Adam

That's supposed to be an answer? You know the number now (of my posts where the article is serialized). It's time you read them. Only Shesh dared to respond. So your argument is that you don't need to read them because they are not at a higher level than anything else here on FRDB? Can I assume you tried to get David Bossman to refute my tale, but failed?

Anyone out there can at least test whether my article uses the documentation style required by BTB in 1980. Find any issue from that year and see that the footnotes are entered the same way as mine here.

spin

I don't know what more of your rubbish you expect people to suffer. Because you have never had the decency to make a rational clear presentation of your stuff, preferring to shit stings of back references to earlier assertions, you make it nearly impossible to read what you seem to think is your best stuff as it is lost in the undergrowth.

You've crapped on incessantly about your bogusly labeled "peer-reviewed" article, but all I've noticed are references to it and summaries, like a case of madman's diarrhea, splattered across your thread. I don't care about the documentation style: there are so many now to choose from. I don't care whether you used footnotes, endnotes or inline citations, just as long as you have argumentation and supporting evidence that is well sourced with clear citations.

Do you honestly believe that this article is actually better than all the nonsense you've written up to now, all the nonsense of yours I've read, wishing I hadn't wasted my time? If that were true, you could have spared us all of it and presented the good stuff. I fear that it won't be any different from the usual assertions. But, if you really and truly want it to be read, present it in its entirety below in how many sections are necessary. Do not give me any more numbers I have to hunt down. Give me no evidenceless "summaries". Give none of your fuck arounds. Just the article.

I have the feeling I'm going to regret this, as I find it hard to believe that something you wrote in 1980 is going to be any better from the loads and loads of nonsense assertions and stupid lists of numbers you've already posted over the last few years.

Jeffrey Gibson

May I suggest that you find a free upload site (or even create an open yahoo group) to post your article to and then let us know when and where it's available. That way we can see it as a whole, rather than in sections.

I must say, though, that an article that's 30 years old, however scholarly in form and content, may leave a lot to be desired given that there's been a lot of water under the Johannine bridge since 1980.

Jeffrey

Adam

triage
egg on my face
I got so enamored of my reply to Stringbean at #123 that I started using the Post #s from my thread Early Gospel Eyewitnesses as if they were the numbers where my article is posted here in this thread. I even used the #87 as the start of the body of gospel text as where it started in this thread. Thus the main point I made against spin in my #125 was invalid, the whole first paragraph after the first sentence. spin's replies in #126 and #129 did not catch this, so I even copied in the wrong list again in Post #128 and my Post #127 is invalid as is part of #131.

The correct list that I stated in my #104 and again in my very recent #117 (with my aside to Jeff Gibson) is thus:
#1, #2, #13, #30, #45, #57, #59, #63, #77, and #80 and related links in #50 to my Noesis articles.
So there were lots of responses to the substance of my article before the #87 I seized upon in error.

Now that I have the correct list I am sure that Jeff Gibson with his inveterate thoroughness will see that sequence is quite manageable. And yes, I will take up Toto's helpful idea in #136 about posting another blog when I find out how categorization here works. (I've looked for Help here in the past without success). Oh, where do members then comment on the blog for general posting here on FRDB?

Edited to add: spin in his #124 may be to blame for getting me off-track by bringing in the post #s I cited in my #123 about my other thread Early Gospel Sources:
Silly me. I tend to trust that what I am reading is relevant and correct until proven otherwise. Who would think that spin could not be trusted to stick to something relevant enough to be about this thread, not some other? If you can't trust spin, who can you trust?

Stringbean

A blog outside this site. You can get free ones try Wordpress. Or maybe your own forum PM me can give you more suggestions but this thread is not the place.

Toto

This is an excellent suggestion - but you don't even have to do that. As an FRDB member you can create a blog and post a coherent version of your article, just by copying the relevant posts here. No one is about to try to track down posts by numbers when you don't even have links to the posts.

