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.'

Somebody must be willing to stop a bullet for Bart.

Is anybody going to sacrifice themselves and defend Ehrman's reputation as a scholar?

tanya

Thank you Steven.

I share your amazement at Dr. Ehrman's introduction of supposed primary sources written in Aramaic.

As I read your OP in this new thread, I thought about this phrase from your last sentence in particular:
If one solicits information on Ehrman's scholarly contributions, as opposed to his mass media pablum, one observes Didymus the Blind, written a quarter century ago.

It would appear that Didymus, fourth century Alexandrian, presumably writing in Greek, authored some text, which today, apparently exists only in Latin translation:

Adversus Manichaeos

I am curious to learn what Dr. Ehrman wrote, regarding Mani, in Ehrman's "scholarly" account of Didymus' travails. Have you had an opportunity to read this book? Is Ehrman's summary of Didymus comparable to his claim regarding legendary, non-existent, Aramaic sources?

andrewcriddle

AFAIK the original Greek of Didymus' work against the Manichaeans still survives. PG_Migne Didymus the Blind Contra Manichaeos

Andrew Criddle

graymouser

No, but I will ask one question: are you a professional textual critic? If not, why should I take your word over Ehrman's on the extrapolated results of modern text criticism in terms of the hypothetical sources of the canonical and non-canonical Gospels?

Steven Carr

So you can see these invisible documents as well?

How did Ehrman date them so precisely?

But I do like your claim that the evidence Bart produced consists of hypothetical sources.

Can I quote you on that? The evidence for Jesus that Bart produces consists of hypothetical sources....

Ehrman goes on to claim that the story of Jesus raising a girl from the dead goes back to very early, because it has 2 Aramaic words in it.

So it must be authentic!

DCHindley

Why don't you Google the terms "Aramaic sources" with "gospels" or "Q" and see what comes up?

The first thing that pops up is a review of Maurice Casey's, Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel (1998), which includes a review of Casey's methodology.

It says, in part:

Casey proposes a seven point method of recovering the Aramaic substrata of the canonical Greek gospels, which can be summarized as follows:

1. Select only passages that show signs of literal translation.
2. Determine Aramaic substratum, utilizing first-century Aramaic.
3. Verify that reconstruction is sufficiently idiomatic Aramaic.
4. Interpret the reconstruction from a first-century Jewish perspective.
5. Re-evaluate the reconstruction from the perspective of the translator.
6. Determine whether there was deliberate editing on the part of the translator.
7. Final assessment of probability of reconstruction.
Bryn Mawr Classical Review 1999.12.03

Casey only looks at 4 passages in Mark that have the phrase "son of man" but he follows it up with An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (2002).

According to the preface by the series editor:

This is the first hook to examine the Aramaic dimension of Q since the Aramaic Dead Sea scrolls made such work more feasible. Maurice Casey gives a detailed examination of Matthew 23.23-36 and Luke 11.39-51 and demonstrates that the evangelists used two different Greek translations of an Aramaic source, which can be reconstructed. He overturns the conventional model of Q as a single Greek document, and shows that Jesus said everything in the original Aramaic source. His further analysis of Matthew 11.2-19 and Luke 7.18-35 shows the evangelists editing one Greek translation of an Aramaic source. The same is true of Matthew 12.22-32//Luke 11.14-23. for which Mark (3.20-31) utilised a different Aramaic source. A complex model of Q is thus proposed. Casey offers a compelling argument that Aramaic sources behind part of Q are of extremely early date, and should make a significant contribution to the quest of the historical Jesus.

The first 20 pages can be seen or downloaded here.

According to Casey, the pioneer was Matthew Black:

An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (1946). In this book. Black gathered together the best of previous work, and added many points of his own. Hence its position as the standard work on its subject. In his review of previous work. Black laid down a number of correct principles.

I'll make the assumption (perhaps in error) that Ehrman is in agreement with Casey here, so you can probably peruse Casey's books for the gist of these independent sources (two different Greek translations of an Aramaic original sayings source used by the authors of Matthew and Luke).

By the by, I am not saying I think it is true. There is a tendency among some who hold the romantic notion that Jesus was a harmless itinerant wisdom teacher to try to date the recording of his words extremely early, in fact even earlier than most fundamantalists do. I have not yet read Casey.

DCH

Sheshbazzar

I also date much of the content of the Gospels very early and much of it originating in Aramaic, with most of Jeebus's 'sayings' and 'parables' being lifted from BCE sources, bundled up and all crammed into Jeebus's mouth by church writers who never met the man, and never heard 'him' speak a single word.

To me it wouldn't matter even if Bart and his cronies could slap an authentic first century Aramaic Gospel on the table. Crap is crap no matter when, where, or by whom it was written.

I hear people making up their miraculous religious crap and trying to sell it to me today. I can stand face to face with these religious shit peddlers, and still not believe any of the lying horse-shit that they are trying to sell. It stinks. Just like that old horse-shit that inspired them to make it up.

graymouser

So I take it you are not a text-critical scholar, and are not acquainted with the question of hypothetical Gospel sources? Because that's what Ehrman was talking about. Yelling nonsense about "invisible documents" is just embarrassing yourself. I'm willing to listen to counter-arguments that at least show some sign of understanding the methodology of textual criticism, but you just keep talking about these things in ways that makes me think you don't understand them.

Sheshbazzar

A 'hypothetical' this, cannot not support any 'Thus we can conclude that...'

Grog

Yes, invisible is the wrong word because that implies they exist, we just can't see them.