Adam

To Joseph:
I know you read my Post #262 because you quoted a snippet from it in your #267. However, in your #275 and #278 you proceeded as if you had never read the rest of #262 or that my lack of a quick response implied something I never said.

Fiction is not proven regarding John 20:11-16 even on FRDB principles, because the author (in my opinion for John 11-14a, 16-17, it was John Mark) was relating what he heard from Mary Magdalene. Whether the person she saw was actually Jesus, whether she had a hallucination, these things are open to question, but they fail to prove (indeed argue against) this being fiction.

Adam

If these Latinisms were so early, why are they not all through the sources of the other Synoptics? The Latinisms present in gMark apparently were inserted in a late stratum. My Post #230 in Gospel Eyewitnesses you kept attacking came long after I had completed presenting my seven written eyewitness records of Jesus, was just a hobby-horse issue for you and Vork. Yet you yourself have admitted that you are open to sources in gMark.My OP stated that I would not respond to the mere carping I got over on Theology Web about how to define "evidence". I don't care that you can't grasp what "is" is.You would think, then, that someone could lay a hand on me. No one has.
Finally I understand you! What a revelation! Every time I present logic, evidence, reasoning, or argumentation, I must say that is what I am doing so that you will wake up and deal with it.
Darn! All those times all I had to do was wave my magic wand and encant, "The following is my evidence for my conclusion".
Looks who's talking.

spin

Funny you should ask. Some of them have, but because Latinisms usually produced poorer quality Greek, the more profitient writers tended to improve the Greek and so remove most of the Latinisms, as with other difficulties in the Greek. But as you can't handle the language issue you tend to ignore it and make up nonsense like the following..

Not a hobby-horse issue for me--it's your hobby-horse. And yes, I'm open to sources behind Mark. The doublet loaves and fishes story are variations of the one original. The simplest way of understanding their existence in Mark is that they were received as separate stories. There are other pointers to separate sources, such as the unnamed hometown and the Capernaum home.

Ok, if you like I will just start reporting your posts as a load of assertions and we'll see if the moderators agree or not. The guidelines are clear on argument by assertion.

That only shows how insensitive you must be. You've been publicly brutalized. You just don't seem to feel the hands.

You are fucking joking: you have been told by so many people that you have been shitting unsupported claptrap that an ordinary person would have got the message by now. But there has been no lightbulb event for you: you are still in the dark that you've presented nothing. How the fuck for example did you decide that Mary Magdalene told John Mark the events at the tomb? You don't know as there is no evidence for you to base the assertion on. You make things up as you go.

And then provide evidence. The reason your paper wasn't accepted is because it is fundamentally empty.

Someone who knows evidence, like others here who have noted your lack of any. That's why it's plain you've said nothing. Assertions = nothing. When a person conjectures, they weave a story around their starting material, such as what you did with the tomb story. You've supplied no evidence to support the assertion you conjectured. You just decided that's the way that sounds reasonable to you: you made it up, just as you made up a story to take the Acts character John Mark as 1) real, converting text into reality, and 2) the writer of gospel material. There is no way to test these assertions. They are unfalsifiable and thus meaningless. You make things up.

Jeffrey Gibson

If anyone ever needed more proof that you have no ability to sense your own cluelessness about how un-creative, not to mention unsound, your ideas are, we have it here in your poisoning of the well assertion that Spin might, or has any reason to, be jealous of what you post. There's nothing to be jealous of. And it's only your inflated sense of self and the worth of your "work" that makes you think so.

And if this is the case (again, you are just making an assertion), do you have any idea why this might be so? Are you saying thatv what Ib think has no basis in fact? Are you now saying that I really have no critical acumen and that its only bias and prejudice on my part that has led me to say that your work is junk?

May be? So you are guessing again? Do you have any actual evidence that would help you say one way or another, let alone that your guess is a good one?

In any case, even if I am, so what? After alll, you have claimed that what you've written does indeed match the highest standards of scholarship. Why else would you say, as you have, that it is superior to Brown's and Lindars or that it is a genuine advance on all the views of the scholars whose work you "use"? So why shouldn't your "work" be evaluated according to these standards?

Are you claiming some kind of special dispensation for yourself? That you should somehow be given a break that you wont give real scholars?

Or are you saying now that your work is actually substandard and amateurish? Which is it?

Please do not or ever again presume to know what I do or do not mean, let alone tell me how an argument is to be constructed in the real world or in the "ivory tower" that you think I'm in.

