Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 12-01-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

We're not deriving a new Theory of Relativity, it's all a matter of probabilities.

But what you are proposing is even beyond the improbable.
The only way you could even begin to propose it is by first tossing rationality out the window by setting up asinine qualifiers like this;

Quote:

Putting aside a priori theology that Christ is God on the one hand, or on the other hand historical method that proceeds as if supernatural events cannot happen, let’s see what...

WTF kind of looney-tunes approach to 'historical' scholarship is this ?
You proceed on the ridiculous assumption that the supernatural elements in these texts were actual events? that actually took place? just so that you can accept the characters, settings, and situations presented within these fanciful fairy-tale narratives as being factual accounts?
Just so you can cook up a wacky scenario where your favorite fictional story-book characters get write their own story.
Do you likewise believe that 'Jack and Jill' were the 'historical' writers of 'Jack and Jill'?
Or that because 'little Jackie Paper loved that rascal Puff' there must have been a historical Jackie Paper and there is a real Magic Dragon?

Are you simply too dumb to even realize that any non-theist, or unbiased person is going to object to that kind of irrational approach to determining what constitutes 'history'? or biblical 'scholarship'?

When you set up a precondition to uncritically accept supernatural elements, and highly improbable situations, you are not working with 'history', or making any real effort at determining anything to do with real historical facts, or Biblical scholarship,
All you are doing is playing make-believe with the characters of your favorite fairy-tale.

Of course we realize both your tale, and your support of it demand that you maintain these irrational elements and claims, else you got nothing.
And in the final analysis that is exactly what you got; Nothing.

I am rather surprised that a organization that prides itself on its level of intelligence, would not realize that the paper you presented would not stand up to even a cursory examination by any truly skeptical person.
Perhaps it is because they are all so busy playing to their own choir, and applauding and praising themselves on how smart they are, that they cannot see how incredibly self-important, vain, and stupid they really are?
(And as I mentioned in another thread, don't give a rat's ass what kind of crap you are producing as long as they can add you to their number, and with a pat on the back, lock their shackels around the neck of your vainty.)

My kindest advice to you Dale, is to wake up and smell the coffee.
Hang up that dead phone line to your mythical sky-daddy and buddy Zombie jeebus, And for God's sake, find yourself some real friends who are willing to be honest with you for a change.

This world can be a wonderful and beautiful place, it has been around for billions of years, and is going to be around for billions more. Learn to live within and with it, and love both it and your fellow man
Zombie Jeebus is never going to show up to torture everyone that has ever disagreed with you, nor be around to wipe your ass for you every day forever and ever.

You are not the only one able to quote and repost old posts Adam. Your arguments are still the same old fungus growth on the same old dessicated cheese.

ששבצר העברי

.

Adam · 12-03-2011, 09:54 AM

Shesh,
You probably would not like it anyway, but to anyone out there interested in the nature of being, I recommend my blog post on this website. I have not brought it up as a thread here yet. I'll first need to identify a sub-forum where there is interest in metaphysical speculations.

Adam · 12-03-2011, 10:03 AM

[Continuing my #1, #2, #13, #30, #45, #57, #59 and linked Mega Society articles 1st and 3rd]
The total perspective of the process of writing John can now be stated, before going on to fill in the specifics. The Core Gospel encompasses the First and Second editions of John in which the Signs and P-Strand respectively were added. These two editions have a reciprocal relationship in which the editor of the Second editions apparently rewrote the main sources used by both, which were the Discourses and the Ur-Marcus part of the Synoptic passages. Other explanations are possible of how the Core Gospel came to be written. The Third edition never uses articles before proper nouns. It is similar in sentiment and style to the Johannine Epistles. It includes John 13 and all other references to the “beloved disciple”. Its author is John, and I call it the Beloved Disciple edition. The Fourth edition adds a Transition Strand between John as author and the fifth edition. It is not a major edition. It is identified by passages where the Sinaiticus text includes the article, but the other three main texts omit it. The Fifth edition is by the Redactor, who added many comments and clarification to prepare John for widespread circulation, most notably the final eight verses of John. I call the additions the MLM strand.

