Ch. 3

The Gospels as Historical Sources

I would have written this chapter the other way around, starting with the Aramaic oral sources and then moving forward to the extant Greek gospels, but alas, I wouldn’t know an Aramaic if it bit me.

Erhman says that it is “almost certain” there was a historical Jesus and that it can be “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

He takes the existence of Aramaic phrases in Mark and John as proof that there was an Aramaic oral tradition that pre-dated the probably Greek sources (written and oral in Ehrman’s view) for the extant Greek gospels. What is the dating of the oral sources? Erhman says they originated “a very long time” before the written sources. How long is very long? Erhman says probably in the 30’s CE. What is his evidence for this? He doesn’t say.

If one is trying to establish the historicity of a figure, one might pay closer attention to dating the oral sources since dating and existence are rather closely connected and Erhman is placing a lot of weight on the existence of Aramaic oral sources. Get those sources too early and they might actually argue against a figure in Roman Palestine around the beginning of the common era and just be really old legends with no significant, identifiable external referent. Might they have originated more closely to the dates of the extant manuscripts instead of before the Christian era as I have just wondered? He relies on the majority consensus of other scholars as to dating the originals of extant sources.

This oral tradition of uncertain date (to be clear, uncertain date is my point, not Ehrmans), was reduced to multiple independent Greek texts (likewise of uncertain date since Erhman makes no attempt to date them) from diverse geographical locations, some of them outside of Palestine. Was there more than one Aramaic oral tradition since multiplicity is key to Ehrman’s argument here. Well, perhaps there were 2, Mark and John, since this is where Ehrman gets his Aramaic phrases. But that’s down from his claim of 7 independent extant Greek sources.

I’d say Ehrman’s inability to show a multiplicity of oral sources is a real weak point here. One can easily imagine 2 suspect Aramaic oral sources of unclear date spreading throughout the Jewish Diaspora and mutating into more diverse written sources. Especially true if we don’t know how long they had to mutate.

These multiple and diverse written and oral sources were condensed into 7 independent, geographically diverse, largely written and extant sources (except for Q which cannot be said to be extant in and of itself) which can be identified today. This final written reduction took place within a generation or 2 of the claimed life of the historical Jesus.

I don’t know if there is work on the # of Aramaic oral sources and their dating, if such is possible and what the techniques would be but it seems like, if possible to carry out, it would be a useful piece in proving or disproving Ehrman’s thesis.

Ehrman begins this chapter by justifying the use of the gospels as historical evidence by saying that we can’t discredit the view of an American on the existence of George Washington because we have contemporaneous sources about Washington. A good point regarding bias not being that important on a clear issue for which there exist contemporaneous sources. Which is all Erhman claims for that example. But the contemporaneous sources for a historical Jesus are very vague Aramaic oral traditions of unknown number and unclear date, not a dated Washington holograph.

Has Ehrman proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt in this chapter? I would say not and his multiplicity of sources arguments is one of his better ones. There are other easy arguments for why there would be a multiplicty of independant sources and Ehrman has not excluded them, at least in this chapter.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 07:38PM by lulu.

lulu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

...
> Has Ehrman proven his case beyond a reasonable
> doubt in this chapter?
...

No. But, then again, the linguistic points raised are
worth keeping in mind, when encountering a polemicist
who insists that the entire New Testament was written
by a falsifying Roman, who intended to impose a new
religion upon the unwary 2nd century Jews.

Joseph Atwill fits into this category, as do writers
like Bruno Bauer and Abelard Reuchlin --->
http://sidneyrigdon.com/vern/VH_Lib.htm

It is unlikely that a Roman -- even a contemporary Roman
with some personal connection to Palestine -- would insert
bits and pieces of the local vernacular into a totally
fabricated Greek original, supposedly penned in Rome,
years after the second Jewish revolt.

While the presence of such language does not prove the
historical existence of the Gospels' Jesus, it does help
us authenticate the probable provenance of the texts.

My own view is that it is a fool's errand, to try and
"prove" the existence of an historical Jesus. Unless
solid physical evidence is one day discovered, the use
of texts for this sort of proof, is only one step past
biblical literalists' own habit of "proof-texting."

UD

"...the entire New Testament was written
by a falsifying Roman, who intended to impose a new
religion upon the unwary 2nd century Jews."

This is definitely not the only brand of the mythicist position. I would say it is a straw man at worst.

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "...the entire New Testament was written
> by a falsifying Roman, who intended to impose a
> new
> religion upon the unwary 2nd century Jews."
>
> This is definitely not the only brand of the
> mythicist position. I would say it is a straw man
> at worst.

It has been a line of argument viable enough to at
least impact me, in my studies at a mainstream theological
seminary. Bauer in particular had great influence in
earlier times. If I recall correctly, the entire
denunciation of Christianity in the old Soviet encyclopedias
was based upon his writings.

However, you are correct if you deduce that modern scholars
devote little attention to the notion of the New Testament
having been the product of one mind and one pen. I simply
chose that example because it is so easily illustrated. It
has the sort of simplistic logic which also pervades the
conclusion that the Book of Mormon was composed entirely
by a single writer.

I myself am open to the idea that most of the NT era
"scriptures" come from the diverse minds of early believers
who were nevertheless prone to select and embellish those
traditions and texts that best suited their own purposes,
regardless of what they knew personally. The writer of
Mark -- Eusebeus -- Josephus, etc., I would all place in
the category of quasi-historical myth-makers. Christianity
itself has looked back upon the collection of available
texts, and selected what was most useful to sustain and
invigorate the "party line" -- a process carried on by
the earliest Church Fathers.

