Argument from Historical Proximity

**Adam** · April 23rd 2011, 03:09 AM

Originally posted by Juice

You are arguing for the identity of the author(s) of John, yes?

Yes. It started with Nicodemus writing the Discourses while Jesus was still alvie, then John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative, Andrew wrote the Signs Source, and John the Apostle edited it together.

Originally posted by Juice

So what? Most works from history are strictly speaking anonymous. Some works from antiquity that are widely held to be eyewitness accounts don’t even internally claim to be an eyewitness, where at the very least John does at 1:14. You and Tassman appear to regard this as insignificant, I don’t.

"at the very least"--not necessarily, in addition to which this could be an interpolation or from a source.

Originally posted by Juice

At no point in this thread have I claimed who the writer of John is. It may appear I’ve flipped back and forth from John to someone else, but that’s because I’ve at times been foolishly sucked into responding to Tassman’s strawman argument that the apostle John was not the writer. It also may appear that way because it gets tiresome writing “the author of the Gospel of John” all the time so there may be times when I just write “John.”

Understandable.

Originally posted by Juice

What would be helpful is if ancient writers wrote the way we wanted them to. But alas, they didn’t. So we are left to evaluate the available evidence using fair and consistent methods.
Well, feel free to ignore me then. Frankly, I’m growing tired of your attempts to run me off so you can have free reign in this thread to peddle your pet theories. Maybe you should focus your energy on what was it you said you were going to do again? Oh, yes “vanquish the field.” How's that goin' by the way? Seems like the field has returned...

Well, I've rescued a worthwhile thread. It's a worthy parallel to my own thread. At least over here, some of the participants have read the thread contents.

**Tassman** · April 23rd 2011, 03:30 AM

Originally posted by Juice

We know that huh? Tell me how we know that. Is this kinda like how you know John was illiterate? Or are you going to appeal to anonymous scholarship yet again…

I’ve appealed to majority scholarship, remember, not anonymous scholarship.

Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (i.e. forgery). ‘Introduction to the New Testament’, pp. 430-4):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/2peter.html

The same applies to 1 Timothy.

Norman Perrin summarizes four reasons that have lead critical scholarship to regard the pastorals as inauthentic (The New Testament: An Introduction, pp. 264-5):

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/1timothy.html

Virtually every scholar that adopts the historical/critical approach recognizes the non-authenticity of these epistles.

You have yet, after multiple pages and posts, shown to be false the claim to be a witness at 1:14. Historians do not start under the presumption that a claim to be a witness to events is false. Surely the burden here must fall on the skeptic to show this claim false.

Robert Kysar writes the following on the authorship of the Gospel of John (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 3, pp. 919-920):

“The supposition that the author was one and the same with the beloved disciple is often advanced as a means of insuring that the evangelist did witness Jesus' ministry. Two other passages are advanced as evidence of the same - 19:35 and 21:24. But both falter under close scrutiny..……Neither of these passages, therefore, persuades many Johannine scholars that the author claims eyewitness status.”

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/john.html

I know of know of no scholar adopting the historical/critical approach to the bible, that views John’s Prologue as anything other than a mystical theological exposition of the nature of Jesus Christ; NOT an eyewitness claim to Jesus’ ministry.

Are you now denying that the author of John meant to imply, from his perspective, that it was true that the Word was God, that the Word became flesh, that flesh dwelt among them, and that flesh was Jesus? Are you seriously denying this now?

Not at all! But The Prologue is a theological assertion, i.e. metaphor, not an eyewitness claim.

Once again you miss the point and once again your argument doesn’t hold water. Inconsistencies in accounts don’t stop historians from piecing together Caesar’s assassination even though there are more “flat contradictions and inconsistencies” between the accounts than you could shake a stick at. Shall I list them? Or you could read side by side Nicolaus’, Plutarch’s, and Suetonius’ accounts of Caesar’s assassination and discover them for yourself. I promise you’ll find it illuminating. When it comes to secular history there isn’t anywhere near the same critical standard applied as is to the NT.

You snipped and ignored my quote from Professor Elaine Pagels, as representative of majority historical/critical scholarship, namely:

Professor Pagels makes the point that ascertaining "authentic" material in the gospels is virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence.

This is what put into context my comment that “there are numerous flat contradictions and inconsistencies in the New Testament and the combination of these plus the difficulty in obtaining “authentic” material renders any harmonization suspect.”

