Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-17-2013, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

...Teeple ... When he published in 1974 it was safe to just assume all of John and even its sources was too late to relate to anyone in the narrative. That's not a good assumption anymore,

Exactly why not?

Quote:

and I was one of the first to try to identify people involved in the gathering of information towards it.

Who else has tried this?

Quote:

Perhaps by force of habit (and professional reserve) they still refrain. But even Jeffrey Gibson in #309 admits that there is a prima facie case for it.

He did? Be careful about taking his name in vain. :Cheeky:

You should explain what you mean by prima facie case. I don't think you have shown a prima facie case as most people understand it.

Quote:

What's wrong with weighing the pros and cons? Let's get into the substance of #161 and #162, as you propose.

I've tried to explain why there are no pros and lots of cons. Nothing seems to penetrate.

Is there anyone here who sees any point to this proposed discussion?

Toto · 05-17-2013, 05:21 PM

Here's what Jeffrey said in #309

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

..

... It's not even that a gospel's source(s) could not have come from an eyewitness. There's at least a prima facie case for it.

I.e., there is a prima facie case that a gospel's sources could have come from an eyewitnesses - not for your particular reconstruction.

Later he adds:

Quote:

Stop blaming others for your failure to make your case or to see its merits. It isn't out of any bias that no one sees what you say is there. It's because there's nothing there to see. And you certainly have not shown that there's anything actually there worth looking at.

"Nothing there to see" is at variance with "prima facie case."Jeffrey is one of those calling for this thread to be closed.

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-17-2013, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Here's what Jeffrey said in #309

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

..

... It's not even that a gospel's source(s) could not have come from an eyewitness. There's at least a prima facie case for it.

I.e., there is a prima facie case that a gospel's sources could have come from an eyewitnesses - not for your particular reconstruction.

Exactly. And the fact that Adam has misread my words and taken them to support what he believes regarding eyewitnesses when they do not ("come from" above means derived from and/or based on and nothing more), shows that he cannot and should not be trusted when he claims that he is accurately representing the views (does he actually ever give the words of, except selectively so that we can see) of people like Teeple, let alone that these scholars support his case or actually provide the grounds for his claims.

Jeffrey

Adam · 05-17-2013, 07:23 PM

Jeffrey had said in #309,
"It's not even that a gospel's source(s) could not have come from an eyewitness. There's at least a prima facie case for it."
Apparently Jeffrey did not mean to say that a source within the Gospel of John could have come from the written record by an eyewitness, for example the Signs Source. He meant to say that said source could have been based on an eyewitness's information, or just that that gospel might have included information obtained from an eyewitness. At first blush (prima facie) this would seem more likely to me to be meaning that the Signs Source (for example) presence of names Andrew and Philip would mean that the text originally read "I" or "we" than that (as I take Jeffrey now to be saying) the writer frequently dropped in the names of his eyewitness sources. I would think the latter less likely than the former (at least in light of the stylistic distinctness of the Signs Source), because the writer would be focusing on Jesus, not on intermediaries, but that's just me and not Jeffrey. I certainly did not think I was presenting Jeffrey as if he agreed that Andrew was the eyewitness and that he wrote the Signs Gospel. Jeffrey is not the only one here who feels he has been misquoted.

As for the actual words of Teeple, or at least the text of John in his translation with source annotations (omitting only the Prologue and the Redactor), I transcribed from his Literary Origin of the Gospel of John directly into both my thread
Early Aramaic Gospels and
Gospel Eyewitness Sources. I apologized for how "wooden" that made my transcription, but believed it necessary for scholarly purposes. I didn't want to leave false impressions that my source boundaries fully agreed with his.

It appears your comments on my work are not based on thorough knowledge of the work of Howard M. Teeple. Are you qualified to comment upon my (mis)use of his work? (One would think I chose in 1980 to build a great part of my case upon a scholar I knew would not be known well enough in the 21st Century for anyone to refute my use of his work. Just kidding, for those of you doubting my sanity!)

Adam · 05-17-2013, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

No, I deny all that.
Except I do go far beyond Teeple in identifying authors. When he published in 1974 it was safe to just assume all of John and even its sources was [sic] too late to relate to anyone in the narrative. That's not a good assumption anymore,

This is a perfect example of how you fail to argue. You make a global claim ("this is not a good assumption anymore") but do not tell us why this assumption is no longer good, let alone provide evidence that shows that this is so.
Jeffrey

Even in Teeple's time Joubert had established respect for the Johannine calendar, and archaeology was diminishing the confidence that John was unhistorical. The Dead Sea Scrolls showed similarity to Johannine thought. F. Lamar Cribbs in 1969 dated John so early that he presented Luke as based on it, not the reverse. Then in 1976 John A. T. Robinson wrote Redating the New Testament that everything was before 70 CE. Robinson rejected sources, but if there were sources they would go back even earlier. Gradually a new generation of scholars arose that did not assume the old paradigm that John was late--except for the "unholy alliance" between apologists (both Roman Catholic and Evangelical) holding to the traditional date allied with unbelievers whose case is furthered by late dating.

Toto · 05-17-2013, 08:24 PM

No, I don't claim to be an authority on Teeple. I read a review of "The Literary Origins of the Gospel of John" and there is no indication that h.e claimed to identify eyewitness testimony. I know that Robert M. Price speaks highly of him, and a reference is included to one of his books on the Secular Web.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Even in Teeple's time Joubert had established respect for the Johannine calendar, and archaeology was diminishing the confidence that John was unhistorical.

