Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Grog · 05-05-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

What does Ehrman claim? Is he just throwing up a lot of vague associations that might lead people to think that there is some early evidence for Jesus?

Jay was being facetious, but it is hard to figure out how Ehrman can make that statement if he does not believe that oral legends in Aramaic have some special magical truthiness.

Quote:

WHAT CAN WE SAY in conclusion about the evidence that supports the view that there really was a historical Jesus, a Jewish teacher who lived in Palestine as an adult in the 20s of the Common Era, crucified under Pontius Pilate sometime around the year 30? The evidence is abundant and varied. Among the Gospels we have numerous independent accounts that attest to Jesus’s life, at least seven of them from within a hundred years of the traditional date of his death.

What are these 7 independent sources?? How can he say that the gospels are independent?

And why should these oral legends, even if they existed, be evidence of history?

How can he possibly know this?

An assertion without any supporting evidence.

Quote:

...

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (p. 171). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

Add "oral traditions" to the list of evidence with magical truthiness. There's nothing about an oral tradition that necessitates granting it 'authenticity.'

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 06:37 PM

Just so we all know what we're talking about, this is a list of Ehrman's 7 independent sources within 100 years of the alleged crucifixion:

Paul
Mark
Q
Thomas
John
GPeter
P. Egerton 2

Toto · 05-05-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Just so we all know what we're talking about, this is a list of Ehrman's 7 independent sources within 100 years of the alleged crucifixion:

Paul
Mark
Q
Thomas
John
GPeter
P. Egerton 2

How does he claim that these are independent, especially as regards to information on the historical earthly Jesus?

People here have argued that Mark is based on Paul, although I don't expect Ehrman agrees. But Paul is not a very good source for a human Jesus.

Q is a hypothetical source. We don't have it, any more than we have the Aramaic oral legends.

We only have fragments of gPeter, and neither it nor gJohn are clearly independent of Mark.

Thomas may be dependent on the gospels, but even if not, has less data on the human Jesus than Q.

Egerton 2 is "almost independent of the synoptics."

Quote:

What we have here is an uncanonical Gospel which tone is free from exaggeration. The whole impression produced is that of a comparatively early work. The relation to the canoncial gospels is very controversely discussed. There are several verbal agreements, but they are very mixed up. We have parallels with John and with the Synoptics. But some parallels are given in a different context. For this reason some have proposed that the author knew the canonical Gospels from repeated hearing and used them from memory, but not in written form. Others proposed complete independence of the canonical Gospels and suggest, Egerton selected the elements shared with the Synoptics out of tradition. Parallels with John are explained by a "shared milieu", (similar style, language and theology).

Sheshbazzar · 05-05-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

These accounts did not appear out of thin air, however. They are based on written sources—a good number of them—that date much earlier, plausibly in some cases at least to the 50s of the Common Era.

Yes, These accounts did not appear out of thin air, They are based on written sources—a good number of them—that date much earlier, at least to the 50s -before- the Common Era.

As the Anointed Priest, the χριστὸς whose name was the BRANCH, Ἰησοῦ, had been well known and talked about, and midrashed for hundreds of years-
before- Ἰησοῦ ὁ χριστὸς was finally 'born'.

If a person can understand this, they will have a different perspective on the NT texts.

Diogenes the Cynic · 05-05-2012, 07:42 PM

Th Egerton Gospel contains a story which is not found in any other source. That particular story is, therefore, independent by definition.

Ehrman does not say any of these sources contain reliable information about Jesus, he's only citing them to show the authors thought Jesus really existed.

Adam · 05-05-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

...
Note that my OP there linked to a 120-page preview of Casey's Jesus of Nazareth (also provided by Jiri in Post #6 in this thread--both of which need to be Amazoned). Won't anyone go look at Casey's arguments that support Ehrman? Casey and Crossley date the entirety of gMark to 40 CE or earlier, so we can see why Ehrman was hesitant to footnote their names, but their arguments are strong regarding their sources even if weak on dating the final form of gMark.

There is still no logical connection between hypothetical early sources in Aramaic and historical reliability.