There is considerable material regarding the existence of Julius Caesar despite discrepancies concerning details of his life and death - far, far more than we have for Jesus, and more diverse and independent plus artifacts such as statues and coins. It’s an invalid comparison and you’re kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

I’ll again repeat them for you. Try not to ignore them this time…

”Paul, a bond-servant of Christ Jesus, called as an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was born of a descendant of David according to the flesh, who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord” – Romans 1:1-4

“For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified.” – 1 Corinthians 2:2

”For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." – 1 Corinthians 11:23-25

”You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified?” – Galatians 3:1

Here’s another one…

”For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.” – 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

It is YOU who have missed the point. Once again: What are the historical details about Jesus’ life on earth in Paul which you are claiming? There are no instances in any of Paul's genuine writings where he claims to have ever met an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth as detailed in the later gospels such as the Triumphal entry, cleansing the temple, healing miracles and teachings etc, etc, etc. Virtually nothing! Further, all accounts about Jesus in Paul, such as we have, could only have come from other believers (e.g. the 1 Cor 15 account of the post resurrection “seeings”), i.e. hearsay, or his heavenly revelation on the Damascus Road.

There is NO history of Jesus ministry on earth, which is the point I'm making.

“explicitly excludes it as an eye-witness account”? Why? Because you say so? Because you don’t like theology? Why? Is this just stuff you make up as you go along? I’ve already shown with Paul that theology can be mixed with history. The author of John also reports history throughout his Gospel. Your false dilemma of either history of theology, again, doesn’t hold water.

See above re Early Christian writings link.

Poor reasoning. Setting aside the impact that high infant mortality has on average life expectancy tables of people from antiquity, 2,000 years from now using your reasoning it could be argued that it was unlikely that Denis Avery wrote his account of events in Auschwitz at age 92 because the average life expectancy in our era is age 66 according to WHO.

It is unknown and irrelevant whether a fish-eating John lived to 100 or choked to death on a fish-bone at age 40 because a. Encyclopedia Britannica gives the median life-expectancy of that era as 35 years and b. it is unlikely that John (or the author of John) penned the gospel in the first place. See above re Early Christian writings link.

Thank you for at least acknowledging it is a “fact” that John 1:14 claims to be a witness.

But it’s irrelevant given that although John 1.14 is presented as “FACT” that it claims eyewitness reportage by you it is rejected as “FACT” by majority scholarship. The only “fact” is the claim - not that it’s a correct claim. You snipped the first half of my quote thus removing the context.

No. The gospel of John claims God became flesh. Matthew 1:23 can be understood in the same light, though not as explicit.

It is not explicit at all – “god became flesh” via the Blessed Virgin Mary, the mother of god. The developing theology of Jesus as divine began in Mark at his Baptism, and his virgin birth in Matthew/Luke and was deemed eternally pre-existent and divine in John. It’s an evolving Jesus tradition which continued evolving all the way up to the 4th century Councils – notably with the doctrines of the holy Trinity and the Hypostatic Union being developed.

Patently FALSE! (as I’ve shown above)

What you have “shown above” reinforces my very point that the epistles of Paul and other early writers speak of Jesus entirely in terms of a spiritual and heavenly figure and are only concerned with him from the crucifixion onwards. Jesus’ earthly life as a teacher and miracle worker is never mentioned.

Red Herring. The argument being refuted was…

Tassman – ”What you do NOT have is the original autograph. You are dependent on texts dating from the 2nd century in an environment of known textural emendations, interpellations and scribal errors and with the known fact that the many different forms of early Christianity ALL claimed to be the authentic version of it - and had their own texts and/or emmended texts. We know this. Many of the Church Fathers complained about the corrupted texts. Conversely, secular texts do not have anything like the same level of deliberate alterations to promote particular viewpoints.”

You completely ignored the evidence I provided that shows your reasoning to be faulty.

Again avoiding the original point entirely. It doesn’t serve you well to throw in these Red Herrings when you have been refuted.

“Claiming” to have refuted and actually refuting is worth no more than “claiming” to be an eyewitness of Jesus by the author’s of John’s gospel, 2 Peter and 1 Timothy - i.e. nothing.

There is ample independent evidence and artifacts re Caesar’s life whereas all we have for Jesus is a series of apologetic writings and no mention or any other evidence of Jesus very existence from any other source. The two figures, one from secular history and the other a supernatural faith-based figure, cannot be compared and it’s ridiculous to try. The basic assumption of historical/critical methodology is that any possible natural explanation of claimed supernatural occurrences is more likely than attributing them to supernatural forces.

**The Pixie** · April 23rd 2011, 06:10 AM

Adam

I hope you will not continue belaboring this point, as I weary quickly of arguments like The Pixie likes, the old, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" type.

What is this based on? My argument is that you have no evidence for your claim that it is 95% likely that Luke and Acts were written before the traditional death of Paul. How can you characterise that as "the old, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" type". Again, this looks sadly as though you know you have no evidence and are now engaged in various tactics to avoid admitting this is so.

