avi

In my opinion, there is not only no harm, in Toto or anyone else writing these things, but, as these comments apply to my own circumstance, they are right on target, which demonstrates, to my satisfaction, at least, that the participants of this forum are quite adept at the task of judging, from a few replies to various topics, the extent, or absence, of profound knowledge of the subject matter.

avi

ApostateAbe

Everything that Toto said about me is true, I don't deny it (I have publicly said all of it). In my own dealings with people day to day, I have learned that it is good manners to not say something just because it is true. You say it if it really needs to be said. So I would like to figure out why Toto said it. It isn't just because it is the truth. Here is the relevant part of what Toto was replying to, that Toto quoted:
Here is how Toto replied:
Why do you think Toto wrote this way? I ask this because it seems odd to me that such hostility should have been provoked by statements that seem nothing but a sensible interpretation of ABE. Is Toto having a bad day or something? That was my first guess. Maybe Toto is writing that way because I have too much the air of a scholarly authority, and Toto doesn't want anyone to get that mistaken impression. I think that could be it. Do I come off like someone who pretends to know much more than I really do? Like I am implicitly presenting myself as an authority of historiography?

Toto

That's the problem. You are not offering a sensible interpretation of ABE. You are offering an off kilter interpretation that leads to incorrect results. But you just keep repeating your interpretation without replying to the objections made by other posters.

Yes, Toto is having a bad day, wondering what the point of all this is.

That's part of it. You make pronouncements. You ridicule other points of view. You seem to assume that if people just go back and read other threads or posts, that they will understand things the way you present them.

How do you think you should be treated when you describe people who disagree with your pet theory as nutters and birthers?

Doug Shaver

I have no idea. However, it has zero relevance to the point I was making.

So what? According to you, we don't need to pay any attention to all the evidence. You're being inconsistent.

Some documents so state. What any document states is not necessarily the same thing as what that document is evidence for. To determine that requires an analysis of all the evidence.

Another argumentum ad repetitium. You're really good at that.

JoeWallack

JW:
Again, go to the Legendary Vorkosigan's analysis:

http://www.michaelturton.com/Mark/GMark01.html

for a proper historical commentary on the baptism:

The objective student should note that the baptism has every element of fiction, strong literary reason, known fictional sources, extreme Impossible content and Implausibility and no known element of historicity except for John the Baptist. Therefore, it's not a matter of determining the probability of a specific element within the baptism story, it's a matter of determining its possibility.

Starting with the Historical method that Christian Bible Scholarship (C-BS) and AA have exorcised from their analysis:

* Human sources may be relics such as a fingerprint; or narratives such as a statement or a letter. Relics are more credible sources than narratives.

Here we have narrative. Narrative is lesser evidence as it is editorial in nature and includes interpretation.

* Any given source may be forged or corrupted. Strong indications of the originality of the source increase its reliability.


The existing evidence indicates the existing baptism story is original.

* The closer a source is to the event which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description of what actually happened.

Chronological = The baptism is generally dated to c. 30. The extant evidence dates "Mark" to early 2nd century:

The Papias Smear, Changes in sell Structure. Evidence for an Original Second Century Gospel

Geography = Baptism in Jerusalem, "Mark" thought to be Rome.

The combination of the two creates a significant difference between source and event.

* A primary source is more reliable than a secondary source which is more reliable than a tertiary source, and so on.

No one, including C-BS, claims "Mark" is a primary (1st hand witness) source. "Mark" can probably not be a secondary source (2nd hand witness) because of the chronological distance. Could "Mark" be a tertiary source? "Mark" has no known historical sources and known fictional sources so the extant evidence indicates no tertiary source.

Can you prove historicity with a source that lacks any historical source? No. Can it at least be evidence to help make historicity probable? Yes, but only as support for some other source which has a historical source.

* If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased.

We have no independent source that confirms Jesus was baptized by John. "John's" independence is questionable since it appears to be a reaction to "Mark" and "John" contradicts Jesus being baptized by John (read "John" by itself and there is no reason to think Jesus was baptized by John).

* The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.


"Mark" has extreme bias as do the parallel accounts.

* If it can be demonstrated that the witness or source has no direct interest in creating bias then the credibility of the message is increased.

The author is unknown and the extreme literary style and subject indicate the author is primarily interested in creating bias.

So in summary "Mark" has a significant dose of almost every negative quality in evaluating historicity:

1) The source form is Narrative which is prone to editorial comment and interpretation.

2) There is significant distance between the source and event.

3) "Mark" has no known historical source. Say that one fast 3 times.

4) The Baptism story has no independent confirmation.

5) "Mark" has significant bias.

The only criterion that is okay is the baptism story we have looks like what "Mark" originally wrote.

We see at this point that the baptism story lacks the credentials to be likely history as at this point we have only looked at positive criteria for historicity. The question becomes, is the baptism of Jesus by John likely fiction? That question will be answered when we look at positive criteria for fiction.

Again, C-BS tends to avoid the criteria above because they do not support historicity and the related Apology is that you have to use what you have/no different than support for other ancients. AA's excuse is all he has ever seen is the related C-BS type of analysis and during his baptism by this Thread he has confessed his sin of never having seen the type of analysis from above.


Joseph

ErrancyWiki

ApostateAbe

Thanks, Joseph. Before, you asked about my methodology, and I gave it to you. I would like you to return the favor. Please tell me about your method of history. As an illustration of your methodology, you can explain how you use it to date the composition of Mark to the early 2nd century. I date the composition of Mark to about 70-75 CE, and I use the internal evidence of the prophecy of the destruction of the temple (as a minimum limit) and the apocalyptic deadline (as a maximum limit). I take the dating of the earliest extant copy as an absolute maximum possible limit and corroborating evidence (we would never expect the earliest extant copy to be the first draft). I would like to know why your date differs from mine. Explain your historical methodology in the process. Thanks.

Toto

Abe is not interacting with me, so could someone else tell him that Joe Wallack spent a long, carefully crafted post explaining his methodology, the post that Abe has marked "Hidden" in his post, with a link to another thread where he explains his dating of the gospel of Mark?

In case Abe missed it, the thread on the dating of Mark is here.

spin

I'd guess, given the lack of response I've had from his direction, he's not interacting with me either. I think he's happy with his history-free approach to historical jesus apologetics and has a forum to subject it to. There has been a dearth of fresh ideas since he started straight-jacketing the forum, so it's probably not such a good idea to continue pandering to his postings.

JoeWallack

JW:
Yea, I'm starting to worry that I Am losing my touch.



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

ApostateAbe

Joseph, if you agree with Toto or spin and that I have ignored what you are saying, then please let me know. I will make myself clearer. There could be a misunderstanding on my end.