Toto

I have to ask - what is the meaning of this smilie? Someone trying to fly by flapping his hands?

Adam

Not really a problem for me. Here where the Consensus that you guys reject is late, but not as late as you'd like, you argue Consensus against me. But Teeple operated from an earlier, later-dating Consensus. Based on the dating of P52, however, he could not hold to such late dates and thus holds that "E probably wrote around A. D. 100-110, and R probably around 125-135." (pg. 152). The Consensus now is for much earlier, within the lifetimes of some possible eyewitnesses.

Meanwhile, no one here knowledgeable enough to comment on my specifics in Post #314 for modifying my paper? No one is well-verses in Teeple, certainly, but what about Temple, Freed, Nicol, Fortna, and von Wahlde?

Edited to add:Teeple, Literary Origin p. 152
“In 12:42 the editor alludes to the Pharisees’ exclusion of the Christians from the synagogues; this excommunication began about A. D. 90. As we have concluded, one of his sources, S, was written around the year 95. Thus the editor wrote after 95. On the other hand, the redactor [later than the editor] wrote before the famous John Rylands Library fragment, P52, was produced, because that papyrus contains R’s insertion in 18:32. The date of P52 apparently is the second quarter of the second century, and considering the respective points of view of E and R, E probably wrote soon after G was written, but several decades may separate the work of E and R. Therefore E probably wrote around A. D. 100-110, and R probably around 125-135.”

Actually Teeple dates S at 75 or later only based upon the now superceded view that these passages in John come from the Synoptics. Even dating the Editor after 90 is weak as there is less agreement now on what aposynagogos means and when it can be dated respective to Christians. Few today would date John or its pieces so late or employ the same reasons.

spin

Yes, doing a lot of flapping but getting nowhere.

Toto

What could be a problem for you? Anything? Criticism seems to wash over you without registering.

There is no consensus on p52. The Wikipedia article seems to reflect the current state of affairs. Christian scholars cling to an early first century date, but Brent Nongbri has produced comparable manuscripts that would indicate that "any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, P52 cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century."

And note that if you think that Jesus was crucified around 30-33 CE, eyewitnesses who were adults at the time would not be expected to be alive past 80 CE, assuming a 70 year life span (and assuming that these eyewitnesses survived the Jewish War and all the tales about persecution and martyrdom did not apply) - which I suspect is the motive for trying to force the earliest date for the gospel to around 80.

That was the post where you hinted at divine inspiration? I don't think it takes a lot of specialized knowledge to recognize that something is wrong here.

First of all, your claims about p52 are not well based. Secondly, you continually claim some consensus date, but you never seem to have an actual knowledge of any real consensus or what the basis for the consensus is.

Here's an idea: if you really want to work on this thesis, Robert M. Price takes questions and answers them in a podcast called the Bible Geek.

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/biblegeek.php

Price has spoken highly of Teeple, so you might get more answers there. You can email a question to criticus@aol.com

However, you would need to ask more narrowly focused questions than you have here - e.g.

What are current ideas for the dating of the gospel of John?

What is the current view of Teeple's work? How can sources within the gospel of John be identified? There is general agreement on an earlier Signs gospel, but what about other sources?

What are the possibilities of the gospels including eyewitness testimony?

You can listen to some podcasts to get an idea of Price's style. He is a nonbeliever and a fan of pop culture, but also very steeped in academic Biblical criticism.

Good luck.

Adam

Yes, I have listened to some of Price's podcasts before. He is reasonable and not pompous.
When I search on him together with Teeple, all I find is Wikipedia bits where they both are listed as Mythicists who are among the minority of scholars who do not acknowledge even the empty tomb. Is Price citing Teeple for more than just their shared conclusions; does Price go into Teeple's source-criticism?

Maybe the problem is that Price's podcasts, life FRDB itself, does not make itself available for internet cataloging.

Edited to add:
Can't I at least elicit comments of this from my #314? That's basically what #161 & 162 deal with. My foray into names can be disregarded for your purposes as mnemonics associated with a layer if only in concept or school of origin. Or you're welcome to suggest your explanation for why the names are there as not eyewitnesses.
"Call me dumb as usual, but I still think my paper finished in 1981 presented elements still recognized today as Signs Source, Passion Narrative (well recognized sources), and Discourse (not so universally acknowledged as early), and later Johannine editing."

Toto

The only thing I have heard Price say is that he thinks highly of Teeple. That doesn't mean that he agrees with him.

Why are you wasting your time here when you could shoot off an email to Price and find out more?

gurugeorge

But Adam, don't you get it? it's not an apriori assumption that there couldn't have been any eyewitnesses, it's lack of a reason to believe that we are dealing with eyewitness testimony, therefore lack of the assumption that any of the material we have represents eyewitness testimony.

And once again, you cannot say with any great confidence that what you have when you strip the supernaturalism from a story is still a story about anything actually real. (Copy of Superman dug up by future archaologist who wonders if there was a "real Superman".)

Maybe, maybe not, but you have to argue for it - why should this evidently fantastic story about a Jewish miracle-working god-man have any eyewitness testimony in it at all? Why can't it just be a fantastic story? Both hypotheses are on a level.

Or as I put it in terms of "evidentiaryness", all the purported evidentiariness of the Christian writings pertains to the god-man figure, not to some ordinary bloke who got deified (i.e. that wasn't what Christians would have said they believed).

If and when you rule the god-man out of court on scientific grounds, and then strip away the supernaturalism from the story, all the purported evidentiaryness goes away with that story. What you have left is anybody's guess (within the bounds of comparative religion, psychology, contemporary mysticism, psychiatry, etc.)

Adam

You are tripping over yourself. You say you're not a priori rejecting eyewitnesses, but then you "evidentiariness" assumes only supernaturalism in the stories can explain their impact. Yet I have shown three sources that are free of it: Q, the Passion Narrative (in the source in John), and the Discourses.

I'm surprised you think Superman would not be ruled out as supernatural.

Adam

Yeah, it shouldn't take much to find out whether he knows more about Teeple than that he is listed with him in Wikipedia as denying the empty tomb.

Toto

I think you missed the point.

But what is there about the gospel stories that would impress anyone without the supernatural elements? There isn't much there otherwise.

And how does this indicate that there were eyewitnesses? It doesn't.