spamandham

By strained dating, do you mean dating John prior to 70 CE, or are you referring to something less absurd than that?

Do you realize, that by trying to force an early date for the NT, you leave yourself with the only options being either a) Jesus was really god incarnate, b) the whole thing is a giant pack of lies (or something equally unpalatable to Christians).

If these were really the only 2 options (which they are not, since John is easily seen to be a 2nd century work), the 2nd is wildly more plausible than the first.

spin

Rubbish. Many of Shakespeare's dramas were about real people. Macbeth, King Lear, Julius Caesar, Romeo and Juliet, Henry IV, V, VI, & VIII, Richard II & III. He researched his subjects and wrote dramatic representations.

You just want to be argumentative.

The only brain straining I've done here is trying to stop myself from laughing too hard over such Von Danikenesque logic.



If you think that makes sense, try harder.

You are clueless as to how the information got into the text, so you theorize that it must have come from direct experience and like someone with tunnel vision that theory takes control of you and you cannot posit other possibilities, such as an oral tradition or a written tradition which mentions the Bethesda. Not all sources followed the Herodotus/Thucydides/Polybius tradition of writing of their own times: they mined other sources for information. Think of Diodorus, Livy and Pliny for example.

The Talmud has a lot of stuff about Jerusalem before the Roman destruction, but I don't here you positing that the Talmud must have been written before the destruction. Jeremias uses it for his book on Jerusalem. My god, it is hard for me to believe that you are so willing to believe such shallowness. Shakespeare should have been sufficient, but I guess it's hard for you to kickstart the grey matter once you've turned it off.


spin

Steven Avery

Hi Folks,

Docu-dramas are about real people, also. Now if you can find a similar example to my Mark Twain example in Macbeth, etc. go right ahead, you are welcome to present if for consideration. If not .. oops to your case. Lots of material to work from.

The rest of your post did not say anything, except the normal run-of-the-mill spin insults. Let's see one more comment.

And this is relevant how ?

Here, I will help spin out by summarizing his view:

"I do not believe the Bible text is at all accurate anyway, my skill is developing redaction theories of convenience at the drop of a dime, I surely am not going to accept theories of early NT dating, so why should I care what tenses are used in John 5 in evaluating the dating of John's gospel."

Shalom,
Steven Avery

spin

This is all irrelevant to the basic problem of your abysmal assumption regarding Bethesda. Shakespeare's put the information about the porch of the Theatre of Pompey into the mouth of a character, but the Theatre of Pompey had been destroyed over a millennium before his time. People get information from the past. You don't have to create your dramatics over either Shakespeare or the writer of John. It's just plain argument from silence on your part. You just don't know how the text got the information, and you pull this bs about how the author must have got it from direct experience. That is just full of it. So cut the gormlessness.

Umm, you just got another example of your same stupidity. The Talmud knows lots about Jerusalem before the fall so it must have been written before the destruction. Doh!

Imputing your own desires onto me will not help you out of your blunder. I passed no comment about accuracy here. My comment was about you and your banale assumptions, but you are too busy doing apologetics to notice.

You simply don't know how the text got the information. Admit it and get over it.


spin

Doug Shaver

OK. Thanks.

JoeWallack

JW:
sschlichter has convinced me that there is a contradiction between "Matthew" claiming there were guards at the Tomb and "Mark" having clear implications that there were not so I've started inventorying the error at ErrancyWiki Matthew 27:66.

After only going through the first page of this Thread I'm surprised at just how clear the error is. Here are the reasons for error so far:

1) Mark 15 and 16 have no explicit mention of guards.

2) Mark 15 and 16 have no implication that there was any guard.

3) You have the logical problem that in "Matthew's" resurrection sighting Jesus is seen by the eleven. Thus the critical reaction would be that Jesus did not die and not that his body was stolen.

4) Specifically, when the women come to the tomb in "Matthew's" version, if there were guards, there is an expectation that they would be mentioned at this point.

