Adam

Seven wrote written eyewitness records about their experiences with Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified about 30 CE, each of which are still discernible within the four canonical gospels. I have presented my verse-by-verse understanding of them in two threads here in FRDB,
Early Aramaic Gospels
and
Gospel Eyewitness Sources.

Stringbean

Wrong. Luke never saw a Jesus and as well as admits it in Luke 1:1-4....$50 million dollar degrees do not make people right all the time. I generally ignore fancy degree know it all people but since you have not resorted to name calling yet I decided why not. Basically I have no respect for few scholars. I will read some more your story until then.

Adam

Luke is not one of the seven. I believe Simon Barsabbas wrote Proto-Luke that Luke later combined with gMark after Peter had finished with it and with the Infancy Narratives. Peter and Simon are among the eyewitnesses, but Luke was not. Both these are found in the second pass, Gospel Eyewitness Sources: Peter was whatever there come from gMark and Simon as what is in Luke that is [bracketed].

Here's the list of the relevant text in that thread: 154, 153 #152 #142,#135 #123, #109, #87, #1). Read them in the reverse order, of course; start with #1

spin

After posting one of his typical webs of assertions as a thread opener ("Significance of John"), alluding to a paper published in some unknown non-scholarly periodical, though claimed to be peer-reviewed (and one wonders what sort of peers they were), and demonstrating that he doesn't understand what he needs to do to present a scholarly argument, Adam found that no-one was interested in a reheat of his methodologyless ravings, so he posted a second dose of the same sort of meanderings. The combination claimed amongst other things that John was originally written in Aramaic. This is fairly amusing because Adam doesn't understand Aramaic.

When asked by Toto, "How do you account for one of Bart Erhman's favorite examples - the pun in Jesus' discussion with Nicodemus as to whether one has to be born again or born from above? The Greek words make sense of this, but not the Aramaic."(#5) the response was, "I can't. I don't believe it disproves my thesis in itself."(#6) Direct evidence that an integral part of a Johannine pericope depends on Greek, not Aramaic, should be a warning bell, but not to our Adam. We remember that evidence contrary to his held beliefs never discourage him from continuing unabated in those beliefs, as seen in the previous thread which asserted gospel eye-witnesses, no matter how lacking in evidence the claim was shown to be. When Solo explained the weight of the Greek issue,(#8) Adam conjectured that Jesus and Nicodemus may have had a side discussion in Greek.(#9) There's nothing like a little ad hockery to show substance to one's nonsense. Diogenes pointed out the ad hoc nature of this fudge of Adam's and that occam's razor excluded it, (#14) which garnered this marvelous piece of speculation: "Your Occam's Razor would apply if we knew John was written in the 2nd Century outside Palestine as 19th Century critics believed, but might cut the other way with more recent thought that it could have come from before 70 A.D. in Jerusalem." (#15) I guess poor Diogenes was so non-plussed by the lack of substance that he didn't respond.

Kapyong pointed out the elephant in Adam's room, asking "YOUR lack of evidence is not your problem?" (#22) But pointing out the elephant is insufficient for Adam says "I do appreciate and attempt to respond to specific points about insufficient evidence, argumentation, or documentation, particularly if they include indications of what is false or what improvements could be made."(#25) No evidence has thus far been provided for Adam's unabated flood of assertions. In fact this lack of evidence doesn't matter to Adam, indicating his wanton disregard for scholarship and methodology.

After a lot of waffle Vork requests, "Please explain how you know that John Mark wrote both the P-Strand and the Synoptic Source"(#46), eliciting one of Adam's most useless of tactics, reference to some previous load of refuted nonsense in the notorious Gospel Eyewitnesses thread.(#47) Vork foolishly thinks he can suggest notions of methodology, "There is no argument in that thread. There is simply a statement. An argument consists of evidence in some kind of logical framework. For example, if I want to argue that the author of Mark paralleled the OT in a particular passage,..." And worse Vork asks for umm, well, what those ivory-towered unrealistic thinkers euphemistically called scholars refer to as an argument.(#49) After some to-ing and fro-ing, Adam finally unloaded a text wall of assertions (#57) showing he still doesn't understand what people like Vork have been trying to elicit from him. Seriously, check out the post and look for a trace of scholarly argument. Just to whet your appetites, building on his edifice of conjectures and ideas cribbed from more scholarly conjecturers (mainly Teeple), Adam writes: "I have made clear statements for sources going back to Peter, Andrew, and Nicodemus in a tangled web in gJohn. Peripherally I have gotten into the P-Strand of editorial additions, and I get into the thick of that in this post. It's very detailed and not particularly recommended and I would not necessarily now defend all of it, but I wrote it when I was younger and optimally hypomanic, so the insights may still be valuable. I have tried revising it, but only come to mildly different conclusions that may be less valid than the original, so I'll leave off with just a few [brackets] for new insertions and {ellipses} for what I would now prefer not be stated." I hope that inspires you to read more.