Just as you were wrong in your thinking that credentials mattered in getting something published, you are wrong in all of your suppositions about how good argumentation proceeds here or elsewhere.

Once again, you've shot yourself in the foot.

JG

JoeWallack

JW:
Bingo!

You have never established credibility here at FRDB with a quality Thread so I am justified in assuming that if I tried to create a sensible Methodology for you by going through your obstacle course above I might find that either it wasn't worth the effort or that there was no sensible Methodology to be found. If you want to try and establish credibility here than you can respond with an outline of the Methodology you used to determine that John Mark was the author of John 20:11-16.

JW:
Fortunately for the Masses here I have been dealing with Apologies for longer than Chris Weimer thought Geza Vermes was spin. The nature of Apologetics is to decrease the standard of evidence for your point to the point where it may meet that standard and increase the standard of evidence for your opponent's point to the point where it may not meet that standard. Again, my criteria for the detection of fiction:

1) Impossible claims

2) Contradictions

3) Parallels to non-historical sources

4) Thematic motivation

5) Contrivance/Implausibility

6) Necessity of tying to other stories

You are correct that it is possible that an eyewitness could provide false witness unintentionally. I'll even go beyond that and say it is possible that an eyewitness could provide false witness intentionally. However, what's important here is relationship and probability and not possibility. The relationship is that the better the evidence for fiction the more likely it was not based on eyewitness. You do not ignore/deny evidence for fiction just because it's possible that an eyewitness did not correctly witness a fictional event. All that does is hurt your credibility.

So, how does John 20:11-16 test out for fiction based on my criteria?



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Adam

spin in his #283 continues to assert that I have only assertions, so nothing new with his total negativity and absence of specifics--except again about the Latinisms, which was always irrelevant to my "points", as later Latinisms don't rule out earlier Aramaisms. No wonder he hates Maurice Casey so much.

So it won't be so repetitive if I just turn (for now, anyway) to Jeffrey.
"Un-creative". Now that's a gem. I may have been wrong (still waiting for you guys to start refuting me), but has anyone else come up with so many proposed authors for the gospels that no one (until Stephan Huller yesterday) has tried to refute? On my own, in 1964 I perceived Andrew as an author of gJohn (that only a year ago I found out some German had proposed in the 19th Century). Independently of Temple I figured out Nicodemus as an author (and apparently while Jesus was still alive, because his attitude changed after John 3 and again by John 12), though of only the Discourses and not Temple's Core Gospel. It took me until 2011 to figure out John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative, sort of a diary entry about the last week he had experienced with Jesus--sorry I was so slow on that one. A lot easier was figuring out Simon as the author of L, because his name appears at the beginning and end (Luke 7:40, 24:34). Say what you will about my theories (though no one here does), they are original and highly creative.Not at all. Why would you say this in light of the following sentence you quote? Too bad I did not insert this added sentence one sentence later.Pretty clearly I am saying that Jeffrey has a mind-set that tunes out verbiage that falls short of what he demands in scholarship. Is he going to deny this and say instead that he just dislikes me, does not like the substance of what I am saying, or dismisses my way of expressing myself as mere rhetoric, popularizing, or apologetics? Even when I was a Roman Catholic I disliked Raymond Brown and his disciple Barnabas Lindars for disregarding rigorous literary criticism and choosing instead to present us with an unfalsifiable Johannine community. Theoretically they could be right, but they just give assertions whose primary virtue seems to be liberal Roman Catholic apologetics. Even when I was in that Church I disliked assuming the consequent.

