Adam

Responding to #168
That you have the credentials and recognition as a top scholar mean that you can get away with that. Lacking either I could not. Presumably still cannot, whether I am right or wrong.
I admit I did not take space (that would not have been allowed me) to explain away opposing scholars. I provided plenty of well-footnoted stylistic evidence. For authorship and dating I had to rely on logic and argumentation, because even early dating as by John A. T. Robinson did not allow for sources. My source analysis is not now controversial, but I cannot even now cite scholars who support my (for their purposes unpublished) views on authorship. That's no big deal, for scholars shy away from that (but not a contrarian like me).Did you read Part 1? You didn't see the statistical analysis, Freed's study of rare words, and Teeple's (Part 2) discovery of anarthrous names in the earliest Neutral texts? Seeing no specifics, just assertions, I give you credit for your wrong impression having come from focusing on Part 2.

I never received detailed comment from Bossman. I could easily read between the lines that the ex-editor would prevail. Call it politics, call it human nature. Or just call it loyalty and friendship. Why would he act otherwise when O'Grady wanted the only allotted space?
Thanks for your subsequent link to Richard Bauckham.
Care to suggest some place that would publish a paper with a bibliography that stops at 1980?
More reasonably someone might publish my Gospel Eyewitnesses thesis of seven written eyewitness records of Jesus. It's skimpy on footnotes, however, as so much is my original ideas. (Each post there by Korah on Christian Forums is by me.)

Adam

I don't have much respect for anyone's scholarly objectivity, not even yours as a fellow Contrarian. I may not be able to read minds, but I know human psychology by study and by experience. I may not be right about everything, but I'm nobody's fool--not even yours.

All you have given me is opinion, no analysis or specific criticisms. How is this supposed to be a scholarly aid? Even spin could regurgitate specific "assertions" and label them as such, thus challenging me to document myself with more evidence. (Not that spin is enough of a scholar to recognize evidence as evidence, a common failing here at FRDB.)

spin

I have already challenged you to delineate what anyone with scholarly training could recognize in your writings to be evidence for your assertions. You have not done so. To be clear, I asked you for specific examples already given for your claims in post #141. You unhelpfully provided a link to this thread and no specific examples of your evidence. As I have consistently pointed out in you give assertions and speculations and are totally wanting in evidence. See for example my post #146 which cites the whole of your post #2 (which constitutes section #1 of your paper) and provides commentary on it. No evidence in it at all. Yet here you are back claiming that I just don't recognize the evidence. Well, FFS, that's just another assertion. Show me. Meet the challenge and provide specific examples of your evidence (sifted out from your claims, assertions and presentations of other people's opinions, ie just evidence, try your post #2, which I have commented on as containing no evidence), or accept the fact that you are FoS.

Jeffrey Gibson

And again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Not only did those who reviewed my submissions not know who I was (let alone whether or not I had any credentials), but several of my submissions (on Matt. 21:31, on anastenazw in Mk. 8:11, on why Jesus refused to give a sign (Mk. 8:11-13), on the Rebuke of the disciples in Mk. 8:14-21, and Mark's version of the Wilderness Testing story) were accepted before I had credentials. Moreover, I've had articles not accepted after I received my credentials.

I'll say again, it's the quality of the argument, not the identity of the one who is making it, that is key in whether or not a paper is accepted for publication.

That you don't know this shows just how out of touch with scholarship, and the ins and outs of publication, you really are -- and how much you are laying claim to knowledge you don't possess..

Jeffrey

Adam

To Jeffrey regarding his #204 here, I appreciate and am enlightened by his introduction here of his personal experience and knowledge of peer review. I accept this as true. I do know from personal experience, however, that as a young academic I could get consideration and even publication of articles in my field of (European) history while completing graduate work. Youth is prized, then as now. But surely you mean by "before I had credentials" that you were an aspiring professional in the field in which you sought publication, not that you were self-taught. I did quite well as an amateur in biblical studies to get as much consideration as I did, but not enough to cross the goal line. Apparently it takes some one from outside the field to take the blinders off and find some resolution of the conflict between the apologists and the critics. Not that amateurs have minds more malleable, as I have found here on FRDB (and every other website where I have posted). I guess that's why I've had no trouble running circles around tough opponents here like spin and Vork. No one here or anywhere else wants to reconsider the basics.