In #80 we learn from Adam: "The MLM Strand, my revision of Teeple’s R, is as follows: John 2:23-23, (3:23-24,) 4:39; 5:2-3a, 18, 36; 6:4, 54-57, 58b-59; 7:2; 10:22; 11:2-5, 18-20a, 26-27, 30-32a, {39c-40;} 45b; 12:6, 9b-11a, 17b-18a; 13:18-19, 23a, 25a; 17:12c; [18:9;] 19:5b, 13d-14a, 17c, 20, 24b, 28b, 31-37, 42a; 20:9; 21:2c, 7a, 15, 17b, 18-24." This startlingly communicative paragraph is so full of reasoning that no-one seems to have been able to respond.

In #84 Adam gives what he calls a 'summation of "The Significance of John"' (the article mentioned at the beginning). This consists of a series of assertions that may be enough to give one the idea of some of Adam's ideas, but totally lacking in the sort of substance required here to be taken as worthy of analysis. A few weeks later he writes, "No one can say that there is no argumentation in this thread of mine. No argument on that? And still no arguments against my peer-reviewed argumentation?" Adam is clearly still unaware of what argumentation means and has failed to demonstrate that he uses "peer-reviewed" with any recognized meaning.

Avi posting through the sock "tanya" asked, "How does Mr. Robinson explain αποσυναγωγος in John 9:22?"(#74), implying an essential use of Greek in Jn once again, against the Aramaic John, which yielded no apparent response from Adam, so Diogenes, reiterated the idea, "If they were so familiar then why did they think aposynagogos happened while Jesus was still alive?"(#94) which elicited a non-response from Adam: "My thesis is that Nicodemus wrote very early and most of gJohn is early,but not all of it./
I'll admit that I show the relevant verses (John 9:22, 12:42, and 16:2) from the earliest layer, but Howard Teeple shows all three as from E, the Editor (but not from the latest R layer). In any case these particular verses do not undermine a very early date for the great majority of gJohn (the Discourses from Nicodemus, the Signs Gospel from Andrew, and the Passion Narrative from John Mark)." The problem remains undealt with.

In #52 Vork requested, "Do me a favor. Dig out the exact ARGUMENT from these texts that shows that a particular passage goes back to John Mark." Adam eventually responded (six months later), "It's time to resurrect my peer-reviewed serialization in my thread Significance of John because I did present evidence there that people here endlessly accuse me of never giving." This is an admission that as of post #102 he still has not provided any evidence for his claims. Adam then exhumes another post from Vork #7 in which Vork kindly stated, "Your "argument" consists of assuming that this story goes back to some putative follower of Jesus and then assigning the story to whoever seems good to you. That is a method, but a totally unacceptable one." Adam proceeds not to respond to it, but does make this interesting clarification, 'anarthrous style (omission of articles "a", "the")', which begs the question of Adam, how can one omit the indefinite article in Greek? Adam simply has no language skills and does not know that there is no indefinite article, no "a" equivalent, in Greek. This is only topped by the logic defying "I had earlier written in my Post #2 "The discourses were originally written in Aramaic, according to the Aramaic scholars." but Vork seems under the misunderstanding that I said the Discourses were written in Greek originally. This is yet another proof that the Discourses came from a source." This smacks of the same singlemindedness that led Cato to finish every speech, no matter what it was about, with "And Carthage must be destroyed." Funnily, the last comment I cited from Adam "serves as my explicit answer to Vork in Post #7".(all from #103) We are still waiting for the resurrection of the "peer-reviewed serialization in [his] thread Significance of John".

Adam still hasn't learned that self-reference like this: "Here's the list of the relevant text in that thread: 154, 153 #152 #142,#135 #123, #109, #87, #1). Read them in the reverse order, of course; start with #1" will only cause people to ignore him, as such posts add nothing to a thread, especially where one cannot find any evidence, just assertions and persistent references to assertions based on earlier self-references to assertions and earlier assertions, which all adds up to a load of self-serving, trivial nonsense that has no value to anyone else.

This thread is a complete waste of time reading for anyone interested in reason, evidence and argumentation. You cannot expect these things from Adam, given his consistent track record. The persistent self-reference to posts which contain further self-references, the ignoring of problems posed, the inability to respond meaningfully to anyone, and the utter lack of methodology show us all that we are dealing with a poster, who not only fails to live up to his obligations, but to a poster who fails to adhere to the guidelines of this forum. Fortunately for him, these guidelines were imposed after the writing of much of the thread. Argument by assertion is clearly unacceptable and we find nothing but assertion in Adam's efforts in this forum. Given that there is no evidence ever proffered for his claims, while persisting to assert them, there is only one conclusion to be drawn, ie that Adam's views are agenda-driven and have a wall built around them to make them unassailable through logic and reason. This in my eyes makes further insistence by Adam on his "theses" regarding eye-witnesses and the "Significance of John" as he sees it to be in violation of the guidelines (see 9. Agendas). The choice is clear, either he starts providing tangible evidence and argumentation for his conclusions or he stops spamming the forum.

