory being looked as coming from the land of crazies.

 

[dejudge]

....We know thanks to Historical and textual criticism that seven of the epistles credits to Paul were written by one person. We also know that the other epistles credited to Paul were not only written by others but many were written 20-30 years later.

The seven epistles which appear to have been probably written by one person are dated c 175-225 CE.

You seem not to understand that Papyri 46 is the EARLIEST existing manuscripts of the the Pauline Corpus and that ALL letters of P46 are really ANONYMOUS dated c 175-225 CE whether or not they were written by the same person or 20-30 years later by others .

Your position is ridiculous in the extreme and takes Joseph Wheless' Christian Forgery Publishing Company to strawman levels. Your argument boils down to Christians forged everything about Jesus (and Paul) centuries later and that argument results in the Christ Myth theory being looked as coming from the land of crazies.

Maximara, you don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who constantly refer to your favorite RIDICULOUS strawman-- John Frum [nowhere].

You appear to be terrified to examine the evidence from antiquity ABOUT the Pauline Corpus.

Since at least the 4th century it was ALREADY known that Jesus and Paul were UNDOCUMENTED in contemporary historical writings and already exposed that the Pauline writings were a pack of Lies.

See "Against Hierocles" attributed to Eusebius, "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian and Apocrirus attributed to Macarius Magnes.


Since the late 19th century it has already been argued by Scholars based on the evidence that the Pauline Corpus are all Late writings and that "Paul" is not a figure of history.

You cannot and is incapable of presenting any evidence that letters under the name of Paul of Papyri 46 were composed c 50-60 CE and cannot and is incapable of presenting any corroborative historical data for a character called Paul of the tribe of Benjamin mentioned in Papyri 46.

Your ABSURD strawman John Frum [nowhere] STORY is hopelessly irrelevant to determine the authenticity and veracity of the Pauline Corpus or historicity of "Paul".

 

[maximara]

The seven epistles which appear to have been probably written by one person are dated c 175-225 CE.

That doesn't meant that is the earliest that they were written as has been explained before.

You seem not to understand that Papyri 46 is the EARLIEST existing manuscripts of the the Pauline Corpus and that ALL letters of P46 are really ANONYMOUS dated c 175-225 CE whether or not they were written by the same person or 20-30 years later by others .

You seem to forget that it has been suggested that two of the Dead Sea Scrolls are part of the Pauline epistles: 7Q9 supposedly Romans 5:11-12 and 7Q10 supposedly 2 Peter 1:15. Of course the people suggesting this give use the earliest date possible (c 60 CE) but even with the limitations paleographic dating (100 year range) that is still earlier (60-160 CE) then the work you are citing.

Maximara, you don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who constantly refer to your favorite RIDICULOUS strawman-- John Frum [nowhere].

Here I am talking about the MOVEMENT not John Frum himself:


If we take your argument to its logical conclusion there there is no "proof" Prophet Fred exists either. Paul Raffaele never personally met Prophet Fred and is getting his information from a man that claims to be Prophet Fred's brother-in-law and that Prophet Fred “raised his wife from the dead two weeks ago.” So using YOUR criteria how can we even say Prophet Fred exists?

Also as I pointed out before a sizable number of Josephus would be messiahs were before Josephus himself was born in 37 CE and AFAIK Josephus is our only source for many of them. So using YOUR criteria how can we even say any of these pre 37 CE would be messiahs actually existed?

By your loopy logic Prophet Fred (the John Frum MOVEMENT's equivalent of Paul) doesn't exist even though there is a Smithsonian article that mentions him. How is Prophet Fred any different from Paul?

We only have believers in John Frum saying Prophet Fred existed
We only have believers in Jesus saying Paul existed

No non-believer in John Frum has actually met Prophet FredNo non-believer in Jesus had actually met Paul
Seven epistles appear to be of one hand and based on internal evidence are earlier then other epistles under the name Paul.
Prophet Fred AFAWK hasn't written a single thing.

