Bart Ehrman on the Historical Jesus

[IanS]

The argument that I am making about where Paul got his beliefs, is that Paul tells us very clearly where he got his Jesus beliefs.

What Craig wants to say (and you and David Mo and others here too, apparently) is that we should ignore what Paul actually said, and instead completely invent a belief that the very little that Paul ever claimed to know about Jesus had to be told to him by other people who never said anything of the sort.

You and Craig are not only making assertions with zero evidence, but actually making those assertions in complete contradiction to all known evidence.

And I just quoted chapter and verse to you with full references for where Paul even says those people did not tell him anything about his Jesus beliefs, and that “on the contrary“ the gospel he preached came to him personally from God.

You have absolutely zero case if you claim that other people had to tell Paul about Jesus, as if Paul would otherwise not have believed what little he said about Jesus.

In contrast it is 100% certain that Paul’s letters absolutely insist, repeatedly, in the clearest possible terms, that he obtained his messiah belief because he thought that God had revealed it to him according to scripture and through granting him a vision.

So you and Craig have absolutely no leg to stand on if you make a claim contrary to that. You are just making it up.

Yes. I am making up the idea that Paul obtained his belief from the people with whom he was in contact[/B]. I am absolutely resisting the idea that Paul obtained his belief personally from God. Paul was wrong about that, so we must look for another source of his belief.

Good. Because that is actually a direct admission from you that you have absolutely no case, and did indeed just decide to invent a belief of your own.

Whereas, I of course never said that Paul obtained anything from God. And nobody else here on the sceptic side ever said that either!

So you have absolutely no case, and just admitted you made it up. Whereas I simply explained an absolutely incontestable case with irrefutable physical evidence of exactly what Paul said - what he said repeatedly, insisted upon, and stressed as his religious beliefs about God and Jesus.

 

[Craig B]

... The evidence adds up---the Pauline writers used NT Scriptures and their imagination to formulate their Gospel sometime in the 2nd century or later.

I thought you believed that the whole of the NT was a fictitious hoax forgery fabricated by liars in the second century (or later). Now you tell us the Pauline forgers used it to formulate the fictitious fabrication. But the forged Pauline fabrication is part of the fictitious NT formulation. So how could the forgers have used the NT to forge the Pauline hoax fiction?

 

[Craig B]

Whereas, I of course never said that Paul obtained anything from God. And nobody else here on the sceptic side ever said that either!

In that case Paul can not have been accurate in his account of the source of his beliefs. If he didn't really get them personally from God, or from sky Jesus, or from beings in the Third Heaven, then it follows that he must as a matter of factual reality have got them from somewhere else - some non-supernatural source - regardless of what Paul himself claims. We have two possible sources indicated in the texts. The Jesus followers whom Paul initially persecuted; and the Jesus followers with whom he was in repeated and protracted contact after his conversion, who might of course have included the same people. This is the case whether Jesus existed or not. These individuals presumably believed Jesus had existed; and Paul believed Jesus had existed, and he got that belief from somewhere. And we know he was in contact with these people.

Personally I think the reason why the belief in Jesus prevailed among this group was that he did in fact exist; because it is not an invention likely to be derived from the OT that a Messiah would be crucified by the enemies of Israel. This was a "stumbling block" for the Jews, so Paul ransacked the Scriptures to find something that might make sense of this intractable datum.

 

[IanS]

In that case Paul can not have been accurate in his account of the source of his beliefs. If he didn't really get them personally from God, or from sky Jesus, or from beings in the Third Heaven, then it follows that he must as a matter of factual reality have got them from somewhere else - some non-supernatural source - regardless of what Paul himself claims.

...
.... <snipped off the mistaken & irrelevant remainder of misguided claims>.
...

.

No that does not follow at all. And I trust every honest person here can immediately see that.

Paul did not need to hear alternative beliefs from anyone else. He had has own beliefs, which as he indisputably says, came to him from his belief in God and scripture ... the very two things which every Jew in that region at that time unquestionably believed to be true; God and scripture.