Don't need to quote your tiresome drone. Why should I even read it (though I admit that I did) when you refuse to read past the first paragraph of the first article I cited to you?

Are you aware that TWeb has a rule against arguing by web link? I will not report you this time, as perhaps you did not know about it. The rules state that you make your own argument in the thread.

I am not too sure what article you are referring too, but I guess it is your own from Noesis, and you mean this paragraph:

Adam

The proper starting point is the Gospel of Luke and its continuation, The Acts of the Apostles. In the second half of the latter, the author at times slips into “we” (or “us” or “our”) sayings that indicate he was with Paul of Tarsus during the latter’s missionary journeys. These three passages are Acts 16:10-17; 20:5-21:18, and 27:1-28:16. At the conclusion of these, Paul is still alive and in Rome, which can be dated by reference to Paul’s epistles in the New Testament to be about 64 A.D. The most sensible date for the Gospel of Luke and its complementary Acts is thus 64 A.D. The author (presumably Luke) could have written this much later in his life, but it would by common sense analysis still be early.

Our whole debate is about the claim of that paragraph, and the evidence to support the claim " it would by common sense analysis still be early". By now it is clear that you have no evidence to support such an early date. Sure, it might be early, but there are plenty of alternatives, and you have offered absolutely nothing to suggest you pet theory is in any way more likely.

Can I possibly believe your claim that if I could show 95% probability for my first paragraph, that you would then believe the other 99.5%? I wasn't born yesterday. I can believe with 95% probability that you already know that there is no way whatever that I could persuade you to the 95% level. Why should I frustrate myself by trying?

What I actually said, in post #127, was: "If you offered evidence that it was 95% likely that Luke was written before Paul died, then I would believe that Luke was probably written before Paul died. From that basis, I might then be convinced about the other claims in the article." But hey, why bother to respond to what I actually said, when it is so much easier to just pretend I said something else, and respond to that.

Why should you try? Well right about now I would guess pretty much everyone can see that you have no evidence to support your claim. If you want to show that actually you do have evidence, if you want to prove me wrong, then that would be an incentive, even if you were convinced I would never be persuaded myself. Yoiu are aware other people read these posts?

For your type mind, I suppose one would quote from whatever classicists give the best argument for Luke-Acts being written in 60-64 AD. To which you would of course respond with your favorite authorities who do not so believe.

My type of mind being one that requires evidence to support a claim, then what you should do is to present the evidence.

Sorry, is this difficukt for you to understand?

Instead I'll give you evidence you won't accept anyway (certainly not to the 95% level) that at least has the benefit of being original (created by me, as far as I know) and perhaps impressive to more reasonable people than you.

If you can show how it leads to a 95% probability, then that is all I ask. Afterall, that was your claim.

In the Roman Empire, people did not live very long. The most likely time for the writer of Luke-Acts to die would have been just after he last wrote in it. He may even have died during the first two years Paul was in Rome, and someone else added the last two verses.

This is just assertions. Luke could have been 20 when he joined Paul in his travels, and then had a life expectancy of 48 (see here).

Have you considered sampling bias here? Say Paul travelled with six people. It was only 30 years after Paul died that the need for a new gospel was realised. What is the probability that at least one of those six was still alive? The point here is that while it might be unlikely that a specific individual survived to that time, the probability for any one of a group is considerably higher.

Christians particularly did not live very long. At the same time Peter and Paul were martyred, Luke may have been executed as well.

Pure conjecture.

Even if not executed, he may have had to flee unexpectedly, leaving his manuscript behind. Or maybe he did take his manuscript with him, but found good place to store it. Or he was henceforth too busy, too sick, or too old to add to it. In all these cases Luke-Acts would have been written by 64 AD.

Or he wrote it later.

Again, all you have is conjecture.

(Oh, by the way, Einstein....or almost any scientific genius, all of whom get their great ideas by intuition and later test them to provide evidence.)

Yes, exactly! At last you agree with me.

So you will be providing evidence, right?

No?!?

In my own posts I had never gotten around to mentioning that Luke-Acts comes in two different versions, one rougher, the Western, as against the preferred canonical text we have. In my own pots I would have argued that two different editions, neither advancing farther in time, would indicate that they were both edited at about that particular time. Sorry for not mentioning that earlier, it might have avoided these nasty polemics. Oh, that would not have convinced you either? Sorry for mentioning it.

Unless you can date the editing, this does not help your case one bit.

Actually, the burden of proof lies with you for denying the argument. The claims of (or about) Jesus Christ are so important that one should be very sure they are untrue before dismissing them. A probability of 30% or even 10% leaves it up to you to prove the odds are even less than that.