The question I'd like answered -- is, did that process
produce a myth, out of whole cloth -- or, did it infuse
a myth into an actual historical narrative, which became
largely lost and adulterated in the resultant mix?

Put in a better sort of way -- which parts of Christianity's
origins can we reasonably trust as historical, and which
parts can we dismiss (Jesus Seminar fashion) as the untruths
of later voices?

I have nothing against "myth" myself. There are instances
in which myth can better convey certain metaphysical
realizations than straightforward history or theologizing
can ever hope to communicate. But I'd appreciate being
able to "strip away the myth from the man," as Judas said.

UD

> The question I'd like answered -- is, did that
> process
> produce a myth, out of whole cloth -- or, did it
> infuse
> a myth into an actual historical narrative, which
> became
> largely lost and adulterated in the resultant
> mix?

Yes, that's the question I have too. I wonder if it's even possible to know based on the extant source material. I never believed that the writings about Jesus used in the New Testament came from a single pen though. It makes more sense to me that these were sort of religious fan fiction that built up the legend from a number of writers playing off of each other. It doesn't seem necessary for there to have been a historical figure at the heart of it, but maybe there was. I don't really have a dog in that fight.


> I have nothing against "myth" myself. There are
> instances
> in which myth can better convey certain
> metaphysical
> realizations than straightforward history or
> theologizing
> can ever hope to communicate. But I'd appreciate
> being
> able to "strip away the myth from the man," as
> Judas said.
>
> UD

Tolkien wrote about this in one of his essays, and I agree. A myth is better suited for carrying wisdom than a historical account. I would almost be more comfortable with the idea of Jesus never having been a historical figure, because it seems more honest than superimposing these traditions on someone who existed in history.

I feel this way about the Book of Mormon too. If the Mormon church were to accept it as a spiritual guide and not some ridiculous history of a nonexistent people, I'd feel better about that. It's more honest. But then Jesus might really have existed, unlike the Nephites.

Mak, for several years I belonged to a NeoPagan Church--The Church of All Worlds--which was based on Robert Heinlein's science fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land. It had it's own teachings, rituals, meetings, leadership structure, and publications. While it was serious (in a pagan sort of way) about its aims and goals, it nonetheless was very aware that it was invented. That was a welcome relief from the Mormonism I had recently left--and Christianity for that matter. I figured out rather quickly that the members' commitment was not to the church's founding story but to their relationships and shared goals. I can see how a church might be invented out of whole cloth, so to speak, because I was part of one. But even then there were founders, I met them and associated with them for a while.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mak, for several years I belonged to a NeoPagan
> Church--The Church of All Worlds--which was based
> on Robert Heinlein's science fiction novel
> Stranger in a Strange Land. It had it's own
> teachings, rituals, meetings, leadership
> structure, and publications. While it was serious
> (in a pagan sort of way) about its aims and goals,
> it nonetheless was very aware that it was
> invented. That was a welcome relief from the
> Mormonism I had recently left--and Christianity
> for that matter. I figured out rather quickly that
> the members' commitment was not to the church's
> founding story but to their relationships and
> shared goals. I can see how a church might be
> invented out of whole cloth, so to speak, because
> I was part of one. But even then there were
> founders, I met them and associated with them for
> a while.


OMG Robert.. My nest is your nest -- I am only an egg! My friends and I all read that in high school, and we formed a little sexual innuendo cult. :)

It sounds like the group you joined was much more serious though. Valentine Michael Smith walked through a prison once and decided who was worthy to live or die. That's a scary idea to form a religion around. I understand Charles Manson was also influenced by the book.

You're a good man, Robert. I'm so glad you're with us.

They never struck me as dangerous. There was a lot of sex :-) It started with some of the Stranger in a Strange Land stuff and then evolved into more of a hippy-pagan-environmental thing. It was really good for me at the time. I wasn't coercive or violent. Women had a BIG say in how things went, which was good. Quite a few ex-Mormon women if I remember. I think of them fondly.

Makurosu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

...
> I feel this way about the Book of Mormon too. If
> the Mormon church were to accept it as a spiritual
> guide and not some ridiculous history of a
> nonexistent people, I'd feel better about that.
> It's more honest. But then Jesus might really have
> existed, unlike the Nephites.

I once heard a good Baptist claim that there was nothing
in the Book of Mormon that he could not believe and preach.

He obviously had not read the text very carefully. Moroni's
challenge is one example of highly objectionable material --
as is the theology and counsel of the Book of Ether in
general. The absurdities of King Benjamin's address might
be cited as a good reason not to ever become a Christian.

But the worst part of the book is that it obviously was
written for exactly the same purpose it served in the
early 1830s -- to prepare pliant minds for a theocracy
that pretended to speak exclusively and directly for God.

My Baptist friend already had one foot set into that trap.
I hope he was careful enough not to insert the other one...

UD

UD:

"It is unlikely that a Roman -- even a contemporary Roman
with some personal connection to Palestine -- would insert
bits and pieces of the local vernacular into a totally
fabricated Greek original, supposedly penned in Rome,
years after the second Jewish revolt."

Why is this unlikely? Sounds to me like a logical device to add local flavor and a sense of authenticity to what might be a fictive presentation.