The remainder of your post is thus 100% false and entirely irrelevant.

You simply made it up (as you have admitted). Whereas I certainly did not, as all evidence proves beyond any doubt.

 

[dejudge]

I thought you believed that the whole of the NT was a fictitious hoax forgery fabricated by liars in the second century (or later). Now you tell us the Pauline forgers used it to formulate the fictitious fabrication. But the forged Pauline fabrication is part of the fictitious NT formulation. So how could the forgers have used the NT to forge the Pauline hoax fiction?

How illogical can you be?

You are using the NT today for the history of your HJ the obscure criminal just like the Pauline writers did in the 2nd century or later for his Resurrected Jesus.

I have ALREADY shown you that even Christian writers of antiquity admitted the Pauline writers KNEW of gLuke.

See Eusebius Church History and Origen's Commentary on Matthew.

gLuke is a forgery or falsely attributed according to Bart Ehrman in "Did Jesus Exist?

Bart Ehrman also claims that at least 18 books of the NT are either forgeries or falsely attributed. See Did Jesus Exist?

Why are using the NT as a source of history when it is already established that it is a source of fiction, discrepancies, historical problems, implausibility, forgeries, false attribution and without any actual recovered dated manuscripts from the 1st century pre 70 CE?

 

[maximara]

maximara


When the other poster gets back to us, if the poster proposes two near-contemporary datable figures with Robin & Co. bridging a gap between them, then there will only be one timeline. In the alternative, the poster might propose 2 (or other number) of pairs, in which case we have 2 (or that other number of) Robins So, for your answer, we'll just have to wait and see what the other poster comes up with.

Meanwhile, we don't have two or more competing Jesuses between Dunker John and Paul writing about a contemporary unbesieged Jerusalem, who uses John's stuff with attribution to a single dead somebody else with living followers. That's the Jesus we're looking for, the dead guy who came right back, zero or one instance, not two or more.

But you are still assuming the connection to Dunker John is a valid one...that connection is NOT in Paul (Ie Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1st Thessalonians and Philemon) and Gospels and Acts can't make up their mind if Jesus started his ministry after or before Dunker John got his Sleepy Hollow haircut or perhaps that should be the Queen of Hearts special.

It is like using the latter version of Robin Hood stories that have him meeting King Richard I after fighting King John which would have 1194 as one end point to when Robin Hood could have existed and ignoring all the "King Edward" stuff. The "King Edward" blows a major hole through that idea and the same is true of c100 BCE Jesus and Claudius Caesar Jesus.

But even if there were something historical about him, he can't be the historical Jesus of interest to us, because he can't bridge John the Baptist and Paul of Tarsus. They would have been generations later in that Jesus' future. If that Jesus is the only Jesus, then the HJ of any secular interest doesn't exist. OK.

Again your premise requires going outside of Paul's writings to even be considered and for all we know that material has no more validity then Forest Gump, Zelig, or Birth of a Nation regarding Speaker of the House Austin Stoneman.

The premise is flawed from the get go on several levels and therefore not a valid one.

Besides it ignores the two hypothetical Jesuses I presented:

In the time of Pontius Pilate some crazy ran into the Temple trashing the place and screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before some guard ran him through with a sword. Right place right time...and that is it. No preaching, no followers, no crucifixion, nothing but some nut doing the 1st century equivalent of suicide by cop.

Paul's teachings ala John Frum inspired others to take up the name "Jesus" and preach their spin on Paul's visions with one of them getting crucified by the Romans by his troubles would fit your definition as it is between Dunker John and when Paul starts writing...but it is after he converted.

What about Claudius is circa 180? That would be the time of Marcus Aurelius or Commodus, so I don't see what you're getting at.

I have presented the "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." from Irenaeus's Demonstration (74) (c180 CE) several times so how can you not know what I am getting at?

 

[Craig B]

No that does not follow at all. And I trust every honest person here can immediately see that.

