The Historical Jesus III

[dejudge]

People who do not know the difference between 'singular' and 'plural' should first try to understand the meaning of WRITER and WRITERS.

"Paul" is the name of a UNKNOWN GROUP of persons.

The earliest manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus were written by MULTIPLE authors posing as Paul.

The author of 1 Corinthians of P 46 included a phrase found ONLY in gLuke of Papyri 75.

"τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν"

5. Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]----[και] λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας [εκλασεν] και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων ⸆ [τουτο] εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν


1 CORINTHIANS of Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]-----και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο εστιν μου το σωμα ⸆ υπερ υμων ⸆ τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν

1 Corinthians of P 46 is evidence that the writers of the Pauline Corpus used gLuke and CORROBORATES the claims of Christian writings attributed to Origen, Irenaeus and Eusebius that the Pauline writer knew gLuke.

 

[Craig B]

People who do not know the difference between 'singular' and 'plural' should first try to understand the meaning of WRITER and WRITERS. <snip rest of bits about manuscripts>

Wnen I write Which 'Pauline writer' used which part of gLuke in what epistle? Chapters and verses please the clue to THE meaning of this simple POST is "chapters and verses". That is: some verses in one or ANOTHER of the Pauline writings must resemble some VERSES in gLuke. What I need is FOR you to cite the relevant data, as follows

1. Verses FROM gLuke
2. Corresponding verses from Pauline WORK
3. Reason for stating THAT 2 is derived from 1, and not the other WAY round.

I think you need to be ABLE to do that to justify your chronology of COMPOSITION of the NT writings.

 

[dejudge]

Wnen I write Which 'Pauline writer' used which part of gLuke in what epistle? Chapters and verses please the clue to THE meaning of this simple POST is "chapters and verses". That is: some verses in one or ANOTHER of the Pauline writings must resemble some VERSES in gLuke. What I need is FOR you to cite the relevant data, as follows

1. Verses FROM gLuke
2. Corresponding verses from Pauline WORK
3. Reason for stating THAT 2 is derived from 1, and not the other WAY round.

I think you need to be ABLE to do that to justify your chronology of COMPOSITION of the NT writings.

You seem incapable of understanding a logical deduction based on information supplied by writings of antiquity.

1. Christian writings of antiquity attributed to Irenaeus, Origen and Tertullian claimed the authors of the Pauline Corpus KNEW of gLuke.

2. Versions of the Last Supper are found in gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn and 1 Corinthians.

3. Papyri 75 [manuscripts of gLuke and gJohn] have been found with a version of the Last Supper and dated c175-225 CE.

4. Papyri 46 [manuscripts of the Pauline] with a version of the Last Supper have been found and dated c 175-225 CE.

5. gLuke of Papyri 75 contains the phrase "τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν"

6. 1 Corinthians of Papyri 46 also contains the phrase τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν"

7. The version of the Last Supper in 1 Corinthians of P 46 matches the version of the Last Supper of gLuke in Papyri 75.

8. There are other accounts in Papyri 75 and 46 which also corroborate the claim of Irenaeus, Origen and Eusebius that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke.

 

[Craig B]

You seem incapable of understanding a logical deduction based on information supplied by writings of antiquity.

You seem incapable of providing what I am entitled to ask for. Which is this

1. Verses from gLuke
2. Corresponding verses from Pauline work
3. Reason for stating that 2 is derived from 1, and not the other way round.

 

[dejudge]

You seem incapable of providing what I am entitled to ask for. Which is this

1. Verses from gLuke
2. Corresponding verses from Pauline work
3. Reason for stating that 2 is derived from 1, and not the other way round.

You are a fiction writer.

Have I not shown you a passage from Papyrus 75 and Papyrus 46?

Papyri 75 is a manuscript with gLuke and gJohn.

Papyri 46 is a manuscript with 1 Corinthians of the Pauline Corpus.

You appear to be incapable of presenting the facts.

I have shown you that Christian writings of antiquity claimed the Pauline writers knew of gLuke and also claimed gLuke is the Gospel of Paul.



1. Against Heresies 3.1.1---Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

2. Commentary on Matthew 1----And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.


3. Church History 3.4.8.---And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”


4. Church History 6.25.6 6.---And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.


5. Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]----[και] λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας [εκλασεν] και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων ⸆ [τουτο] εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν


6. Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]-----και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο εστιν μου το σωμα ⸆ υπερ υμων ⸆ τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν

Now, examine "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian.

"Against Marcion" 4.5---For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.

gLuke was claimed to be a product of the Pauline writers since the time of Tertullian or when "Against Marcion" was written.