Before continuing to the analysis of the Third edition, comparison of the above with Teeple is necessary to explain that Teeple would not agree with it, yet I must acknowledge that the research underlying it is largely his. Only for the Fifth edition by the Redactor do I accept Teeple with little change. My Third edition largely corresponds to Teeple’s E (Editor) strand, less all the discourses Teeple lists therein. My Core Gospel agrees roughly with the other two main strands Teeple derived, his S and G strands, plus the portion of Teeple’s E which is Discourse.

The Beloved Disciple (BD) edition once again involves great detail work to extract its contents. Fortunately, the key to rendering it is straightforward and obvious. All the other editors of John used arthrous style (prefacing proper nouns with the article), except that the P-edition used anarthous Old Testament names. The BD edition uniformly used anarthrous names, reinforced by use of double names. There is thus a special character to the BD edition. The edition which introduces the Beloved Disciple is very tender. Loving, and constantly marked by exact, even repetitive naming of the other disciples involved.

Identifying anarthrous names does not solve all the problems, as indicated above. Any anarthrous Old Testament names could be BD edition, P-edition, or from the Discourse Source. Fortunately, the Discourse Source is different in character and not likely to be confused with the BD edition.

Detail recovery of the BD edition additions, henceforth BD strand, is tedious. A listing, too detailed for comment, follows. Basically, it agrees with the E portion of Teeple’s four way rendering, less almost all Discourse included by Teeple: John 1:17, 22-23, 40-41, 43a, 44b, 46, 48, 50; (2:23b-25); 4:10, 13-14, 44; 6:2-3, 8b, 15, 24ab, 42, 60, 65, 68a; 10:40- 41; 11:1, 8b-10, 16, 22, 33c -34, 51-53; 12:1b, 4b. 14b-16, 21a, 13:1b-9, 12-17, 21-22, 24, 30-36 ,38; 17:3; 18:1a, 2, 4-8, 10ac, 13a, 14, 25a, 26b, 30; 20:2, 6a, 10-11a, 14b-15, 18, 24-25; 21:2a, 3-6, 7b, 11, 15b-17a, 17c, 25.

Comparing my rendering above against Teeple will result innumerous discrepancies, I admit. No conflict is necessary with the many mere words or portions of verses which Teeple sorts out as from his E editor. My analysis is not precise, merely identifying verses, primarily. The larger discrepancies are real, however, because I am free to assign editorial insertions to other editors or to recognize sayings as deriving from the Discourse Source.

[ Regarding my Posts #13 and #15 here in Significance of John, I can find no linguistic proof for a P-Strand layer. P-Strand may well identify an author or person consulted, but his input was to get the scribe of the Source Gospel to include these words. There was no separate P-Strand or Second Edition, unless you want to count the Source Gospel with these few additions, still in verb-first style:
John 1: 20-21, 24-28, 35-37, 42-44; 7:40-49; 9:13-17; 11:46-50, 55, 57; 12:18-22; 20:11b-14, 16-17.

Apparently this same person remained involved when the text was turned over for E additions, in subject-first style. If so, the same key words Pharisee, prophet, and Christ were used and help identify these passages:
John 7:25-27, 31-32, 50-52; 9:27-28, 40; and 12:42, 43

Either one of the above two stages could be called the Second Edition to keep in parallel with my 1988 article as published, and again with the next stage with the great number of editorial additions as E, the Third Edition.]

