Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 11:24 AM

Who says any of that? Not Ehrman. He doesn't even say the stories in Mark are true, just that they have Aramaic origins. He makes no attempt to defend the historicity of the content of those stories, only that they were originally told in Aramaic.

Steven Carr · 05-05-2012, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Steven Carr,

You apparently are unaware what all scholars like Bart Ehrman know: Aramaic is a language which cannot be used for telling fictional stories. Aramaic contains only true words. When some one speaks in Aramaic, they must be telling the truth.

No, stories don't have to be true. We have recently been informed that stories do not have to be true to be outstanding historical evidence.

I doubt if they even have to be originally about Jesus. Provided they existed before the Gospels were written, they count as evidence.

Hypothetical evidence, naturally, but still evidence.

Toto · 05-05-2012, 11:39 AM

Ehrman sez

Quote:

There is very little dispute that some of the Gospel stories originated in Aramaic and that therefore they go back to the earliest stages of the Christian movement in Palestine.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 88). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Therefore? This is a leap of faith. He might as well be saying that Aramaic is a magic language.

He goes on:

Quote:

Aramaic Jews in Jesus’s native land were telling stories about him well before Paul wrote his letters in the 50s of the Common Era, arguably from within a few years of the traditional date of his death.

How can you date an oral story (that you can't even hear) to a specific decade??

Quote:

One reason this matters is that most mythicists want to argue that the since the epistles of the New Testament were written earlier than the Gospels, and since the epistles, especially those of Paul, say little or nothing (it is argued) about the historical Jesus but instead speak only of the mythical Christ who like the pagan gods (again, it is argued) died and rose from the dead, then the earliest records of Christianity do not support the idea that Jesus actually lived; he was only a mythical concept. I will argue that this perspective is wrong on all counts.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 91). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Wrong on all counts because ... well, he doesn't actually say.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 11:40 AM

Evidence for what? What do you think Ehrman is claiming evidence for exactly?

Toto · 05-05-2012, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Evidence for what? What do you think Ehrman is claiming evidence for exactly?

That's the question we are all asking.

I get the impression that Ehrman dictated the book from the top of his head, and then went back and tried to fill in some details to flesh out the structure of his argument, but the details don't quite come together. He relies on creating an impression of a mass of evidence that all points in his direction.

So there are (inaudible oral) Aramaic sources, and there is a claim that they are early - but what is this based on? Why do they change anything?

PhilosopherJay · 05-05-2012, 12:35 PM

Hi Toto,

The evidence for the Historical Jesus is now upheld by twin pillars: 1) the inerrancy of oral tradition and 2) the magical language of Aramaic which is the only language which cannot produce fiction. (This sounds like some Muslims who contend that when the Koran is read in translation it sounds like an ordinary book, but when one reads it in Arabic, one hears the true voice of God.)
This seems like a step up from the fundamentalists who claim that only New Testament Jesus fulfilled the prophesies of the Old Testament, and therefore must be real. It is a step up, only it is not a very big step.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Ehrman sez

Quote:

There is very little dispute that some of the Gospel stories originated in Aramaic and that therefore they go back to the earliest stages of the Christian movement in Palestine.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 88). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Therefore? This is a leap of faith. He might as well be saying that Aramaic is a magic language.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 02:31 PM

Ehrman doesn't claim either one of those things. You are attacking strawmen.

Toto · 05-05-2012, 04:21 PM

What does Ehrman claim? Is he just throwing up a lot of vague associations that might lead people to think that there is some early evidence for Jesus?

Jay was being facetious, but it is hard to figure out how Ehrman can make that statement if he does not believe that oral legends in Aramaic have some special magical truthiness.

Quote:

WHAT CAN WE SAY in conclusion about the evidence that supports the view that there really was a historical Jesus, a Jewish teacher who lived in Palestine as an adult in the 20s of the Common Era, crucified under Pontius Pilate sometime around the year 30? The evidence is abundant and varied. Among the Gospels we have numerous independent accounts that attest to Jesus’s life, at least seven of them from within a hundred years of the traditional date of his death.

What are these 7 independent sources?? How can he say that the gospels are independent?

Quote:

These accounts did not appear out of thin air, however. They are based on written sources—a good number of them—that date much earlier, plausibly in some cases at least to the 50s of the Common Era.

And why should these oral legends, even if they existed, be evidence of history?