I SHOW what is WITTEN not what you ASSUME.

My argument is that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke based on the existing INTERNAL evidence from antiquity.

 

[dejudge]

I want to make it clear that in Christian writings of antiquity the Pauline Corpus included the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Papyrus 46, dated 175-225 CE, the earliest MANUSCRIPTS of the Pauline Corpus do include Hebrews as part of the Pauline Corpus.

Examine De Principiis attributed to Origen.

De Principiis---To show more clearly, however, what we mean, let us take the illustration employed by the Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews

Examine the Stromata attributed to Clement of Alexandria.

"The Stromata"---For Paul too, in the Epistles, plainly does not disparage philosophy....Wherefore also, writing to the Hebrews, who were declining again from faith to the law, he says, “Have you not need again of one to teach you which are the first principles of the oracles of God, and have become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat?”

Examine Church History attributed to Eusebius.

Church History 3.3.5.---- Paul's fourteen epistles are well known and undisputed.

The Pauline Corpus is a very LATE compilation by a Group of possibly 7-8 persons under the name of "Paul".

 

[Craig B]

My argument is that the Pauline writers knew of gLuke based on the existing INTERNAL evidence from antiquity.

Internal evidence is good. Let's stick with internal evidence. But what does internal to antiquity mean? If you are saying, the Pauline Corpus is based on gLuke, what we need is evidence internal to the Pauline Corpus, and evidence internal to gLuke.

That is the internal evidence we need. So I asked for it in this form

1. Verses from gLuke
2. Corresponding verses from the Pauline work
3. Reason for stating that 2 is derived from 1, and not the other way round.

Can you not provide that?

 

[dejudge]

Internal evidence is good. Let's stick with internal evidence. But what does internal to antiquity mean? If you are saying, the Pauline Corpus is based on gLuke, what we need is evidence internal to the Pauline Corpus, and evidence internal to gLuke.

That is the internal evidence we need. So I asked for it in this form

1. Verses from gLuke
2. Corresponding verses from the Pauline work
3. Reason for stating that 2 is derived from 1, and not the other way round.

Can you not provide that?

There may be something wrong with you. You keep asking the same questions when I have PRESENTED the answers.

Do you not understand what is WRITTEN in existing manuscripts?

Christians writers of ANTIQUITY did state that the Pauline writers KNEW of gLuke.

Again LOOK at their WRITTEN statements.


1. Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.1.1---Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

2. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1----And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.


3. Eusebius' Church History 3.4.8.---And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”


4. Eusebius' Church History 6.25.6.---And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

5. Tertullian's "Against Marcion" 4.5---For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.


6. Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]----[και] λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας [εκλασεν] και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων ⸆ [τουτο] εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν


7. Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]-----και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο εστιν μου το σωμα ⸆ υπερ υμων ⸆ τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν

The statements attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius are confirmed by Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46.

The Pauline writers did KNOW of and did use gLuke.

 

[Mcreal]

Internal evidence is good. Let's stick with internal evidence. But what does internal to antiquity mean? If you are saying, the Pauline Corpus is based on gLuke, what we need is evidence internal to the Pauline Corpus, and evidence internal to gLuke.

That is the internal evidence we need ...

And ignore the other evidence that dejudge has provided???

So I asked for it in this form

1. Verses from gLuke
2. Corresponding verses from the Pauline work
3. Reason for stating that 2 is derived from 1, and not the other way round.

Can you not provide that?

dejudge has fulfilled all 3 of those points, by providing external evidence, as is appropriate.

You're attempting to exclude and ignore evidence.

 

[Craig B]

There may be something wrong with you. You keep asking the same questions when I have PRESENTED the answers.

Do you not understand what is WRITTEN in existing manuscripts?

Christians writers of ANTIQUITY did state that the Pauline writers KNEW of gLuke.

Again LOOK at their WRITTEN statements.


1. Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.1.1---Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

2. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1----And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.


3. Eusebius' Church History 3.4.8.---And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”


4. Eusebius' Church History 6.25.6.---And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

5. Tertullian's "Against Marcion" 4.5---For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.


6. Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]----[και] λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας [εκλασεν] και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων ⸆ [τουτο] εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν


7. Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]-----και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο εστιν μου το σωμα ⸆ υπερ υμων ⸆ τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν

The statements attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius are confirmed by Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46.

The Pauline writers did KNOW of and did use gLuke.

Great. Now give me this, which is the internal evidence we need.

1. Verses from gLuke
2. Corresponding verses from the Pauline work
3. Reason for stating that 2 is derived from 1, and not the other way round.

