The Historical Jesus III

[Atol]

I not going to read all the info. But let me ask this. What is the proof of nazareth existing When Jesus was alive? To answer this. What required is arachnologist who are not working or sponsored by a Religion.

Kinda reminds me of the 6 or 7 Location of the known locations Noah's Ark. But when you get down to the facts. It a Religion that sponsors the dig and it all Hype. It tend to be Village or some type.

 

[dejudge]

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. P46 "corrects" this.

Your statement cannot be proven to be true.

You make stuff up. Your presumptions and assumptions are worthless.

Again, the Epistle to the Hebrews has LESS chapters than 1 Corinthians but it still comes BEFORE in Papyri 46.

It is obvious that you INVENT stories or promote claims which are void of logic.


How in the world can you know if the Epistle to the Romans was NOT originally the very first Epistle when it was supposedly copied.

gMatthew is claimed to be the First written Gospel in the NT and is found at the very start of the Four Canonised Gospels and then followed by the SHORTEST Gospel called gMark.

 

[Craig B]

Again, the Epistle to the Hebrews has LESS chapters than 1 Corinthians but it still comes BEFORE in Papyri 46.

Yes, Hebrews is out of place as described in my post which you have evidently not read. Lazy person! The criterion of length is the length of the original Greek text. Number of chapters? You must have lost the last vestiges of your reason to suggest that measure. Why? Because

Archbishop Stephen Langton and Cardinal Hugo de Sancto Caro developed different schemas for systematic division of the Bible in the early 13th century. It is the system of Archbishop Langton on which the modern chapter divisions are based.

Surely you aren't now arguing THAT the Epistles WERE invented by gangs OF insane forgers in THE 13th century!!

Well, maybe you are.

 

[dejudge]

Yes, Hebrews is out of place as described in my post which you have evidently not read. Lazy person! The criterion of length is the length of the original Greek text. Number of chapters? You must have lost the last vestiges of your reason to suggest that measure. Why?

I read your posts and they are void of logic and filled with baseless presumptions and assumptions.

How in the world you would know Hebrews is out of place when early Christian writers claimed it was written by Paul and placed it after Romans?

Papyrus 46 does NOT correct anything because 1 Corinthians has 16 chapters but still comes AFTER Hebrews which only has 13.

Papyri 46 has destroyed your evidenced fiction story.

 

[Craig B]

I read your posts and they are void of logic and filled with baseless presumptions and assumptions.

How in the world you would know Hebrews is out of place when early Christian writers claimed it was written by Paul and placed it after Romans?

Papyrus 46 does NOT correct anything because 1 Corinthians has 16 chapters but still comes AFTER Hebrews which only has 13.

Papyri 46 has destroyed your evidenced fiction story.

Even in ancient times the suthorship of Hebrews was in doubt, and I have cited that it is inserted in different places by different redactors of the Epistles.

The division into chapters had not been done in the first century. Can you not grasp that? What is there about that which you do not understand? No chapters then. OK?

 

[Mcreal]

I not going to read all the info. But let me ask this. What is the proof of nazareth existing When Jesus was alive?

I don't think there is any proof.

 

[Craig B]

I don't think there is any proof.

The place is not named in the Scriptures, or by Josephus who for a time led the Jewish rebels in Galilee. Archaeological evidence is sparse and ambiguous.

 

[dejudge]

Even in ancient times the suthorship of Hebrews was in doubt, and I have cited that it is inserted in different places by different redactors of the Epistles.

The authorship of Hebrews does not alter your fallacious claim that Hebrews was placed directly after the Epistle to the Romans because it had less chapters.

The authorship of the Pauline Corpus is now in doubt. There was no single author of the Pauline letters.

The Pauline Corpus is really an historically bogus fabrication to [falsely] give primacy to the Christian Canon and cult.

gLuke was ALREADY known to the Pauline writers BEFORE the Epistles were composed.

The division into chapters had not been done in the first century. Can you not grasp that? What is there about that which you do not understand? No chapters then. OK?

I am very happy that you state that there was no chapters.

You have openly contradicted yourself.

You have NO evidence that Papyri 46 was copied from manuscripts from the 1st century and have no evidence that Hebrews was placed immediately after Romans because of its length.

You don't even understand and had no idea that 1 Corinthians is longer than Hebrews whether or not they are divided into chapters.

 

[Craig B]

I am very happy that you state that there was no chapters.

You have openly contradicted yourself.

No. I have openly contradicted you.

Again, the Epistle to the Hebrews has LESS chapters than 1 Corinthians but it still comes BEFORE in Papyri 46.

 

[dejudge]

No. I have openly contradicted you.

You put forward the absurd notion that Epistle to the Hebrews was placed before the longer 1st Corinthians because they were not divided into chapters.

What nonsense!!

You had no idea that the division of chapters did not alter the fact that 1 Corinthians is longer than Hebrews.

Your claim that Hebrews was placed before 1 Corinthians because of its length is imaginative fiction or baseless speculation.