I actually think it likely that the "Paul" character might well add Aramaic phrases for this purpose.

Seems much more straightforward to assume Paul was using existing tradition rather than inventing it. For such a ploy as you suggest to be effective, his readers would have to recognize and accept it as genuine, which presupposes a prior knowledge of it.

If the Paul character was using a pre-existing Aramaic oral tradition that people would readily accept because they already had such a prior knowledge, then I would expect he would have used much more of this tradition than a couple short scraps. It would have made the "sell" much, much more effective if he had.

Instead he makes a whole new Greek "translation", or "retelling", without giving any cites or references to the commonly-known, pre-existing Aramaic? Bugger...

The very paucity of Aramaic words in the Gospels tends to indicate an effort at creative writing.

Plus, the writer's audience was not illiterate Palestinian Aramaic speakers, but Romans and Greeks, for whom Aramaic would have been an entirely foreign and likely unknown language. It seems unlikely they would have been very familiar with any such imagined Aramaic oral tradition of the life and works of the Jesus figure from across the water and who knows how many decades earlier.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 08:58PM by hello.

How do you know what Paul would have done? That is simply mind-reading. His letters are written to established congregations who already knew about Jesus and the letters addressed specific pastoral problems. Generally when people write for specific purposes, they do not recite everything they know not related to the subject.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How do you know what Paul would have done? That is
> simply mind-reading. His letters are written to
> established congregations who already knew about
> Jesus and the letters addressed specific pastoral
> problems. Generally when people write for specific
> purposes, they do not recite everything they know
> not related to the subject.

Most of what NT apologists have written is likewise mind-reading then, as well. How do you know what the Paul character (or the "author" that created him) would have done?

The evidence you have about the purposes of the so-called "Pauline letters", or even the existence of the churches you cite, is the letters themselves. You should not make assumptions about the history of the Bible, based almost solely on the Bible itself. That's like making assumptions about the history of the Mormon church, based solely on the writings of Joseph Smith, the D&C, or the BOM.

And I have never said I "know" what he would have done, I simply put forward what seems to me to be logical. And I do bring to the topic experience as a creative writer, poet and novelist, which does I suppose give me some insight into the process of creating fiction. That, plus the education I have received courtesy of the Mormon church (and RFM) concerning the creation of new "holy scriptures" and new "churches".

So, as a writer, what would be the motives of this writer you assume to have created Christianity? Where was he located? How did he get paid? Who is his audience and how did he choose them? Why did he choose to write a story or stories that could well get him killed and certainly got many of his audience killed? How did he expect to get his stories disseminated without a printing press and without a distribution system?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 09:16PM by robertb.

O I dunno, perhaps the "Latin oral tradition"? (snark)

Or perhaps the Roman version of CNN or Fox News? Propaganda is propaganda. Cui bono in this case? Perhaps a would-be-ascendant rising church in Rome, gathering sponsors?

I'm sure if you will assiduously pursue answers to the questions you posit, robert, you will come to understanding and enlightenment regarding these topics.

At least Ehrman and other Bible scholars can manage that. They answer who, what, when, where, why, and how. I have yet to see you give a coherent narrative about how Christianity came to be, much less account for what evidence we do have.

Your argument about the poverty of literacy driving the necessity for a scribe makes no sense at all. It's like saying, "Because I am poor, I should be rich."

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At least Ehrman and other Bible scholars can
> manage that. They answer who, what, when, where,
> why, and how. I have yet to see you give a
> coherent narrative about how Christianity came to
> be, much less account for what evidence we do
> have.

You must have missed some of my posts over the years, robert.

I do think the line I offer in the post above is on point tho.

"Or perhaps the Roman version of CNN or Fox News? Propaganda is propaganda. Cui bono in this case? Perhaps a would-be-ascendant rising church in Rome, gathering sponsors?"

I think the NT is an invention over time of series of ambitious Romans jockeying for power thru priestcraft. As to the details, it's not my job to provide them for you. I really do think that if you will move outside of confirmation bias and Biblical apologetics, you will find answers to your questions, and you will be much edified.

My purpose in my posts on this thread was merely to discuss the flaws of Ehrman's case for an Aramaic oral tradition of the tales of Jesus, based on a couple scraps of Aramaic in the Greek texts. Not to present a "coherent narrative" about life, the universe and everything. :)


> Your argument about the poverty of literacy
> driving the necessity for a scribe makes no sense
> at all. It's like saying, "Because I am poor, I
> should be rich."

No, my point is to the fact that literacy is power. Where it is scarce, it is all the more valued by those who know its power. And they use it because of its power.

I would agree with you that Christianity, after its acceptance as one of the Empire's legal religions, was often a tool of the state. I don't think, however, sometime in the late 30s CE someone was following Jesus around recording what he was saying with the purpose that those sayings would be used almost a hundred and three hundred years later as part of a Roman political conspiracy.

My own read on Christianity is it began with an apocalyptic teacher who gathered a group of followers that kept his message alive until it was taken up by a tireless preacher and organizer in Paul, who brought a significantly modified version of the Jesus' message to non-Jews, who then took it up and spread it.

It also appears Christianity was accepted by Gentile converts primarily because of its social ethics and the support it offered rather than doctrinal teachings. People generally converted to the group first and later learned of its teachings. (Talk about "milk before meat"!) The source for this is Rodney Stark's book Cities of God: The Real Story of How Christianity Began and Urban Movement and Conquered Rome.