As for the more critical scholars, their critical faculties are applied well enough to deriving their own theories, but fail strangely to be capable of reconciling their source strata with even similar results of other top scholars. I guess it's like science: the great engineers and physicists gain great new insights in their 20's that they apply the rest of their careers, but a new generation has to come along to make new advances. Once scholars have published in their 30's, it's too late to apply what they should learn from others.I got baptized in the Spirit in 1977 in the Charismatic Renewal, and my renewed interest in the Bible led me into dispute with the academic leaders of the movement who were touting later dates for the gospels than I accepted. I renewed the source-criticism that had led me to get baptized as a Roman Catholic in 1969, and I wound up by 1980 quite convinced that I was right about early dates. Did I have a mission from God to do this? If so, it's time for wide dispersal has not yet come.Well, I'm not pointing any longer from my various threads (or other posts) to this Significance of John as evidence for what my opponents were claiming was lacking. I had forgotten that the second half was written in summary fashion to finish out within the space allotted for my five editions of gJohn. I had always regarded myself as having a great talent for condensing my thought, but this means that even the first half did not provide the verses and other examples a book would ordinarily have. I can say in a short space what others take books to say, but the extra space others take is not just unneeded repetition. I also know that my exposition of my reasoning had in the past skipped steps that I knew in my mind but failed to perceive that I was not including for my reader. I don't think that's a problem with my 1981 paper, but may be a legitimate criticism of various posts I have made here in FRDB. (It may be part of my difficulty communicating now with Joe Wallack.) As I have been saying, I don't get much feedback on specifics, so that does not elicit from me the missing step I skipped but know . Or maybe sometimes I think the criticism is so unwarranted because the answer is so obvious, that I don't even respond as I should.
Bad as spin in these comments, you tell me I'm wrong, but give not a clue about what you think the truth is.
Edited to add:
I don't know where, but I once read about "reductive logic", which seems to fit me as something less than "inductive logic", but still valuable if applied correctly. I can't find it online or in the dictionary, so maybe my style of reasoning is just different, not necessarily wrong.

Jeffrey Gibson

So now the paper was in 1981. And yet all this time you said it was to appear in a 1980 volume of BTB! So which is it?

And what exactly did Bossman say about it. Please reproduce his exact words.

What I've been telling you is that you are clueless about your ability to argue your case and that your case is not argued, it's asserted.

I'll also say this plainly. I think you are lying when you say that Bossman actually accepted your article for publication. I know Bossman. He's published some of my work. He would not accept what you've been posting here as worthy of publication.

Anyone who wants to check this for themseles may write to him. His address is David.Bossman@shu.edu

There's also a BTB Facebook page at

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Bibli...10112449057533

One can post questions there regarding the acceptance of Adam's article there.

That's not my job. The issue at hand is solely the soundness and validity of your claims and your competency to make them.

Jeffrey

Adam

Strange how little interest you have in what is truth or how we go about finding it. That leaves the appearance that you only care about tearing people down, not even telling them what concepts they have wrong and how they are failing in presenting themselves. Just saying I am wrong gives me no reason to change anything. That makes you no more helpful than spin--or than aa, for that matter.

I've already speculated here that spin checked this out, because he's so thorough. spin would have told us about anything negative he found out from Bossman. Nor did spin deny he had done so. (But spin readily dodges questions he does not want to answer, but this is one where it would have been in his interest to deny he had contacted Bossman unless he already had and received an answer satisfactory to me.)

Pretty strong to say I am lying. I keep better files on what I write and send than on what I receive, so at most I am incorrect about Bossman accepting the whole paper in 1981 or giving me assurance he would after he saw the first half in 1980. Recall that he never saw the first two paragraphs of my 1987 cover letter, so that's basically, "This paper presents the sources and order of composition of John." Nothing about authors or datings, these were provided as extras. As Dr. Edgar Bruns wrote to me at the time, work not on who wrote John but where, but I ignored him. I'm bolder than a regular academic.

spin

As you don't seem to have any methodology for ascertaining truth, there's little value in such a statement from you.

When one is in the business of conveying some modicum of good methodology to people, one realizes at times one fails with one's efforts. But then there are just so many ways one can try to communicate the basic ideas to deaf ears.

The burden has always been on you to demonstrate your claims, not on me to demonstrate their falseness. You fail at every step. You conjecture and assert and speculate and presume and guess and believe.

I deal with things that have the possibility of derived content. Unfalsifiable assertions are a waste of time. All one can do is point out the vacuousness of it all. I do know that you didn't publish in a peer reviewed journal, so you have absolutely no evidence of having done so. Until you can demonstrate your claim it has no value, so I've left it at that.

There is nothing in this that can be worked with by anyone. How do expect anyone to verify what you have said?

Adam

I suppose Jeffrey Gibson can speak for himself, but you have helpfully provided "evidence" for my contention that you dodge questions. You could have told whether you tried to contact Bossman, but that might spoil your "evidence" against me. If you're such a Logical Positivist about the meaning of a proposition being its verifiability, you're the most meaningless poster around these parts. You can't be wrong because you never say anything.

"There is nothing in this that can be worked with by anyone. How do expect anyone to verify what you have said?" How true--of you.