To keep it brain dead simple for you: John Frum is to Jesus what Prophet Fred is to Paul

So how can we accept Prophet Fred (and NOT John Frum) was an actual person by the loopy criteria you are presenting regarding Paul?

Address the points actually presented not your imagined nonsense.

 

[dejudge]

The seven epistles which appear to have been probably written by one person are dated c 175-225 CE.

That doesn't meant that is the earliest that they were written as has been explained before.

It has been explained to you that it doesn't mean they were written c 50-60 CE.

You don't know if any letter of Papyri 46 was composed before the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE. You don't know what an original letter in the Pauline Corpus would look like.

You seem not to understand that Papyri 46 is the EARLIEST existing manuscripts of the the Pauline Corpus and that ALL letters of P46 are really ANONYMOUS dated c 175-225 CE whether or not they were written by the same person or 20-30 years later by others .

You seem to forget that it has been suggested that two of the Dead Sea Scrolls are part of the Pauline epistles: 7Q9 supposedly Romans 5:11-12 and 7Q10 supposedly 2 Peter 1:15. Of course the people suggesting this give use the earliest date possible (c 60 CE) but even with the limitations paleographic dating (100 year range) that is still earlier (60-160 CE) then the work you are citing.

You seem to have forgotten that it has been argued by Scholars that all the Entire Pauline Corpus are forgeries and that "Paul" is not a figure of history.

You forget that Jesus and Paul are not found anywhere in the DSS.

Maximara, you don't know what you are talking about. You are the one who constantly refer to your favorite RIDICULOUS strawman-- John Frum [nowhere].

Here I am talking about the MOVEMENT not John Frum himself


If we take your argument to its logical conclusion there there is no "proof" Prophet Fred exists either. Paul Raffaele never personally met Prophet Fred and is getting his information from a man that claims to be Prophet Fred's brother-in-law and that Prophet Fred “raised his wife from the dead two weeks ago.” So using YOUR criteria how can we even say Prophet Fred exists?

Again, John Frum [nowhere] and Fred [the husband of the raised dead] is completely irrelevant to the authenticity and veracity of the Pauline Corpus and the historicity of "Paul".

Please, present the evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE and that Paul of the tribe of Benjamin was in fact a figure of history in the time of King Aretas.

You must have forgotten that writings in the Canon which mentions "Paul" -Acts, 2 Peter and 1st Clement do not state anywhere that the Pauline letters were composed c 50-60 CE

You must have forgotten that you admit Acts is a historical train wreck.

You must have forgotten that 2 Peter is admitted to be a forgery and does not belong in the Canon.

You must have forgotten that there is no manuscript of the supposed 1st Clement dated to the 1st century.

You can talk about John Frum [nowhere] and Fred [the husband of the raised dead] forever.

Nothing has changed.

You cannot and is incapable of presenting evidence from antiquity to show that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE and that "Paul" of the tribe of Benjamin was a figure of history in the time of King Aretas.

 

[maximara]

You seem to have forgotten that it has been argued by Scholars that all the Entire Pauline Corpus are forgeries and that "Paul" is not a figure of history.

And far more Scholars (even those that support the Christ Myth) accept Paul existed and that the seven epistles credited to him were written 50-70 CE. Your point?

You forget that Jesus and Paul are not found anywhere in the DSS.

You seem to have forgetting the list I posted here a while ago:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 1 = Mark 4:28 c50 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q7 = Mark 12:17 c50 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE
7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE
7Q15 = Mark 6:48 50 CE

(James C Vanderkam (2002) The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls pg 316)

"Dr. Jose O'Callaghan ultimately identified eight different scroll fragments from Cave Seven that appear to be quotes from New Testament passages. The scholarly magazine Bible Review ran a fascinating article on Dr. O'Callaghan, these scrolls, and their possible connection with the New Testament in an article in December, 1995.