This is quite misleading. One feature in on story in John was validated by archaeology, but this does not make gJohn historical.

Quote:

The Dead Sea Scrolls showed similarity to Johannine thought.

Where did you get this?

Quote:

F. Lamar Cribbs in 1969 dated John so early that he presented Luke as based on it, not the reverse.

A minority view, to say the least.

Quote:

Then in 1976 John A. T. Robinson wrote Redating the New Testament that everything was before 70 CE.

This is definitely a minority view. Robinson primarily showed that the methods of dating were somewhat arbitrary. His proposals for early dating have not been adopted by critical scholars.

Quote:

Robinson rejected sources, but if there were sources they would go back even earlier.

Eh?

Quote:

Gradually a new generation of scholars arose that did not assume the old paradigm that John was late--except for the "unholy alliance" between apologists (both Roman Catholic and Evangelical) holding to the traditional date allied with unbelievers whose case is furthered by late dating.

Who are these scholars? This is not a consensus view.

Toto · 05-17-2013, 08:39 PM

Here is Peter Kirby's essay on Robinson:

JAT Robinson's "Redating the New Testament"

Quote:

JAT Robinson wrote a book titled Redating the New Testament. As conceived, it is a first rate piece of liberal biblical scholarship, pushing the envelope and trying to tease the subject out to new heights of sophistication. Its method is simple: assume that everything in the New Testament derives from before AD 70, and then go bonking on the head all the arguments to the contrary. ...

There is no problem with Robinson qua Robinson. The problem comes when these hidebound conservatives footnote Robinson. They have understood neither where Robinson starts, how he operates, nor really where he ended up. They cite Robinson as, "scholar proves all of the NT dates before the destruction of Jerusalem!" Funny that, what began as an essay in creative thought, has ended up a footnote to decorate the dot at the end of a thousand ignorant apologetic arguments.

Adam · 05-17-2013, 10:28 PM

Looks like dates before 70 CE for John are rare. That's the "unholy alliance" in my opinion, but I won't claim I'm with Consensus here.
http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating...el-of-John.htm

Toto · 05-17-2013, 11:41 PM

So what do you have? You have made vague sweeping pronouncements about a new generation of scholars who do not date John late or who think the gospel is historical, but you can't find these scholars, and you still have no evidence that the gospel is historical.

Your whole argument seems to be built on this sort of wishful thinking.

What is the point of all of this? It's not going to convince any reasonably skeptical person, and it's not going to fly with any academic.

spin · 05-18-2013, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

So what do you have? You have made vague sweeping pronouncements about a new generation of scholars who do not date John late or who think the gospel is historical, but you can't find these scholars, and you still have no evidence that the gospel is historical.

Your whole argument seems to be built on this sort of wishful thinking.

What is the point of all of this? It's not going to convince any reasonably skeptical person, and it's not going to fly with any academic.

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

05-17-2013, 07:23 PM	#324
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Jeffrey had said in #309, "It's not even that a gospel's source(s) could not have come from an eyewitness. There's at least a prima facie case for it." Apparently Jeffrey did not mean to say that a source within the Gospel of John could have come from the written record by an eyewitness, for example the Signs Source. He meant to say that said source could have been based on an eyewitness's information, or just that that gospel might have included information obtained from an eyewitness. At first blush (prima facie) this would seem more likely to me to be meaning that the Signs Source (for example) presence of names Andrew and Philip would mean that the text originally read "I" or "we" than that (as I take Jeffrey now to be saying) the writer frequently dropped in the names of his eyewitness sources. I would think the latter less likely than the former (at least in light of the stylistic distinctness of the Signs Source), because the writer would be focusing on Jesus, not on intermediaries, but that's just me and not Jeffrey. I certainly did not think I was presenting Jeffrey as if he agreed that Andrew was the eyewitness and that he wrote the Signs Gospel. Jeffrey is not the only one here who feels he has been misquoted. As for the actual words of Teeple, or at least the text of John in his translation with source annotations (omitting only the Prologue and the Redactor), I transcribed from his Literary Origin of the Gospel of John directly into both my thread Early Aramaic Gospels and Gospel Eyewitness Sources. I apologized for how "wooden" that made my transcription, but believed it necessary for scholarly purposes. I didn't want to leave false impressions that my source boundaries fully agreed with his. It appears your comments on my work are not based on thorough knowledge of the work of Howard M. Teeple. Are you qualified to comment upon my (mis)use of his work? (One would think I chose in 1980 to build a great part of my case upon a scholar I knew would not be known well enough in the 21st Century for anyone to refute my use of his work. Just kidding, for those of you doubting my sanity!)

05-17-2013, 10:28 PM	#328
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Looks like dates before 70 CE for John are rare. That's the "unholy alliance" in my opinion, but I won't claim I'm with Consensus here. http://www.errantskeptics.org/Dating...el-of-John.htm

05-17-2013, 11:41 PM	#329
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	So what do you have? You have made vague sweeping pronouncements about a new generation of scholars who do not date John late or who think the gospel is historical, but you can't find these scholars, and you still have no evidence that the gospel is historical. Your whole argument seems to be built on this sort of wishful thinking. What is the point of all of this? It's not going to convince any reasonably skeptical person, and it's not going to fly with any academic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.