 

[Craig B]

You put forward the absurd notion that Epistle to the Hebrews was placed before the longer 1st Corinthians because they were not divided into chapters.

What nonsense!!

Yes it is and I said no such thing. I said you can't measure the length of books by number of chapters (as you do) when they have no chapters.

Your claim that Hebrews was placed before 1 Corinthians because of its length is imaginative fiction or baseless speculation.

It may be, but I didn't claim that. Here is what my source says.

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.
between 2 Corinthians and Galatians: minuscules 1930, 1978, and 2248
between Galatians and Ephesians: implied by the numbering in B
between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy (i.e., before the Pastorals): א, A, B, C, H, I, P, 0150, 0151, and about 60 minuscules (e.g. 218, 632)
after Philemon: D, 048, E, K, L and the majority of minuscules.
omitted: F and G

This diversity reflects the fact that even in ancient times the authorship of Hebrews was in doubt.

 

[dejudge]

Yes it is and I said no such thing. I said you can't measure the length of books by number of chapters (as you do) when they have no chapters. It may be, but I didn't claim that. Here is what my source says. This diversity reflects the fact that even in ancient times the authorship of Hebrews was in doubt.

You said "The criterion of length is the length of the original Greek text".

You write fiction. 1 Corinthians is LONGER than Hebrews without chapters and it still comes AFTER the Epistle to the Hebrews.

Your criterion is baseless.

In addition, in writings attributed to 3rd century apologetics there was no doubt that Hebrews was written by a single writer called Paul.

Papyri 46 with Hewbrews is dated to the 2nd-3rd century.

Origen and Clement of Alexandria claimed "Paul" wrote Hebrews.

Origen's De Principiis

The Apostle Paul says, that the only-begotten Son is the image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature. And when writing to the Hebrews, he says of Him that He is the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person.

Clement's Stromata

For Paul too, in the Epistles, plainly does not disparage philosophy; but deems it unworthy of the man who has attained to the elevation of the Gnostic, any more to go back to the Hellenic philosophy, figuratively calling it the rudiments of this world, as being most rudimentary, and a preparatory training for the truth. 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?

Hebrews was written by Paul according to Christians of antiquity.

You cannot prove that it is not true.

You don't know if any of the Pauline letters are original!!

You don't know what an original Pauline letter would look like!!!

You don't know when an original Pauline letter was supposed to be written!!

You don't know why the shorter Hebrews is between the longer Romans and 1 Corinthians with 16 chapters .

All we know is that manuscripts of the Pauline Corpus have been found and DATED to the 2nd century and have been deduced to have composed by MULTIPLE authors posing as Paul.

 

[Craig B]

Origen and Clement of Alexandria claimed "Paul" wrote Hebrews ... Hebrews was written by Paul according to Christians of antiquity.

Not according to all of them.

While the assumption of Pauline authorship readily allowed its acceptance in the Eastern Church, doubts persisted in the West.

Eusebius did not directly list the Epistle to the Hebrews among the antilegomena or disputed books (though he included the unrelated Gospel of the Hebrews).However, he did record that "some have rejected the Epistle to the Hebrews, saying that it is disputed by the church of Rome, on the ground that it was not written by Paul."He also recorded the views of Clement of Alexandria, that it was written by Paul in Hebrew and later translated into Greek, possibly by Luke.

Doubts about Pauline authorship were raised around the end of the second century, predominantly in the West. Tertullian attributed the epistle to Barnabas.Both Gaius of Rome and Hippolytus excluded Hebrews from the works of Paul, the latter attributing it to Clement of Rome. Origen noted that others had claimed Clement or Luke as the author, but he tentatively accepted Pauline authorship and the explanation of Clement of Alexandria.

Jerome, aware of such lingering doubts, included the epistle in his Vulgate but moved it to the end of Paul's writings. Augustine affirmed Paul's authorship and vigorously defended the epistle. By then its acceptance in the New Testament canon was well settled.

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

You don't know why the shorter Hebrews is between the longer Romans and 1 Corinthians with 16 chapters

You can't get this into your head, can you? In the first and second century these works didn't have any chapters at all.

 

[dejudge]

Not according to all of them.

I am merely exposing your fallacies.

You forget that Papyri 46 is dated 175-225 CE which at least 100 years BEFORE Eusebius' Church History in the 4th century.

The shorter Hebrews was placed BETWEEN the LONGER Roman and 1st Corinthians and was believed to be written by Paul c 175-225 CE in Papyri 46 which have proven your claim is FICTION or baseless speculation.

It makes no sense to "appeal to authority"[quote="CraigB]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Epistle_to_the_Hebrews You can't get this into your head, can you? In the first and second century these works didn't have any chapters at all.[/QUOTE]

Your statement is void of logic and exposes your lack of knowledge.

1. 1st Corinthians is PHYSICALLY LONGER than Hebrews with or without division by chapters.

2. 1st Corinthians PHYSICALLY contains MORE GREEK texts than Hebrews with or without division by chapters.

3. 1st Corinthians PHYSICALLY needs MORE more FOLIOS than Hebrews with or without division by chapters.