Absolutely not! You made the claim, you must support it.

You claim it is 95% likely that Luke and Acts were written before the traditional death of Paul. If you fail to support that claim, why should I or anyone believe you have not plucked that figure out of your backside?

If neither of us can prove anything, then we are left is a situation where we do not know. That is the only default position. Are you happy to conclude we do not know? If not, provide that evidence.

One cannot reproduce an experiment nor make predictions about the future. You're a scientist, I'm surprised you do not know this.

Did you read what I said last time: "a historian can predict the future in terms of what will be discovered (in the same way evolution makes predictions about what will be found in the fossil record)" To be honest, I am not at all surprised you do not get this.

Nor can syllogistic logic be used in history, so almost nothing is ever "certain" about ancient history.

Straw man. Same straw man you resurrect in nearly every post.

You know we are talking about probabilities. Do not insult my intelligence by pretending otherwise.

I've backed you down into arguing probabilites, but at first you insisted upon certainties.

So you know I am willing to change my position. Perhaps if you can present the evidence to support your claim, I might believe it.

You define evidence as what you can see and touch (if you're holding by scientific method), and then claim that we are presenting no evidence. Even if so, you yourself are presenting no evidence by your definition. So you have no reason to deny my claim about when Acts was written.

And you have no reason to deny my claim that Acts was written decades later by a long-lived author, just before he died. We both have presented zero evidence for our claims.

The truth is that we do not know. Your religious faith has convinced you that your pet theory is right, but all you have is intuition and conjecture. Remember what you said about Einstein? "Oh, by the way, Einstein....or almost any scientific genius, all of whom get their great ideas by intuition and later test them to provide evidence" Well, you had the idea, the intuition, now you need to provide evidence to convince everyone else. No one was going to accept relativity without that evidence.

So I ask, how do you define "evidence" and "reasoning"?

I was assuming you knew what the terms mean. Can I suggest you consult a dictionary, if you are unsure? There are several good ones on-line.

I am using the terms the same as everyone else does. Let me illustrate with examples. Saying "The most likely time for the writer of Luke-Acts to die would have been just after he last wrote in it." is not evidence, it is conjecture. When I suggested luke was 20, that was conjecture. However, when I said a twenty year old had a life expectancy of 48 at that time, I backed it up with a link to a web site - I provided evidence (of course, we can debate the quality of the evidence, but it was evidence). Can you see the difference here?

Apparently yours is one in which the magical incantation of the word "science" automatically disposes of God, no matter how much evidence and reasoning can be presented by someone living in the alternate universe.

Not sure what this is about; looks like another straw man. Can you tell us why you think this is true? Given you have presented no evidence, how can you know how I would deal with it if it was presented?

**Adam** · April 23rd 2011, 04:46 PM

Pixie,
I still need to know how you define "evidence" and "reasoning" before I continue. I see you defining "evidence" as sense-data and citation of references, and "reasoning" as the certainty obtained by syllogistic deduction. Thus there is no way to link the two and obtain knowledge about anything. By combining extreme empiricism with its antithesis Rationalism, the result is total skepticism. Even when I presented some original arguments, I by your (apparent) definition did not present any "evidence", because (by the nature of creativity) I could not cite someone else. (And if I did, you would charge me with argument by web-link.) And by whatever your definition is, my argument was not "reasoning", I assume.
Does anyone ever call you a troll? You have raised it to such an art or science that it could be called a philosophy. Whether or not, everything with you seems to be obliterating knowledge rather than considering it, and standing solidly in the way of any search for knowledge. You seem so totally opposite to what I expected academic life to be when I was first enchanted by dorm bull-sessions while I was an undergrad in physics. As I grew older I realized that search for truth was a very rare thing that it only seemed to be found among college-age men, but not even really among them. There are a thousand like you for every one like me.

**Adam** · April 23rd 2011, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by Juice

Post #129. I hadn’t responded because I was away. It’s the absolute height of hubris to claim with any seriousness victory in a debate. It’s a monumental flaw in reasoning to conclude one has vanquished the field because the field has stopped replying. The mistake you make is you think I’m here to convince people like Tassman. I’m not.

Well, with my seven eyewitnesses to Jesus in the gospels, I had surely gotten closer in historical proximity than the atheists could claim. It looked like they were bailing out from this thread when it stopped going in their direction.
It's possible to change another poster's mind--I have done that here on TWeb. I suppose you're right that we're really trying to convince the lurkers, who have nothing to lose by admitting they were wrong.

Originally posted by Juice

I fail to see how that proves anything. You seem to be filtering everything through Teeple. Why?