I'm still waiting for any helpful scholarly specifics from you.
spin, You had assiduously avoided posting in this thread, so I figured you had at least enough sense to realize that your usual bluster would not work against my scholarly article. Yet as you say, you did come out swinging against my Post #2 here in Significance of John in your #146.
Once again it's your "Heads I win, tails you lose". Everything I say is either an assertion (meaning apparently something you disagree with, but have no evidence to refute nor even the courage to deny) or is an appeal to authority. Reasoning is not considered by you argumentation and footnoting is disparaged as appeal to authority. You continue to refuse to make any scholarly criticism that could be used to help me revise or retract my views.

Jeffrey Gibson

Nope. And in any case, whether I was an "aspiring professional" (whatever that means) or not -- I note again, because you are obviously not listening, that it is not aspirations or credentials, but the quality of one's argument that determines whether an article gets published. There have been plenty of "self taught" people who have had articles accepted in professional journals. So why you keep going back to this trope is beyond me.

You keep blaming everyone but yourself for the failure of your article to be published. And that's the sure sign of a crank.

Jeffrey

Adam

spin, Vork, or Jeffrey, still no scholarly critique of any of my numerous threads here in FRDB*. All I get is generalities like "rubbish", no argumentation or evidence, just assertions that all I say is assertions. Now you're adding "crank". You're just adding to the evidence that no one here is capable of giving me a fair hearing. Deal with the article and my current threads, the ideas not the man (me) you are demonizing. You admit here that even amateurs can get published, which implies self-taught does not necessarily mean wrong. Show why it's wrong and should not be published, not that lack of publication means that it is wrong. You and spin keep caviling about what peer review means, rather than the article. If it had full peer review to your definition, would you then accept it as true? No. Either way the article is whatever it is. Deal with it instead of making excuses not to deal with it.

Nor has anyone pointed to where some scholar refutes either the basic sources or even my own wild ideas on authors and dating of the sources.

Nor has spin yet denied that he contacted David Bossman to refute my claim to peer review in 1981. I give credit to spin for being thorough, so I'll keep assuming he did until he flat-out denies it. spin is very careful (unlike Jeffrey) not to say anything that can be disproven.

*It's true that spin and Vork attacked intently my post #230 in Gospel Eyewitnesses in which after my thesis had concluded I presented a peripheral listing of six layers within gMark. I had touched the "third rail" of Vork's chiastic structure of gMark (on which itself I have no learned opinion). spin went livid proving there are Latinisms in gMark, which is fine with me as evidence that at least the last layer of Mark was composed in Rome as tradition states. All that fuss was quite irrelevant to whether there were written eyewitness sources within gMark and the other three gospels. Mere diversionary tactics? Inability to see the forest for the trees?

Jeffrey Gibson

Present me with a passage from your article in which you think you have made an actual argument (a claim backed up with evidence) and I'll be happy to have a go at it.


Jeffrey

Toto

Post from Joe Wallack relevant to this thread

Adam

OK, Jeffrey, I won't shy away from selecting a difficult section developing my P-Strand as the way to show that it and the "Signs Source" were editorial layers added in to the Passion Narrative (to form Teeple's S and von Wahlde's source) and to the other true "source", the Discourses (to form the Core Gospel of Temple). It's from almost a screen-view down in "II. Separation of Narrative Strands" in Part I per spin's Post #161 and from the bottom third of my original Post #30 and almost all of Post #45.

I show the association of Andrew and Philip with the Signs Source by stylistic considerations such as anarthrous insertions of names by a later Editor. I have deleted the longer "2011 Note" minimizing bracketed "improvements" and made typing correction in bold.