Adam

I will of course give a detailed response to spin's #124, but it fails on many fronts. spin continues railing about peer review in a manner that leaves in doubt whether he understands what it is. He details all the complaints that have been presented against my article, but never deals with the article itself nor that the complaints themselves have never presented any case against the article itself--and surely neither has denied that there is evidence and argumentation in the article itself. spin chides my OP for failing to provide evidence as of Post #25, but not until #87 did I resume serializing the article itself--anything I said in the meantime would (by spin's) definition not be evidence anyway. Not to mention that the OP (as one would expect) presents justification, summary of literature, and not even a bare start on the thesis, but instead a concluding paragraph that explains where not to start. After my #87 only one person in the next year raised any points against my thesis. spin simply rehashes points that in large part are irrelevant to the documented, scholarly article itself. spin's list of my dirty laundry includes no posts after #87 where I really began my case.

As with any scholarly paper there are objections that opponents raise, but that there are objections does not mean that the paper was without value nor that the author was not "providing tangible evidence and argumentation for his conclusions." Only one person said so after #87.

As I am a contrarian with my own higher critical research that has driven all my beliefs and conclusions to such an extent that I am a Minority of One with no following to my tightrope position completely isolated from all sides, there is no case whatever for claiming that I am agenda driven--I am the least agenda-driven member on FRDB.
Edited to add:
I really expected this post to be a friendly delay while I catch my breath, but it has turned out to be so substantive that I may not respond to spin in detail later. I have no obligation to someone who wants to censor me, and dealing with him may just get me kicked out of FRDB. So wait and see.

spin

Hmm, whaddaya know? another assertion.

No railing. I note your abject failure to provide evidence for your claims, even on this supposed peer-review.

The article is nowhere presented, only "summaries".

Nothing there. No evidence. No argumentation. Total failure to do the job. As you are unable to follow the guidelines, I suggest you stop while you're ahead.

Yup, nothing there.

A thesis requires argumentation and evidence. You have neither. You only have self-references to assertions layered so deep you confuse yourself.

Points you don't respond to.

Obviously Adam did not bother to read my post fully before shooting off more rubbish. Your claim is false and it is typical of your lack of perception of what is said to you.

Calling your stuff "scholarly" is an insult to scholarship. Remember that scholarly work requires argumentation and evidence. And nowhere do you provide any. You don't show an understanding of these notions.

Gosh somebody bothered. I send my condolences to the person.

:hysterical:

We don't give a fuck about your beliefs. Get that straight. Your job is to aim for scholarly reasoning. Not the drivel you persist in wallowing in.

That is understandable.

That's your first good summary.

Just so that you absorb the guideline, "Issues that have been analyzed by the forum in great detail should, unless new evidence can be introduced to revitalize them, be considered dealt with and will thereafter be considered agenda-driven."

What do you call a perception aimed at describing the real world by a person that does not in fact represent the state of things in the real world?

Adam

My #103 was responding to posts earlier than where the body of my paper really started at #87. No one dealt with my paper itself.
Edited to add:
Nor has anyone even yet.

Adam

154, 153 #152 #142,#135 #123, #109, #87, #1
It's as if all you guys are terrified of reading any of those where the main text starts with #87. I doubt that I have any magic spell over you guys. I know the article is not easy to read, may not even be clearly written. I know it is densely written, and maybe that makes it too difficult to read. Regardless, it is a scholarly paper that is well documented and argued. Why is all that denied? Is it fear?

spin

It's as though you will never, ever learn. Spewing stupid numbers will only reflect poorly on you, not being able to put an argument together. Your efforts so far have proven to be a dismal failure. You cannot string an argument together to save your life. How many times do you have to be told to use argumentation and evidence? Your abject failure is only to be expected. All you can do is point back with numbers to previous assertions linked to numbers that fall away to other assertions to yet others and in the end you say absolutely nothing. You don't have a magic spell over yourself that would help dig yourself out of your bog. You will persist in the folly of assuming your conclusions, seeking opinions to make you feel comfortable in the folly and neglecting to get the skills necessary for you to attempt the work you have foolishly taken on. You don't know the first think about the languages involved, so you are inadequately prepared even to talk to the proposition that is the center of this thread, ie an Aramaic source to John. You'll leave as you came in, unwilling to hear what people say to you, uninterested in any skills to help you and just plain unlearned. "Bwa-a-a-a-a. I'm right and nobody will listen to me. Bwa-a-a-a-a."

spin

Here is the story that Adam tells us here about his so-called peer-reviewed article which was never peer-review published: "In this thread I have transcribed my 1988 "Significance of John" in Cincinnatus Society Bulletin that was of course not on the internet. It was scholarly, so is more cautious about giving names and dates. It was not aimed at specifying eyewitness material, "just" specifying the sources and editions of gJohn. I won't be changing the reasoning except as denoted by brackets, which mean "2011 note". Everything in bold is new.
That article was accepted for publication in the Biblical Theology Bulletin by the (still) editor David Bossman, but was displaced by an article on John that the prior editor wanted to publish. So it is peer-reviewed, and I'm not going to change it."

This is all very sad, but Adam comes up emptyhanded once again. If the article was published in a peer-reviewed journal then he could claim that it was peer-reviewed, but as it is, he can bleed from the eardrums, but he is making yet again an unsubstantiated claim. Yawn. What else can we expect?