Sheshbazzar · 12-03-2011, 01:58 PM

In summary your god couldn't get old 'John's' gospel right the first time, so it needed to keep adding more and more writers, adding on and on and on, and then edited and redacted who knows how many times, to end up that cooked-crock that you are now trying to sort the beans from the carrots, and turnips from the meat.
Not a very impressive way to arrive at 'inspired' texts.

tanya · 12-04-2011, 05:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam, post 36

If you're asking whom I think the Beloved Disciple was (in John 13), I think it was John the Apostle. If you're asking if he wrote John, I say he was a later-stage Editor.

probabilities? evidence? gut feeling?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam, post 50

I am not a member of the Mega Society

Mega Society: members with supposedly lofty IQ's, (beyond 175) as if IQ were something clearly defined, readily measured, and elaborated independently from cultural bias. Faith in such imprecision suggests a membership with relatively constrained introspective personalities. Since Adam is not a member, however, Jake's comment represents a simple non-sequitur.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jakejonesiv, post 58

I take this thread as evidence that an IQ of 175+ does not guarantee any meaningful commentary on the gospel of John.

At least to this point, I have gained something of interest, in this thread, only from reading Andrew's learned post, regarding Jewish art in Dura Europos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam, post 53

We're not deriving a new Theory of Relativity, it's all a matter of probabilities.

Probabilities?????

what?

a. need for a single 6 line paragraph explaining what this verbose topic is supposed to be about...

b. What does probability have to do with the Gospel of John?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam, post 62

...to anyone out there interested in the nature of being, I recommend my blog post ...

nature of being? What has this to do with Gospel of John? I understand honeybees, and birds and bees, and being one with nature, a la Thoreau, does that count? How will this help me to understand John?

We may as well write, "fractals", as "nature of being", or probabilities:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfram, describing Quadratic Recurrence Equations

z_(n+1)=z_n^2+C

with z_0=C, where points C in the complex plane for which the orbit of z_n does not tend to infinity are in the set.

Do you have some data, to share, regarding the Gospel of John? I am genuinely disinterested in fractals, IQ's, Mega Societies, probabilities, quadratic equations, partial differential equations, or the price of bananas in Ecuador.

Specifically, Adam, what is the basis for your assertion that "John, the Apostle", was the author (aka "late stage editor") of the Gospel of John?

What significance, if any, do you attach, to the fact that, unlike the synoptic gospels, where distinctions between Byzantine and Alexandrian versions of the same text are visible in the first, second or third verse of the very first chapter, in John one finds absolute accord, through the first fifteen verses?

jakejonesiv · 12-04-2011, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam, post 36
If you're asking whom I think the Beloved Disciple was (in John 13), I think it was John the Apostle. If you're asking if he wrote John, I say he was a later-stage Editor.

How in the heck could John the Apostle (an alleged eye witness) be the "late stage editor" of the gospel? We are in tipsy turvy apologist land with that one. I am going to have to deduct one IQ point for that, so Adam is down to 174.

jakejonesiv · 12-04-2011, 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

So, Shesh,
You don't get it. I don't get it either.
I have made it clear that it was not just one eyewitness who (in my opinion) wrote John. If you're asking whom I think the Beloved Disciple was (in John 13), I think it was John the Apostle. If you're asking if he wrote John, I say he was a later-stage Editor. If you're asking who was the witness to the Baptism of Jesus, I said it was not Nicodemus.
After that, it gets complicated. In my Gospel Eyewitnesses thread, I never talked about the Redactor, because he was not an eyewitness. Teeple assigns the first three verses John 1:28-30 (about John the Baptist seeing Jesus) to the Redactor. He assigns 1:31 to his S Source, which would be the Signs Gospel I assign to Andrew. (My analysis assigns all of these so far to the P-Strand, a complication unnecessary to discuss yet.) Teeple assigns 1:32-34, the E Editor, by Teeple not well regarded. I regard E as John the Apostle, except that I don't personally affirm these verses are E. Teeple and I agree that John 1:35-42 are basically S, the Signs Gospel, thus by Andrew in my analysis. So the only eyewitness here can be Andrew, but he did not write John 1:28-30 and maybe not 31-34. Note that John 1:34 is pointed out by Shesh as suspicious, so I can't affirm that an eyewitness wrote, "And I have seen and have testified that this one is the Son of God."

