Sheshbazzar

Your misunderstanding then. I was only replying in reference to your posts being comprised of bald-faced assertions made without evidence, proofs, or substance.
I do not endorse the idea that any of these wholly -hypothetical- so called 'Q' sources ever existed.
Let someone produce an actual and provably authentic 1c. CE 'Q' source Aramaic document and then I will accept it. Until then, no.
Like aa I require hard evidence, not pie-in-the-sky theories.

My position regarding the origins of these NT writings is well evidenced by the several times and threads within this Forum where I have clearly explained that I believe that all of these texts, both Epistles and Gospels are compositions of a very late date.

Representative of this is my statement from #84 in this very thread in reply to your unprovinanced imaginative scenario regarding the composition of GLuke
As well, my arguments presented in Posts #62 #87 & #90 of 'When was The First Epistle of Clement Written?' are very clear that I date all of the NT texts as being of a very late composition and in Greek.
Right or wrong that is presently my honest opinion and clearly stated position, and I do not care to have you misrepresent it.
I'm not Nicodemus you know. I am present, alive, and I can and will object.

jdl

Ehrman is going through a bullet point list of errors in The Jesus Mysteries. This is one of his bullet points.
Make of that what you will, but personally I think Carrier was correct to castigate Ehrman for this.

Joseph

stephan huller

I think the context is Palestinian records.

jdl

That might be what Ehrman means, Stephan, but that's not what he said. The words written on that page are wrong. Any context you might infer is just that, an inference. As it stands he made a blanket statement that will mislead uninformed readers.

Joseph

GakuseiDon

Thanks for that, Joseph. I thought it sounded like Ehrman was commenting on a list of bullet points.

I find it hard to believe that a textual critic, who relies on versions found in ancient rubbish yards buried in the sands of time, is unaware that the Romans kept records. It borders on an extraordinary claim. I can see why Carrier finds it unbelievable.

Out of interest, for those like me without the book, I found a website that lists Ehrman's responses to a few of those bullet points:
http://bbhchurchconnection.wordpress...-the-woodshed/

• Constantine made Christianity the state religion of the empire (11). [No, he did not. He made it a legal religion. It was not made the state religion until the end of the fourth century under Theodosius.]
• Eleusinian mysteries focused on the godman Dionysius (18,22). [Not true. These mysteries were not about Dionysius but about the goddess Demeter.]
• “Descriptions by Christian authors of Christian baptism are indistinguishable from pagan descriptions of Mystery Baptism” (36). [How could we possible know this? We don't have a single description in any source of any kind of baptism in the mystery religions.]
• The Romans were ‘renowned for keeping careful records of all their activities, especially their legal proceedings,’ making it surprising that ‘there is no record of Jesus being tried by Pontus Pilate or executed’ (133). [If Romans were careful about record keepers, it is passing strange that we have no records, not only of Jesus but of nearly anyone who lived in the first century. We simply don't have birth notices, trial records, death certificates--or other standard kinds of records that one has today. Freke and Gandy, of course, do not cite a single example of anyone else's death warrant from the first century.]
• Many early Christians rejected Mark’s Gospel as noncanonical (146). [Actually, Mark was everywhere accepted as canonical; in fact, every surviving Christian document that refers to it accepts its canonicity.]
• Paul never mentions Jesus in his ethical teaching (152). [As we will see, this is simply wrong; see 1 Corinthians 7:10-11; 9:14; 11:22-24.]
• The word for spiritual gifts, charismata, is taken from ‘the Mystery term makarismos, referring to the blessed nature of one who has seen the Mysteries’ (162). [They just made that up. The two words are etymologically unrelated. Charismata comes from the Greek word charisma, which means 'gift.' It is not connected with the mystery religions.]
• The Romans ‘completely destroyed the state of Judea in 112 CE’ (178). [This is a bizarre claim. there was not even a war between Rome and Judea in 112 CE; there were wars in 66-70 and 132-35 CE.]

stephan huller

this is how we're gonna win the war? being nitpicky like this? why not present a clear vision of what the myth of jesus was? ehrman is a good storyteller. that's his strength

GakuseiDon

I disagree. Read it again, noting the bold:

If Romans were careful record keepers, it is passing strange that we have no records, not only of Jesus but of nearly anyone who lived in the first century. We simply don't have birth notices, trial records, death certificates--or other standard kinds of records that one has today.

Doesn't that suggest that we have records for some people in the first century?

hjalti

Hmm...that seems like a strange assertion to me. Did e.g. the Marcionites accept Mark as "canonical"?

jdl

Not to me. English is my first language, I'm reasonably educated, and when I read that paragraph as straightforwardly as possible, it's incorrect. As worded it seems to mean "We have some kinds of record for people in this period, like mentions in contemporary writers, but official records of the sort we produce these days, simply haven't survived." That's what it implies to me, and although Ehrman probably didn't mean it that way, most lay readers would surely come away with that impression.

Joseph

mountainman

The myth of jesus is like the myth of holocaust denial?

ehrman is a professional storyteller

hegemonic pre$tige is his refuge.