Howard M. Teeple may have been the greatest literary critic of John ever. That he was an atheist means that the documents as sorted out by him could not be dismissed as the wishful thinking of a Christian. The supernatural events were even in the earliest strata. Different sections have different foci on certain people, who thereby become the most likely eyewitnesses

Originally posted by Juice

Some seem to mistakenly think it necessary the author of John must be either named or identified with great certainty for John to be considered an eyewitness account. I don’t hold that conviction. I don’t hold that conviction because it isn’t necessary for secular works to be considered an eyewitness account.

Right. My 1964 reading of John led me to think Andrew wrote it all. By 1970 I realized that Andrew was just one of several eyewitneses in the Gospel of John, none of whom I could name with certainty. Now I'm fairly certain on four, but just a few months ago I switched one from Peter to John Mark.

Originally posted by Juice

Since Tassman avoided my question maybe you can answer it. Even if it were “poetic imagery” [or a “hymn”], poetry [or a “hymn”] can still reflect the author’s observation of actual history. Do you deny this?

No. However, the Prologue does not seem to be biography.

Originally posted by Juice

Notice the progression in Tassman’s arguments in this thread over one little verse (I haven't even touched any of the other evidence in support of John being an eyewitness). He has thrown almost everything he can at John 1:14 – that it was a lie to bolster the account, it may have been interpolated, it is merely “poetic imagery.” He's been grasping at straws because there is no good argument against John 1:14. He recognizes the significance of this one verse and has fought unsuccessfully tooth and nail to dismiss it. Don’t you think that says something? I think it does.

I think he harps on it because he has a strong case against your repeated stand. That makes it look like you don't have a backup argument.

Originally posted by Juice

Don’t be such a fundy. I find it curious that someone who argues for the “poetic” expressions in John would then demand such literal expressions such as “I.” Logically “We” implies “I” anyway. Tassman tried to make that silly argument too.

That's not particularly my argument, just that the Prologue is a particularly poor place for you to take your stand.

Originally posted by Juice

Further I humbly suggest you try expanding your reading to some other ancient secular works that never internally claim “I” or authorship but are widely regarded as eyewitness accounts.

Already answered in Post #139, not applicable to me.

**Doug Shaver** · April 23rd 2011, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Juice

Some works from antiquity that are widely held to be eyewitness accounts don’t even internally claim to be an eyewitness

I don't much care how many people think something is an eyewitness account. I want to know whether they have a good reason to think it and, if so, what that reason is.

**Adam** · April 24th 2011, 01:34 AM

Originally posted by Doug Shaver

I don't much care how many people think something is an eyewitness account. I want to know whether they have a good reason to think it and, if so, what that reason is.

Not exactly a reply to Doug here, but to bring some substance back into this thread, let me introduce for the first time the beginning of a text I am working on (and for which the intro is Post #207 on my thread). Notice that here I start from scratch, but derive nothing from Acts or even the Synoptics:
Tracing sources of the gospels would seem to start with the earliest written documents, but the logic starts better with the foundation upon which the other sources and additions were built. This source is the Passion Narrative, the largest part of the material common to both John and the Synoptics. The source for the information in it is most likely John Mark, who was the most likely “disciple known to the high priest”. (See John 18:15-16, 20:2-9, in which in John 20:2 the English word “love” is phileo in the Greek, not “agape” as in John 13. In John 18-19 we get events and direct quotes that Peter would not have witnessed.)
John 18 launches right out with Jesus going to the Garden. Whereas Teeple believed the information here came from the Synoptics and was later enlarged upon, he more correctly called it a source. No one regards these chapters as from the Signs Source. This foundation source from John Mark is the following:
John 18:1b, 1d, 3, 10b, 12, 13b, 15-19, 22, 25b, 27-31, 33-35, (36-40); 19:1-19 , 21-23, 28-30, 38b, 40-42; 20:1, 3-5, 8, 11b-14a, 19b, 22-23, 26-27, 30.
Some of the later passages in John 20 are as likely to have been added as P-Strand, but as discussed later this may have come from the same author.
A great many scholars have believed that a Passion Narrative was the first element of the gospels to be written. It seems similarly often believed that John Mark was very young at this time and lived near Jerusalem, so his personal testimony would not tend to include narrative preceding John 18.
I used to think that earlier parts of John were equally carried to the Synoptics from what I believed Peter had told. Now that I think of John Mark as the writer of the Passion Narrative, I had to find some other explanation for the earlier Synoptic-type passages. The clearest of these is the Feeding of the Five Thousand. It’s regarded by many source-critics as from the Signs Source.
Yet little else is thought to come from Signs into the Synoptics, and I used to think that nothing at all did. What seems to have happened was that John Mark’s Passion Narrative later had Signs added in front of it. That’s why the Signs Source ends at John 12, because the story beyond that point had already been written. At this time the entirety of John Mark’s text plus some Signs were used as the base to which Peter added his recollections to form Petrine Ur-Marcus. (Perhaps the Signs were incomplete at this time.) In the process whatever was in Aramaic was translated into Greek. But this was used henceforth only in the Synoptic gospels, not in John. Meanwhile the Passion Narrative text in Aramaic (or a copy of it) was used for translation into Greek. Next in front of the Passion Narrative in Greek the complete Signs Source was translated into Greek by the person who had earlier translated Petrine Ur-Marcus. The latter at this point was a Signs gospel, consisting of the Signs plus the Passion Narrative, neither of which had any input from Peter. Both these portions had similar style (but not exact) either because the Signs translator made some stylistic changes in the Passion Narrative or because the two translators had similar Greek style.
The Signs Source according to W. Nicol is John 1:35-51; 2:1-11; 4:1-9, 16-19, 27-30, 40, 43-54; 5:1-9; 6:16-25; 9:1-2, 6-7; 11:1-6, 11-17, 33-44; 12:1-8, 12-15. I would agree with Howard M. Teeple in ascribing some individual verses within the above to the later Editor and in adding to the Signs Source John 6:1-15. Teeple recognizes as his source “S” basically what I attribute above to the Signs Source in John 1 to 12 and the Passion Narrative in John 18 and 19. What I show above in the Passion Narrative in John 20 Teeple never labeled as “S”, but he did denote it as a special source “p-1” or even “p-2”.