You can't affirm that an eye witness wrote anything in the fourth gospel. All of these redactions and sources kick the crap out of eye witness theory, and that is what you are so futilely trying to obscure. Higher criticism and fundamentalism do not mix.

arnoldo · 12-04-2011, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

My first thread Gospel Eyewitnesses has not gained much attention seeking comment on its own terms. I have ignored the blanket dismissals, no problem there. I appreciate the many serious comments on the lack of proof and argumentation, though this also has the drawback of not revealing what should be deleted or changed. Meanwhile to provide both argumentation and scholarly proofs regarding the Gospel of John I present my paper published in the Cincinnatus Society Journal, No. 3 (May-July 1988), pp. 1-13. This first post should be of general interest even to mythicists. The main proofs will have to wait for several posts in future. Proofs regarding the Synoptics have already been provided in my other thread by links to my four articles in Noesis.
http://megasociety.org/noesis/181.htm#Common
My paper and this thread is about analyzing the sources and editions of John.
The Significance of John [Editor’s title]
By Dale Adams
Abstract The Gospel of John was written by such a complicated process that only ancient texts first printed in 1966 enable a solution to the problem of authorship to be found. Even now, a proper understanding of its composition requires blending insights of many great scholars.

The Gospel of John has been the leading book of the Bible for debate between Christians and non-Christians intellectuals. Critics have felt for almost two centuries that John can be considered non-factual. Nevertheless, many of these same philosophers have honored John for its style, its high-flown theology, and its Hellenization of the gospel. Hegelian pantheism under such critics as David Strauss (Leben Jesu, 1835) and F. C. Baur placed John into a Hegelian synthesis as the Antithesis to Hebrew Christianity. Many radical theologians have followed them in recognizing philosophic and history-moving value in John even though regarding it as a myth written more than a century after the Crucifixion of Jesus.

A larger number of unbelievers have focused on John as a prime disproof of Christianity. They have rightly pointed out that it contrasts sharply with the three Synoptic Gospels. They have reasoned that John must be spurious, thus disproving the Bible at its core, the life of Jesus. Partially agreeing with them, Liberal Christianity has avidly dismissed John as unworthy of a God, and has rebuilt tis theology on the Synoptic Gospels. One of these was Adolf Harnack (1851-1930), the greatest Bible scholar since Origen. Later in life, however, Harnack acknowledged that John was not so Greek as he thought. Later still, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 opened the possibility that John was of Palestinian origin and written very early. “The Three Sources and Five Editions of John” [author’s title] carries this trend to an extreme, but without giving in to the cruel God of Christian Fundamentalism. Indeed, that such exacting scholarship is required to ascertain the truth, paradoxically leads us back to a justification of Harnack against all his conservative (and radical) enemies, and it gives a view of a God that Harnack would have been happy to revere.

Read for content, the Gospel of John may be indeed the “seamless robe” David Strauss believed it to be. To reach its present state, however, John was composed in a complex tangle of rearrangements, combinations of various sources, and additions by several editors. This paper presents the sources and order of the composition of John. The usual analysis of the literature and presentation for the proofs for such a large project requires a book, which is to come. The results and basic argumentation of the research which went into this book are given here, with only such proofs and references to scholars as seem necessary.

The starting point for intensive study is a controversial point. Most current researchers choose to analyze the narratives for a Signs Source. There certainly is a logical starting point in the narratives in the Synoptic overlap sections. Beyond this, however, there is no reason to think that the other narratives are the earliest or next earliest strata.

To the contrary, the narratives can easily be set aside for later study as less likely to be extremely early. Had the non-Synoptic narratives been as early as the Synoptic passages, they would presumably have been popular and included in the Synoptics. The best reason, if early, for exclusion would have been that they were written in Aramaic. However, the Aramaisms in John are in the discourses. Even the Synoptic sections can be held to be necessarily later than 44 A. D. (The Ur-Marcus theory finds Aramaisms in Acts through Act 15. The gospel material would not have been written before Peter went to John Mark’s house in 44 A. D., Acts 12:12.) Let us therefore begin with the discourses, which could theoretically be earlier. [2011 Note: with John Mark instead as the author of the Passion Narrative, that portion could have been written even before 44 A. D.]

