Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Steven Carr · 05-06-2012, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

In all the fuss over Bart's new book, not even his greatest defenders, not even Bart himself felt ready to throw themselves on the grenades and try to defend Bart's claim 'With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.'

Diogenes has kindly told us what these numerous, independent accounts are - the ones that originated in Aramaic, as per Bart's claim, the one that is being defended as accurate.

They are (I hope I quoted Diogenes correctly here) :-

'Just so we all know what we're talking about, this is a list of Ehrman's 7 independent sources within 100 years of the alleged crucifixion:

Paul
Mark
Q
Thomas
John
GPeter
P. Egerton 2'

These all originated in Aramaic, according to Bart. I hope I haven't misunderstood.

mountainman · 05-06-2012, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

They are (I hope I quoted Diogenes correctly here) :-

'Just so we all know what we're talking about, this is a list of Ehrman's 7 independent sources within 100 years of the alleged crucifixion:

Paul
Mark
Q
Thomas
John
GPeter
P. Egerton 2'

These all originated in Aramaic, according to Bart. I hope I haven't misunderstood.

Dating the Egerton Gospel

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Dating the manuscript

The date of the fragment is established on paleography alone.

When the Egerton fragment was first analyzed, the estimated date was rivaled in age only by the John Rylands Library fragment of the Gospel of John. Later, when an additional piece of the same manuscript was identified in the University of Cologne collection (Papyrus Köln 255) and published in 1987— it fit on the bottom of one of the Egerton pages— a single use of an apostrophe, which was not normally added to Greek punctuation until the 3rd century, sufficed to revise the date of the manuscript. This study placed the manuscript to around the time of Bodmer Papyri P66,

c. 200 CE.[2]

This is a circus.

hjalti · 05-06-2012, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Th Egerton Gospel contains a story which is not found in any other source. That particular story is, therefore, independent by definition.

Ok. So let's say that an author around 120 copies Mk word for word, except that he decides to throw in a story that he himself created. If we had that gospel, would we then have another independent witness of Jesus?

yalla · 05-06-2012, 03:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

They are (I hope I quoted Diogenes correctly here) :-

'Just so we all know what we're talking about, this is a list of Ehrman's 7 independent sources within 100 years of the alleged crucifixion:

Paul
Mark
Q
Thomas
John
GPeter
P. Egerton 2'

These all originated in Aramaic, according to Bart. I hope I haven't misunderstood.

Dating the Egerton Gospel

Quote:

Originally Posted by WIKI

Dating the manuscript

The date of the fragment is established on paleography alone.

When the Egerton fragment was first analyzed, the estimated date was rivaled in age only by the John Rylands Library fragment of the Gospel of John. Later, when an additional piece of the same manuscript was identified in the University of Cologne collection (Papyrus Köln 255) and published in 1987— it fit on the bottom of one of the Egerton pages— a single use of an apostrophe, which was not normally added to Greek punctuation until the 3rd century, sufficed to revise the date of the manuscript. This study placed the manuscript to around the time of Bodmer Papyri P66,

c. 200 CE.[2]

This is a circus.

"....until the 3rd century...."
Therefore ... wait for it .... 200CE at the earliest.

Solo · 05-06-2012, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

....

Ehrman does not say any of these sources contain reliable information about Jesus, he's only citing them to show the authors thought Jesus really existed.

So "Mark" wrote a midrash of the Septuagint, featuring Jesus, but not including any reliable historical information. Is this evidence that Mark thought Jesus existed? Is there any evidence that Mark knew enough about Jesus to know whether he existed or not?

This case looks worse and worse.

Luckily, for the historicist case though, Mark assails and denigrates the historical witness of Jesus. So does Paul. It is clear that Mark was composing his own story out of the tanakh and Paul (to add the air of mystery) but something likely happened and had Jesus in it, even if we don't know what. History was overwritten by theology.

