Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 05-12-2013, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

My problem with John is that I can't reconcile the idea of the author of John being an eyewitness when John was present at the Transfiguration and the Gospel of John neglects to mention that narrative.

Opps, someone forgot to tell him that he was present at the Transfiguration

How in the hell would an 'eyewitness' to such a dramatic event, even seeing Moses and Elijah, perhaps the most dramatic expression of 'Jesus' Divinity that apostle 'John' had ever witnessed, just happen to forget to write a single sentence about that unique and wonderous personal experience?

He remembers to record details of washing feet, but not the 'Transfiguration' or his meeting with Moses!!! and Elijah ? something stinks bad here and it shore ain't the feet.

spin · 05-13-2013, 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Good issue, Joseph, and helpful.
Yes, I do say eyewitnesses wrote (or had scribes write for them) seven records to Jesus, but they relate some things they knew about, but did not see. I don't believe any of the seven were women, which helps explain why the Resurrection accounts are not readily harmonized. Different eyewitnesses (presumably on my version John Mark, John, Peter, Matthew and Simon) heard different things from the women. I would hold that John Mark heard the above version he wrote for the Passion Narrative underlying gJohn.
Early Aramaic Gospel Post #49
The version with angels inside the tomb in Mark 16:1-8 was told by Salome or Mary the mother of James (16:1).
Gospel Eyewitness Sources #153
Luke 24:2-11 (combining the above two) was told (by elimination) by Joanna 24:10). They did not write these verses, but Matthew, Peter, or Simon did, just not from first-hand observation.

So instead of dealing with the evidence in John, you run to other gospels whose veracity in some manner you assume. Circular reasoning is of no use to you. You have to start your job somewhere. How do you know from John who wrote the verses Joe cited? If you first assume the veracity of other texts (implied in this conjecture: "I would hold that John Mark heard the above version he wrote for the Passion Narrative underlying gJohn"), then you need to demonstrate that before continuing here.

I would suggest that you start with the paragraph in #232 I copied in from Truth Methodology. Then turn to the OP in
Gospel Eyewitnesses or your own #403 I link here in which you listed my points and labeled everything an assertion. Perhaps you forgot that I have covered all this and you have seen it. Also see my #244 listing of Teeple's Sources.

I don't bother with your vacuous palm offs any more. If you want to argue something do so with evidence and argumentation where asked. You can quote from what you have previously said. But I doubt if anyone will go back and wade through the mire of assertion and conjecture you have so uncritically served so far.

What you say you have covered and that I have seen I have already refuted for lack of substance beyond assertions and conjecture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Circular? Hardly. I lamented the lack of an eyewitness recording these verses and left uncertain the true account that was filtered through two or more men who did record what they heard. Far from assuming the truth of everything, I left much in doubt!

Perhaps you should read the question and your response to it again, then repackage your response once more.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

How would you know that the tomb visit actually happened? How do you know that the story found in John with only one visitor does not have priority over the multiple visitors? If John received the earliest tomb tradition in the gospels, who wrote Joe's verses? If not, how do you know that the single visitor was not the earliest tradition?

Did you read what I wrote?

Sadly, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

It's pretty well covered.

That's one way to describe your confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I implied that John Mark heard from Mary Magdalene what he wrote in the Passion Narrative (but failed to specifically say this that was implied from it being about only Mary Magdalene).

That implication is merely conjecture. You conjecture that Mary must have told someone the gory details and that someone must have been John Mark, who you conjecture wrote a strand of the gospel material. Note the three conjectures?

But, assuming a modicum of veracity for argument's sake, is John wrong when it only mentions one woman going to the tomb? How would you know? Is there some scholarly way you can give priority to the Marcan-based synoptics?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I could have added that it got over-written in the Synoptics by men presenting the different story they heard from other women or giving their own eyewitness testimony (Luke 24:13-35) or what was lost after Mark 16:8.

You could have but there is no evidence to back the assertions up. You cannot wish text to be historical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Which woman am I supposed to say gave the "earliest tradition"?

You're the one writing this fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

They said what they said that same day, probably.

Would you believe another conjecture?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

However, I do hold that John Mark wrote down almost immediately what he had heard, so that makes his version presumably the earliest and best.

I don't care what you hold. I care about the reasoning and evidence behind it. Scratch an Adam view and you find nothing to back it up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Indeed, I regard Matthew 28 as rather garbled and third-hand. (Not to mention the problems with Matthew 27!)

Do I know the tomb visit really happened? That's the kind of thing critical historians readily acknowledge as meaningful to explain how Christianity arose, regardless of whether a miraculous Resurrection occurred.

There is no answer to the question in this sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

That's regarded as history, isn't it?

I don't care about your assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

That the women saw "real" physical angels or even Jesus himself (John 20:14-17) I cannot affirm just from comparison of these somewhat contrasting ancient texts.

When you can't show what sort of texts they are you have grave difficulties saying anything meaningful about their contents or their authors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

If I say I believe it as a Christian do I get automatically banned from FRDB? You and Joseph are making dire threats.

I don't care if you are a christian. I care that the only language you seem fluent in is garbled assertions.

spin · 05-13-2013, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

If you have the evidence to support the rationale for your views then at least here you should get read. Have you read Adam's efforts? I doubt that you have. He arbitrarily delineates layers within a text (without language skills to do so, otherwise one would expect linguistic markers representing those layers), then he arbitrarily assigns those layers to characters within the texts assuming the historicity of those characters (without attempting to establish the historicity).
He needs to give up Lilith.

I'll keep that in mind.
And have you remembered what you read, spin?