Your constant accusations of dishonesty are ridiculous, as if only liars might presume to pretend to dispute your ideas. A delusion, I'm afraid ...

You simply made it up (as you have admitted)

Ditto.

 

[Brainache]

No that does not follow at all. And I trust every honest person here can immediately see that.

Paul did not need to hear alternative beliefs from anyone else. He had has own beliefs, which as he indisputably says, came to him from his belief in God and scripture ... the very two things which every Jew in that region at that time unquestionably believed to be true; God and scripture.

The remainder of your post is thus 100% false and entirely irrelevant.

You simply made it up (as you have admitted). Whereas I certainly did not, as all evidence proves beyond any doubt.

So did Paul also invent those from James who came to order his congregations around?

Did the people who got Paul's letters wonder what the hell this crazy bloke was going on about, and that was why they preserved his letters?

Your approach to History reminds me of a joke I once saw on a TV show about scientists:
A Chicken farmer was having problems with his farm so he consulted a Physicist to help him... A few days later the Physicist says: "I've found a solution, but it only works for spherical chickens in a vacuum..."

You forget that Paul was not isolated in a lab, he was a man of the World, going to and fro, and walking up and down in it...

If Paul had invented it all, who was he writing to, what was he writing about, and who are these other people he is rivals with?

 

[IanS]

Your constant accusations of dishonesty are ridiculous, as if only liars might presume to pretend to dispute your ideas. A delusion, I'm afraid ... Ditto.

"Ditto" what?

You made it up, and you don't deny that. And you think I "made up" or invented the claim that Paul’s letters say he got his messiah beliefs from God and from scripture?

I have not "made up" anything in this thread. Whereas it's now proven that you did make up your belief.

As for your nonsense about “dishonesty" - what I said was that I trust that if people look honestly at your words then they will have to admit your claim was untrue and that it cannot follow from what you had said.

OK, so you made up (invented) your claim that Paul learned what he believed about Jesus because he was told it by people in Jerusalem. You have no evidence of that, and you just made that up.

Whereas what I said is unarguably true. That Paul’s letters say very clearly that he got his messiah beliefs from his religious faith in God and scripture.

So not only do you have zero credible reliable evidence for anyone ever knowing any living Jesus. You are now also reduced to admitting that you are inventing your claims about where peoples Jesus beliefs came from (and inventing it in total contradiction to indisputable factual physical evidence dating right back to circa. 200AD in P46, which is probably the earliest date we have for any extant relevant NT manuscript that is relatively complete and readable … it‘s also just about the only such NT writing that is not openly just anonymous hearsay).

 

[eight bits]

maximara

But you are still assuming the connection to Dunker John is a valid one...

No, I don't know what the connection was to make assumptions about its "validity." All I know on point is that I have a non-Christian document describing Dunker John (Josephus), and a pile of letters apparently written within about a generation of his death where some D-J features are discussed in the context of Jesus veneration, but without any mention of D-J at all (you and I apparently agree that Paul doesn't mention D-J).

So, if there were a historical Jesus, then that would help explain what I observe; if there wasn't, then something else would explain it instead. That's hypothesis formation and definition, not assumption making.

In any case, the issue was whether this "bookending" by datable and very possibly real people distinguishes HJ from Robin Hood. The other poster is going to look into it and get back to us (see post #5100 above).

You and I also apparently agree that the canonical Gospels are not a big help with specifying a Jesus-Dunker John relationship. Among them, the Gospels propose several possibilities. I can think of a few others, too. I don't think we'll ever sort that out.

A 100 BCE Jesus doesn't bridge the gap between D-J and Paul, and so he is not the historical Jesus who helps explain the emergence of a D-J for Gentiles cult from a Jewish movement, beginning not long after D-J died. Life would be easier if Paul had channeled Dunker John's ghost... but he says he channeled this Jesus fellow instead, after Cox' Army did, too, and so issue is joined.

... for all we know that material has no more validity then Forest Gump, Zelig, or Birth of a Nation regarding Speaker of the House Austin Stoneman.