Best,
Jiri

Grog · 05-06-2012, 07:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

... but something likely happened and had Jesus in it, even if we don't know what. History was overwritten by theology.

Best,
Jiri

Can you cite the best evidence for this case?

What is the "something' that was likely to have happened?

If that something didn't include an actual Resurrection, how do you explain Paul's evidence that there was at least second hand evidence of it (not to mention Paul's own first-hand claim)?

Paul claims that 500 people saw the Risen Christ. Did Paul make that up? Did Jesus' disciples make up that claim?

IF something likely occurred, why dismiss what Paul says Early Christians firmly believed: that Jesus rose from the dead?

IF the claim is that something happened that involved Jesus crucified under Pilate, why were there so many first century attestations to a resurrection?

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

aa5874 · 05-06-2012, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Luckily, for the historicist case though, Mark assails and denigrates the historical witness of Jesus. So does Paul. It is clear that Mark was composing his own story out of the tanakh and Paul (to add the air of mystery) but something likely happened and had Jesus in it, even if we don't know what. History was overwritten by theology.

Best,
Jiri

Your assertion that the author of gMark used Paul is just mere forced PROPAGANDA.

1. The Markan Jesus was the Son of God and a Phenomenal MIRACLE worker.

2.The Pauline Jesus was NOT known to Perform a single Miracle.

3. The Markan Jesus was NOT a Savior for the Jews and did NOT want the Jews to be converted.

4. The Pauline Jesus was a UNIVERSAL Savior.

5. The Markan Jesus was NOT publicly known as Christ and did NOT want outsiders to know he was Christ.

6. The Pauline Jesus was LORD, Christ and had a name ABOVE every name on earth and even the Deified Emperors should Bow to his name.

7. gMark has ZERO theology--gMark is just a story about a SuperMiracle worker called the Son of God.

8. The Pauline letters are fundamentally ALL THEOLOGY.

Steven Carr · 05-06-2012, 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog

Paul claims that 500 people saw the Risen Christ. Did Paul make that up? Did Jesus' disciples make up that claim?

IF something likely occurred, why dismiss what Paul says Early Christians firmly believed: that Jesus rose from the dead?

IF the claim is that something happened that involved Jesus crucified under Pilate, why were there so many first century attestations to a resurrection?

Do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead?

To apply one of Ehrman's sentences in a slightly different context - if Jesus was not raised from the dead, then surely his brother would have known....

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-06-2012, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

In all the fuss over Bart's new book, not even his greatest defenders, not even Bart himself felt ready to throw themselves on the grenades and try to defend Bart's claim 'With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves). Historical sources like that are is pretty astounding for an ancient figure of any kind.'

Diogenes has kindly told us what these numerous, independent accounts are - the ones that originated in Aramaic, as per Bart's claim, the one that is being defended as accurate.

They are (I hope I quoted Diogenes correctly here) :-

'Just so we all know what we're talking about, this is a list of Ehrman's 7 independent sources within 100 years of the alleged crucifixion:

Paul
Mark
Q
Thomas
John
GPeter
P. Egerton 2'

These all originated in Aramaic, according to Bart. I hope I haven't misunderstood.

You have misunderstood. Ehrman does not say those sources had Aramaic origins, only that they are independent claims for a historical Jesus. Ehrman makes no claim for any written Aramaic sources. Ehrman's claims for Aramaic sources is limited only to the pericopes with Aramaisms in Mark, and he says they had oral origins not written ones.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-06-2012, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hjalti

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Th Egerton Gospel contains a story which is not found in any other source. That particular story is, therefore, independent by definition.

Ok. So let's say that an author around 120 copies Mk word for word, except that he decides to throw in a story that he himself created. If we had that gospel, would we then have another independent witness of Jesus?

Nothing in Egerton is copied from Mark. It's similar, but not copied.

And nobody said "witness." Ehrman is clear that we have no witnesses of Jesus. All he's saying by pointing at these sources is that these authors all thought Jesus was a real person.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.