5) In addition to "Matthew's" source, "Mark", the other Canonical Gospels, "Luke" and "John", also make no mention of guards.

6) That there even was a tomb burial associated with a crucifixion is unlikely. Each unlikely element of a story that can be demonstrated makes other elements more unlikely.

7) The Joseph of "Arimathea" ("best disciple") name looks fictional.

8) The resurrection itself is impossible.

Gals, we need to start doing more of this type of organized inventorying of reasons for error. Otherwise we will keep having the same furschlugginer arguments with Apologists Ad Nazorean. Apologists want to create Doubt that there is an error and an organized presentation of logical reasons for error helps remove that doubt.

Was it over when Bush bombed Iran? Hell no. And it ain't over now. Who's with me? Aaahhhh!!!



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

bacht

I was thinking about this too. Has there ever been a Frequently Asked Questions page to refer newcomers to?

sschlichter

Most of this appears to smack of the same argument where silence = contradiction but here is a dilemma for your list.

It would be hard to argue that the women were aware of the guards (or at least that they sealed the tomb) because in Mark, they had expectations of someone rolling back the stone for them. I am not aware of what method is used to seal the tomb, but would be interested in finding out.

spin

When you're working on an overtly fallacious etymology the look is probably just as fallacious. The Greek for "Arimathaea" is arimaQaia, for "disciple" is maQhths and "best" arist-. Obviously you can't see "best" in Arimathaea. Also note the eta (h) after the theta in "disciple" but it is missing after the theta in Arimathaea. This is bogus etymology. The Greek form of Arimathaea can be seen changing in the LXX. Look at

Josh 13:26, Heb. Ramoth = Grk. ramwQ
Josh 19:21, Heb. Ramoth = Grk. remmas
1 Sam 1:19, Heb. Ramoth = Grk. armaQaim

Greek doesn't like undeclinable endings so armaQaim should lose its last letter and gain a Greek declension, ie armaQaia. Still lacking the second vowel its Hebrew source RMT suggests at least a schwa between the resh and the mem.

There is nothing to suggest that Arimathaea is anything else than what it purports to be: the Greek form of a Hebrew placename.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Ahh, guilty as charged of overstatement and under explanation. I didn't think anyone was reading this. Thanks for the analysis spin.

What first got my attention here was:

The Legendary Peter (Kirby)

So I am in great company. To rise above the level of speculation I need two qualities I think:

1) The figurative use would be recognizable to the audience.

2) Figurative use of a name would fit the author's style.

Recognizable could be reading or hearing. Even based on your analysis it's close. In Carrier's breakout the sound would be about the same:

Ari-------------------------mathea

Ari = prefix for "superior"----matheia = "disciple town"

2) is easily demonstrated here: Mark's DiualCritical Marks. Presentation Of Names As Evidence Of Fiction

The author may have intended "best disciple town" but changed it a little to make it sound like a town (he may very well have had "Ramoth" in mind). I use that style all the time.

I hereby unleash my heretofore unknown criteria for figurative use of names (I really should be charging you guys for this):

Wallack's criteria for Figurative use of names:

1) Recognition through reading or sound. Demonstrated above.

2) Demonstrated style of the author. Demonstrated above.

3) Contextual fit. A character sympathetic to Jesus accepts his body just as John's disciples accepted his body.

4) Thematic fit. Action expected of Jesus' disciples, accepting his body (really "accepting" his death. Understand dear Reader?), replaced by stranger to Jesus.

5) Lack of known literal fit. The cruncher as the Brits say. No one has any idea where the hell "Arimathea" is.

6) Fictional story. The overall Empty Tomb story is likely fiction which means the default for any individual piece is fiction.

I have to confess that without any direct evidence I can not prove the above. But I think it is a reasonable possibility. On to ErranyWiki as a Neutral observation Mark 15:43



Joseph of Aricawithia

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page