Solo

Just through the book. Ehrman's case is simple and he outlined his methodology many times before: (eg here on YouTube).

There is precious few new arguments in the Ehrman's. What there is, is mostly self-validating pap which is fit to be fed his freshmen class at Chapel Hil.

Eg. he claims that Mark's use of aramaism, or in some instances, aramaic words and phrases, is evidence of underlying oral sources. But that is a complete non-sequitur. If course, theoretically it could be that these expressions originate in actual sayings of Jesus, but they just as well may be used as a tool to create the illusion of historical authenticity. We have one example of this in Acts 1:18-19 where Luke inserts an editor's note saying all people in Jerusalem heard of the end of Judas and that "Akeldama in their language means field of blood". So for all the Professor knows, the import of the use of the presumed native tongue of Jesus, does not guarantee the historical ground to Jesus any more than the heroic attempts at faking German by the Royal Guardsmen , is a gurantee of the historic existence of The Red Baron (Manfred von Richthofen).

Best,
Jiri

Steven Carr

'Eg. he claims that Mark's use of aramaism, or in two instances, aramaic phrases, is evidence of underlying oral sources.'

The Hitler Diaries were in German - the very language Hitler spoke. They must be genuine!

aa5874

Bart Ehrman himself claimed that once we see passages in two sources that are identical word for word then those sources either copied one or the other or used the same source.

The author of gMark copied an Hebrew source, Psalms 22, which contains the words, " My God my God why has thou forsaken me".

If Bart Ehrman is the Best for the HJ argument then it is all over.

Bart Ehrman has EXPOSED that his Scholarship is worthless.

Solo

Not sure this is a good analogy: Ehrman uses the perceived aramaic textual ground to gospels written in Greek, i.e. a different language, as argument for historicity. The Hitler diaries had no such issue.

But the diaries are interesting in the context of Ehrman's new book, in that they provide a telling rebuttal to the argument from "academic credentials", the nutty "ipse dixit" that Jay Raskin pointed to. I am refering to the sad "authentication" of the diaries by a leading expert on Nazi Germany, and a celebrated scholar Hugh Trevor-Roper.

Best,
Jiri

Steven Carr

Agreed. The Hitler diaries were in a language Hitler spoke, while the Gospels are not in Aramaic.

And how does that help Ehrman any?

What would have helped Ehrman was actually addressing any of Doherty's points.

Diogenes the Cynic

The thing is, there wasn't any doubt that the Jesus cult had an Aramaic origin anyway, was there? So Aramaisms (which I personally have no problem agreeing would suggest [though not prove] some Aramaic origin for some of the material in Mark) would really only show that the Jesus cult had an Aramaic origin, not that they went back to a specific Aramaic speaker.

I'm personally still (just barely) in the HJ camp. I was hoping for the best marshaled and updated argument possible, because I think it's sorely needed, but I'm not sure this is it. Ridiculing the opposition is not, in itself, an argument.

The basis for the HJ case is what it is, though. We all know it - Josephus, Tactitus, Paul calls James"brother of the Lord," criteria of dissimilarity with baptism by John ("they wouldn't have made it up"), and failed "this generation" prophecy.

I guess Ehrman is adding in the Aramaisms in Mark, but obviously is not presenting any new evidence (not that he should be expected to).

People are either persuaded by this data or they are not. I think that the real evidence for HJ is painfully slender (the awareness of which I think can be shown in the defensiveness of the mainstream), but still (in my opinion) is enough to make some kind of HJ slightly more likely than not.

I will also say that I don't think he mythicists have yet proven non-historicity. I think some of them (Doherty, Price, Carrier) make a respectable case for the possibility, but not proven it outright.

I think current HJ scholars are to wedded to their own personal pet theories (they all have them, don't they? And isn't it funny how positive they are that Jesus lived as a real person, but that each of their reconstructions results in a completely different character from everybody else's reconstruction? They are sure he existed, but just can't agree on anything he said or did), and published work on the issue, so even admitting the possibility of the non-historicity of Jesus is counter to their own reputations and careers built on presumptions of historicity.

I think there is an element of the Emperor having no clothes here, or at least nothing but a pair of socks. I don't mean to say that they don't have a case for historicity, but it is dishonest for them to assert that the evidence is dispositive or unassailable. I have no problem with them saying, "we think there probably was an HJ" (I think that myself), but asserting that the matter is beyond question, and that all mythers are nutters on a level with holocaust deniers and Birthers is neither accurate nor honest.

Godfrey

Is Ehrman's book intended as a rebuttal to Doherty? I haven't seen it billed that way.

You seem to have a rather large ax to grind, considering you're in possession of the book, have admittedly not read it, and are already posting a negative diatribe.

aa5874

Why, Why, Why are you promoting propaganda???

1. You very well know that Tacitus did NOT mention Jesus.

2. You very well know that the TF is a forgery or manipulated.

3. You very well know that EVEN Apologetic sources, like Origen and Jerome, who mentioned Galatians 1.19 STILL claimed Jesus was FATHERED by a Holy Ghost or that James the Apostle had NO human called Jesus Christ

When will all your propaganda end???

You cannot continue day after day making statement about sources of antiquity that has been CONSTANTLY and CONTINUOUSLY DEBUNKED.

There is NO credible historical source for an HJ of Nazareth.

ALL of sudden the HJ argument is falling apart. HJers appear to be in a FAR WORSE position than anticipated.

HJ Scholars do NOT know what THEIR Jesus said or did!!!!!

The BLIND and DEAF FAITH of HJ Scholars SURPASSES the FUNDAMENTALISTS.

Well, we ALL NOW KNOW who were dishonest from the start. This is NO surprise.

Over 1500 years ago an Apologetic author made a Prediction that has come true.

Against Celsus 1.32 Apologetic sources claimed THEIR JESUS, THEIR SAVIOUR, THEIR LORD, THEIR SON OF GOD, was FATHERED by a GHOST.

THEIR JESUS WAS A MYTH!!!!

I don't have to INVENT any falsehood.

hjalti

I think that is clearly the background. "The all" comes from god, and "the all" goes through Jesus.

I think it's rather strange to interpret it as meaning "Christ has given all good things to those of Paul's time". Doesn't that seem less probable to you?

There is a quote there:Is Ehrman using the interpolation in 1Thess 2 as an evidence of what Paul knew? Why would he do that? :huh:

hjalti

Yeah, this comparison with holocaust deniers is absurd and below the belt.