Adam

Is anyone reading with comprehension here? I don't blame Stephan for supposing that I substitute John Mark as author of gJohn in place of John the Apostle. Come on, people, don't any of you grasp that I differentiate between John Mark (as author of the Passion Narrative and likely also the P-Strand) as against John the Apostle who may have been the Beloved Apostle, but who in any case added very little of his own testimony, John 13 mostly.

Adam

Certain? Nothing is really certain about ancient history, particularly where it departs from the ordinary course of nature. I am saying that John 20:11-16 was first told by Mary Magdalene, evidently to John Mark if these verses continue his ordinary, pedantic Passion Narrative account per Teeple's S Source, and accordingly John Mark would be the author of these verses in addition to my more modest claim that he wrote the underlying Passion Narrative that's within all four gospels.

And don't you know that the Magdalene was the one from whom Jesus cast out seven demons? Who would believe anything she (a schizophrenic?) said? Maybe that's why we don't see her very earliest of testimonies appear in any of the other three gospels. Nothing's certain. I'm saying there were lots of eyewitnesses, not that all of them got it right. According to you guys, what I say Andrew, Peter, and Simon wrote would have to be lies. As I see it, that's your best defense instead of denying that there were multiple written eyewitness records.

In the Garden? Did you read my blog (which also appears at the conclusion of my thread Truth Methodology, after following my link to it in my Post #232)?

Adam

Maybe if you had read more than just 40% of my barely-over-a-page selection I provided at your request at my Post #210, you would have a better opinion. You're doing no better than spin to retort "inadvertent demonstration" without specifying what that was--leaving me to guess it might have been really spin's problem with recognizing that "anarthrous" needs different explanation for English speakers than for the few of us who understand Greek.

What does my lack of expertise have to do with the work of great scholars (at least those without Evangelical or Roman Catholic apologetic needs) who are sure there was a Signs Source within gJohn, many of whom also see the Discourses as from a source (or with Bultmann and others, two sources). Granted that there aren't great stylistic marks for the Passion Narrative as against the rest of John, but how many scholars are certain that it was not a source, either? Few indeed still tout the old view that gJohn was dependent on one Synoptic or another. My own purported contribution to scholarship is just the small strata (in the 60% of #210 you have so far declined to study) of P-Strand, accompanied by my own thread here in FRDB
Pharisee Strand in gJohn: Key Theology?
in which in three posts I demonstrated my openness to employing new stylistic insights (from Sara C. Winter, a Fortna fan) to redefine the boundaries of the P-Strand. (I would up giving up verb-first vs. subject-first as a means of reinforcing my boundaries. Like a true scholar, I did not let this setback induce me to change my "published" results. Oh, and I did meticulously compare sentences within and without my proposed P-Strand for which were verb-first, from a supposed source, as against more typically Johannine subject-first. Nor did I find her idea worked for me that only an intermediate strand within John used the perfect tense, that I had hoped would be the P-Strand.) I admit that I cannot prove I was right, and maybe that shows I am not a true scholar, because what true scholar would?

spin

It's worthy to note Adam's utterly dismal effort trying to explain a notion commonly seen in Greek, "anarthrous". Adam gave the following clarification, 'anarthrous style (omission of articles "a", "the")', which I complained asking Adam, "how can one omit the indefinite article in Greek?" There is in fact 'no indefinite article, no "a" equivalent, in Greek'. Adam seems to think it's ok to give inaccurate definitions of terms, alleging that he was only trying to communicate to an audience who knows nothing about Greek (ie people like Adam). If he'd shut up about it, he wouldn't be smearing egg over his face here by continuing to underline his lack of language skills.

The different explanation for English speakers need only be "the omission of the definite article (the equivalent of 'the' in English)". It's not necessary to give a wrong explanation, as Adam did and now unreasonably tries to defend. But what can we expect from someone unable to understand what he needs to do in a topic he has spent over 30 years dabbling with?

Adam

You still messed up, spin. Your definition in parentheses still leaves our English-speaking forum to suppose that "anarthrous" could mean that the Greek text would still have the (non-existent in Greek) indefinite article. Your "clarification" was longer than mine and yet still failed to be clear.

Jeffrey Gibson

Spin's "clarification" was clear to me.

What else is clear to me is not only that you have misread Spin, but also that you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to matters Greek.

Spin is right -- you do seem to be clueless about when you are smearing egg over your face. I'd add that you seem to enjoy shooting yourself in the foot.

Jeffrey

JoeWallack

JW:
Aha! As Inspector Clouseau used to say, "Now we are getting somewhere!" So you claim that John Mark is the author of John 20:11-16.

What is your witness evidence that John Mark is the author of John 20:11-16?

After you identify your witnesses they will have to be evaluated for:

1) Credibility

2) Position

I would advise you to study the following video to help you understand the qualities that good evidence should have:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1__MPUKhZ4I



Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Adam

I apologize, Joe,
For my snap "Yes" answer in #255 to your #254. My link in my #237 to Early Aramaic Gospels #49 had been intended to narrow down the verses I attribute to John Mark to exclude John 20:14b-15. I did not help matters by my supplemental link that turned out to just lead again to the same link. That second link should be
Gospel Eyewitness Source Post #153
Unfortunately even it does not include the stray John 20:14b-15 as from the Beloved Disciple edition, a later addition presumably independently obtained from Mary Magdalene.
This Post #153 failed to include various editorial verses not included by the first eyewitness: John 20:2, 5d-6,14b-15, 18-19, and 24-25. Though I hold that these were inserted the Beloved Disciple, they don't seem to be what he personally saw, so I didn't take the effort to fit these in out of context.

So again I thank you, Joseph, for restating what I was saying, but you are the one who asked the questions about John 20:11-16. Nothing I say is going to make you believe that John Mark was "the disciple known to the High Priest" (John 18:15-16) and the "other disciple" of John 20:2-5 and that that was why he could tell us so much of what happens in John 18 to 20. I don't claim that he saw personally as an eyewitness what could only have been told by Peter or Mary Magdalene. What was known only by Mary Magdalene could have been told to anyone and written down by anyone, so whatever evidence I have for John Mark as author is lessened regarding source elements in John 18 to 20 that he did not himself see, and that includes John 20:11-16.

Adam

To spin and Jeffrey:
I apologize for my failings in elucidating Greek grammar, and I hope our exchanges have served to educate FRDB members more than confusing them.

So with that aside, can we get back to source criticism (specifics, not generalities)? Like Jeffrey dealing with the other 60% of the selection he asked me to post, my #210? Not to mention my two dozen threads here on FRDB.
(Adam's threads)

Jeffrey Gibson

Your failings are not only in elucidating Greek grammar. They are in your ability to understand it. And for you to even think that you can educate anyone with respect to the Gospel material you pontificate upon is sheer arrogance. How can you educate people when you have no idea what you are talking about?


Sorry, no. You are incapable of learning anything from what Spin and I have to say and the rest of your material is the same sort of assertion filled nonsense that the bit I looked at is.

Dealing with you and your cluelessness -- not to mention your cluelessness of how clueless you are -- is a waste of our time.

JG