This thread led me to read The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel: An Introduction to John (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Paul Anderson. Anderson writes that Acts 14:20 records a phrase by John who states, "For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard." Allegedly this phrase of "seen and heard" does not occur elsewhere in Luke-Acts in the first plural reference tense ;but it does occur in 1 John 1:3 ( That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us) and John 3:32 (And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.) This point is explained in depth on pg. 154 and is available for preview. Since I'm in the middle of the book I'm not sure if Paul Anderson's work supports your views or not. . .

jakejonesiv · 12-04-2011, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

[B]My first thread Gospel Eyewitnesses has not gained much attention seeking comment on its own terms. I have ignored the blanket dismissals, no problem there. ...
A larger number of unbelievers have focused on John as a prime disproof of Christianity.

No scholarly work would address "unbelievers." This is a load of apologetic :horsecrap::horsecrap::horsecrap::horsecrap::horse crap:

Adam · 12-04-2011, 07:53 PM

Thank you for your two posts, Jake,
But you may be unaware that scholars propose much earlier dates for gJohn than the top scholars of the 1850's did, most notably John A. T. Robinson in both his two relevant books dating gJohn to before 70 CE. This is early enough a date for an editor of gJohn to have been an eyewitness, as I argue in my #144 on my main thread, Gospel Eyewitnesses:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=306983&page=6
Towards the end there I say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam 144

Intense eyewitness traces are found in John 13 in all the above cited verses. Teeple found none of his usual S (Source) verses in this chapter at all, making the “Editor” seem like a raw source himself here. In contrast, all the eleven insertions in John 17-19 look like additions. Nevertheless, the thirteen Resurrection, Editor sections in John 20 and 21 look like mostly eyewitness testimony. Teeple attributes only one verse to S.
[and earlier in the top paragraph]
The upshot is that even the eyewitness seeming less identifiable as an eyewitness nevertheless comes through as such.
As told by the Muratorian Canon (c. 170 AD) the various earlier testimonies (Andrew identified by Name) were gathered together and put out in the name of John the Apostle. His primary additions as eyewitness are found primarily in John 13, 20, and 21.

In the Post #63 which you are critiquing here, I say:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam 63

It is similar in sentiment and style to the Johannine Epistles. It includes John 13 and all other references to the “beloved disciple”. Its author is John, and I call it the Beloved Disciple edition.

Put together these give good evidence that a later Editor was nevertheless an eyewitness, most likely John the Apostle (note the similarity of these portions of gJohn to the Johannine Epistles).
There may be a problem of definitions separating us here. You may be saying that an eyewitness record has to be one in which the eyewitness wrote everything full and complete. I mean by eyewitness anyone who has written down eyewitness testimony
even if preserved later in someone else's work. If the latter, of course, we can anylyze how much of it may or may not be eyewitness testimony and whether that eyewitness testimony is accurate.

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

12-03-2011, 09:54 AM	#62
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Shesh, You probably would not like it anyway, but to anyone out there interested in the nature of being, I recommend my blog post on this website. I have not brought it up as a thread here yet. I'll first need to identify a sub-forum where there is interest in metaphysical speculations.