Anyway, besides whatever appeal the Christian doctrine may have had, it appears to be the social support Christianity offered and the social conditions in the Roman Empire that caused it to spread, as well as a good deal of luck. I just don't see Christianity resulting from a conspiracy that was continued over the course of a few hundred years, if I am understanding you correctly.

On the other hand, it would make a great story and puts me in mind a bit of Asimov's Foundation series.

PS. Stark shows that if Christianity started with 1,000 adherents in 40 CE and grew at a rate of 3.4%, by 350 CE, Christians would have comprised 52% of the Empire's population.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 12:17PM by robertb.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would agree with you that Christianity, after
> its acceptance as one of the Empire's legal
> religions, was often a tool of the state. I don't
> think, however, sometime in the late 30s CE
> someone was following Jesus around recording what
> he was saying with the purpose that those sayings
> would be used almost a hundred and three hundred
> years later as part of a Roman political
> conspiracy.

I obviously agree also that there was no recording of his events, because I don't think they really happened as portrayed in the NT. I only mentioned this likelihood as being a logical extension of the (imo, false, and unsupported) hypothesis that there was an Aramaic oral tradition surrounding the life and works of Jesus.

"I just don't see Christianity resulting from a conspiracy
> that was continued over the course of a few
> hundred years, if I am understanding you
> correctly."

Your use of the word "conspiracy" in this case is unnecessarily loaded, imo. Short term, contemporary conspiracies for short term goals are real enough in all areas of human endeavor. But this fact does not then lead to the idea that such a conspiracy must then have been extended consciously by subsequent agents over hundreds of years. New people take up an agenda because they see self-interest in the situation as it existed in their world and in their present. They would not have to know that an original conspirator made it all up, nor even care. They just want to use the situation to get gain in their present. And so it goes. Competition then sorts out various agendas over time, things evolve, and in time we have SLC, in the case of Mormonism, or Constantine and the Council at Nicaea, in the case of state Christianity.

In fact, the "original conspirator" may have acted alone (or in a very small group), and just been very charismatic and skilled in persuading others to believe. Like Joe, and his many dupes.

Exactly.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> Instead he makes a whole new Greek "translation",
> or "retelling", without giving any cites or
> references to the commonly-known, pre-existing
> Aramaic? Bugger...
...

There is probably good reason to think that Saul/Paul
made occasional use of other "pre-existing" scraps.
Perhaps lines from the very earliest Christian liturgy;
perhaps adaptations of catch-phrases used by the disciples
of John the Baptist, etc.

Whether Saul/Paul was so cunning as to be able to carry
on this sort of editorial work, while fabricating a new
and false religious narrative is another story. I suppose
that the composer(s) of the original Jesus passion story
were co-religionists of Saul/Paul -- but I do not see
the resulting texts as the product of one pen and one mind.

One thing that I do try to keep in mind, is that those
early writers were living in troubled times, when all but
a few of the Temple establishment era witnesses were
dying off. By the time Paul's letters were widely circulated
there may have been very few literate eye-witnesses left in
Palestine to dispute anything he said or implied. I like
to read the Epistle of James and the pseudo-Clementine texts,
whenever Paul's religion begins playing too loudly in my mind.

UD

Well, it's Chapter 3. It is helpful in understanding that older material is embedded in later material and that the older material reflects a concrete historical reality. That concept is important.

I think, too, we always have to be aware of the limitations of what evidence is available, what can be done with it, and what can be expected of it. For example, how plentiful can we expect Aramaic fragments to be when Jesus' early followers were nearly all if not all illiterate? How long can those fragments survive? How much was lost because it was not written down?

We have an incredibly rich information environment with all kinds of recording technology. This may color our expectations.

You only need one literate companion of Jesus to act as scribe or recorder. The "notes" would then be distributed among those disciples who were also literate, and would likely become the basis for future written histories.

So, are you saying that because many of his followers were likely illiterate, that there was not even one literate person in his group to act as recorder?

Seems highly illogical...

Where are the Aramaic notes? Where are the Aramaic gospels?

A couple of scraps of (translated) Aramaic words or phrases is weak evidence that there were Aramaic gospels, or even Aramaic oral traditions. They are more likely later fictions created by a creative writer.

You are presupposing first a literate disciple and then other literate disciples that can read what is written. And if the vast majority of the population is illiterate, probably 97%, then who would read those supposed notes? And, given that the 3% who can read and possibly write are upper class, how much interest do they have in the words of an itinerant preacher who is criticizing *them* and preaching against *their* interests?

Ehrman points out just for Hello that

"Several significant studies of literacy have appeared in recent years showing just how low literacy rates were in antiquity. The most frequently cited study is by Columbia professor William Harris in a book titled Ancient Literacy. 6 By thoroughly examining all the surviving evidence, Harris draws the compelling though surprising conclusion that in the very best of times in the ancient world, only about 10 percent of the population could read at all and possibly copy out writing on a page. Far fewer than this, of course, could compose a sentence, let alone a story, let alone an entire book. And who were the people in this 10 percent? They were the upper-class elite who had the time, money, and leisure to afford an education. This is not an apt description of Jesus’s disciples. They were not upper-crust aristocrats.