**Adam** · April 24th 2011, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by The Pixie

Adam
I know this is that awful business about "petty details of the senses", and I appreciate that you dislike being "mired" in actual evidence, but seriousl;y, if you want to convince people, it really is the only way to go.
Have you discovered any historian or scientist who publishes intuitions without evidence by the way?

All that dating is based on the assumption that Luke wrote before the traditional death of Paul. You say you are 95% certain that that is so, but where is the evidence to support that claim? Frankly, the fact that your intuition says it is so means three quarters of nothing. So once more we are back to getting "mired in petty details of the senses", or, as real scientists, lawyers and historiand call it, presenting evidence.

Pixie:
Dropping back to your post #140 above:
I regarded it upon first reading as too unfair to respond to directly, but I've gone back to document my reply. As seen in my quote below, I never stated that I dislike being mired in actual evidence, nor even petty details of the senses, but rather I said that Pixie's type is content to be mired in petty details of the senses.
From my Post #104:
"My characterization of you as "by-the-numbers" was my polite way of characterizing the ST personality type that completely lacks intuitive insight and intellect and instead is mired in petty details of the senses."
Similarly tricky was his jibe about me not finding anyone who publishes intuitions without evidence. Pixie now admits that intuition jump-starts the scientific process, and I have never hinted that intuition alone is much good without evidence to back it up. And the dictionary definition for evidence does include argumentation and reasoning.
I have never suggested any relation between "petty details of the senses" and "actual evidence".
My purpose is reviewing recent posts was to determine at what point I should have just called The Pixie a troll and refused to deal with him. My study of his posts from #85 and into the 90's did not reveal any such point. What they did show was The Pixie seeming to be rather dim-witted, someone who needed a boost with additional half-steps to see the logical steps already laid out. Now wouldn't any nice person try to help out the poor soul? He was like a spider spinning a web and luring me in (or like a fly getting the spider to think he can build a web around the hapless fly to ensnare him?). So he had malice aforethought in the whole process. Not like a troll behaves. A troll makes outrageous statements to get a rise out of people. The Pixies proceeds by making himself look like an easy target, then pouncing upon the victim who gets too close. His intelligence is quite high, so most people get trounced in the process, I would imagine. In my case I admit getting a migraine headache or two when replying to Pixie treating me unfairly. Ultimately one has to call his bluff, the Emperor has no clothes, just his tricks with words by using his own unstated definitions that don't seem on the surface as outrageous as they are.
But hadn't he warned us from the start? By choosing the name "The Pixie", wasn't he styling himself as a trickster who would make the opponent think he had done himself in?

**The Pixie** · April 24th 2011, 04:35 PM

Adam

I still need to know how you define "evidence" and "reasoning" before I continue. I see you defining "evidence" as sense-data and citation of references, and "reasoning" as the certainty obtained by syllogistic deduction. Thus there is no way to link the two and obtain knowledge about anything. By combining extreme empiricism with its antithesis Rationalism, the result is total skepticism. Even when I presented some original arguments, I by your (apparent) definition did not present any "evidence", because (by the nature of creativity) I could not cite someone else. (And if I did, you would charge me with argument by web-link.) And by whatever your definition is, my argument was not "reasoning", I assume.