The fragments appeared to O'Callaghan to be portions of the following verses from the Gospels and Paul's Epistles:

"For the earth bringeth forth fruit of herself. . ." (Mark 4:28).
"And he saw them toiling in rowing; . . ." (Mark 6:48).
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar. . ." (Mark 12:17)
"And when they had eaten enough, they lightened the ship. . ." (Acts 27:38).
"And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ. . ." (Romans 5:11-12).
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness. . ." (1 Timothy 3:16).
"For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer. . ." (James 1:23-24)."

Prof. Carsten Peter Thiede reviewed this claim and found it plausible. The Bible studies community reacted more or less as they always react to anything that doesn't fit their views: 'nuke it from orbit before it breeds!'

There are times I think the Bible studies community rivals the 4chan community in the realm of how to go totally off the walls rather then having a calm reasoned debate.

Again, John Frum [nowhere] and Fred [the husband of the raised dead] is completely irrelevant to the authenticity and veracity of the Pauline Corpus and the historicity of "Paul".

It is totally relevant as it shows by the criteria you are using we must assume that a man talked about in 2006 must not exist because no non-believer ever met him.

The Melanesian Cargo cults in general and John Frum in particular are good rough blueprint for how a mythical Jesus could have come about. They also show the absurdity of going of the deep end and saying the Historicity of Jesus (and to a lesser extend Paul) is a black and white yes or no position.

As I said before the case for a mythical Jesus is stronger with the seven Epistles of Paul having the dates they normally do.

Having some guy talking about Jesus only as a being seen in visions is a lot harder to brush aside when it is only some 20 to 30 years from the supposed events rather then over 100 years after when as seen with Apollonius of Tyana the mythicization of a person can get to the point where the actual person is nearly lost.

James M. Efird's 1980 The New Testament Writings: History, Literature, and Interpretation goes over the various theories regarding the writings of Paul in detail.

Craig asked why Mythers in general can accept Paul existing when the evidence for him is nearly as bad as that for Jesus. The answer is a matter of scale. Once you throw out Acts as being useful regarding Paul (or anything regarding Earth Church history for that matter) you are left with seven epistles being credited to him.

These epistles shows a person trying to take the Jesus movement in a particular direction by citing visions of the risen Jesus. Even after supposedly meeting with those who should have known Jesus this writer gives next to nothing about Jesus. Even the Last Supper is a vision (For I received from the Lord) rather then the retelling of an actual historical event.

In fact, on the web someone pointed out that if the Last Supper had been practiced or even known then there would be no need for Paul to have received in a vision of it from Jesus. Some have suggested that the Last Supper is little more then a variant of Mithraism's banquet but given the date ranges it is hard to tell who may have borrowed from whom.

But secret meals go much further back so odds are Last Supper could just as easily be a variant on one of those.

 

[dejudge]

You seem to have forgotten that it has been argued by Scholars that all the Entire Pauline Corpus are forgeries and that "Paul" is not a figure of history.

And far more Scholars (even those that support the Christ Myth) accept Paul existed and that the seven epistles credited to him were written 50-70 CE. Your point?

Far more Scholars accept Jesus existed. What is your point?

I did not ask you for a QUANTITY of Scholars just the evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.

The numerical value is ZERO evidence.

You forget that Jesus and Paul are not found anywhere in the DSS.

You seem to have forgetting the list I posted here a while ago:

7Q4 = 1 Timothy 3:16; 4:1, 3 c100 CE
7Q6, 1 = Mark 4:28 c50 CE
7Q6, 2 = Acts 27:38 c60 CE
7Q7 = Mark 12:17 c50 CE
7Q8 = James 1:23, 24 50-70 CE
7Q9 = Romans 5:11, 12 50-60 CE
7Q10 = 2 Peter 1:15 60 CE
7Q15 = Mark 6:48 50 CE

Again, you fail to show the evidence that letters of the Pauline Corpus were composed c 50-60 CE

None of those fragments mention the names of Jesus and Paul and may have been composed SINCE c 50 BCE.

You have been busted. You have failed to show that Dr. O'Callaghan's claims are inconclusive and have been disputed.

