Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dog-on · 03-27-2012, 04:37 AM

Interestingly, Ehrman basically says that all the standard non Christian sources, Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, Pliny, etc. are pretty much irrelevant to answering the question of Jesus's historicity, even pointing out in Chapter 2:

Quote:

the mythicists and their opponents like to fight long and hard over the Testimonium of Josephus, in fact it is only marginally relevant to the question of whether Jesus existed.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 1013-1015). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Ehrman has so far been fairly balanced (through Chapter 2), no major issues other than the Mark source thing.

Anyway, on to Chapter 3, "The Gospels as Historical Sources", this should be interesting...

judge · 03-27-2012, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Edit: If Mark's source was Hebrew Scripture, specifically HS translated into Greek (LXX) by, well, Jews, wouldn't that go a long way towards explaining Aramaic words and phrases in his gospel?

How would mark using a greek version of the OT explain the use of Aramaic words?

Also remember that marks version of the parable of the vineayrds reflects things found not in the (our) LXX or the massoretic text but Aramaic targums.

dog-on · 03-27-2012, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Edit: If Mark's source was Hebrew Scripture, specifically HS translated into Greek (LXX) by, well, Jews, wouldn't that go a long way towards explaining Aramaic words and phrases in his gospel?

How would mark using a greek version of the OT explain the use of Aramaic words?

Also remember that marks version of the parable of the vineayrds reflects things found not in the (our) LXX or the massoretic text but Aramaic targums.

Which part, in particular. Do you mean 12.11?

I didn't mean to suggest exclusivity of the source (the LXX), but I worded my question poorly. Are you saying that there were no Aramaic words in the LXX?

ph2ter · 03-27-2012, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

James = Jacob who is the brother of an angel = "To see your face/person is like seeing the face/person of God" (Genesis 33:10)

When are people ever going to realize that having knowledge of the Pentateuch might be useful to understand the gospel?

Do you want to know what Jewish tradition says Jacob saw at the top of the ladder? His heavenly twin.

Do you know who Moses's twin in heaven is? Metatron.

FSWP. When are they going to realize what Romans 8:29 is about? M-Y-T-H

I like the results of your inquiry.
'James, the Lord's brother' instead of being evidence of historicity, ultimately may become the last nail in the coffin of Jesus as a man of history.

I mean, this could be a reference to the mystery rite which made James brother of a spiritual being called Jesus (adelphopoiesis).

dog-on · 03-27-2012, 06:08 AM

Chapter 3 was hard to swallow. He did say it would not convince naysayers, but I am trying to be open minded.

Ehrman argues that the cannonical gospels, (as well as Peter, Thomas, and Egerton(sp?)),should be viewed as independent (or at least partially independent) sources.

He seems to base much of his argument for independence largely on Luke's prologue and on hypothetical sources: Q, M, L, Signs, etc, as well as oral tradition.

I'll have to consider the arguments for independence a bit.

Steven Carr · 03-27-2012, 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Chapter 3 was hard to swallow. He did say it would not convince naysayers, but I am trying to be open minded.

Ehrman argues that the cannonical gospels, (as well as Peter, Thomas, and Egerton(sp?)),should be viewed as independent sources.

He seems to base much of his argument for independence largely on Luke's prologue and on hypothetical sources: Q, M, L, Signs, etc, as well as oral tradition.

I'll have to consider the arguments for independence a bit.

Historians don't get to wave invisible documents around as evidence.

Nor do they get to declare invisible documents 'independent' when they don't know the provenance of them.

And they don't get to call one author independent of another if that author used the first author as a source.

How does Ehrman count Luke , Mark and Q as independent sources, if Luke used Mark and Q?

dog-on · 03-27-2012, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Chapter 3 was hard to swallow. He did say it would not convince naysayers, but I am trying to be open minded.

Ehrman argues that the cannonical gospels, (as well as Peter, Thomas, and Egerton(sp?)),should be viewed as independent sources.

He seems to base much of his argument for independence largely on Luke's prologue and on hypothetical sources: Q, M, L, Signs, etc, as well as oral tradition.

I'll have to consider the arguments for independence a bit.

Historians don't get to wave invisible documents around as evidence.

Nor do they get to declare invisible documents 'independent' when they don't know the provenance of them.

And they don't get to call one author independent of another if that author used the first author as a source.

How does Ehrman count Luke , Mark and Q as independent sources, if Luke used Mark and Q?

He does say, as I corrected after your post, partially independent for Luke and Matt reqarding Mark.

To your other questions, I am in the same boat as you are. I will have to read that chapter again, I suppose.