In Roman Palestine the situation was even bleaker. The most thorough examination of literacy in Palestine is by a professor of Jewish studies at the University of London, Catherine Hezser, who shows that in the days of Jesus probably only 3 percent of Jews in Palestine were literate. 7 Once again, these would be the people who could read and maybe write their names and copy words. Far fewer could compose sentences, paragraphs, chapters, and books. And once again, these would have been the urban elites."

Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth (Kindle Locations 702-712). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 09:57PM by robertb.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are presupposing first a literate disciple and
> then other literate disciples that can read what
> is written. And if the vast majority of the
> population is illiterate, probably 97%, then who
> would read those supposed notes? And, given that
> the 3% who can read and possibly write are upper
> class, how much interest do they have in the words
> of an itinerant preacher who is criticizing *them*
> and preaching against *their* interests?

As a literate disciple, how about Matthew, for example? As for others, I am assuming that there were at least a few Jesus people in Palestine who were also literate. Matthew, or another literate disciple following Jesus around, would likely have recorded important events and sent the writings on to Jerusalem for the benefit of the more learned believers. And they would be the seed group of likely sources for any written accounts, if any, which might have been made at a later date.

And in a largely illiterate society, there are those who make an effort to share the written word orally with the illiterate masses. Bards, poets, minstrels, priests fulfill this purpose.

It is only logical that the literate would take action to record important events in writing, to share among themselves if nothing else.
>
> "Several significant studies of literacy have
> appeared in recent years showing just how low
> literacy rates were in antiquity. The most
> frequently cited study is by Columbia professor
> William Harris in a book titled Ancient Literacy.
> 6 By thoroughly examining all the surviving
> evidence, Harris draws the compelling though
> surprising conclusion that in the very best of
> times in the ancient world, only about 10 percent
> of the population could read at all and possibly
> copy out writing on a page. Far fewer than this,
> of course, could compose a sentence, let alone a
> story, let alone an entire book. And who were the
> people in this 10 percent? They were the
> upper-class elite who had the time, money, and
> leisure to afford an education. This is not an apt
> description of Jesus’s disciples. They were not
> upper-crust aristocrats.

No they weren't. But the elites often employed people of lesser caste to be their clerks and scribes. These people were not necessarily wealthy noblemen themselves, but were able and talented folk who were sometimes even slaves, and who were given education in literacy to be able to perform needed functions for the elites. For example, again look to Matthew. He was not identified as a wealthy noble, but was a man educated in letters, and able to perform duties in the Roman tax department. Perhaps Joseph of Aramaethea was another educated disciple. I do not have ID's for all the educated among the disciples, but it is logical that, since writing and literacy were available, at least some followers could read and write. Your point begins to be silly, robert.
>
> In Roman Palestine the situation was even bleaker.
> The most thorough examination of literacy in
> Palestine is by a professor of Jewish studies at
> the University of London, Catherine Hezser, who
> shows that in the days of Jesus probably only 3
> percent of Jews in Palestine were literate. 7 Once
> again, these would be the people who could read
> and maybe write their names and copy words. Far
> fewer could compose sentences, paragraphs,
> chapters, and books. And once again, these would
> have been the urban elites."

Oh, so these are Ehrman's arguments? You are quoting? You might wish to flag such quotes in advance, for the reader's sake. If this is an example of his scholarship and logic, he makes himself more pathetic by the page. I feel sorry for folks who buy such flimsy crap.

Precisely BECAUSE literacy was rare in those days in Palestine or anywhere else, this drives the necessity for the recorded word all the more among the literate few. Because there is such obviously great value and power in it.

> Ehrman, Bart D. (2012-03-20). Did Jesus Exist?:
> The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth
> (Kindle Locations 702-712). Harper Collins, Inc..
> Kindle Edition.

pfft....

Anyhoo, Mr. Ehrman, a couple tiny scraps of Aramaic tossed in for effect do not an "Aramaic oral tradition" make.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

...
> Precisely BECAUSE literacy was rare in those days
> in Palestine or anywhere else, this drives the
> necessity for the recorded word all the more among
> the literate few. Because there is such obviously
> great value and power in it.
...

I suppose that Palestinians and the descendants of the
Phoenicians were better able to read and write, than the
average ANE peoples. Simple workmen in Sinai left some
of the earliest alphabetic inscriptions on cave walls
there -- seals attached to amphora and other containers
for oil, wine, grain, etc., show that merchants relied
upon the fact that at least some people in the community
could understand simple written messages.

Add to that the overwhelming importance of the scriptures
in Jewish/Samaritan daily life, and I think we can find
good reason to look for a slightly higher degree of literacy
in the Palestine of Jesus' day.

I suppose that the traveler stopping by Qumran in 65 C.E.
might have peddled a stack of Plato's dialogues to the
local residents, and found a number of folks there who
could not only read them, but also translate them into
good Hebrew (had that idea occurred to them).

I also suppose that most literate Jews who had "scriptures,"
outside of the Temple establishment, had them in the form
of the LXX -- and that Hebrew was mostly reserved for use
in prayers, synagogue discourses, etc.

How many people in a crowd of a few hundred, listening to
Jesus talking, could have reproduced his words on papyrus
or parchment a day -- or a week -- or a year later? Maybe
a dozen, more or less. How many actually did such recording?
Probably not many at all.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
>
> How many people in a crowd of a few hundred,
> listening to
> Jesus talking, could have reproduced his words on
> papyrus
> or parchment a day -- or a week -- or a year
> later? Maybe
> a dozen, more or less. How many actually did such
> recording?
> Probably not many at all.