It is claimed the fragments from Cave 7 are from the book of Enoch.

http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/Fragments_Book_Enoch.pdf

Since all of these fragments are part of I Enoch, it follows that none of them are part of the New Testament; especially fragments: 7Q4,1&2; and 7Q8, as was once suggested by Fr. Jose O'Callaghan, S.J. and defended with "extreme conviction" by Carsten P. Thiede....

Please, maximara, you are wasting time.

You cannot and is incapable of presenting evidence from antiquity that letters of the Pauline Corpus were composed c50-60 CE and that "Paul" of the tribe of Benjamin was a figure of history in the time of King Aretas.

The Jesus story and cult originated AFTER the Fall of the Jewish Temple c 70 CE so it is virtually impossible to find stories in manuscripts of Jesus and Paul before that time.

 

[waters]

You seem to have forgetting the list I posted here a while ago:

I am forgetful.

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts?locale=en_US

A total of 27 Greek manuscripts have been identified from the Qumran caves. This includes all remains of 19 papyri found in Qumran Cave 7, and several Greek manuscripts preserved in Cave 4, made up of mostly biblical fragments. While the majority of the Cave 7 manuscripts cannot be identified, exceptions are a copy of Exodus and an Apocrypha work, the Epistle of Jeremiah. Attempts to identify some Cave 7 Greek fragments as Enoch are subject to debate, while attempts to identify fragments as New Testament have proven unsuccessful.

 

[maximara]

I am forgetful.

http://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/learn-about-the-scrolls/languages-and-scripts?locale=en_US

There are some interesting parallel between the DDS and the NT:

"For example, a list of miracles appears in both Luke 7:21–22 of the New Testament and the Dead Sea Scroll known as the Messianic Apocalypse (4Q521)." http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-the-new-testament/

So we have the practical issue if there were "prophecies" that could be cherry picked for the would be messiah of the decade then what is to prevent somebody with a inspired vision from tying those "prophecies" to their vision?

Also "Exegetical Patterns common to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament, their implications" by Serge Ruzer of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Brill's Text, thought, and practice in Qumran and early Christianity shows the complexity involved regarding seeing if there is a relation between the text of the DDS and the NT.

We know from Josephus that there were a sizable number of would be messiahs who showed up decades before the temple fell so there is nothing to show conclusively that that Paul is way after this time.

 

[dejudge]

Again, we have desperate attempts by maximara.

The very link states that the DSS tell us NOTHING about Jesus.

http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...s/the-dead-sea-scrolls-and-the-new-testament/

What do the Dead Sea Scrolls say about Jesus? Nothing.

While the Dead Sea Scrolls do not shed light on the person or ministry of Jesus, they do illuminate practices and beliefs of ancient Judaism.

He notes that “not even John the Baptist, who for a time lived in the wilderness and around the Jordan, not too far from the Dead Sea Scroll caves (see Luke 1:80; 3:3)” appears in the scrolls—let alone Jesus, much of whose ministry happened in Galilee.

The same link explains that the list of miracles in gLuke and the DSS were simply derived from THE BOOK of Isaiah

The source for both of these lists is Isaiah chapters 35 and 61.

The DSS is completely useless to date Pauline letters c 50-60 CE.

 

[dejudge]

It is now clearly established that there is no supporting evidence that any letter in the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.

The Pauline Corpus is not only a historical train wreck it is also WITHOUT chronological order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

If Papyri 46 is assumed to be a copy of an original Pauline Corpus then it would seen that the order of the letters were Romans, Hebrews, 1–2 Corinthians; Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and 1 Thessalonians.

It is virtually impossible to date the Pauline Corpus to c 50-60 CE using ONLY the chronological order of Papyri 46.

Acts of the Apostles MUST precede and MUST be used to date the Pauline Corpus and also must be used to place the letters in chronological order.


In effect, the Pauline Corpus NEEDS Acts of the Apostles.

Acts of the Apostles is evidence that the Pauline Corpus are ALL LATE writings.

