But we easily understand the one, and we cannot understand the other—that is, we do not think either of the parts but talk our way glibly into the first and are a little shocked by the second. If anyone can think the one (the deciding in time of an eternal happiness through a relationship to a historical phenomenon), then he has eo ipso thought the other. If time and in it the relationship to a historical phenomenon can be an adequate medium for deciding an eternal happiness, then it is eo ipso adequate for deciding an eternal unhappiness. To that extent, then, all the extremely curious demonstrations with which a pious orthodoxy has fenced in this dogma are a misunderstanding, just as the demonstrations are also quite curious and completely devoid of the category.—JP II 1638 (Pap. VI B 35:25) n.d., 1845

From draft; see 1.98:15-99:28:

Now I shall take the text where he talks about the leap. Contemporaneity or noncontemporaneity makes no essential difference; a historical (and for the contemporary it is certainly the historical, that the god [Guden] exists, that is, exists by having come into existence) point of departure for an eternal decision is and remains a leap.— Pap. VI B 35:30 n.d., 1845

From draft; see 1.101:19-27:

Here again is the contradiction, which shows that J. did not artistically understand,— Pap. VI B 35:32 n.d., 1845

From draft; see 1.102:32-34:

If Jacobi had been a Polus, he could have responded just as Polus answers Socrates on a similar occasion: The trouble with you, Lessing, is that you are always talking about your old legs and your heavy head. As far as his irony aided by the dialectical is concerned, the following may be noted.— Pap. VI B 35:33 n.d., 1845

From draft; see 1.104:16:

If by this L. perhaps even wanted to refer to a passage in Aristophanes, where Strepsiades is being instructed by the new philosophy on how rain is produced, whereas he had believed that it was Jupiter who rained (and in a peculiar way),31 then the jest is no less.— Pap. VI B 35:34 n.d., 1845

From final copy; see 1.104:16:

It would also be quite droll if L. had had Aristophanes’ Clouds, 1. 373,32 in mind.

—Pap. VI B 98:27 n.d., 1845

From draft; see 1.105:23-32:

. . . . . category, because all Christianity is rooted in the paradox, whether one accepts it (that is, is a believer) or rejects it (precisely because it is paradoxical), but above all one is not to think it out speculatively, for then the result is definitely not Christianity.— JP III 3083 (Pap. VI B 35:36) n.d., 1845

From draft; see 1.106:7-15:

. . . . . comfort, whether or not this author has become aware of it by reading Lessing.— Pap. VI B 35:37 n.d., 1845

Underlined and highlighted in a copy of Postscript; see 1.111:8-11:

. . .