Doug Shaver

You mean, we have this pigheaded notion that the only evidence we should consider is evidence that actually exists?

spin

Just summarizing some of the progress in this thread (or lack thereof):

In post #353 Adam pointed people to his presentation of his theory about the structure of the gospel of Mark.

In post #357 I analyzed this presentation to show that there is no development of a logical argument nor is there any discernable evidence mustered for any thesis.

In post #368 Adam pointed people to his "first article in which [he] presented basic evidence and argumentation for how the Synoptic gospels were written".

In post #369 I analyzed this second presentation to show that once again there is no development of a logical argument nor is there any discernable evidence mustered for any thesis.

Thus far we get the idea that Adam has difficulty understanding what his task actually is when he proposes a theory in public. Nobody needs to take the thesis seriously until he provides actual evidence rather than a string of surmises that echo his basic assumptions. Unable to cotton onto the problem of what he was not doing he pointed people to the parts of his argument in this thread (see #393).

In post #403 I analyzed the first post in the thread (#1) where he attempts to justify his outrageous claim that his hypothesized first layer of Mark was written by none other than the John of Acts 12:12, 25, etc., "whose other name was Mark". The post was another pile of assertions without any tangible evidence or coherent argument. He introduces his claimed "eye witness": The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely “disciple known to the high priest”. How he actually came to this conclusion isn't justified in the post, but that is nothing strange in this thread, for nothing he says is justified. There is no mustering of evidence to form a coherent argument. And laughably in post #405 he says: "You analyze every word of mine instead of those with which you disagree." He misses out the fact that his ass is on a platter. There was no realization of what had happened. He didn't need to worry about the fact that there was no evidence for his claims nor that a coherent argument was missing.

In post #420 I moved on to analyze the next of his text walls (#18) in which he presents the next of his hypothesized eye witnesses. Adam claimed that there was another layer of the gospel of Mark to be individuated, but rather than actually showing how one could determine how such a layer could be confirmed he merely recited someone else's opinion. Certain parts of Mark were relatable to certain parts of John, so the conjecture goes there must have been a common written source. That the common materials were not the result of oral transmission is not considered for his conclusion is what intersts Adam. Gratuitously the name of Andrew is attached to this hypothesized source. Try as hard as I could I found no evidence for the claim that Andrew wrote anything, let alone a body of work that augmented a kernel of the gospel of Mark.

At each stage of the process of unveiling the lack of coherence in Adam's presentation he performs a stunning shift of goalposts. The response seemed to be: Look at some other post, where ass was hopefully covered.

It should be clear now to all concerned that the process has no hope of gaining credibility. There is no way to falsify Adam's claims regarding either layers or eye witness reports. There is no way to test it in any way (other than where I falsified it twice through 1) the fact that Mark reflects a non-Palestinian location of writing, given all of its Latin linguistic materials and 2) the fact that his layers are crossed by literary structures known as chiasms). As there is no way to verify, falsify or test the theory in any meaningful way, the theory is worthless.

I must admit that I should have stopped when I found no substance in his post #1 of this thread. All the rest require the foundation of the first layer, but if that fails, so does everything else. His first layer was found wanting. It doesn't matter about any of the others, as they depend on the sustainability of the first. He has never lifted his game above extended conjecture and gives no sign of changing.

Now all we find in his comments is insult and name calling. In apparently total self-unawareness he asks: "Are any of you open to any new information that does not fit your preconceptions?" The irony of this question is probably lost on no-one but the man who asked it. After months of banging his own gong and not gaining any sympathy, it must be everyone else who can't accept his genius, not the possibility that his genius just hasn't shone out.

