Amaleq13

No, the Jewish leaders were perjurors who convinced Pilate Jesus had political ambitions. He was directly executed by Roman soldiers acting on the orders of Pilate who represented the Roman Empire.

Quote:

I've worked on death penalty cases before and have heard the Judge, the Prosecutor, and the police all accused of "killing" the defendant.

Those accusations are as inaccurate as the one in the disputed passage. It doesn't matter how many people make a false accusation, it is still false. Perhaps you can offer some relevant information: What is the charge brought against someone who brings a false accusation against a person who is subsequently executed for that crime? Is it murder?

Layman

The only issue is whether Paul could not have possibly said that the Jews killed Jesus. Indeed, your argument seems to be that because Paul conflicts with the Gospels this must be an interpolation. Which is basically saying that Paul--who had not read a Gospel--would have been less likely to say this than a later interpolator who would have based his account on those Gospels!

The Sanhedrin was an offical body recognized to have subordinate authority by Rome. Their authority was likely comparable to that of the native courts in Egypt. There, the Egyptian rulers could serve as a type of grand jury that brought an accusation and prepared evidence that was then presented to itinerant Roman officials for consideration. Though these Egyptian courts lacked authority to impose the death penalty, they served as part of the Roman process by which a person would be put to death.

The Sanhedrin seems to have fulfilled a similar role. They pressed the charge against Jesus and presented the evidence. They even had their own inquisition about it. They then took the charges and evidence to Pilate who carried out the penalty after reviewing the charges.

But even if you just looked at their role as conspiring to rig a trial through perjured testimony I think it would be quite natural for Paul to accuse them of killing Jesus. In our legal system, such people would be guilty of premedited murder. Are you saying that someone could be guilty of premidated murder but not of "killing" someone.

You've said nothing to indicate that Paul could not lay blame at their feat for this.

Amaleq13

I rewrote Layman's argument from the context of assuming the passage a forgery:
Because the interpolation was so popular among Christian copyists, it is unlikely that an uninterpolated copy could have survived and come to Cyprian?That makes no sense.

Layman replied:
Right, your argument is irrelevant to authenticity. If it was relevant, it would make sense. We may have evidence the passage existed 100 years before Cyprian but that, alone, does not make the passage genuine. Within the context of interpolation, that would provide the latest possible introduction of the text.

Quote:

We are not talking about overnight. We are talking about over one hundred years or more with multiple manuscript traditions.

On what basis do you conclude that it is impossible for an uninterpolated copy to survive that long?

Quote:

I would not expet to find multiple manuscript traditions dating back more than a hundred years prior.

Why not? You honestly think the evidence of this tradition is so strong that it is impossible for an uninterpolated copy to have survived? I don't think that is realistic.

Quote:

The question is not whether he referred to Paul consistently.

Cyprian's pattern of using Paul as a reference is clearly relevant to the argument. If he rarely uses him or never uses him in conjunction with references to the OT, I would consider that to weaken the argument.

Layman

I'd say with each passing couple of decades the likelihoods drop dramatically. Especially given that we have multiple manuscript traditions, a Marcionite controversy that was incredible important and had widespread effects, and the public discussion of the passage by earlier Christian writers such as Tertullian and Origen.

You are not addressing my points or responding to my questions. You are responding to a distortion of my point. Not the point itself.

Amaleq13

No, I'm assuming (for the sake of argument) that there is an historical reality "behind" the Gospel stories and I'm assuming that Paul would have been aware of that reality. This leads me to doubt that Paul would make such a false accusation.

If I don't make those assumptions, then I have little reason to believe that any of the details of the alleged Sanhedrin trial or even the direct involvement of Pilate are credible. The passage still doesn't ring true because Paul clearly believed Jesus had been executed and that meant he was "put to death" by the Romans.

Layman

Like I said. You say Paul would not make this mistake but someone who bases all of their knowledge of the event on the Gospels known to us would have. Not very compelling.

Paul, like most Christians, believed that Jewish and Roman leaders had Jesus put to death. Most Christians believe that the Jewish leaders were the initiating proponents of execution. There is nothing unreasonable about Paul laying the blame on them.

Once again you have ignored my points. This hardly makes for fruitful discussion.

Amaleq13

Do you know of any published theory or study that confirms this suggestion or are you speculating?

If that is the case, this would have been a great time to try to clarify. Frankly, they could use it.

You wrote:
Your first sentence denies that it is relevant whether Cyprian referred to Paul consistently. Since we are trying to determine what is typical of Cyprian with regard to referring to Paul, I don't see that this "point" is valid. The second sentence assumes we already know how Cyprian served his purposes well enough to reach a conclusion. I disagree with that "point" and suggest that we need to know more about how he actually wrote. Your questions can only be answered by the examination you apparently consider irrelevant.

Amaleq13

Perhaps because you got it wrong.

Paul would not make this false accusation and neither would someone who based all their knowledge of the event on the Gospels.

In neither case would it be accurate to claim that the Jews put Jesus to death.

The person who wrote this passage did so without regard to any possible historical truth behind the crucifixion of Jesus and without regard to the Gospel stories.

Layman

So we have an interpolator who is ignorant of the Gospels or any stories about who put Jesus to death.

Like I said. Not very compelling.

And you continue to ignore my other points.

Layman

Nope. Of course, I haven't noticed that Jesus Mythers give much credence to published studies or theories. It's a very reasonable proposition. The more time that passes and the more manuscripts that have the passage, the less likely that a "silence" is due to ignorance.

I saw nothing ambiguous about my previous points. Perhaps if you could ask for clarification of what you do not understand.

Yes. It does not matter if Cyprian cites to Paul in every chapter he writes if such usage would not lead us to believe he'd rely on Paul over other sources for a narrative element.

I doubt you are trying very hard since you leave the bulk of my points unanswered and refuse to answer my questions.

I am all for examining usage, not just counting uses. And I have examined the passages at issue and determined that there was no compelling need for Cpryian to use Paul when he had the Gospel of Matthew and other sources available. If you disagree, make your case that Paul was preferable to Matthew. Don't just plead ignorance and therefore claim victory.