Few issues there...

Defining evidence and reasoning

I define these the same as everyone else.

Are you under the belief that you have provided evidence/reasoning (according to your definition) to support your claim that it is 95% likely that Luke and Acts were written before the traditional death of Paul? I so, then what is it? What post did you present it? So far, all I have seen is you refer to an article you wrote where you claim it is "common sense". Is that what you consider evidence or reasoning? Does it really make me a troll if I do not consider that to be evidence?

Evidence is something that supports your claim. Sense-data is a good way to define, but it does not have to be something I am sensing first hand. If you can find witness accounts - that is, what someone else has sensed - then that is evidence too (not as reliable, but still evidence). More applicable to science, but if you can provide data from a device that can "sense" (eg radio telescope), then that too is evidence.

The reasoning bit is how you show that that evidence supports your claim.

The Tired Old Certainty Straw Man

You do not need certainty, this is just a straw man you seem determined to bring up every time. In science, everything is tentative; there is no certainty. However, all accepted scientific theories are supported by evidence and reasoning.

If you really are a member of the Mega Society, then your IQ would be in the top millionth of the population. Surely then you would know:

* All science is tentative, none of it is certain
* All science is supported by evidence and reasoning

And yet you seem convinced that if I require you to support a claim with evidence and reasoning then I am demanding "certainty obtained by syllogistic deduction". You accuse me of being a troll, but to be frank the way you insist on bringing up this straw man so often makes you look like a troll. All I am doing is asking that you support your claim - just as is required in science, in history and in a courtroom.

Arguing By Web Linking

This seems to be confusing you. It is a rule at TWeb - not something I am making up - and most people around here manage to understand it. Why is it so difficult for you?

The way it works is this: You give the reasoning behind your claim, and you link to sites (and perhaps give short quotes) that give evidence to support the reasoning. Like I did early; my argument was that the author of Luke and Acts could have been writing decades later than the traditional death of Paul. I explain why that was possible (that is the reasoning bit), and I linked to a site that gave evidence to back up one step of the reasoning.

This is not rocket science, Adam. For a guy (presumably) in the Mega Society, it should be trivial.

Original Arguments

I think you are confused about reasoning and evidence. An original argument can be based on new evidence, but that is not likely on a web forum. An original argument can also be based on new reasoning, but old evidence. If you have such an argument, present the new reasoning, and give the old evidence.

Again, not exactly rocket science, is it?

I regarded it upon first reading as too unfair to respond to directly, but I've gone back to document my reply. As seen in my quote below, I never stated that I dislike being mired in actual evidence, nor even petty details of the senses, but rather I said that Pixie's type is content to be mired in petty details of the senses.

The words "mired" and "petty" suggest that actually you do dislike it, but thanks for clarifying. Eventually.

Similarly tricky was his jibe about me not finding anyone who publishes intuitions without evidence. Pixie now admits that intuition jump-starts the scientific process, and I have never hinted that intuition alone is much good without evidence to back it up.

The truth is that I have said from the start that intuition jump-starts the scientific process.

For example, in post #127 I said: "Furthermore, intuition is a very poor basis to an argument. As a starting point to an investigation, it is great - it gives us an idea of where to look. But you have to then look for and present the evidence that turns up."

I have never suggested any relation between "petty details of the senses" and "actual evidence".

Then I misunderstood you. It seemed to me you were distancing yourself from the bother of giving evidence. See this from my perspective - I have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence over several posts now, and you repeatedly fail to do. This looked like just another tactic to avoid doing just that (the ad homs that now characterise your recent posts look like another such tactic).

So now we both agree that intuition has a role to play, but that evidence must be proved to support a claim. All that remains is for you to provide the evidence to support your claim.

Ultimately one has to call his bluff, the Emperor has no clothes, just his tricks with words by using his own unstated definitions that don't seem on the surface as outrageous as they are.

And it would be so easy to do that. My entire argument is founded on the fact that you have not provided any evidence to support your claim that it is 95% likely that Acts and Luke were written before the traditional death of Paul. Present the evidence, and my argument disappears in smoke. Admittedly I might challenge that evidence, but until we see what it is like, we will never know.

But hadn't he warned us from the start? By choosing the name "The Pixie", wasn't he styling himself as a trickster who would make the opponent think he had done himself in?

It is just a nick-name I got at college.

So how about it, Adam? Can you prove the evidence to support your claim?

Or is it just so much hot air?