Three percent literacy refers to those who can read, according to what Ehrman cites; fewer could write a sentence or a paragraph. Of these, very few would be friendly to Jesus' message. If nothing else, those who could write would be employed doing something other than following around an itinerant preacher.

Besides the vast majority of writings from ancient times, including works by famous people have been lost.

So, Matthew doesn't count? Or the "Luke" character, who was reputed to be a physician?

Fact is, you are both speculating based on some speculative stats. None of us knows who were in Jesus' entourage as he went about preaching and raising the dead. To assume that none of his party could write? I guess that's the fantasy you need to feel ok about something...

If Jesus was really that important to his disciples, a scribe would likely have been appointed to shadow him, or at least encouraged to tag along and keep his ears open, maybe take some notes. If the events were so significant to enough people that a persistent, long-lasting countrywide oral tradition developed around his teachings and doings, then it is just as likely that some one would have written something down.

Where's Josephus when you need him? Oh yeah, 60 years after the fact (supposedly), and he's all, like, "And this man Jesus was the Christ"!

So it's left to some Jewish Hollywood movie producers to hire John Wayne to stand by the cross and say, "Truly, this man was the son of god". That's enuff for me, I'm sold...

But robert, your arguments denying any possibility of Aramaic written record do not add even a little to the defense of Ehrman's feeble argument that a couple scraps of Aramaic and some supposed linguistic evidences constitutes evidence for an existing Aramaic gospel oral tradition.

IIRC, there are learned apologists for the written Greek versions of the Gospels pre-dating the Aramaic/Syriac versions, and contradicting arguments from yet other apologists maintaining the primacy in both quality of texts and dates of origins of the Syriac versions. Has Ehrman commented on this controversy? I'd be interested to learn how the supposed Aramaic oral tradition factors into this scholarly and ecclesiastical disagreement.

hello Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, Matthew doesn't count?

I'd love to be able to get back to the original, first
draft of Matthew's text -- very likely a product of
the early Jerusalem Church, and perhaps first of all
existing in Aramaic, before our Greek text was composed.

But there's no chance of that first draft turning up --
and I'm not convinced that the text we now have in our
collective possession came from a 1st century apostle.

Was there a Matthew, who could read and write? Probably.

Can we find his words in the book bearing his name? Maybe.

Did he write the book? No -- I don't think so.

> Or the "Luke"
> character, who was reputed to be a physician?

An admirer of Saul/Paul, and thus an unlikely firsthand
witness. His gospel does contain a few interesting unique
passages, which may rely upon early oral tradition. But
was Luke an eye-witness? I think not. Probably a Roman,
literate, but far removed from the original action.

> Fact is, you are both speculating based on some
> speculative stats. None of us knows who were in
> Jesus' entourage as he went about preaching and
> raising the dead.

He raised the dead? An odd claim, when attached to a
"none of us knows" statement. Doctors today bring
patients back from clinical death -- it is a strange,
perhaps highly emotional, phenomenon -- but I do not
place much confidence in any 1st century guy actually
having brought dead people back to life.

Lazarus never bothered to show up at the crucifixion,
according to the passion story. What did he have to
be afraid of? That the Romans would arrest and execute
him? Unlikely occurrence for a once-dead man, and such
a good friend of Jesus -- living shortly before the
crucifixion. Proves nothing, but strange even so.

More likely this was a symbolism shared among Jesus'
early followers -- When John's disciples go to ask
Jesus if he is the messiah, he does not answer that
question, but he instead quotes a messianic passage
from Isaiah, as his evidence. The quote differs from
the Hebrew text, in that it includes bringing the dead
back to life -- an addition also found at Qumran.

Why add to Isaiah? And why add such an absurd claim?
Perhaps because it was meant to be symbolic from the
very first utterance.

> To assume that none of his party
> could write? I guess that's the fantasy you need
> to feel ok about something...

Whether or not Jesus had "a party," is subject to doubt;
but he must have had early followers and they must have
preserved at least some shared oral traditions. Memory
counted for more back in those days than now -- and some
people made it their task to preserve memories, both
personal and communal. Whoever first wrote down any
particular quote from Jesus (or from a disciple, etc.)
need not have been personally an eye-witness. A scribe,
compiling oral traditions, years after Jesus' death might
have recorded the words about as accurately as a single
eye-witness, who did not have shared communal input.


> If Jesus was really that important to his
> disciples, a scribe would likely have been
> appointed to shadow him, or at least encouraged to
> tag along and keep his ears open, maybe take some
> notes.

Sounds like John Whitmer -- recording Joe Smith in the
early 1830s. I have a hard time picturing Jesus accomodating
any such recording scribe.


> If the events were so significant to enough
> people that a persistent, long-lasting countrywide
> oral tradition developed around his teachings and
> doings, then it is just as likely that some one
> would have written something down.

Sooner or later important stuff gets written down. The
problem is -- that what is written may not be the most
important message -- or, it may obscure other, non-verbal
cues, more easily discernable in a live audience.

> Where's Josephus when you need him? Oh yeah, 60
> years after the fact (supposedly), and he's all,
> like, "And this man Jesus was the Christ"!

I am not convinced that Josephus was either honest or
accurate -- nor am I convinced that the Jesus passage
was in his original edition. However, if somebody were
to discover a much earlier copy, I'd be interested in
looking it over.