Your claim that Hebrews was placed between Romans and 1st Corinthians because of its length is proven to be Fiction or baseless speculation.

 

[Craig B]

Your claim that Hebrews was placed between Romans and 1st Corinthians because of its length is proven to be Fiction or baseless speculation.

You are unable to read simple messages, even if they are written plainly several times. You know I excluded Hebrews from a consistent adherence to the length criterion, because scholars note, as I have repeatedly stated, that

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.
between 2 Corinthians and Galatians: minuscules 1930, 1978, and 2248
between Galatians and Ephesians: implied by the numbering in B
between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy (i.e., before the Pastorals): א, A, B, C, H, I, P, 0150, 0151, and about 60 minuscules (e.g. 218, 632)
after Philemon: D, 048, E, K, L and the majority of minuscules.
omitted: F and G.
This diversity reflects the fact that even in ancient times the authorship of Hebrews was in doubt.

Are you unable to comprehend the meaning of these words?

 

[dejudge]

You are unable to read simple messages, even if they are written plainly several times. You know I excluded Hebrews from a consistent adherence to the length criterion, because scholars note, as I have repeatedly stated, that Are you unable to comprehend the meaning of these words?

You have now presented the evidence which exposes your own GIBBERISH.

This is your own post from 14th May 2015

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.

You NEVER knew what you are talking. The placement of Hebrews is NOT consistent with length or chronology.

On the 14th of May 2015 post #498. I told you "It is virtually impossible to date the Pauline Corpus to c 50-60 CE using ONLY the chronological order of Papyri 46".

You have now presented the evidence to support my argument.


[quote="Craig B]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.
between 2 Corinthians and Galatians: minuscules 1930, 1978, and 2248
between Galatians and Ephesians: implied by the numbering in B
between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy (i.e., before the Pastorals): א, A, B, C, H, I, P, 0150, 0151, and about 60 minuscules (e.g. 218, 632)
after Philemon: D, 048, E, K, L and the majority of minuscules.
omitted: F and G.
This diversity reflects the fact that even in ancient times the authorship of Hebrews was in doubt.[/QUOTE]

In the 3rd century, there was no doubt that Paul wrote ALL the letters in the Pauline Corpus as shown in Papyri 46 dated c 175-225 CE.

It is CONFIRMED.

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

 

[Craig B]

You have now presented the evidence which exposes your own GIBBERISH.

This is your own post from 14th May 2015

On that same 14 May I cited this.

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.
between 2 Corinthians and Galatians: minuscules 1930, 1978, and 2248
between Galatians and Ephesians: implied by the numbering in B
between 2 Thessalonians and 1 Timothy (i.e., before the Pastorals): א, A, B, C, H, I, P, 0150, 0151, and about 60 minuscules (e.g. 218, 632)
after Philemon: D, 048, E, K, L and the majority of minuscules.
omitted: F and G

 

[dejudge]

On that same 14 May I cited this.

I have already exposed your gibberish the very same day.

My statement is TRUE since the same 14th May 2015--- "It is virtually impossible to date the Pauline Corpus to c 50-60 CE using ONLY the chronological order of Papyri 46".

 

[Craig B]

I have already exposed your gibberish the very same day.

My statement is TRUE since the same 14th May 2015--- "It is virtually impossible to date the Pauline Corpus to c 50-60 CE using ONLY the chronological order of Papyri 46".

But the NT order, and the largely similar P46 order, have nothing to do with chronology anyway. I have cited sources which state the principle of the order of the Epistles.

In the same way the order of the suras in the Quran tells us nothing about the order in which these chapters were composed.

So what?

 

[Swordfishtrombone]

Jesus - pure myth or historical man?

Even after becoming an atheist (long ago), I have always just assumed that there was pretty solid evidence for there having been some historical man named Jesus, who might have taught some of the things the Biblical Jesus taught, and around whom the legend grew.

I always thought the mythicist position was of the "Zeitgeist" variety, with rather dubious, low quality claims.

The idea that people would have written such an influential personal history of a figure, inventing the whole of it, rather than it having SOME basis in a historical, real person, seemed to me to be just an unnecessary complication.

Didn't place that much importance on the question of historicity of Jesus either, so wasn't that interested, until recently, having heard historicity discussed on Dogma Debate.

I picked up "On the Historicity of Jesus" by Richard Carrier, which, I gathered, by the reviews, was the best case available for the mythicist position, and I'm currently reading it (or listening, as I got it as an audio book). I'm about half way through, and I do have to say that I think I'm having my mind changed. Carrier makes some extremely powerful arguments. It reads like a well researched, non-sensational, very analytical, proper history.

What I'm interested is if anyone has read the book, and is more deeply learned in the issues surrounding historicity, what's your take?

And knowing full well that I've now given one side of the argument much more attention than the other, what would you recommend as a book defending historicity, that makes the best case? Is there a definitive defense of the historicity of Jesus, that I could place beside and compare with Carrier's treatise on the subject?