**Adam** · April 24th 2011, 06:54 PM

I had already realized that I needed to add another step to my logic of my Post #157, providing detailed evidence for identifying an author for the Signs Source, and I append the text below to that post. I won't deny that The Pixie's #159 gave additional impetus to present it now and to be especially accurate in relating name-occurrences to specific verses in the Signs Source or arguably in the Signs Source. Hopefully (but don't hold your breath) that will impel even The Pixie to deal with substance instead of word games. He continues his Tweedle-Dum and Tweedle-Dee routines of using whatever to his whim "evidence" or "reasoning" means. ("Alice in Wonderland" is about as far as we can get from "Argument from Historical Proximity". And does he expect us to believe that getting a college nick-name "The Pixie" tells us nothing about his character?)

Not necessarily disclosing the author, but largely related to this section of John is the name “Andrew” at John 1:40, 41, 44; 6:8; 12:22(2). The name “Philip” occurs even more frequently in about the same places and in John 14:8, 9, but I long ago settled on Andrew as a more probable author, particularly when I found out that the Muratorian Canon (usually dated to 170 AD) states that Andrew started out the process of writing John. As a further note I would add that the first occurrence of each name at John 12:22 is shown by Teeple as from the source, so should not be used to claim that the name “Andrew” is not associated exclusively with the Signs Source, even though it falls outside the sections more conclusively identified as Signs Source.

**The Pixie** · April 25th 2011, 07:17 AM

So still no evidence - by anyone's definition to support your claim that it is 95% likely that Luke and Acts was written before the traditional date of Paul's death.

You can characterise my "routine" any way you like; everyone can see you are desparate to avoid confronting the issue, and will enage in any number of dubious to unpleasant tactics to do so.

**Juice** · April 25th 2011, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Adam

Yes. It started with Nicodemus writing the Discourses while Jesus was still alvie, then John Mark wrote the Passion Narrative, Andrew wrote the Signs Source, and John the Apostle edited it together.

Then you are essentially arguing for the apostle John being the author in a manner of speaking. He would be the final authority under your hypothesis approving the sources per se by including them and perhaps editing them though he may not have personally written each one. It’s unnecessary then to argue any further than this as John was close to the events and a witness. In other words you are fundamentally arguing for a single “author” (though “author” would need to be used somewhat loosely here to mean more of an editor). That “author” being the apostle John of course.

Further, it’s one thing to say John may have consulted other sources which he may have done for events he was not present. It’s an entirely different thing to say we can actually retrieve those sources. For instance, the “Book of Signs” is generally held to be around chapters 2-12 and the “Book of Passion” 13-20. But 20:30-1 gives the impression the entire Gospel of John is a book of signs so that we may believe. The resurrection, the most profound sign really, doesn’t fall into the alleged “Book of Signs.” The actual passion narrative doesn’t begin until ch 18 even though 13-17 are considered part of it based on theme. If chapters 13-17 should be included because of theme then it could be argued so should chapters 1-12. The Gospels of John just doesn’t divide up into nice neat little sections of separate books. It is all very speculative. Though I’m not arguing against your hypothesis at this stage your pet theory of multiple authors (seven was it?) is plagued by being a colossal violation of the principle of parsimony. The one author hypothesis works just as well. Or the hypothesis that there was one author with an editor at the end validating the author’s eyewitness status.

Originally posted by Adam

"at the very least"--not necessarily, in addition to which this could be an interpolation or from a source.

Enough of the “could be an interpolation” insinuations. Either you or Tassman produce some conclusive manuscript evidence that 1:14 is an interpolation or drop this silly wishful thinking.

-----

Originally posted by Adam

Howard M. Teeple may have been the greatest literary critic of John ever. That he was an atheist means that the documents as sorted out by him could not be dismissed as the wishful thinking of a Christian. The supernatural events were even in the earliest strata. Different sections have different foci on certain people, who thereby become the most likely eyewitnesses

I understand the approach of using an atheist scholar to build the foundation of your hypothesis. It makes it difficult for the atheist to outright dismiss it. Does Teeple argue for John the apostle being the final editor?

Originally posted by Adam

No. However, the Prologue does not seem to be biography.

First the objection was that the prologue was a hymn of sorts. You concede this doesn’t necessarily preclude it from reflecting the author’s observation of actual history. Now you raise the bar (or at least change the objection) to “the Prologue does not seem to be biography.”

Originally posted by Adam

I think he harps on it because he has a strong case against your repeated stand. That makes it look like you don't have a backup argument.

Strong case against? What strong case would that be? Do tell. I don’t need a back up argument because my argument hasn’t been falsified yet.

Originally posted by Adam

That's not particularly my argument, just that the Prologue is a particularly poor place for you to take your stand.

Thanks for your opinion. I disagree.

**Juice** · April 25th 2011, 03:38 PM

Okay Tassman, you are simply repeating the same fallacious arguments and ignoring the evidence and arguments I present. I think we are nearing the end of our dialogue here.