Of your stuff, only sufficient to remember the evaluation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

If you're talking about the Synoptics, for you meaning Vork's Mark I guess,

What has Vork's Mark got to do with me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

quite extraneously to my thesis I detailed in #230 in Gospel Eyewitnesses six layers in gMark that I never claimed had any stylistic markers between layers (except to allow for spin's Latinisms within at least the last layer).

You asserted what you say in the parenthesis despite my showing your claim was false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

The layers can be derived only by comparison with the other three gospels, not by style within Mark.

That's just an assertion to support other assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

If you're talking about John, then I have assiduously detailed stylistic differences between the Signs Source (Synoptic-like statistics), an anarthrous Editor (Beloved Disciple) layer, a P-Strand layer (Pharisees), a necessarily distinct Passion Narrative (overlap with Synoptics), and the remainder not being narrative like the rest but the Discourses.

You don't have the language skills to assiduously detail any such thing. In fact, "assiduous" doesn't seem to reflect anything you've done with this material other than assiduously avoid evidence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I suppose that I have not elaborated upon historical characters because they are displayed in the texts themselves, but that a specific person was the eyewitness is often not necessary.

If the specific person didn't exist you are only spinning fantasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I now select John Mark as author of the Passion Narrative instead of Peter, Andrew of the Signs and not the other candidate Philip, could make a case for any of the Seventy-Two for author of L, could find John or James as author of Ur-Marcus instead of Peter, and I'm still debating with myself whether Matthew was the sole author of Q1 or was it augmented by Peter or Andrew or _?

And you don't see the arbitrary non-scholarly flitting you are doing here? Sticking names from within texts of unknown merit to the hypothesized authors of your hypothesized ur-texts. Jesus, if you can't see this is nonsense, you have my sympathy.

JoeWallack · 05-13-2013, 07:46 AM

Quote:

John 20

11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb;

12 and she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.

13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.

14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.

15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is to say, Teacher.

Adam, who is the eyewitness to these verses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I implied that John Mark heard from Mary Magdalene what he wrote in the Passion Narrative (but failed to specifically say this that was implied from it being about only Mary Magdalene).

JW:
You are saying:

1) That the eyewitness source is Mary Magdalene?

2) John Mark's source was Mary Magdalene?

3) John Mark was the source for the Verses?

4) Who wrote the verses?

Sounds like you are sure of your conclusion that there is an underlying source of eyewitness here but not sure of your evidence. Reminds me too much of Steve Martin in the classic The Jerk:

I'd just be happy to be in there somewhere

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Adam · 05-13-2013, 08:17 AM

Yes.
And to spin, basically "No". I have to work today. I'll get back to you if I find anything worthwhile, but I havn't found anything yet.
Edited to add:
Kudos to Joseph for discerning what I was saying, but on further review I see nothing of value in what spin said in either post.

JoeWallack · 05-13-2013, 09:31 AM

Quote:

You are saying:

1) That the eyewitness source is Mary Magdalene?

2) John Mark's source was Mary Magdalene?

3) John Mark was the source for the Verses?

4) Who wrote the verses?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Yes.

JW:
So you are saying that you are certain that John 20:11-16 has an eyewitness source and that Who wrote the verses.

For those starting to get suspicious about how this is turning out, let me just say for the record that I do not know Adam from Adam and that I have never worked with him before (except possibly at The Garden a long, long time ago).

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

stephan huller · 05-13-2013, 09:52 AM

This is just incredibly stupid. First you have to prove that John Mark is John. It is more traditional to assume John Mark = Mark and even that is dubious. I just don't see why Adam thinks it is reasonable to build his castle on this quicksand. First you have to establish that John is John Mark. I don't know of any ancient witnesses that claim that.

spin · 05-13-2013, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

Yes.
And to spin, basically "No". I have to work today. I'll get back to you if I find anything worthwhile, but I havn't found anything yet.
Edited to add:
Kudos to Joseph for discerning what I was saying, but on further review I see nothing of value in what spin said in either post.

With your inability to respond and your utter failure to even comprehend the quagmire you're in, I'm sure you can grasp that your evaluations are generally not convincing.

ttfn

Jeffrey Gibson · 05-13-2013, 11:34 AM

And with your admission (and inadvertent demonstration) that you are lacking any true competency in Greek, there's absolutely no reason to take any of your claims about sources in the Gospels that are based on your stylistic and linguistic analyses of the Greek text of these writings with any degree of seriousness, let alone as valid.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack · 05-13-2013, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam

I have to work today.

JW:
Just tell us it's not at Roger Pearse's Obscurantism Shoppe.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

05-13-2013, 08:17 AM	#255
Adam Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Dixon CA Posts: 1,150	Go with Joe, grin at spin Yes. And to spin, basically "No". I have to work today. I'll get back to you if I find anything worthwhile, but I havn't found anything yet. Edited to add: Kudos to Joseph for discerning what I was saying, but on further review I see nothing of value in what spin said in either post.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-13-2013, 09:52 AM	#257
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	This is just incredibly stupid. First you have to prove that John Mark is John. It is more traditional to assume John Mark = Mark and even that is dubious. I just don't see why Adam thinks it is reasonable to build his castle on this quicksand. First you have to establish that John is John Mark. I don't know of any ancient witnesses that claim that.

05-13-2013, 11:34 AM	#259
Jeffrey Gibson Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 3,058	And with your admission (and inadvertent demonstration) that you are lacking any true competency in Greek, there's absolutely no reason to take any of your claims about sources in the Gospels that are based on your stylistic and linguistic analyses of the Greek text of these writings with any degree of seriousness, let alone as valid. Jeffrey

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.