ApostateAbe

The point about Aramaisms is just one of many that makes a cumulative case about the historical Jesus. And it certainly isnt central to Ehrman's case. You were the one who brought it up, but it is one more point where HJ does not need to make an ad hoc adjustment and MJ does. How do you account for the Aramaisms in your theory of the mythical Jesus?

Huon

At Lourdes, Gascon speaking children "saw" (had a vision) of the Virgin Mary. How do you, ApostateAbe, account for the Gasconisms in a theory of the myths about the Virgin Mary ?

ApostateAbe

I am actually not familiar with that topic. Any explanation needs to have a close relationship with the evidence, one way or the other. Maybe you have a theory of the mythical Jesus? If so, how do you explain the Aramaisms?

Huon

Easily. The writers of the gospels wrote probably in Ephesia, Galilee, Antioch, Ephesus, Syria, but not in Athens. Their Greek language was scattered with Aramaisms. My English can be scattered with gallicisms, as well.

This explanation has nothing to do with a theory of a historical or mythical Jesus.

Steven Carr

How do you explain the mock Latin in the spells in Harry Potter?

As superstitous people, they needed their Jesus to incant foreign words when raising somebody from the dead.

Steven Carr

Cumulative case?

Is that the theory that 20 buckets with leaks in them hold more water than one bucket with a leak in it?

And Ehrman's case is Galatians 1:19. That's it.

And, of course, Ehrman has to make the ad hoc assumption that all these Aramaic sayings of Jesus raising a child from the dead are totally and utterly genuine, although he would laugh in your face if you said that the story of Jesus raising a child from the dead is genuine.

Duke Leto

So, blows on the head! That is what we're talking about right?

ApostateAbe

Well, like I said, this is just one more fulfilled prediction of HJ and an ad hoc thing for MJ. It would be a problem for HJ if Aramaisms were not contained in the gospels, because all of the central characters and the reputed source of the traditions were Aramaic. It is about predictive power, the same principle that causes us to accept every probable theory of any sort. MJ, like any improbable theory, merely adapts with a lot of ad hoc speculations and otherwise fails the predictions.

Toto

You mean Aramaic-speaking, I assume.

I would think that the prediction of an HJ theory would be that the original gospel[s] were written completely in Aramaic. Finding a few Aramaic words in a Greek narrative is just an attempt to save the theory.

This is the problem with your "predictions." You take the given facts and force them to be "predicted" by your theory.

MJ predicts that the earliest sources have only a vague outline of a savior, and that details will be added as story telling develops over time, which is what we see. Later sources "flesh out" the Jesus character, adding a birth story, family, childhood, etc. How does your theory handle this?

Huon

Same with HJ.