Adam

...I won't embarrass spin or this forum by retaining spin's bombastic first paragraph in his Post #124.
Fair enough summary, minus the vituperation. Scholars disagree with one another honestly, usually without baseless accusations.My complaint is with posters who decry problems but without presenting any critique or suggestions or even which post or thread is supposedly deficient.My #57 was not a reply to Vork, but was clearly the continued serialization of my article. "text wall" is the standard excuse for not responding to a strong case presented by the opponent. So I'm supposed to list each verse segment and say whether it is from Teeple's R or else state why I made a revision? Or is spin saying not to dabble in detail?
I have already shown that spin expounds peer review with little better understanding than Shesh does. spin seems to be linking the later post with my Post #84 that he knows is a summary, as if a summary is where the argumentation is expected to be. I assume spin knows better, as he seems astute in other matters.Fair enough, but recent understanding of aposynagugos does not presume it is necessarily conclusive about dating, as we don't really know as much about Jamnia and such Jewish councils as we used to think. We don't really know the context of the word.
Hardly. I simply posted on this thread after it had been dormant for a month. I did wrong to hunt out posts to which a response seemed due?Truly hilarious! spin had accidentally stumbled across some of my article along the way (#57 for example), but never noticed that that concluded with my #80. Nor was I expounding a syllogism to Vork, merely stating that the likelihood that if the Discourses were originally not in Greek but in Aramaic, this tends to show they were early and from a source.
Yes I know there is no indefinite article in Greek, but most of us here in FRDB are more familiar with English for which defining "anarthrous" as lacking articles "a" or "the" helps for understanding. Had I written simply "the", then the reader might think the Greek text might yet exhibit "a" or "an".Thanks so much, spin, for posting here the list from the wrong thread! I'm so open to discourse that I thought out immediately that this meant that no one except Shesh had ever responded to the contents of my thread. I "spin" out ideas so fast that I did not perceive that this one made no sense. Nevertheless, spin never noticed, but I had to backtrack with a lot of triage in Post #134 when I realized my mistake.Here's another paragraph unworthy of this forum, but it makes clear that spin likes to censor ideas as much as he likes to censure people personally. His agnosticism leaves no room for belief in ideas, but also no room for praising people. That leaves attack mode exclusively.

Adam

One would think. The source-critics of John from the 1970's continued onwards with a new book from Robert Fortna and a three-volume commentary on John by Urban von Wahlde. Neither they nor anyone else seemed prepared to learn from anyone else, and von Wahlde took his insight about the word "Pharisees" and went off in into nonsense. Meanwhile the scholars who had panned Teeple later rescinded their objections: Robert Kysar and Dwight Moody Smith. However, this rehabilitation came too late while scholarship had moved on (to nowhere). Only the Evangelical scholar D. A. Carson has not withdrawn his objections (which was basically that it was too complicated).

spin

Here it is again:

From this can be gleaned
1. Adam neither posts evidence nor argumentation, but busloads of assertions;
2. He claims that people should take notice of a paper published in some unknown non-scholarly periodical, though claimed to be peer-reviewed;
3. No-one bothers to continue reading his gospel-hacking material because it has no methodology to it; and
4. He comments on Aramaic when he shows no knowledge of the language.

If you find that I am wrong in any of these points, you should take me to task for them. Don't simply label them bombastic and avoid the issues. Please deal with them.

It's strange you think it's fair enough that you made an ad hoc speculation (showing no scholarly analysis) as a means of ignoring the problem.

The critique is clearly that you are not doing your job of presenting argumentation and evidence. It has been pointed out one way or another time and time again. It doesn't get through and continue to string lists of post numbers together linking your assertions as though they all somehow need answering, while you persistently avoid providing argumentation and evidence.

Nobody says it was. Read my comment again. I'm summarizing what you are doing wrong and in post 57 you are still not doing what people like Vork have been trying to elicit from you. Post 57 is guilty of the same sort of tarball of assertions that you incessantly produce. It achieves nothing because it lacks those two basic ingredients, argumentation and evidence.

Text walls are screenloads of codswallop. That is what your signature concoction of numbers and assertions adds up to.

What can you achieve by assertion this nonsense? You dabble in detail when you have provided the argumentation and evidence for doing so.

I'll assume that this is merely a reflection of your reading difficulties and nothing worse.

You can assume what you like. I was commenting that no-one responded to your post 84, so you bumped the post with the vacuous comments I cited. I then added two points:
1. You clearly still unaware of what argumentation means; and
2. you have failed to demonstrate that you use "peer-reviewed" with any recognized meaning. This is because you are unable to produce any evidence of a peer-reviewed article.

Your analyses require that you do.

