Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 03-28-2012, 01:15 AM

On page 97 of Did Jesus Exist, Bart Ehrman makes the following amazing statement, doing his best William Lane Craig impression :-

'We have already seen that at least seven Gospel accounts of Jesus, all of them entirely or partially independent of one another, survived from within a century of the traditional date of his death.

These seven are based on numerous previously existent written sources, and on an enormous number of oral traditions about him that can be dated back to Aramaic sources of Palestine, almost certainly from the 30s of the Common Era.'

Those two paragraphs of Bart's have just trashed his reputation.

I love the 'partially independent.'

Bart's answer to Doherty's point that Paul predates the Gospels is to rewrite history, and move the Gospels before Paul.

Bart completes his rewriting of history on page 238, where he writes that even if something predates Paul, '...it does not represent the earliest Christian understanding of Christ.'

How can you argue with somebody who rewrites history, moving sources around in time to get a storyline he can sell to himself?

dog-on · 03-28-2012, 01:58 AM

Yes.

Ehrman really pushes independent attestation.

Quote:

We have already seen that historians, who try to establish that a past event happened or that a past person lived, look for multiple sources that corroborate one another’s stories without having collaborated. And this is what we get with the Gospels and their witness of Jesus.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 1133-1135). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

If you read chapter 3 and 4, Ehrman's argument seems to rest on the following assumptions:

1. Mark does not know Paul (this seems to me to be very crucial to Ehrman's argument regarding the independence of sources attesting to HJ)

Quote:

This is a powerful confluence of evidence: the sources of the Gospels and the accounts of our earliest Christian author. It is hard to explain this confluence apart from the view that Jesus certainly existed.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 2031-2032). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

2. Materials, not found in Mark, in the later synoptics come from traditions that developed prior to and independent of Mark.

Quote:

Matthew and Luke did indeed use Mark, but significant portions of both Gospels are not related in any way to Mark’s accounts. And in these sections of their Gospels Matthew and Luke record extensive, independent traditions about Jesus’s life, teachings, and death. So while in their shared material they do not provide corroboration without collaboration, in their unique material they do. These Gospels were probably written ten or fifteen years after Mark, and so by the year 80 or 85 we have at least three independent accounts of Jesus’s life

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 1146-1149). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

3. That John is completely, (or almost completely) independent of Mark.

Quote:

So within the first century we have four independent accounts of Jesus’s life and death (Matthew and Luke being independent in a good number of their corroborative stories; John possibly in all, and certainly in most, of his).

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 1158-1160). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

4. Materials in Acts, though written by Luke, are independent of Luke.

Quote:

The first important point for our quest to establish the historicity of Jesus is that the author of Acts has access to traditions that are not based on his Gospel account so that we have yet another independent witness.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 1623-1625). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

etc...

It seems that a simple things like Mark knowing Paul might topple his apple cart.

If Mark happened to know some Aramaic, how would that effect Ehrman's argument?

However, I am still trying to absorb the deluge of chapter's 3 and 4, so we'll see.

dog-on · 03-28-2012, 05:12 AM

Steven,

You should get a kick out of this quote from Ehrman's refutation of Wells:

Quote:

And to argue that the passage derives from a pre-Pauline tradition is problematic. Colossians is post-Pauline, so on what grounds can we say that a passage in it is pre-Pauline?

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 3808-3810). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Pot meet kettle...

Steven Carr · 03-28-2012, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Steven,

You should get a kick out of this quote from Ehrman's refutation of Wells:

Quote:

And to argue that the passage derives from a pre-Pauline tradition is problematic. Colossians is post-Pauline, so on what grounds can we say that a passage in it is pre-Pauline?

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 3808-3810). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Pot meet kettle...

While Ehrman , on page 238, claims that a passage of Philippians does not represent earliest Christians views on Jesus, even if it did predate Paul , then claims on page 232 that a passage from Romans pre-dates Paul and so represents 'primitive' view on Jesus - views which are authenticated as early by being found in Acts(!)

dog-on · 03-28-2012, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Steven,

You should get a kick out of this quote from Ehrman's refutation of Wells:

Pot meet kettle...

While Ehrman , on page 238, claims that a passage of Philippians does not represent earliest Christians views on Jesus, even if it did predate Paul , then claims on page 232 that a passage from Romans pre-dates Paul and so represents 'primitive' view on Jesus - views which are authenticated as early by being found in Acts(!)

We may need to chart Ehrman's dating scheme. A bit after your references we find out that we have gospel sources that can be dated within at least one year following Jesus's death!

Quote:

The fact that Paul does not mention that Jesus died in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate is not in the least odd. What occasion did Paul have to mention something that everyone knew? That this was common knowledge should be clear from our Gospel sources, which did not begin to historicize Jesus two or three decades after Paul but spoke of the historical Jesus already by the early 30s, within at least a year of the traditional date of his death, before Paul was even converted, as we have seen.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 3853-3856). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Steven Carr · 03-28-2012, 06:13 AM

I wonder why Paul had to mention that Jesus was born of a woman, when that was something everybody already knew.

aa5874 · 03-28-2012, 06:23 AM

The problems in Ehrman's book are probably due to "Scribal Error" and "Interpolation"

dog-on · 03-28-2012, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I wonder why Paul had to mention that Jesus was born of a woman, when that was something everybody already knew.

Probably for the same reason this author did...

Quote:

This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God.

aa5874 · 03-28-2012, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

I wonder why Paul had to mention that Jesus was born of a woman, when that was something everybody already knew.

When did Paul mention that Jesus was GOD'S Son and made of a woman??

It is most amazing how half of a verse has seemingly vanished without a trace!!!

One must first read that the Pauline Jesus was God's Son before they read the part where he was made of a woman.

Galatians 4:4 KJV

Quote:

But when the fulness of the time was come , God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...

The Pauline writer is COMPLETELY compatible with the Gospels where Jesus was born of a woman and was the Son of God.

aeebee50 · 03-30-2012, 01:13 PM

Seems like there are a lot of people who have the answer, but getting away from good sources could be bad.

03-28-2012, 01:15 AM	#1
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Hyperbolic Ehrman trashes reputation On page 97 of Did Jesus Exist, Bart Ehrman makes the following amazing statement, doing his best William Lane Craig impression :- 'We have already seen that at least seven Gospel accounts of Jesus, all of them entirely or partially independent of one another, survived from within a century of the traditional date of his death. These seven are based on numerous previously existent written sources, and on an enormous number of oral traditions about him that can be dated back to Aramaic sources of Palestine, almost certainly from the 30s of the Common Era.' Those two paragraphs of Bart's have just trashed his reputation. I love the 'partially independent.' Bart's answer to Doherty's point that Paul predates the Gospels is to rewrite history, and move the Gospels before Paul. Bart completes his rewriting of history on page 238, where he writes that even if something predates Paul, '...it does not represent the earliest Christian understanding of Christ.' How can you argue with somebody who rewrites history, moving sources around in time to get a storyline he can sell to himself?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-28-2012, 06:13 AM	#6
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	I wonder why Paul had to mention that Jesus was born of a woman, when that was something everybody already knew.

03-28-2012, 06:23 AM	#7
aa5874 Contributor Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: the fringe of the caribbean Posts: 18,988	The problems in Ehrman's book are probably due to "Scribal Error" and "Interpolation"

03-30-2012, 01:13 PM	#10
aeebee50 Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Texas Posts: 5,810	Seems like there are a lot of people who have the answer, but getting away from good sources could be bad.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.