> So it's left to some Jewish Hollywood movie
> producers to hire John Wayne to stand by the cross
> and say, "Truly, this man was the son of god".
> That's enuff for me, I'm sold...

Golly -- I hope that not many people are that stupid.

UD

Uncle Dale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hello Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So, Matthew doesn't count?
>
> I'd love to be able to get back to the original,
> first
> draft of Matthew's text -- very likely a product
> of
> the early Jerusalem Church, and perhaps first of
> all
> existing in Aramaic, before our Greek text was
> composed.
>
> But there's no chance of that first draft turning
> up --
> and I'm not convinced that the text we now have in
> our
> collective possession came from a 1st century
> apostle.

me neither.

>
> Was there a Matthew, who could read and write?
> Probably.
>
> Can we find his words in the book bearing his
> name? Maybe.
>
> Did he write the book? No -- I don't think so.

me neither.

> > Or the "Luke"
> > character, who was reputed to be a physician?
>
> An admirer of Saul/Paul, and thus an unlikely
> firsthand
> witness. His gospel does contain a few interesting
> unique
> passages, which may rely upon early oral
> tradition. But
> was Luke an eye-witness? I think not. Probably a
> Roman,
> literate, but far removed from the original
> action.

probably.

> > Fact is, you are both speculating based on some
> > speculative stats. None of us knows who were in
> > Jesus' entourage as he went about preaching and
> > raising the dead.
>
> He raised the dead? An odd claim, when attached to
> a
> "none of us knows" statement. Doctors today bring
>
> patients back from clinical death -- it is a
> strange,
> perhaps highly emotional, phenomenon -- but I do
> not
> place much confidence in any 1st century guy
> actually
> having brought dead people back to life.

I don't believe the events narrated in the NT actually happened, UD. Just discussing the logic of the context, as are you.

> Lazarus never bothered to show up at the
> crucifixion,
> according to the passion story. What did he have
> to
> be afraid of? That the Romans would arrest and
> execute
> him? Unlikely occurrence for a once-dead man, and
> such
> a good friend of Jesus -- living shortly before
> the
> crucifixion. Proves nothing, but strange even so.
>
> More likely this was a symbolism shared among
> Jesus'
> early followers -- When John's disciples go to ask
>
> Jesus if he is the messiah, he does not answer
> that
> question, but he instead quotes a messianic
> passage
> from Isaiah, as his evidence. The quote differs
> from
> the Hebrew text, in that it includes bringing the
> dead
> back to life -- an addition also found at Qumran.
>
> Why add to Isaiah? And why add such an absurd
> claim?
> Perhaps because it was meant to be symbolic from
> the
> very first utterance.
>
> > To assume that none of his party
> > could write? I guess that's the fantasy you
> need
> > to feel ok about something...
>
> Whether or not Jesus had "a party," is subject to
> doubt;
> but he must have had early followers and they must
> have
> preserved at least some shared oral traditions.
> Memory
> counted for more back in those days than now --
> and some
> people made it their task to preserve memories,
> both
> personal and communal. Whoever first wrote down
> any
> particular quote from Jesus (or from a disciple,
> etc.)
> need not have been personally an eye-witness. A
> scribe,
> compiling oral traditions, years after Jesus'
> death might
> have recorded the words about as accurately as a
> single
> eye-witness, who did not have shared communal
> input.
>
>
> > If Jesus was really that important to his
> > disciples, a scribe would likely have been
> > appointed to shadow him, or at least encouraged
> to
> > tag along and keep his ears open, maybe take
> some
> > notes.
>
> Sounds like John Whitmer -- recording Joe Smith in
> the
> early 1830s. I have a hard time picturing Jesus
> accomodating
> any such recording scribe.

According to the NT, crowds followed the Jesus dude around. He may not have been able to control who was allowed to attend his public appearances.

> > If the events were so significant to enough
> > people that a persistent, long-lasting
> countrywide
> > oral tradition developed around his teachings
> and
> > doings, then it is just as likely that some one
> > would have written something down.
>
> Sooner or later important stuff gets written down.
> The
> problem is -- that what is written may not be the
> most
> important message -- or, it may obscure other,
> non-verbal
> cues, more easily discernable in a live audience.

true.

>
> > Where's Josephus when you need him? Oh yeah, 60
> > years after the fact (supposedly), and he's
> all,
> > like, "And this man Jesus was the Christ"!
>
> I am not convinced that Josephus was either honest
> or
> accurate -- nor am I convinced that the Jesus
> passage
> was in his original edition. However, if somebody
> were
> to discover a much earlier copy, I'd be interested
> in
> looking it over.

me neither, and me too.

> > So it's left to some Jewish Hollywood movie
> > producers to hire John Wayne to stand by the
> cross
> > and say, "Truly, this man was the son of god".
> > That's enuff for me, I'm sold...
>
> Golly -- I hope that not many people are that
> stupid.
>
> UD

My experiences as an English teacher have convinced me that people will remember and believe whatever has been portrayed in movies much more than the original print sources. So yeah, people will remember the myth of the Roman centurion by the cross, because it was in the "King of Kings" movie, much better than what was actually recorded in the Bible.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
...
> few would be friendly to Jesus' message.
...

Since we today have the published words, we tend to rely
upon them as conveying the gospel message. Even the
movies portraying Jesus' interactions with people tend to
concentrate too much on the verbal communication.