If you could respond to the post. You specifically cite a request by Vork of six months earlier asking you to "Dig out the exact ARGUMENT from these texts that shows that a particular passage goes back to John Mark." You responded "It's time to resurrect my peer-reviewed serialization in my thread Significance of John because I did present evidence there that people here endlessly accuse me of never giving."

Evidence you are accused of never giving. I am starting to realize that you don't understand the notion of evidence.

Ironically, you've got it right that it is.

You must certainly be right when you say "accidentally". Post 57 gives no clue that it belongs to your article. If this is part of your article I can understand why it was not published in the journal you say it was aimed for. It lacks those scholarly ingredients, argumentation and evidence.

You spattered this shit across the thread in seemingly random order, a bit of crud here and a bit of crud there. It's no wonder you perennially fail to communicate. You need to post it all together rather than peppering a thread with this material, willy-nilly, without thought of your readers, without helping for continuity, spewing the usual lists of numbers and lack of scholarly methodology.

I can now say that you don't have to post your article for me. It seems in no way different from the undergrowth in which it was embedded. It was your lack of organization that had me hoping for some improvement, but you have merely reiterated what I discovered when dealing with your first quagmire: you just don't know what you are doing.

You needed to find a way of making sense of what you were trying to talk about, an endemic problem in your material.

A list found immediately above the post you are responding to, ie it is in this thread and typical of your failure to communicate throughout the thread, reverting to spewing lists of numbers. It doesn't communicate. You will not get that through your head, no matter how often it is told to you. Your persistent repeating of such drivel shows an endemic communication problem.

Having attempted to communicate with you in the past, your openness seems an illusion.

Not just this one but the nonsensical web of posts that flit across the thread dropping lists of numbers and bald assertions along the way.

This is a fine specimen of your lack of communication, rehashing lists of numbers for the benefit of you getting your numbers in order. I believe that nothing can come out of this stuff and the thread should be put down and spare the agony.

You have not responded to the content in the paragraph. This is only to be expected.

1. You have failed at every step of the way to even understand your responsibility to provide evidence and argumentation.
2. Argument from assertion is against the guidelines. Without evidence and argumentation you have mere assertion.
3. The persistent presentation of your material without evidence and argumentation despite the fact that this lack has been consistently pointed out to you reflects an ongoing violation of the guidelines of this forum, specifically referred to (9. Agendas) in my paragraph you cite above.

The guideline is clear. Here it is in full for you to familiarize yourself with:

9. AGENDAS: Posts that intend to advance or discuss personal religious experiences or modern sectarian, secular or political agendas are completely inappropriate -- as are personal messages and commercial advertisements -- and will not be permitted. Issues that have been analyzed by the forum in great detail should, unless new evidence can be introduced to revitalize them, be considered dealt with and will thereafter be considered agenda-driven.

Far from wanting to censor you, I want to goad you into providing what the guideline requires you to provide. Issues that have been analyzed by the forum in great detail should, unless new evidence can be introduced to revitalize them, be considered dealt with and will thereafter be considered agenda-driven. The guidelines go into some detail about evidence (#1 of the guidelines) in order to point forum members in the direction of what is required of them when they make claims in this forum.

Until you can provide argumentation and evidence for this web of assertions you will continue to violate the guidelines.

It is your job to supply evidence. And you will note that I have been telling you this for years. You wonder why I stop responding to you when you persist in providing no evidence.

Adam

Still no response to the article itself. Your extensive posts prove that you can analyze (however peremptorily and without productive specifics), so it can't really be that hard to follow this chain I have given you repeatedly. By your standards in this last post it would have been much better if no one had objected so that I could have just posted in sequence, but they did, so here again is the list where I squeezed the article in:
#1, #2, #13, #30, #45, #57, #59, #63, #77, and #80 and related links in #50 to my Noesis articles.

Yes, in your #139 here you do extract four points out from your earlier paragraph one that I considered not worth including. Why should your extracts be any better than the original? What is your point, I reject these utterly!

You have skillfully avoided making direct comments on these for fear I suppose that denying there was evidence and argumentation therein would be too obviously a lie. It does not seem to be in your nature to make favorable remarks, so you slough over anything that might elicit same. Nevertheless you let helpful tidbits in from time to time like about Maurice Casey.

I am not aware that anyone else is hawking my ideas, so your charges about an agenda cannot be true unless you can provide leads or links to where they have been presented previously in FRDB.