Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Adam · 04-29-2012, 11:19 PM

Now that he is continually losing,
Shesh does not reply to me any more.
Let's open this up to the peanut gallery. Can someone else tell us the "experienced experts in the Greek language and MSS who are virtually unanimous ...they were originally composed in Greek." It has now been another four days since my #209 that I repost now.
Consider Adela Collins in Evangelion kata Markon for indications that I am in the majority. For support of Ehrman and Casey about Aramaic in the 30's see the editor in the same source also in the
same March 2012 issue: (I hope you start reading Mike K. on this academic blog, Michael Turton, you have been giving us a very slanted view)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

It has been four days, Shesh,
Since I asked you in Post #113 to verify that you were correct in condemning me for saying that Q1 and the Passion Narrative were originally in Aramaic. So I may have been right after all?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Your alleged 'arguments' consist of little more than bald face assertions that the Passion Narrative and 'Q1' were written in Aramaic.
Those who are experienced experts in the Greek language and Mss. are virtually unanimous in their agreement that they were originally composed in Greek and only latter translated into the other languages, including the Aramaic....

Can you name scholars who are sure that the sources Q and Passion Narrative were originally written in Greek? Perhaps they argue that part of each was in Greek (such as Q2) or that each was translated into Greek

And here's what I said earlier in Post #54 in Richard Carrier blogs about Ehrman's article
"Of course, in my own Gospel Eyewitness thread here on FRDB I have argued not just that the Passion Narrative was written in Aramaic, but Q1 as well. I also accept that James R. Edwards in The Hebrew Gospel & the development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009) has adequately shown that L is replete with Semitisms (from Hebrew, in his opinion), and displays this quite well in his Appendix II pp. 294-332). All these I include in my "Gospel According to the Atheists".

These three sources in Aramaic are most conveniently found in Posts #1, #5, and #6 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/ "

So there is support for Ehrman's wilder claims, even though he is currently ignoring these problems. They are not ideas he himself researched, but he could have cited Casey and Crossley.

Vorkosigan · 04-30-2012, 08:04 AM

Quote:

I am in the majority

Two things to contemplate.

(1) Being in the majority doesn't make you right.

(2) You ARE in the majority. You're just not in the majority of people who actually know anything.

Adam · 04-30-2012, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I am in the majority [about Aramaic sources, maybe even in the 30's]

Two things to contemplate.

(1) Being in the majority doesn't make you right.

(2) You ARE in the majority. You're just not in the majority of people who actually know anything.

Thank you, Michael,
For confirming that Shesh was in error. I won't need to post the above again.

Apparently I was correct that you are unaware of the Evangelion kata Markon academic blog. Such top academics as Dale Allison are posted there, you should look at it.

Toto · 04-30-2012, 01:02 PM

Kata Markon

From Robert Myles on the Authorship of Matthew

Quote:

Since I have no reason to assume that Papias was not telling the truth when he writes that he received the tradition from followers of John the Elder ...

:constern02: Is that the standard?

andrewcriddle · 04-30-2012, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Kata Markon

From Robert Myles on the Authorship of Matthew

Quote:

Since I have no reason to assume that Papias was not telling the truth when he writes that he received the tradition from followers of John the Elder ...

:constern02: Is that the standard?

I think that when someone says that followers of X told me Y, then the presumption is that people claiming to be followers of X did tell him Y.

Y may or may not be true but that is another matter.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner · 04-30-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Just to clarify: Is Thomas Thompson a Mythicist in the sense in which the word is normally used on this forum ?

I had the impression that he was more what this forum would call a Jesus Agnostic. IE he does not believe that we can get behind the claims made about Jesus in the early documents to an underlying historical reality.

Andrew Criddle

Thompson is a mythicist in the sense that he thinks the gospels are myths, but agnostic in that he does not think we can see the origin of Christianity in the surviving evidence.

In other words, if I've read you correctly, you're spot on.

aa5874 · 04-30-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think that when someone says that followers of X told me Y, then the presumption is that people claiming to be followers of X did tell him Y.

Y may or may not be true but that is another matter.

Andrew Criddle

Please, it is the TRUTH that Matters NOT presumptions.

That is the very essence of re-constructing the past.

It is the TRUTH that will give us True history NOT presumptions.

Even in court trials, it is the TRUTH that allows one to re-construct the past.

Only the Truth matters.

Any statement by Papias that he met actual disciples of Jesus or knew people who met actual disciples is most likely NOT truthful.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.