Fine, in which case something other than a historical Jesus explains its availability for me to read. So what? That's what the 40% is for in my 60-40.

Besides it ignores the two hypothetical Jesuses I presented:

No, I dismissed one with a brief and obvious truth, that even if there was any reason to think a 100 BCE Jesus existed, that doesn't explain what we're discussing. And I asked about the other one, because whoever he is, if his existence depends on a circa 180 Claudius, then we needn't bother with what else is wrong with his story.

In the time of Pontius Pilate some crazy ran into the Temple trashing the place and screaming "I am Jesus, King of the Jews" before some guard ran him through with a sword. Right place right time...and that is it. No preaching, no followers, no crucifixion, nothing but some nut doing the 1st century equivalent of suicide by cop.

No followers, no explanation of the DJ-to-Paul link. There are unboundedly many possible worlds with dead Jesuses who don't explain what is observed. So what?

Same scenario, except with survivning followers who believe in ghosts and maintain a decades-long fractious relationship with Paul? We can do business. That scenario would explain something if it were true. BTW, the canonical Gospels are already suicide by cop, which is also one possible interpretation of Paul's "kenosis" stuff from Philippians.

Paul's teachings ala John Frum inspired others to take up the name "Jesus" and preach their spin on Paul's visions with one of them getting crucified by the Romans by his troubles would fit your definition as it is between Dunker John and when Paul starts writing...but it is after he converted.

Yes, there really are thosusands of versions of the Jesus story after Paul's. We know from the Odes of Solomon (and it is heavily hinted at in Paul) that whole church-loads of people pretended to be Jesus every week, if not more often. This is centuries before John Frum, and is documented from nearly at the time in question. What's your point?

I have presented the "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." from Irenaeus's Demonstration (74) (c180 CE) several times so how can you not know what I am getting at?

OK, it's not Claudius who's 180. That's a relief. So, a writer 150 years or so later didn't know who Pontius Pilate's boss was. Thank God he wasn't the product of American public schools. Now, what has a fact-challenged writer got to do with whether or not there was a historical Jesus in his ancestors' time? The guy in 180 wouldn't know one way or the other anyway.

 

[Craig B]

"Ditto" what?

What, indeed?

So not only do you have zero credible reliable evidence for anyone ever knowing any living Jesus. You are now also reduced to admitting that you are inventing your claims about where peoples Jesus beliefs came from (and inventing it in total contradiction to indisputable factual physical evidence dating right back to circa. 200AD in P46, which is probably the earliest date we have for any extant relevant NT manuscript that is relatively complete and readable … it‘s also just about the only such NT writing that is not openly just anonymous hearsay).

Dear God, dejudge has got to you. Anything prior to the earliest extant manuscript is openly just anonymous hearsay? And anyone who assumes the prior existence of the text is an inventor of things in total contradiction to indisputable physical evidence? What tosh.

 

[dejudge]

So did Paul also invent those from James who came to order his congregations around?

Your question is rather strange!! There are multiple "Pauls" in the Pauline Corpus.

Scholars have already deduced that the Pauline Corpus is a compilation with invented "Pauls".

1. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians?

2. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistles to Timothy?

3. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to Titus?

4. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to the Thessalonians?

5. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to Colossians?

Did the people who got Paul's letters wonder what the hell this crazy bloke was going on about, and that was why they preserved his letters?

Who got Paul's letters? When did people get Paul's letters?


In the NT, the Only author who claimed "Paul also wrote to you" was the author of 2nd Peter.

Don't guess!! 2nd Peter is a FAKE.

Incredibly, the Church writer Eusebius admitted 2nd Peter is a forgery and does not belong in the Canon.

Church History 3.3.1 1.

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon...

2 Peter 3:15 NIV

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

It is clear there are invented characters called Peter, Paul and James.

Church History 3.25.

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

"Paul" is a product of Fakes, forgeries, fiction, fraud, Faith and false attribution.

 

[Brainache]

Your question is rather strange!! There are multiple "Pauls" in the Pauline Corpus.