The actual interaction of a traditional teacher and his
disciples might be something altogether different, Living
in South Asia I witnessed examples of that sort of thing.
A real, endearing shared love -- between teacher and
followers -- and among the followers.

An outsider, come to bad-mouth John at the Jordan, might
have gone away a changed man -- no matter whether he could
read or write. A woman along the roadway, who personally
witnessed Jesus giving a parable might have indeed been
struck to the core, and had her life change in an instant.

I don't think it would matter much, whether a person in
that situation was literate or not. Perhaps a case could
be made, however, that the Temple scribes and Herodian
officials (literate urbanites) were so set in their ways
that the gospel message fell upon deaf ears in their case.

If so, you may be correct in that example.

UD

That's fascinating Uncle Dale. Thank you :-)

I agree, Uncle Dale, your posts on this thread are fine additions, edifying and informative, yet fun. Thanks for posting.

Thanks lulu, very insightful and informative.

Erhman and other scholars are pretty insistent that the texts had to come from Greek texts only, based on oral Aramaic tradition. For example they site the rebirth by baptism (re-enter the womb) pun that only works in the Greek.

But there may be more to the mystery if you look at the classic "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25).

I remember some pretty elaborate rationalizations from my morg seminary teacher on that verse. But if you consider a more Eastern tradition the craziness clears up a bit.

"The Aramaic word gamla means camel, a large rope and a beam. The meaning of the word is determined by its context. If the word riding or burden occurs then gamla means a camel, but when the eye of a needle is mentioned gamla more correctly means a rope. There is no connection anywhere in Aramaic speech or literature between camel and needle, but there is a definite connection between rope and needle." Dr. George Lamsa

For me, this clearly shows there was at least a partial written Aramaic tradition that served as a source for a Greek writing scribe who was a little lax on his Aramaic vocabulary.

luminouswatcher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But there may be more to the mystery if you look
> at the classic "It is easier for a camel to go
> through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man
> to enter into the kingdom of God" (Mark 10:25).
>
> I remember some pretty elaborate rationalizations
> from my morg seminary teacher on that verse. But
> if you consider a more Eastern tradition the
> craziness clears up a bit.
>
> "The Aramaic word gamla means camel, a large
> rope and a beam. The meaning of the word is
> determined by its context. If the word riding or
> burden occurs then gamla means a camel, but when
> the eye of a needle is mentioned gamla more
> correctly means a rope. There is no connection
> anywhere in Aramaic speech or literature between
> camel and needle, but there is a definite
> connection between rope and needle." Dr. George
> Lamsa
>
> For me, this clearly shows there was at least a
> partial written Aramaic tradition that served as a
> source for a Greek writing scribe who was a little
> lax on his Aramaic vocabulary."

LW, did your seminary teacher happen to mention the lore that there was an after-hours gate in the wall of Jerusalem that was merely a small hole, so that it was termed "the eye of the needle"? As difficult for a camel to pass thru as for a rich man to enter heaven? Maybe this is merely a fanciful tale concocted by a sunday school teacher, I don't know.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_of_a_needle

"The "eye of a needle" has been interpreted as a gate in Jerusalem, which opened after the main gate was closed at night. A camel could only pass through this smaller gate if it was stooped and had its baggage removed. This story has been put forth since at least the 15th century, and possibly as far back as the 9th century. However, there is no evidence for the existence of such a gate.

Variations on this story include that of ancient inns having small entrances to thwart thieves, or a story of an old mountain pass known as the "eye of the needle", so narrow that merchants would have to dismount from their camels and were thus were more vulnerable to waiting brigands.

Cyril of Alexandria claimed that "camel" is a Greek misprint; that kamêlos (camel) was a misprint of kamilos, meaning "rope" or "cable".[2][3] However evidence for such a Greek term is weak, there is little or no Greek manuscript support, and it goes against the standard principle of textual criticism that errors tend to happen towards the easier reading, not against it."

If such an "eye" in the wall existed, LW, then it is possible that any such Aramaic influences as you mention in this passage may be inconsequential or nonexistent. But there is no evidence for such a gate according to the wiki citation. Interesting info about the Aramaic "rope" tho, a new perspective for me. Interesting too that some have thought the possible Greek word "kamilos" also meant "rope", just as the Aramaic "gamla". An odd coincidence?

I think the existence of the "eye" is very improbable. Oh and camels don't crawl on the knees to get through the "eye" in the wall or gate either. A clear example of reaching for straws because the phrase does not makes sense. The evidence in Greek is very weak, but in Aramaic it is a slam dunk. And honestly, what is more likely, using a thick piece of something that normally goes through a needle, vs. some other contrive analogy that stretches normal usage.

I would argue you are misusing the "simple form" test, unless the usage of an eyed needle is an anachronism.

Oh, to clarify, in Aramaic the words are written the same. "I lead the dog to the heavy lead bench before we rested." If you don't read English, then "lead" could be mistaken as the same word.

sorry lw, I didn't "misuse" the "simple form" test or anything else. I quoted from wikipedia, and discussed the possibility that their info was not accurate or real in any way. Actually, I made no argument, other than some "if" commentary.

Perhaps you should update the wiki article with your more persuasive info about the Aramaic sources of the Biblical reference?

Erhman is a fraud. He has no evidence.

Its like a really bad game of Bizzaro Jeopardy:

"There is no evidence whatsoever and your answer must come in the form of speculation and conjecture!"

No wonder so many were duped by mormonism for so long.

Timothy