tanya

Yes, Bernard, I do remember to what you expressed objection:

Well, I disagree with you. They both wrote in Greek, not Latin, but, as I understand it, Greek was the lingua franca of the region during the first couple centuries CE. They were both Roman citizens, or, at least, citizens of the Roman empire, both held in highest esteem, by the emperor of Rome.

To the best of my knowledge, neither author refers to Jesus, in any way.

Whether Josephus was transported to Rome, as prisoner and then released, or he was released by the Roman soldiers, before being transported to Rome, is utterly irrelevant to the point under discussion: Ehrman's article and Carrier's response written in reply to it.....

Nothing, I hope. I am interested in the topic of this thread, which is not "Josephus as a prisoner of the Romans", but "Ehrman's article, and Carrier's response to it".

Must I repeat my question, for you to respond?

:huh:

youngalexander

Yes, I must admit that I thort he went a little too far with the rhetoric. A more restrained effort such as that for McGrath would have served him better. Nevertheless, all good clean fun.

Bernard Muller

to Tanya,
Well, my statement is still right. What is wrong with it? Did Ehrman include Philo and Josephus as Roman sources?

Yes it is relevant because you challenged me on Josephus being a prisoner in Rome. Actually he was not, even not when he was going to Rome, and even not some time in Judea before he started his voyage to Rome.

Adam

Carrier in the above link to his blog takes Ehrman's Aramaic source in the 30's as meaning Q. However (using the search feature available to everyone on the internet), at page 81 Ehrman allows that John Mark may have written the Passion Narrative very early, so Carrier seems to be in error about what Aramaic source Ehrman was talking about.

Of course, in my own Gospel Eyewitness thread here on FRDB I have argued not just that the Passion Narrative was written in Aramaic, but Q1 as well. I also accept that James R. Edwards in The Hebrew Gospel & the development of the Synoptic Tradition (2009) has adequately shown that L is replete with Semitisms (from Hebrew, in his opinion), and displays this quite well in his Appendix II pp. 294-332). All these I include in my "Gospel According to the Atheists".

These three sources in Aramaic are most conveniently found in Posts #1, #5, and #6 here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7594923/
In the other posts there I recognize the Signs Gospel and the main editorial work in John as done in Greek. The other eyewitness documents from Peter and from Nicodemus may have been originally written in Aramaic as well, though not easily proven to be so.
easier than throughout various threads here at FRDB.

youngalexander

Like Gdon earlier, you are commenting upon a blog which deals only with Ehrman's Hufpost article by referring to the contents of his recent book.

Carrier has stated that he will review the book when he receives it. He has also stated that he is well aware that Ehrman is likely to have far more cogent arguments and to express them more accurately as regards the evidence in that book. However, the article is the present focus of his attention, and he claims that it is severely wanting in both evidentary accuracy and cogency of logic.

Further, he is incensed that such 'lapses' should be promulgated in a popular publication leading to;
This discussion has legs. How about we stick to the points of relevance as they occur before jumping to future debate?

Grog

These are not sources that we have in hand. 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?

Grog

One thing that I don't think has been pointed out in any of these Ehrman threads is the possibility of Gal 2 having been tampered with. In one of these threads, I cited Ehrman's very good peer-reviewed JBL article in which he concludes that Cephas/Peter were two different people. He now dismisses that position as once "toying" with that idea (his reasoning faculties have seemed to diminish, though, since his current argument displays none of the erudition of the 1990 article). I was getting to a broader point on that...that is there are problems in that text, exactly where Ehrman is locating the very best evidence for the historicity of Jesus. Right there in Galatians 2 where we see very real problems with Cephas/Peter. I do agree that he is right that Cephas and Peter cannot have been two different people, but that does not explain the problem in Gal 2, it just leaves it there. The other explanation is that this text has been tampered with. I believe that it opens the door for considering the possibility that James, the brother of the Lord, is a later interpolation (though there are several other just as strong arguments, such as Carrier's). AND, there is evidence that ancient texts of Galatians did not include "James, the brother of the Lord." I refer here to the reconstructions of Marcion's Galatians. Tertullian argued that Marcion doctored this text, but do we have to follow Terutullian in this matter? Even if Tertullian's charges are true, we can see that Galatians has been re-doctored, set right, so to speak.

I am not saying that we know this is an interpolation. I am saying that there is enough to say this is a weak platform on which to build the facade of the HJ on.