12-03-2011, 10:03 AM	#63
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	[Continuing my #1, #2, #13, #30, #45, #57, #59 and linked Mega Society articles 1st and 3rd] The total perspective of the process of writing John can now be stated, before going on to fill in the specifics. The Core Gospel encompasses the First and Second editions of John in which the Signs and P-Strand respectively were added. These two editions have a reciprocal relationship in which the editor of the Second editions apparently rewrote the main sources used by both, which were the Discourses and the Ur-Marcus part of the Synoptic passages. Other explanations are possible of how the Core Gospel came to be written. The Third edition never uses articles before proper nouns. It is similar in sentiment and style to the Johannine Epistles. It includes John 13 and all other references to the “beloved disciple”. Its author is John, and I call it the Beloved Disciple edition. The Fourth edition adds a Transition Strand between John as author and the fifth edition. It is not a major edition. It is identified by passages where the Sinaiticus text includes the article, but the other three main texts omit it. The Fifth edition is by the Redactor, who added many comments and clarification to prepare John for widespread circulation, most notably the final eight verses of John. I call the additions the MLM strand. Before continuing to the analysis of the Third edition, comparison of the above with Teeple is necessary to explain that Teeple would not agree with it, yet I must acknowledge that the research underlying it is largely his. Only for the Fifth edition by the Redactor do I accept Teeple with little change. My Third edition largely corresponds to Teeple’s E (Editor) strand, less all the discourses Teeple lists therein. My Core Gospel agrees roughly with the other two main strands Teeple derived, his S and G strands, plus the portion of Teeple’s E which is Discourse. The Beloved Disciple (BD) edition once again involves great detail work to extract its contents. Fortunately, the key to rendering it is straightforward and obvious. All the other editors of John used arthrous style (prefacing proper nouns with the article), except that the P-edition used anarthous Old Testament names. The BD edition uniformly used anarthrous names, reinforced by use of double names. There is thus a special character to the BD edition. The edition which introduces the Beloved Disciple is very tender. Loving, and constantly marked by exact, even repetitive naming of the other disciples involved. Identifying anarthrous names does not solve all the problems, as indicated above. Any anarthrous Old Testament names could be BD edition, P-edition, or from the Discourse Source. Fortunately, the Discourse Source is different in character and not likely to be confused with the BD edition. Detail recovery of the BD edition additions, henceforth BD strand, is tedious. A listing, too detailed for comment, follows. Basically, it agrees with the E portion of Teeple’s four way rendering, less almost all Discourse included by Teeple: John 1:17, 22-23, 40-41, 43a, 44b, 46, 48, 50; (2:23b-25); 4:10, 13-14, 44; 6:2-3, 8b, 15, 24ab, 42, 60, 65, 68a; 10:40- 41; 11:1, 8b-10, 16, 22, 33c -34, 51-53; 12:1b, 4b. 14b-16, 21a, 13:1b-9, 12-17, 21-22, 24, 30-36 ,38; 17:3; 18:1a, 2, 4-8, 10ac, 13a, 14, 25a, 26b, 30; 20:2, 6a, 10-11a, 14b-15, 18, 24-25; 21:2a, 3-6, 7b, 11, 15b-17a, 17c, 25. Comparing my rendering above against Teeple will result innumerous discrepancies, I admit. No conflict is necessary with the many mere words or portions of verses which Teeple sorts out as from his E editor. My analysis is not precise, merely identifying verses, primarily. The larger discrepancies are real, however, because I am free to assign editorial insertions to other editors or to recognize sayings as deriving from the Discourse Source. [ Regarding my Posts #13 and #15 here in Significance of John, I can find no linguistic proof for a P-Strand layer. P-Strand may well identify an author or person consulted, but his input was to get the scribe of the Source Gospel to include these words. There was no separate P-Strand or Second Edition, unless you want to count the Source Gospel with these few additions, still in verb-first style: John 1: 20-21, 24-28, 35-37, 42-44; 7:40-49; 9:13-17; 11:46-50, 55, 57; 12:18-22; 20:11b-14, 16-17. Apparently this same person remained involved when the text was turned over for E additions, in subject-first style. If so, the same key words Pharisee, prophet, and Christ were used and help identify these passages: John 7:25-27, 31-32, 50-52; 9:27-28, 40; and 12:42, 43 Either one of the above two stages could be called the Second Edition to keep in parallel with my 1988 article as published, and again with the next stage with the great number of editorial additions as E, the Third Edition.]

12-03-2011, 01:58 PM	#64
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	In summary your god couldn't get old 'John's' gospel right the first time, so it needed to keep adding more and more writers, adding on and on and on, and then edited and redacted who knows how many times, to end up that cooked-crock that you are now trying to sort the beans from the carrots, and turnips from the meat. Not a very impressive way to arrive at 'inspired' texts.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.