:tomato:

Sheshbazzar

This paragraph as you have written it, clearly expresses that it was your expectation that;
"refutation of me would take the ugly form of denouncing the "eyewitnesses" as liars.
The obvious intention, as is indicated by the total context, with the modification of your "I had expected... with the follow up; " I had hardly expected...' the latter confirming that the former had been expected, and that the latter was an unexpected result of the former being 'expected' and satisfied.
The clear implication as it is written, is that others here are in your view in fact guilty of "denouncing the "eyewitnesses" as liars."

If this was not your intent, as you attempt to slide by with a "I never said .." excuse in Post 609 above, then you really need to take a few remedial classes in English composition so that you may learn to express your thoughts more clearly.

I'll leave it to others here to parse your paragraph as presented in #609 and reach their own conclusions as to what it was that you were originally attempting to express.

But you can be damn sure, that as of now, I am not at all buying your "I never said...." attempt at wiggling out of what you wrote.

Sheshbazzar

There is no capability of 'dealing with the obvious sources underlying the larger gospels' by anyone because there are no such 'obvious' sources.

If there were 'obvious sources' there would have been no need for you to even opened such a thread, as these 'eyewitnesses' being so 'obvious', tens of thousands of textual scholars would have had already independently identified, established, and confirmed the existence of each of these claimed 'obvious' sources.
They did not, they have not, and they could not, because no such 'obvious sources' have ever been found, or are presently identifiable by anyone.
(your present attempt is only an exercise in imagination, unprovnanced guesswork, and personal opinions, all sorely lacking any solid corroborating evidence. )

You are the one way out on a rotten and dead-end limb here.
As spin and others here have pointed out to you, you need corrberatting and external evidence. As it is there is no reason, not even for the most devout of believers, to ever follow you out on your limb.





.

Sheshbazzar

Just for a little further clarification,
The obvious question here is, WHY WOULD YOU EXPECT THAT ANYONE WOULD DO SO?
No one that you have discussed this subject with in any of these threads, has at any time took any position other than that these stories are fictional and that other than a few established historical political figures and locations, the other 'bit characters' along with their words and actions in these religious fiction writings, are all the creations of the writers.

While fictional characters can be -made- to make inaccurate statements or to outright lie by the creative imaginations and pens of the writers.
It is impossible for any writers fictional and imaginary character to actually -be- a liar.
(However no problem at all for said writer(s) to be liars, or the sources of and the promoters of lies.)

That is why no one here would even think of saying that any of these fictional characters had ever lied.
If they didn't even exist (outside of the writers warped creative imaginations) it would be impossible for them to interact with reality and to ever 'lie'.
One might as well making a claim that Donald Duck was a liar.

WHY would you expect that refutation of you would take the ugly form of denouncing the "eyewitnesses" as liars?

The answer seems to be that you are erroneously projecting your personal convictions that these story book characters were 'real persons', upon others.

Most of us here (especially those whom have been opposing you) do not hold any such a priory commitment that any of these stories accurately reflect any actual circumstances or the conduct of any actual persons.
(IE. Herod can not be demonstrated to ever have have had numbers of babies slaughtered. Zero external corroboration for the majority of the rest of the claimed events and characters. The texts written anonymously and in the fashion of a fictional narrative story)
Outside of your erroneously projecting of your own silly religious persuasions upon others, who do not have any such persuasions, you have no discernible reason to be expecting that any refutation of you would take the ugly form of denouncing the "eyewitnesses" as liars.







.

Adam

I answered this in my Post #423. Actually, I did say how the second layer of gMark developed, but I didn't recite the opinions of others. Later in my Post #18 I did footnote several scholars about the Signs Gospel--as if footnoting is a bad thing?
spin did not look as hard as he claims--the Muratorian Canon (170 CE) lists Andrew among others assisting the Apostle John in writing gJohn. My post #18 was primarily about the Signs Source in gJohn, not gMark. The Signs Source is largely the narrative naming Andrew in gJohn.