Acts of the Apostles does NOT contain a single verse of the Pauline Corpus and does not acknowledge anywhere that Saul/Paul wrote letters to Churches although he mentioned the ACTS of Saul/Paul over 130 different times.

The Entire Pauline Corpus is a most bogus fictional account of Christianity with known Lies from beginning to the end.

All the Pauline writers are FALSE WITNESSES .

 

[Craig B]

Deleted. See next post.

 

[Craig B]

It is now clearly established that there is no supporting evidence that any letter in the Pauline Corpus was composed c 50-60 CE.

The Pauline Corpus is not only a historical train wreck it is also WITHOUT chronological order.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_46

If Papyri 46 is assumed to be a copy of an original Pauline Corpus then it would seen that the order of the letters were Romans, Hebrews, 1–2 Corinthians; Ephesians, Galatians, Philippians, Colossians; and 1 Thessalonians.

It is virtually impossible to date the Pauline Corpus to c 50-60 CE using ONLY the chronological order of Papyri 46.

This is gibberish. The epistles are ordered according to descending length, more or less. And the order is much the same in NT and P46. It is not according to chronology, as you ought to know. The suras of the Quran are ordered in the same way. It was an ancient scribal practice. If you need to find space for a text at the end of your pre-prepared scroll or codex, it is more convenient to find room for a short one than a long one. So put the long ones in first.

That was discussed in a thread here some time ago, in relation to the Quran.

 

[dejudge]

This is gibberish. The epistles are ordered according to descending length, more or less. And the order is much the same in NT and P46. It is not according to chronology, as you ought to know. The suras of the Quran are ordered in the same way. It was an ancient scribal practice. If you need to find space for a text at the end of your pre-prepared scroll or codex, it is more convenient to find room for a short one than a long one. So put the long ones in first.

That was discussed in a thread here some time ago, in relation to the Quran.

What nonsense you invent.

You fabricated that absurdity.

Papyri 46 does not state anywhere that epistles were written or copied according to length.

An examination of Papyri 46 easily EXPOSES your FICTION.

In Papyri 46 The Epistle to the Romans is followed by the Epistle to the Hebrews then 1&2 Corinthians.

Romans has 16 chapters, Hebrews 13, 1 Corinthians 16 and 2 Corinthians 13.

Based on YOUR FICTION, the Epistle to the Hebrews should be immediately AFTER 1 or 2nd Corinthians.

Please, you don't know what you are talking about.

You have ZERO evidence from antiquity to support your invented fiction stories.

It is so basic.

If the Pauline letters were already written on scroll or codex then the copyist/copyists MUST know how much material he/she needs by simply counting the folios or length of scroll.

Craig B It is amazing how you can invent fiction stories from your imagination under the pretense of history.

 

[Craig B]

What nonsense you invent.

You fabricated that absurdity.

Papyri 46 does not state anywhere that epistles were written or copied according to length.

Clearly, you don't understand what I am saying. The order in which the Epistles are presented is not chronological, but more or less longest first. This is true also of the order of suras in the Quran. It was a common arrangement, and I have explained why it was favoured by ancient copyists.

This ordering is remarkably consistent in the manuscript tradition, with very few deviations. The evident principle of organization is descending length of the Greek text, but keeping the four Pastoral epistles addressed to individuals in a separate final section. The only anomaly is that Galatians precedes the slightly longer Ephesians.

P46 "corrects" this.

In modern editions, the formally anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews is placed at the end of Paul's letters and before the General epistles. This practice was popularized through the 4th-century Vulgate by Jerome, who was aware of ancient doubts about its authorship, and is also followed in most medieval Byzantine manuscripts. With hardly any exceptions, though, the manuscripts do include Hebrews somewhere among Paul's letters.

The placement of Hebrews among the Pauline epistles is less consistent in the manuscripts:

between Romans and 1 Corinthians (i.e., in order by length without splitting the Epistles to the Corinthians): Papyrus 46 and minuscules 103, 455, 1961, 1964, 1977, 1994.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_epistles