This is all based on the apologetic type pseudo-argument that says that the gospels could be reliable, therefore they are.

Quote:

You ask for seven independent sources--wasn't that what my thread ... was about, ...

Are you saying that Ehrman relied on your thread??

You have a great memory, Toto,
Yes, I did speculate that on March 20 when the Huffington Post article by Ehrman came out....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

it was nice to imagine so for a moment or two.

in
Bart Ehrman's new book - did my prophecy come true?

Aramaic sources are quite a contrast to Higher Criticism of the late 19th Century that saw only 2nd Century Greek in the gospels. But beyond that here's my argument for

John Mark as eyewitness and the link to my OP in Gospel Eyewitnesses.
Also in Gospel Eyewitnesses see Post #38 in which my middle paragraph argues that Nicodemus must have written the Johannine Discourses while Jesus was still alive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Focusing now on the Discourses, where did they come from? The Discourses contain the Johannine Theology that has typically been considered as written down by John (or someone later) in his old age. As shown above, this is not necessarily the case. If we look for clues within the text itself, we find (apart from the Prologue) that high theology begins in John 3, the night visit to Nicodemus. Did Nicodemus record this? Consider that we next hear of Nicodemus in John 7:50-52, in which Nicodemus argues that the Law does not condemn a man without first hearing from him. If he took it upon himself to do what he said, the words recorded in the next three chapters from Jesus seem well suited to be a record of what Jesus said that might be worthy of condemnation. Later chapters reveal more and more favor towards what Jesus had to say, concluding with John 17. In John 19:39 Nicodemus brought spices for Jesus’s burial. He had obviously become a Christian. The marked change in attitude toward Jesus shows that Nicodemus wrote all this (or at least notes) while Jesus was still alive.

aa5874 · 05-05-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Th Egerton Gospel contains a story which is not found in any other source. That particular story is, therefore, independent by definition...

Such a statement is worthless because "independent" may mean that the story was Fabricated by the author or is a LATE invention.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

....Ehrman does not say any of these sources contain reliable information about Jesus, he's only citing them to show the authors thought Jesus really existed.

People of antiquity BELIEVED the ANGEL Gabriel did exist, was in Nazareth and spoke to Mary.

People of antiquity Believed Satan did EXIST and was on the Pinnacle of the Temple with Jesus and spoke to him in Jerusalem .

People of antiquity BELIEVED ADAM and EVE existed and that God created them.

People of antiquity BELIEVED Gods existed who Made Adam and Jesus.

Please, how long will you continue to make the same debunked arguments???

An HJ cannot be defended with the available evidence today, maybe 2000 years from now, but NOT today.

Right now, the evidence supports Mythology.

Solo · 05-05-2012, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

Ehrman doesn't claim either one of those things. You are attacking strawmen.

Or maybe Jay is pulling your leg a little.

Jiri

Toto · 05-05-2012, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

....

Ehrman does not say any of these sources contain reliable information about Jesus, he's only citing them to show the authors thought Jesus really existed.

So "Mark" wrote a midrash of the Septuagint, featuring Jesus, but not including any reliable historical information. Is this evidence that Mark thought Jesus existed? Is there any evidence that Mark knew enough about Jesus to know whether he existed or not?

This case looks worse and worse.

mountainman · 05-06-2012, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

[Ehrman]He doesn't even say the stories in Mark are true, just that they have Aramaic origins. He makes no attempt to defend the historicity of the content of those stories, only that they were originally told in Aramaic.

Does anyone know what model number of crystal ball Ehrman uses?

What sort of a circus is this?

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

05-05-2012, 06:37 PM	#32
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Just so we all know what we're talking about, this is a list of Ehrman's 7 independent sources within 100 years of the alleged crucifixion: Paul Mark Q Thomas John GPeter P. Egerton 2

05-05-2012, 07:42 PM	#35
Diogenes the Cynic Moderator - Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota Posts: 4,639	Th Egerton Gospel contains a story which is not found in any other source. That particular story is, therefore, independent by definition. Ehrman does not say any of these sources contain reliable information about Jesus, he's only citing them to show the authors thought Jesus really existed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.