Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 05-05-2012, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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).

Casey wants to argue that Mark was written cca 40 CE., based on, or rather strictly copied and poorly redacted from, a variety sources, Greek and Aramaic, i.e. not a single Q document. (He is pushing for a heterogeneous sourcing which he calls "chaotic Q theory"). It looks like a calculated gambit to argue for a super-early historical written witness to Jesus of Nazareth, which he figures will take the world by storm. In "Jesus of Nazareth" (title coinciding with Benedict XVI's) Casey complains that his "Aramaic Approach to Q" has hardly been taken seriously by mainstream scholars, although he says he is confident that the upcoming doctoral thesis by his student (and rumoured lover) Stephanie Fisher, will "establish it beyond reasonable doubt as the normative view of New Testament scholars".

Evidently, Ehrman knows of Casey (there is no-one else TMK confidently placing pre-Markan written sources into the 30's CE) and wants to use his theories as a battering ram for his historical positivist views, but he does not list his books in the bibliography of DJE. Ehrman probably knows he is playing with fire. The guy looks just too much of an Allegro-smoking-wax-tablets to be taken seriously...."normative view of New Testament scholars" does not strike me as ambitious but delusional.

BTW, some of Casey's book is available for preview here .

Best,
Jiri

Steven Carr · 05-05-2012, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

I can understand your rant. I would do the same if I were you.

It must really make you very angry that people are pointing out that Ehrman's evidence is hypothetical.

When you have calmed down a little, we may be able to talk about Ehrman can date these sources so precisely.

Steven Carr · 05-05-2012, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

XVI's) Casey complains that his "Aramaic Approach to Q" has hardly been taken seriously by mainstream scholars, although he says he is confident that the upcoming doctoral thesis by his student (and rumoured lover) Stephanie Fisher, will "establish it beyond reasonable doubt as the normative view of New Testament scholars".

Not rumoured by me....

Stephanie Louise Fisher wrote '...no, texts are not authentic because they might have an aramaic background. Not even casey says so'

In the case of Ehrman's hypothetical sources, without any actual evidence that they existed, or some indication of content, we don't even know they were originally about Jesus.

Grog · 05-05-2012, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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.'

Somebody must be willing to stop a bullet for Bart.

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

This is all interesting and we the idea that Son of Man sayings were translated is not surprising or even an innovation. These stories may very well have originated as Aramaic stories, but let's look at what Bart said and what the point of the OP is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ehrman

'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

Carrier described Ehrman's work as "sloppy" and "incompetent." I would say this quote exemplifies that observation. "we have" implies extant documents.Ehrman's phrases "Jesus' native tongue" "can be dated to within just a year or two of his life" presuppose that he lived, the very proposition that he's trying to prove. There is nothing here that calls the reader's attention to the fact that these "aramaic sources" are part of a hypothesis. These "sources" do not provide evidence of that Jesus existed. We can probably say that there's reason to believe that Mark incorporated stories about Jesus that may have originated in Aramaic.

tanya · 05-05-2012, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Criddle

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

Thanks very much, Andrew, for this excellent link. Well done.

Here is the home page for Patrologia Graeca by J.-P. Migne.

They appear to have an excellent Greek language instruction program, there, though the forum is a bit out of date.....

I raised the issue, of how Bart Ehrman presented Didymus' discourse against Mani, thinking that someone on our forum, may have read this "scholarly" work of Ehrman's to clarify whether the same modus prevailed a quarter century ago, vis a vis, attacks on those who disagreed with Bart, and offering unsubstantiated claims, like the assertion of possessing Aramaic language translations of gospel texts from the first century.....

I am sure that if I dig a bit more, I can learn where Migne discovered this manuscript of Didymus (to the best of my knowledge, Migne does not explain this aspect.) Did Bart Ehrman similarly dig up the same text by Didymus, as Migne? Where did Migne find it? Did Ehrman possess the same text, as that published by Migne? The text has obviously changed from any sort of original, penned by Didymus: just look at the nifty letters. No lacunae, plenty of tonal markings to represent vowels. In short, this text is lovely, maybe a little too clear and beautiful....

Thanks again, Andrew, much appreciated....

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 10:36 AM

Ehrman doesn't say these sources are "documents," he says they are oral traditions, that some of the stories (in Ehrman's opinion) are rooted in some kind of authentic anecdotal tradition.

The OP's question was my own first question in seeing the promotional material, but that claim is much more modest in the book than it sounds in that quote. Basically he's saying stuff like "Talitha koumi shows that story had an Aramaic origin.

I'm not here to defend him on that score, but that's what his claim actually is, not the existence of documents.

Steven Carr · 05-05-2012, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman doesn't say these sources are "documents," he says they are oral traditions, that some of the stories (in Ehrman's opinion) are rooted in some kind of authentic anecdotal tradition.

So we 'have' oral traditions? How do we have those?

' '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.''

Ehrman is counting 'oral traditions' as 'historical sources'?

And he is not claiming that M,L,Q were written down?

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

we 'have' oral traditions? How do we have those?

According to Ehrman, embedded in Mark.

Quote:

' '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.''

Ehrman is counting 'oral traditions' as 'historical sources'?

Why shouldn't he?

Quote:

And he is not claiming that M,L,Q were written down?

He is not claiming any of those are early Aramaic sources. He's only making the claim that a handful of pericopes in Mark had an oral, Aramaic origin.

Iskander · 05-05-2012, 10:50 AM

DJE is a very good book, the documents that might have existed 2000 years ago may be described now as invisible but his thinking is visible .

PhilosopherJay · 05-05-2012, 11:05 AM

Hi Steven Carr,

You apparently are unaware what all scholars like Bart Ehrman know: Aramaic is a language which cannot be used for telling fictional stories. Aramaic contains only true words. When some one speaks in Aramaic, they must be telling the truth. Even if one translates Aramaic into Greek, they must be telling the truth because the underlying words are Aramaic (the language of truth).

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman doesn't say these sources are "documents," he says they are oral traditions, that some of the stories (in Ehrman's opinion) are rooted in some kind of authentic anecdotal tradition.

So we 'have' oral traditions? How do we have those?

' '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.''

Ehrman is counting 'oral traditions' as 'historical sources'?

And he is not claiming that M,L,Q were written down?

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

05-05-2012, 10:36 AM	#16
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Ehrman doesn't say these sources are "documents," he says they are oral traditions, that some of the stories (in Ehrman's opinion) are rooted in some kind of authentic anecdotal tradition. The OP's question was my own first question in seeing the promotional material, but that claim is much more modest in the book than it sounds in that quote. Basically he's saying stuff like "Talitha koumi shows that story had an Aramaic origin. I'm not here to defend him on that score, but that's what his claim actually is, not the existence of documents.

05-05-2012, 10:50 AM	#19
Iskander Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: United Kingdom Posts: 3,619	DJE is a very good book, the documents that might have existed 2000 years ago may be described now as invisible but his thinking is visible .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.