Quote:

Even these sources were not fabricated purely from the minds of their authors, however. They were based on oral traditions that had been in circulation year after year among the followers of Jesus.

How can he possibly know this?

Quote:

These oral traditions were transmitted in various areas—mainly urban areas, we might surmise—throughout the Roman Empire; some of them, however, can be located in Jesus’s homeland, Palestine, where they originally circulated in Aramaic. It appears that some, probably many, of them go back to the 30s CE.

An assertion without any supporting evidence.

Quote:

...

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 171). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Adam · 05-05-2012, 04:36 PM

Strange....
You write, Toto,
As if you had not read my new thread,
Ehrman has Casey for Aramaic Support

Yet you posted in that thread just hours ago.
Note that my OP there linked to a 120-page preview of Casey's Jesus of Nazareth (also provided by Jiri in Post #6 in this thread--both of which need to be Amazoned). Won't anyone go look at Casey's arguments that support Ehrman? Casey and Crossley date the entirety of gMark to 40 CE or earlier, so we can see why Ehrman was hesitant to footnote their names, but their arguments are strong regarding their sources even if weak on dating the final form of gMark.

You ask for seven independent sources--wasn't that what my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses
was about, at Posts #1, #18,#38, #52, #74, #132, and #144, and #170? Expanded in #230 to an unreliable eighth eyewitness notable in gMark?

Oh, that's right, that was unpalatable here, so I reduced it to three sources, Q1 and L (combined in Proto-Luke) and the Passion Narrative (as in the Johannine source). Sometimes I even dare to mention a fourth, the Johannine discourses. See my Posts #526, 534, 555, and 561 for the Gospel According to the Atheists. Almost free of supernaturalism, so no a priori reason to reject the lesser number. But that still leaves some eyewitnesses writing within a year of Jesus's life, which is the point at issue regarding Ehrman.

Toto · 05-05-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

...
Note that my OP there linked to a 120-page preview of Casey's Jesus of Nazareth (also provided by Jiri in Post #6 in this thread--both of which need to be Amazoned). Won't anyone go look at Casey's arguments that support Ehrman? Casey and Crossley date the entirety of gMark to 40 CE or earlier, so we can see why Ehrman was hesitant to footnote their names, but their arguments are strong regarding their sources even if weak on dating the final form of gMark.

There is still no logical connection between hypothetical early sources in Aramaic and historical reliability.

This is all based on the apologetic type pseudo-argument that says that the gospels could be reliable, therefore they are.

Quote:

You ask for seven independent sources--wasn't that what my thread ... was about, ...

Are you saying that Ehrman relied on your thread??

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

05-05-2012, 11:24 AM	#21
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Who says any of that? Not Ehrman. He doesn't even say the stories in Mark are true, just that they have Aramaic origins. He makes no attempt to defend the historicity of the content of those stories, only that they were originally told in Aramaic.

05-05-2012, 11:40 AM	#24
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Evidence for what? What do you think Ehrman is claiming evidence for exactly?

05-05-2012, 02:31 PM	#27
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Ehrman doesn't claim either one of those things. You are attacking strawmen.

05-05-2012, 04:36 PM	#29
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Strange.... You write, Toto, As if you had not read my new thread, Ehrman has Casey for Aramaic Support Yet you posted in that thread just hours ago. Note that my OP there linked to a 120-page preview of Casey's Jesus of Nazareth (also provided by Jiri in Post #6 in this thread--both of which need to be Amazoned). Won't anyone go look at Casey's arguments that support Ehrman? Casey and Crossley date the entirety of gMark to 40 CE or earlier, so we can see why Ehrman was hesitant to footnote their names, but their arguments are strong regarding their sources even if weak on dating the final form of gMark. You ask for seven independent sources--wasn't that what my thread Gospel Eyewitnesses was about, at Posts #1, #18,#38, #52, #74, #132, and #144, and #170? Expanded in #230 to an unreliable eighth eyewitness notable in gMark? Oh, that's right, that was unpalatable here, so I reduced it to three sources, Q1 and L (combined in Proto-Luke) and the Passion Narrative (as in the Johannine source). Sometimes I even dare to mention a fourth, the Johannine discourses. See my Posts #526, 534, 555, and 561 for the Gospel According to the Atheists. Almost free of supernaturalism, so no a priori reason to reject the lesser number. But that still leaves some eyewitnesses writing within a year of Jesus's life, which is the point at issue regarding Ehrman.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.