Scholars have already deduced that the Pauline Corpus is a compilation with invented "Pauls".

1. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians?

2. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistles to Timothy?

3. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" wrote the Epistle to Titus?

4. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" wrote the Epistle to the Thessalonians?

5. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to Colossians?




Who got Paul's letters? When did people get Paul's letters?


In the NT, the Only author who claimed "Paul also wrote to you" was the author of 2nd Peter.

Don't guess!! 2nd Peter is a FAKE.

Incredibly, the Church writer Eusebius admitted 2nd Peter is a forgery and does not belong in the Canon.

Church History 3.3.1 1.


2 Peter 3:15 NIV

It is clear there are invented characters called Peter, Paul and James.

Church History 3.25.

"Paul" is a product of Fakes, forgeries, fiction, fraud, Faith and false attribution.

This opinion has already been dismissed for the hopelessly ignorant posturing that it is.

Repeating it like this is just parading your ignorance; do you really want to keep doing that?

All of the points have been addressed multiple times and shown to be wrong.

Every single one of your points has been rejected by every other reader of these threads.

Your argument makes no sense. It is an insult to the intelligence of the forum that you repeat it so often, as if it had merit. It belongs with the "Hollow Earth", 9/11 CTs and Bigfoot.

 

[Craig B]

... Who got Paul's letters? When did people get Paul's letters?

That's a real problem. We don't have a single postman telling us, "It was I who delivered Paul's letters to the Corinthians". So they were never delivered.

 

[IanS]

What, indeed? Dear God, dejudge has got to you. Anything prior to the earliest extant manuscript is openly just anonymous hearsay? And anyone who assumes the prior existence of the text is an inventor of things in total contradiction to indisputable physical evidence? What tosh.

I never said any such thing here at all.

Quote where I ever said any such thing. Quote it please!

You are making it up yet again.

You have no reliable evidence for Jesus. No evidence that others had to tell Paul what he believed about God and Jesus. You had to make all that up. And you keep making up claims that people had said things here that they never said at all.

 

[dejudge]

Your question is rather strange!! There are multiple "Pauls" in the Pauline Corpus.

Scholars have already deduced that the Pauline Corpus is a compilation with invented "Pauls".

1. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to the Ephesians?

2. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistles to Timothy?

3. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to Titus?

4. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to the Thessalonians?

5. Can you tell us who invented the "Paul" who wrote the Epistle to Colossians?

Did the people who got Paul's letters wonder what the hell this crazy bloke was going on about, and that was why they preserved his letters?

Who got Paul's letters? When did people get Paul's letters?


In the NT, the Only author who claimed "Paul also wrote to you" was the author of 2nd Peter.

Don't guess!! 2nd Peter is a FAKE.

Incredibly, the Church writer Eusebius admitted 2nd Peter is a forgery and does not belong in the Canon.

Church History 3.3.1 1.

One epistle of Peter, that called the first, is acknowledged as genuine. And this the ancient elders used freely in their own writings as an undisputed work. But we have learned that his extant second Epistle does not belong to the canon...

2 Peter 3:15 NIV

Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

It is clear there are invented characters called Peter, Paul and James.

Church History 3.25.

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name.

"Paul" is a product of Fakes, forgeries, fiction, fraud, Faith and false attribution.

This opinion has already been dismissed for the hopelessly ignorant posturing that it is.

Repeating it like this is just parading your ignorance; do you really want to keep doing that?

All of the points have been addressed multiple times and shown to be wrong.

Every single one of your points has been rejected by every other reader of these threads.

Your argument makes no sense. It is an insult to the intelligence of the forum that you repeat it so often, as if it had merit. It belongs with the "Hollow Earth", 9/11 CTs and Bigfoot.

Your response makes NO sense and was expected. You have nothing but rhetoric and ridicule.

I have exposed that you have NO actual dated evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE for Jesus, Paul, the Pauline Corpus, and James.

Your repeated illogical, absurd and unevidenced claims have been debunked multiple times by posters on this thread.