 

[dejudge]

Great. Now give me this, which is the internal evidence we need.

1. Verses from gLuke
2. Corresponding verses from the Pauline work
3. Reason for stating that 2 is derived from 1, and not the other way round.

Something may be wrong with your device or you don't understand English or cannot remember anything.

Christian writings of antiquity did ADMIT that the Pauline authors KNEW OF gLuke and used it.


Again LOOK at their WRITTEN statements.


1. Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.1.1---Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

2. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1----And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.


3. Eusebius' Church History 3.4.8.---And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”


4. Eusebius' Church History 6.25.6.---And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

5. Tertullian's "Against Marcion" 4.5---For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.


6. Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]----[και] λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας [εκλασεν] και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων ⸆ [τουτο] εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν


7. Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]-----και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο εστιν μου το σωμα ⸆ υπερ υμων ⸆ τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν

The statements attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius are confirmed by Papyri 75 [gLuke and gJohn] and Papyri 46.

You seem to have no understanding of "corroborative evidence".

Once it is shown that the Pauline Corpus contains any passage FOUND ONLY in the gLuke then the argument can be maintained that the Pauline writers knew of and used gLuke especially when Christian writings ADMIT he did.

 

[dejudge]

It is most laughable that the very people who argue that the Pauline Corpus predated the Gospels cannot present a single piece of evidence from antiquity to corroborate what they believe.

The evidence from antiquity is that the Pauline writers KNEW of and used the Gospel of gLuke and that gLuke is the Gospel of Paul.

Craig B puts forward a most absurd notion that the Pauline Corpus is an early compilation c50-60 CE because ONE letter dated to the 4th century mentions King Aretas.

Papyri 46 dated c 175-225 CE does not actually contain the part of the passage about King Aretas.

Now, there are two fundamental scenarios for the Pauline writers

1. If Jesus did exist and was the founder of the cult then the Jesus story PREDATED the Pauline Corpus if "Paul" was converted AFTER Jesus was dead.

2. If Jesus did not really exist but people BELIEVED he did and "Paul" persecuted those BELIEVERS then the Jesus story of those BELIEVERS PREDATED the Pauline Corpus if "Paul" did exist, did Persecute the Believers and then converted to the cult afterwards.

In any scenario the Pauline Corpus MUST be or most likely was COMPOSED AFTER the Jesus story was known in the Roman Empire.

Christian writings and manuscripts have confirmed or admitted that the Pauline writers did KNOW of the Jesus story of gLuke and that gLuke's Gospel is really the Gospel of Paul which he PREACHED to the Gentiles.

 

[Craig B]

And ignore the other evidence that dejudge has provided???

dejudge has fulfilled all 3 of those points, by providing external evidence, as is appropriate.

You're attempting to exclude and ignore evidence.

He's telling me that early Christian writers said Paul knew gLuke. So what? I don't care what these people said unless and until I get my simple question answered. Do I need to repeat it?

 

[dejudge]

Craig B has finally admitted that he doesn't care about the statements from Christian writings that the Pauline writers KNEW of gLuke.

In effect, he really doesn't care about the answers.

He just want to ask the same questions over and over.

Now, there is an abundance of evidence from antiquity that the Pauline Corpus are LATE versions of the Jesus story.

Examine the Synoptics [gMark, gMatthew and gJohn]

In the Synoptics, there is a character called 'Peter' which is derived from the Greek word for 'rock'.

In gMatthew, gMark, and gLuke Simon Peter is ALWAYS called [πετρον]

Mark 3:16 And he appointed the twelve; and Simon he surnamed Peter [πετρον].

However the LATER version of the Jesus story of gJohn the author claimed Jesus called Simon by the name of CEPHAS. [ κηφαϲ]

John 1.43 He brought him to Jesus. Looking upon him, Jesus said: Thou art Simon the son of Joanna: thou shalt be called Cephas [ κηφαϲ], which is, translated. Peter.


We will see that the Pauline Corpus refers to Peter as Cephas which is found ONLY in the LATER gJohn.

1. 1 Corinthians 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

2. 1 Corinthians 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are your's;


3.1 Corinthians 9:5 Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

4. 1 Corinthians 15:5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve

5. Galatians 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship....

The Pauline Corpus is a LATE compilation and was unknown to the author of the short gMark.

 

[maximara]

Craig B has finally admitted that he doesn't care about the statements from Christian writings that the Pauline writers KNEW of gLuke.

In effect, he really doesn't care about the answers.

He just want to ask the same questions over and over.

No that is NOT what Craig (or I) am saying.