For the rest spin says nothing new that I have not already countered. spin seems to think that anything not proved cannot be said, but makes it clear always that he accepts nothing as proof if he does not already agree with it. And of course spin takes no notice of my thread Significance of John in which I footnoted foundational material. As for John Mark being the "disciple known to the high priest" and writing the Passion Narrative being outrageous, I have never heard anyone else being suggested for this person (except for the Apostle John, a not-very-likely choice).

Sheshbazzar

Perhaps simply because no one can find any reason to substitute one imagined fictional and imaginary character for a different imagined fictional and imaginary character in your favorite Loony Tunes religious story? :huh:

As we don't believe in your tale, this is really not the place to be posing such asinine quandaries. Whoever you may name using your guessing game, barring the providing of some irrefutable evidence and proofs that the stories characters were also its writers, will continue to elicit the answer 'none of the above'.
The tales writers remain anonymous and unidentifiable. -most likely however to be post 150 AD religious writers who never actually saw any of the crap they were writing.

spin

Perhaps that was the flimsy #422?

The basic problem is sadly passed by. Adam's first layer still hasn't been shown to be anything other than rubbish, meaning all the others are the equivalent rubbish. They all depend on the substance of the first.

(And footnoting in't a bad thing. It's just that Adam's collected opinion originators aren't here to justify themselves, but he is. If he depends on the opinions he has to defend them.)

Is it strange that Adam doesn't find the use of this sad little datum ridiculous, given that the Muratorian Canon was written 130 years after his claimed fact (accepting the tendentious dating)?

It was a summary of the fact that Adam is incapable of doing his job of justifying his claims. Babbling numbers and other people's opinions is particularly hollow.

Shifting the goalposts as he so frequently does will not help him justify his crap. Either he can or he can't and as we have come this far, it is obvious he can't. This is why he projects onto me the notion that "spin seems to think that anything not proved cannot be said". This is a gentle half-realization that he's merely giving his own personal conjectures that have no weight.

Here Adam admits that he failed to do his job in this thread. He throws his stuff around the net incoherently like a madman's forced visit to the toilet and expects others to make better sense of it than the way he has presented it. We've got stuff in some online journal, bits and pieces strewn through this thread, stuff in some other thread and who knows where else.

The logic here is ironically analogous to those people who deny the existence of Nazareth because nobody before the gospels had ever mentioned the place. Ignorance is not an excuse for making claims. Just because Adam doesn't know any other Mark, he has decided the writer of his first layer had to be the one Mark he has heard of. He has "never heard of anyone else being suggested"! That gives him license to convert conjectures into personal reality.

Adam has shown that we cannot expect better from him than this sort of crass blunder.

Adam

Yes, it was my #422. At least I can agree with you about that.
My first layer of gMark is my most supportable of all. It is basically the overlap between gJohn and the Synoptics. It is also almost identical with what Howard Teeple (an atheist) sorts out by style as the S Source Passion Narrative. Hardly "rubbish" as an argument.
Any footnotes, spin, to "opinion originators" in scholarly discourse?
spin seems to have a problem acknowledging sources. The Passion Narrative is almost universally accepted among Form Critics. The Signs Source is widely accepted among scholars, with "The Book of Signs" having become a way for even Evangelicals to designate the first twelve chapters of gJohn. Is there no Q? I suppose spin is among those who don't regard gMark as a source of the other Synoptics, if he is being consistent in ridiculing sources.
spin seems to expect me to post a 200-page treatise on a website like this. Such things are not done on forums like this, or are quickly stopped if attempted. I'm working with the limitations of the medium. And I seem to have been successful in getting attention here on FRDB (in contrast to zero on Christian Forums--I guess even page-and-half chunks were too long there).
I never speak of John Mark as necessarily the author of the Passion Narrative. I speak of him as the most likely candidate, maybe a probability of 50%. spin seems to accept nothing except certainties, which is in practive equivalent to accepting nothing.

Vorkosigan

Adam, nobody cares whether Teeple is an atheist or the Pope. What is his argument? is the only thing that counts.