His summation, at the beginning of chapter 4:

Quote:

We have already seen that at least seven Gospel accounts of Jesus, all of them entirely or partially independent of one another, survived from within a century of the traditional date of his death. These seven are based on numerous previously existent written sources and on an enormous number of oral traditions about him that can be dated back to Aramaic sources of Palestine, almost certainly from the 30s of the Common Era.

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 1467-1470). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Seems pretty certain to him...

judge · 03-27-2012, 06:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Which part, in particular. Do you mean 12.11?

There is a suggestion or a possibilty that Mark reflects an interpretation current at the time rather than that found in older texts. That view may concur with a targum probably from a similar time.
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-fa...manuscript.htm

Quote:

I didn't mean to suggest exclusivity of the source (the LXX), but I worded my question poorly. Are you saying that there were no Aramaic words in the LXX?

There may be but Im not sure they would be the same as the Aramaic words in mark.
Again Marks reference to "gehenna" in Mark 9 is something that alligns with targums. It is only the targums that mention "gehenna" in the relevant portion of Isaiah that is alluded to in Mark..."where the worm does not die"

Sadly later christians twisted all this (but thats another story)

dog-on · 03-27-2012, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Which part, in particular. Do you mean 12.11?

There is a suggestion or a possibilty that Mark reflects an interpretation current at the time rather than that found in older texts. That view may concur with a targum probably from a similar time.
http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-jesus-fa...manuscript.htm

Quote:

I didn't mean to suggest exclusivity of the source (the LXX), but I worded my question poorly. Are you saying that there were no Aramaic words in the LXX?

There may be but Im not sure they would be the same as the Aramaic words in mark.
Again Marks reference to "gehenna" in Mark 9 is something that alligns with targums. It is only the targums that mention "gehenna" in the relevant portion of Isaiah that is alluded to in Mark..."where the worm does not die"

Sadly later christians twisted all this (but thats another story)

Do these words appear in the Peshitta?

aa5874 · 03-27-2012, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by dog-on

Chapter 3 was hard to swallow. He did say it would not convince naysayers, but I am trying to be open minded.

Ehrman argues that the cannonical gospels, (as well as Peter, Thomas, and Egerton(sp?)),should be viewed as independent sources.

He seems to base much of his argument for independence largely on Luke's prologue and on hypothetical sources: Q, M, L, Signs, etc, as well as oral tradition.

I'll have to consider the arguments for independence a bit.

Historians don't get to wave invisible documents around as evidence.

Nor do they get to declare invisible documents 'independent' when they don't know the provenance of them.

And they don't get to call one author independent of another if that author used the first author as a source.

How does Ehrman count Luke , Mark and Q as independent sources, if Luke used Mark and Q?

Well, something is RADICALLY wrong with Ehrman. He clearly stated the Gospels were NOT derived from Aramaic followers.

Let us examine how he claimed the Gospels stories were derived in a debate with William Craig.

See http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

Quote:

The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' death -- 35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later.

The Gospels were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation.

They're not written by Jesus' Aramaic-speaking followers.

They're written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from?

I should point out that the Gospels say they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that's just in your English Bible. That's the title of these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn't call it the Gospel of Matthew.

Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it's the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it.

The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts....

In his debate with William Craig Ehrman did NOT state that the Gospels were independent sources or that they were historically reliable.

It is extremely troubling that Ehrman now argues for independence of the Gospels.

Even an ordinary person would be heavily ridiculed and castigated if they claimed the Gospels were NOT historically reliable and NOT independent sources and then argue the opposite when writing a book.

View Poll Results: What Does Ehrman's Book Demonstrate?
That Jesus Certainly Existed	1	5.00%
That Jesus Almost Certainly Existed	1	5.00%
That Jesus More Likely than not Existed	3	15.00%
Why Bible Scholarship Thinks Jesus Certainly Existed	9	45.00%
Whatever spin says it does	4	20.00%
That JW is the foremost authority on the MJ/HJ/AJ subject or thinks he is	2	10.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

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

03-27-2012, 06:08 AM	#35
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Chapter 3 was hard to swallow. He did say it would not convince naysayers, but I am trying to be open minded. Ehrman argues that the cannonical gospels, (as well as Peter, Thomas, and Egerton(sp?)),should be viewed as independent (or at least partially independent) sources. He seems to base much of his argument for independence largely on Luke's prologue and on hypothetical sources: Q, M, L, Signs, etc, as well as oral tradition. I'll have to consider the arguments for independence a bit.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.