Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 04-20-2012, 08:22 PM

I seriously doubt that Bart Eherman ever read you 'Gospel Eyewitnesses' thread.

If he had ever seen what a dismal mess that turned out to be, he would have more likely edited out any references to Aramic sources, or canceled the publication of his book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

See also my #54 in Richard Carrier blogs about Ehrman's article for three early sources in Aramaic.

Why have you not answerd Grog's questions in #56 of that same thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

These are hypothetical sources and I think the consensus is that they were written in Greek, not Aramaic. Q, if it even existed, is a Greek composition.

And...instead of linking to another board, why not just summarize your argument here. If we were to respond, we'd have to pull it over. Why make us do the work if it is your argument?

?

Adam · 04-20-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Why have you not answerd Grog's questions in #56 of that same thread.

"To be Q, or not to be Q" seems to be the question, but I took Grog's question as his hard-and-fast position. People's minds are rarely changed here, and belief or disbelief in Q seems to be one of those issues. If you think I need make him see the light, I guess I should answer him over there.

jdl · 04-20-2012, 09:22 PM

According to someone on the JesusMysteries list, Ehrman plans write a blog post in response to Carrier. I can't imagine how he could possibly rebut it, though. Most of those errors seem pretty incontestable.

Joseph

Sheshbazzar · 04-20-2012, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Why have you not answerd Grog's questions in #56 of that same thread.

"To be Q, or not to be Q" seems to be the question, but I took Grog's question as his hard-and-fast position. People's minds are rarely changed here, and belief or disbelief in Q seems to be one of those issues. If you think I need make him see the light, I guess I should answer him over there.

I am waiting for you to do so.
Also for you to provide clear evidence of the existence of any early Gospel sources in Aramaic.

Grog · 04-20-2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

When I read this claim about "aramaic sources" in the HuffPo piece, I literally fell out of my chair. Aramaic sources written down within a few years of the crucifixion?

Yes, that quite surprised me as well. I immediately posted #121 to
Bart Ehrman's new book - did my prophecy come true?

in which I speculated that Ehrman had been reading several of my recent posts harking back to my thread on Gospel Eyewitnesses. I soon recalled that several academics (that Ehrman did not bother to cite) were saying that, Maurice Casey and James Crossley.

See also my #54 in Richard Carrier blogs about Ehrman's article for three early sources in Aramaic.

Also my #113 in Abe reviews Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist?":
Ehrman is saying there are seven sources, without ever committing to my thesis that there are seven eyewitnesses. He even says three may be from the 30's. My thesis on my Gospel Eyewitnesses supports that. See my summary in Post #526 in the first five paragraphs:
Gospel Eyewitnesses #526

I see assertions, and only assertions in that post. So...after that I'm not willing to go down the pigeon hole. If you have a point, say it here. There's no evidence of Aramaic sources. AND, as Carrier points out, even if there were that doesn't necessarily suggest authenticity. Aramaic sources could be fiction just as Greek ones can. So even if you were to (and I don't think you can) excavate "Aramaic sources" you are still dealing with, as nearly all scholars accept, fiction, not "eyewitness" reports.

Grog · 04-20-2012, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Well, ok, it depends on what you mean by punches. The murdering of trees and electrons was a very good zinger. But in terms of laying out Ehrman's arguments and responding to them, yes. That's just my opinion. I like Carrier, don't get me wrong. But we can't all just be fanboys, can we?

You are the one who claimed you see better "knock out punches" at other sites.

Ehrman is being Pulverised by his PEERS.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

....The review was not quite the knock out punch I think could have been delivered. I am seeing better at other sites, but mostly what one would consider knowledgeable "lay people."

When Carrier claimed Ehrman was incompetent then IT WAS ALL OVER.

I'd like to read more reviews if you could link to them. You seem to think I'm defending Ehrman and I'm not. I think what I said about Carrier's review speaks for itself. Carrier delivered rhetorical punches, like calling Ehrman incompetent or the closing about wasting trees, etc. My point was I would have liked to see more meat on that review. I know it's there, I just wish we didn't get distractions like the savior of the world bust.

Grog · 04-20-2012, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Why have you not answerd Grog's questions in #56 of that same thread.

"To be Q, or not to be Q" seems to be the question, but I took Grog's question as his hard-and-fast position. People's minds are rarely changed here, and belief or disbelief in Q seems to be one of those issues. If you think I need make him see the light, I guess I should answer him over there.

Oh, I am on the fence when it comes to Q. It is an attractive hypothesis.

Grog · 04-20-2012, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdl

According to someone on the JesusMysteries list, Ehrman plans write a blog post in response to Carrier. I can't imagine how he could possibly rebut it, though. Most of those errors seem pretty incontestable.

Joseph

Well, this might get even more interesting.

Sheshbazzar · 04-20-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Why have you not answered Grog's questions in #56 of that same thread.

"To be Q, or not to be Q" seems to be the question, but I took Grog's question as his hard-and-fast position. People's minds are rarely changed here, and belief or disbelief in Q seems to be one of those issues. If you think I need make him see the light, I guess I should answer him over there.

Oh, I am on the fence when it comes to Q. It is an attractive hypothesis.

But WHERE, by WHOM, in WHAT LANGUAGE, and WHEN, remains essential to determining the value of any such proposed seminal text.

A 'Q' that was written in Rome or in Antioch, by Greeks in Greek, late in the 1st or early 2nd century is of very little value in establishing the historical actuality of a highly mythologized Judean preacher.
Even if we had the original document from this era, (which we certainly don't) if it were in the Greek, and only consisted of those elements already present in our texts, it would still do nothing to prove the veracity of the tale.

jdl · 04-20-2012, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Well, this might get even more interesting.

Exciting, isn't it? Just when I was getting bored watching McGrath make a fool of himself in exchanges with Godfrey and Carrier, Ehrman enters to the ring to rejuvenate the waning bloodsport know as HJ vs MJ. I really think Hector Avalos was wrong to call for an end to biblical studies as we know it. He should have called for a complete merging of the genres of scholarship and soap opera.

Joseph

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

04-20-2012, 09:22 PM	#73
jdl Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Auckland Posts: 85	According to someone on the JesusMysteries list, Ehrman plans write a blog post in response to Carrier. I can't imagine how he could possibly rebut it, though. Most of those errors seem pretty incontestable. Joseph

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.