Steven Carr

Now that you have clarified to us that Bart was not talking about the documents that you clarified were the ones he was talking about, perhaps you can tell us which are the numerous independent sources that we , I quote, 'have'?

Diogenes the Cynic

Not exactly, no. He wrote (as per Ehrman) a midrash on Jesus built from a mixture of the LXX with pre-Markan anedotal and sayings traditions;
Of course it is. Mark connects him with real times and places and to real historical figures (like Pilate and Caiaphas). Midrashes did not tyoically invent primary characters to talk about the Bible, they invented stories to explain things that were already in the Bible or to talk about characters who were already there. There is nothing in mark's Gospel to suggest that he did not think he was writing about a real person, nor would such a fiction fit any kind of established genre or serve any religious purpose.

Furthermore, we have several other sources concurrent to or prior to Mark which only talk about Jesus as a teacher or a prophet without any biographical information or Christological development.
It doesn't matter. All that matters is if he thought Jesus was real.

Sheshbazzar

You hit the nail on the head Toto.
"Mark" is a midrash on the Septuagint prophetic figure and name of Ἰησοῦ __ 'Iēsous' ( 'Jesus' <sic>) The 'High Priest'
יהושע 'Yahshua', "Joshua" <sic> in the Hebrew. (see Zechariah 3 -written circa 520 BCE)

No, he wouldn't have. His composition was a midrash on a recurrent Tanaka prophetic figure, not on any contemporary living person.
Not at all. If I were to compose an imaginary moral/ethical/tragic story about a certain miracle working Santa Claus, set in a present day Christmas setting where he meets and interacts with President Obama and members of the the Republican Party, does it entail that the Santa figure in my fictional story, and all of the characters, all of the plot details, and all of the dialog must all be based upon literal accounts of actually occurring contemporary events?

Mark made up his tragic story (short ending gMark) out of well known elements of his societies popular Jewish and Greek legends.

Everything that 'Mark' knew about יהושע __ Ἰησοῦ 'Yahshua' __ 'Iēsous' ( "Joshua"__ "Jesus" <sic>) came from the Biblical texts, and from the 'sayings', 'parables' and traditional legends passed down to him by society.

'Mark' no more met or ever knew of any real living χριστὸς Ἰησοῦ > 'christos Iēsous' > 'Christ Jesus' <sic> than you or I have met or known the real Santa Claus from the North Pole, of our popular cultural mythology.

When one is writing a fictional story about a fictional figure from a shared cultural past there is no reason that the writer has to actually believe in the character he is inventing his story about.
But to be a successful story-teller and writer, one must identify strongly enough with the character to believe in the characters viability, and to present the character in a manner acceptable and credible to one's society, as that is the only way to get others to accept and believe in the character and in the quality of the story.

'Mark' did a terrific job at combining Jewish and Greek mythology to produce a wildly popular story with a broad audience appeal, with an theme that endured and was expanded upon repeatedly.

The case for an actual 'Jesus' will look even worse, if and when people wake up and realize the fact that 'christ Jesus' <sic> was a known figure to those familiar with the Tanaka and LXX for hundreds of years BEFORE he was 'born' in the 1st century.




ETA. Sorry Dio, I composed and posted this before I saw your reply. As you can see, I doubt very much that 'Mark' (writing in the 2nd century CE) thought that his 'Jesus' was real... If he had he wouldn't have been making up imaginary stories about 'him' -with ideas and themes borrowed from pagan Greek mythology- to please a Hellenistic public fancy.
If he had been a serious and devout Jewish believer, the story would have been much more 'Jewish' in its perspective, and ideas that derived from, or appealed to pagan Greek/Hellenistic religious sensibilities would have been scrupulously avoided.
This is not the kind of midrash that any seriously devout, Israel loving Jew would have produced.
It is rather obviously both by its content and outlook, the propaganda product of an alien Hellenist that despised the 'Jewish' religion and its institutions.



.

Diogenes the Cynic

I no longer understand what you're asking for.

Bart Ehrman does not claim - DOES NOT CLAIM - there are any written Aramaic sources. That is a strawman. He doesn't say it.

Ehrman does say there are seven independent sources simply attesting a belief that Jesus was a real person. They are not presented as evidence for what they believed about HJ, only that they believed in HJ.

This is a completely unrelated claim to his claim about Mark having some Aramaic oral sources. One has nothing to do with the other. people are conflating two different claims here.

To clarify:

Ehrman claims we have at least 7 independent sources attesting a belief that Jesus was a real person withing 100 years of the crucifixion.

He says that one of these sources, Mark, has some material which derives from Aramaic oral sources.

Ehrman does not claim "Aramaic documents," at all, much less 7 of them.

Toto

Are you saying that gMark does not serve a religious purpose? This argument is just getting stranger and stranger.

And there is a lot in Mark's gospel that suggests he might not have been writing about a real person.

What sources are those? Paul does not talk about Jesus as a teacher or prophet - all those earthly elements except for the crucifixion are missing from Paul's theology, and the Christology is high.

The only source that is possibly before Mark and talks about Jesus as a teacher is the reduced version of Josephus, which you have just told us Ehrman does not use as a source. Or Q? which cannot be dated before Mark and which we don't have as a source.

Is Erhman this bad at logic?

Oh but yes it does matter. If Ehrman is going to claim that there is a slam dunk case for Jesus' existence, and the only evidence is someone a few generations later who thought that he existed, then Carrier is right to charge scholarly incompetence.

Diogenes the Cynic

No, I'm saying Mark is a religious midrash on someone the author believed to have been a real person.
Like what?
Thomas and Q, both of which have low Christologies.
Thomas and Q are both at least concurrent, if not prior to Mark, and they are independent of Mark.
The claim is that there are many sources within the first 100 years, who all independently speak of Jesus as a real person, and we have no source at all which expresses a belief in a mythical Jesus or claims anyone else believed in a mythical Jesus.

Grog

Why is that all that matters?

Even if "Mark" thought Jesus was real, that doesn't mean that Jesus was real.

Steven Carr

That could be because you chopped out what Ehrman said.

''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.''

Where are the numerous, independent accounts of Jesus life in the sources behind the Gospels - accounts of Jesus life that Ehrman dates to within a year or two of his life and were in Aramaic?

Ehrman also clearly states that the sources behind Paul were in Aramaic.



Where are they?

Are they invisible? We have them, but I can't see them....

Toto

You did say that "such a fiction would not serve any religious purpose." You withdraw that?

Mark's Jesus hears god talk to him, is tempted by Satan, performs miracles, and rises from the dead. These are not the actions of mundane people.

You can't date Q. We don't have Q. We infer its existence. Thomas is dated early or late according to the convenience of the scholar, but many consider it derivative of the gospels.


Seven is not "many" and even Ehrman's seven are not clearly independent and do not clearly speak of Jesus as a real person.

It sounds like Ehrman has been reading the bad logic of apologetic historicists for so long he can't even see how flimsy the case is.

Steven Carr

I'm pretty sure I can find 20 Mormons in the 19th century who independently claimed that the Angel Moroni existed.