I have exposed that the HJ argument is a baseless dead end argument.

The HJ argument is now being cremated.

 

[Craig B]

Quote where I ever said any such thing. Quote it please!

OK.

You are now also reduced to admitting that you are inventing your claims about where peoples Jesus beliefs came from (and inventing it in total contradiction to indisputable factual physical evidence dating right back to circa. 200AD in P46, which is probably the earliest date we have for any extant relevant NT manuscript that is relatively complete and readable … it‘s also just about the only such NT writing that is not openly just anonymous hearsay)

 

[Brainache]

Your response makes NO sense and was expected. You have nothing but rhetoric and ridicule.

I have exposed that you have NO actual dated evidence from the 1st century pre 70 CE for Jesus, Paul, the Pauline Corpus, and James.

Your repeated illogical, absurd and unevidenced claims have been debunked multiple times by posters on this thread.

I have exposed that the HJ argument is a baseless dead end argument.

The HJ argument is now being cremated.

You keep going on about texts I haven't referenced as if it was somehow relevant to my argument.

Why are you doing that?

It doesn't make sense.

 

[IanS]

I never said any such thing here at all.

Quote where I ever said any such thing. Quote it please!

OK.

You are now also reduced to admitting that you are inventing your claims about where peoples Jesus beliefs came from (and inventing it in total contradiction to indisputable factual physical evidence dating right back to circa. 200AD in P46, which is probably the earliest date we have for any extant relevant NT manuscript that is relatively complete and readable … it‘s also just about the only such NT writing that is not openly just anonymous hearsay)

Again that is yet another complete invention from you. For what must be the 10th time now, you have just blatantly misrepresented what other people had said.


What I said (it’s highlighted above) was that Paul’s letters in P46 are “just about the only such NT writing that is not openly just anonymous hearsay” … you left out the fact that I was talking about the NT writing, and you changed it to imply that I had said quote “Anything prior to the earliest extant manuscript is openly just anonymous hearsay?". You just totally invented that as well, didn’t you! Here is your actual quote to prove it -

Anything prior to the earliest extant manuscript is openly just anonymous hearsay? And anyone who assumes the prior existence of the text is an inventor of things in total contradiction to indisputable physical evidence? What tosh.

Repeat - what I said was that Paul’s writing in P46 was just about the only stuff in the NT writing which is not openly just anonymous hearsay … and you changed that to write it as if I had said “Anything prior to the earliest extant manuscript is openly just anonymous hearsay? … What tosh”.


You have been caught out numerous times now misrepresenting my posts like that, and even altering them, as well as being forced to finally admit that you just openly invented your claim that Paul got his Jesus knowledge from people in Jerusalem.

You seem to be totally incapable of making any truthful replies to anything here on the subject of Jesus.

 

[Brainache]

Again that is yet another complete invention from you. For what must be the 10th time now, you have just blatantly misrepresented what other people had said.


What I said (it’s highlighted above) was that Paul’s letters in P46 are “just about the only such NT writing that is not openly just anonymous hearsay” … you left out the fact that I was talking about the NT writing, and you changed it to imply that I had said quote “Anything prior to the earliest extant manuscript is openly just anonymous hearsay?". You just totally invented that as well, didn’t you! Here is your actual quote to prove it -






Repeat - what I said was that Paul’s writing in P46 was just about the only stuff in the NT writing which is not openly just anonymous hearsay … and you changed that to write it as if I had said “Anything prior to the earliest extant manuscript is openly just anonymous hearsay? … What tosh”.


You have been caught out numerous times now misrepresenting my posts like that, and even altering them, as well as being forced to finally admit that you just openly invented your claim that Paul got his Jesus knowledge from people in Jerusalem.

You seem to be totally incapable of making any truthful replies to anything here on the subject of Jesus.

I'd love to see the list of Ancient Texts that were not "anonymous hearsay"...

What would be on it? Caesar? - But we don't have original copies in the Emperor's own hand...

What's left?