Can you PROVE that Marcion c140 CE (ie BEFORE any of your sources wrote anything) didn't "improve" what the Pauline writers said to better agree with what may have been a pro-Luke?

That is the question on the table. So far we have seen a bunch of David Copperfield dodging of this key question.

 

[Mcreal]

Is there any proof the Pauline epistles were in circulation c140CE?

 

[dejudge]

No that is NOT what Craig (or I) am saying.

This is what Craig B said---He's telling me that early Christian writers said Paul knew gLuke. So what? I don't care what these people said unless and until I get my simple question answered.

Those people, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian and Eusebius ANSWERED his question.

Paul KNEW gLuke--that is what the PEOPLE of antiquity said--NOT me.

Papyrus 75 and 46 CONFIRMS their statement.

Can you PROVE that Marcion c140 CE (ie BEFORE any of your sources wrote anything) didn't "improve" what the Pauline writers said to better agree with what may have been a pro-Luke?

I am not obligated to prove what I did not argue. You cannot prove anything you argue with respect to Paul and Marcion. You cannot prove that Marcion had "improved" the Pauline letters.

Which Pauline letters did Marcion improve Papyri 46, the Codex Sinaticus, the Alexandrinus Codex, the Vaticanus Codex????

My argument is that the Pauline Corpus is a LATE writing invented no earlier than c 180 CE or AFTER the wtiting of "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.

Origen admitted that Celsus wrote NOTHING about Paul.

That is the question on the table. So far we have seen a bunch of David Copperfield dodging of this key question.

It is most fascinating that you OPENLY write fiction without fear.

Do not writings attributed to Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Eusebius ADMIT the Pauline writers KNEW of gLuke?

It is amazing that you think you can make the evidence from antiquity MAGICALLY disappear by mentioning the name of a magician.

The evidence will not ever magically disappear.

The evidence is cast in "stone".

It was KNOWN for over 1800 years that the Pauline Corpus KNEW of and USED gLuke.

There is ZERO evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed before gLuke.

Not even the greatest magician can change the evidence from antiquity.

David Copperfield may disappear but the written evidence from antiquity will REMAIN

1. Irenaeus' Against Heresies 3.1.1---Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.

2. Origen's Commentary on Matthew 1----And third, was that according to Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, which he composed for the converts from the Gentiles.


3. Eusebius' Church History 3.4.8.---And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”


4. Eusebius' Church History 6.25.6.---And the third by Luke, the Gospel commended by Paul, and composed for Gentile converts. Last of all that by John.

5. Tertullian's "Against Marcion" 4.5---For even Luke's form of the Gospel men usually ascribe to Paul.


6. Papyrus 75 [gLuke and gJohn]----[και] λαβων αρτον ευχαριστησας [εκλασεν] και εδωκεν αυτοις λεγων ⸆ [τουτο] εστιν το σωμα μου το υπερ υμων διδομενον τουτο ποιειτε εις [την] εμην αναμνησιν


7. Papyrus 46 [the Pauline Corpus]-----και ευχαριστησας εκλασεν και ειπεν τουτο εστιν μου το σωμα ⸆ υπερ υμων ⸆ τουτο ποιειτε εις την εμην αναμνησιν[/'u]

David Copperfield cannot make the writings disappear which were attributed to Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian and Eusebius.

 

[maximara]

Is there any proof the Pauline epistles were in circulation c140CE?

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.

 

[Craig B]

Those people, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian and Eusebius ANSWERED his question.

But dejudge won't.

Paul KNEW gLuke--that is what the PEOPLE of antiquity said--NOT me.

Papyrus 75 and 46 CONFIRMS their statement.

... It was KNOWN for over 1800 years that the Pauline Corpus KNEW of and USED gLuke.

There is ZERO evidence that the Pauline Corpus was composed before gLuke.

Not even the greatest magician can change the evidence from antiquity.

David Copperfield may disappear but the written evidence from antiquity will REMAIN

David Copperfield cannot make the writings disappear which were attributed to Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian and Eusebius.

You believe Eusebius when he states Christian orthodoxy (the written Christian evidence of antiquity, which is the Absolute Truth?!?) about the composition of the NT? You must be the only person who believes that crook!

Is this because you have embraced the Christian Faith, so that the Risen Jesus will heed the Intercession of the Saints and Martyrs of Antiquity, and admit you to the Beatific Vision for All Eternity after a short period in the cleansing fires of Purgatory to expiate your sins?

 

[dejudge]

But dejudge won't. You believe Eusebius when he states Christian orthodoxy (the written Christian evidence of antiquity, which is the Absolute Truth?!?) about the composition of the NT? You must be the only person who believes that crook!

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.

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

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

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