Urban von Wahlde provides the key for identifying “Source” narrative outside the Signs Source. He separates “earlier” “P-Material” from ”J-material,” based upon the use of the words “Pharisee” or “Jew”. Von Wahlde’s results do not coincide with Fortna’s. The term “Pharisee,” if recovering a source, distinguishes a source separate from the Signs Source. None of the Nicol Source passages contain the word “Pharisees.” Nevertheless, there is overlap with Fortna’s Signs Gospel. The P-Material extends, however, into the discourse sections. The parts of the discourse chapters where “Pharisee” occurs are not in the discourses proper. Whereas Jesus is quoted in these chapters saying “Jews” quite often, he never says “Pharisee.” This accompanying narrative to the discourses is identified by Howard Teeple as being in the Source to be recognized. (Teeple, Ch. 12) Von Wahlde and Teeple are basically compatible. Putting their work together, we obtain a narrative “source” which is interwoven with discourses and with Nicol’s Signs Source narrative. But if the Signs Source is removed from Teeple’s and von Wahlde’s larger suggested Source, the remainder [exclusive of the Passion Narrative] looks like the work of an editor. Not to pre-judge the case, let us call it the “P-Strand.”

What are the “P-Strand” sections and what is their nature? The world “Pharisee” occurs first at John 1:24, and it recurs at 3:1 and 4:1, but in the latter more as editorial introductions. “Pharisee” comes into intense use in John 7, and then again in small parts of John 9, 11, and 12. The word ochlos for “crowd” or “people” is often associated, though also coming from source dialogues not included below. A preliminary rendering of the “P-Strand” is thus John 1:19-31; 3:1a; 4:1a; 7:25-27, 31-32, 43-49; 8:13a; 9:1, 13-16, 24-28, 40a, 11:46-50, 55-57; 12:12, 17-22, 42-43. (Von Wahlde discourages attempts to differentiate P-Material beyond John 18:15.) Other than John 1, this is obviously the work of an editor.

The P-Strand per above apparently includes the names Andrew and Philip at John 12:20-22 repetitively. The word use in these verses is strikingly similar, however, to the pattern of John 4:11, 31, 33, 40, 42, 47b; 11:21. These verses more readily identify with the Signs Source. Let us remove these verses from the P-Strand and explore whether the names Andrew and Philip can be related to the Signs Source.

The names Andrew and Philip can be tied to the Signs Source better than the P-Strand [can be]. The names occur repeatedly in John 1:40-48. Nicol definitely identifies this as Source. These names occur again at John 6:5-8. Nicol may consider these verses as Source, also. However, Nicol’s’ hesitation at specifying all of John 6:1-15 as Source is due to later insertions of Johannine material which I admit include the names themselves. My understanding of the Signs Source is that it specified Andrew and Philip, but rarely gave their names. The text as originally written said things like “two of his disciples,” one of the two,” and “this one,” as still found in our text at John 1:35, 37, 40, and 41.

The places where names were inserted later can be recognized by the absence of the Greek article before the names. In contrast, the styles of both the Signs and P-Strand sections include using the article before most names.
The terminology requires redefinition at this point. Nicol called “Source” and other authors called “Signs Source” what we now are beginning to see was actually the additions by the first editor. The style, which I call Signs-style, is so well-preserved because it was not compiled by an editor who added his Johannine style to everything. These additions are best called simply the “Signs.” In contrast, the Second Edition of John 1 call the P-Edition. It added the P-Strand and the larger part of the Synoptics passages within John.

These first two editions of John can be differentiated from one another by style and content, but for practical purposes can be treated as one process. For these two editions conclusive proof cannot be given that one preceded the other, or what is the exact relationship. What seems to have occurred is a teamwork of author and scribe. The sources employed were written by the scribe, and he added final editorial touches of his own. However, the new stories added (the Signs) were done by the author (or his personal scribe) in his own style. To explain it all in detail is best reserved for a separate study.

The source pieces seem to have been brought together in a double process of editing. For our purposes now and probably for as much as we can know anyway, this can all be treated as one operation. All the Discourses and all the Synoptic passages in John were brought in as sources during this editing. The miracle stories called Signs were not from a source, but were additions basic to this editing itself. They are free from Johannine style, so we can know that an editor added them—they did not acquire the mild Johannine characteristics notable in whatever the co-editor touched. The co-editor brought in his Discourses, the Passion Narrative, and various inserts about the Pharisees.

The result of the process (the combined First Edition and Second Edition of John) was most of our Gospel of John. We might call this the Signs-Discourse Gospel, conceptually similar to the Narrative-Discourse Source developed by Temple (the main part of the “Core” of his book, the Core of the Fourth Gospel). It could be called the Primary Edition. To use the shortest term and to express its similarity to Temple’s concepts, I will call it the “Core Gospel.”