My Answer to Bradley Bowen on Blood and Water


Image result for taking Jesus body down from the cross


my answer to Bowen's 10 points on historicity of John are right after the foot note not in the consent section but right after the notes,

Bradley Bowen wrote a post on Secular Outpost blog responding to my criticisms of his defense of the "swoon theory." He gives it the mature adult title: "Hinman's Pathetic Defense of his Sad Little Argument..[1]    I feel like I'm back on the Carm board. Oddly enough he did not read and makes no reference to my post"Blood and Water from Jesus Side,"[9/1/19] [2] which should have known about because I put  the link in the comment section of SOP. So attacks upon my argument are out moded and ignore  my major work. His whole first section assumes the wrong idea.   


In response to my criticism of Peter Kreeft’s weak and patheticobjections against the Survival Theory, Joe Hinman wrote the following in one of his blog posts: [note the link is to "Bread and Butter Apologetics Aug 12, 2019--note the dates this one and blood and waternow quoting me:
The second issue Bowen argues the book of John Implies the Romans were confused about Jesus’ death, quotes passages John 19: 31-33 to prove the Romans may have thought he was alive. The reasoning is one soldier pierced Jesus’ side the only reason to do that was to see if he was dead. Therefore they didn’t really think he was dead. So apparently if they were confused he was alive? Of course they ignore the fact that the sticking would have proven he was dead because water coming out separate from blood proves heart is not working.[emphasis his] 

 Even so it’s that literalism that says it can’t be that they thought he was probably dead and just wanted to confirm it. …  [emphasisadded]
Bowen: The argument that Hinman puts forward here against the Survival Theory follows the miserable example of intellectual sloth by Peter Kreeft, being stated in a single unclear and sloppy sentence:The sticking would have proven he was dead because water coming  out operate from blood proves the heart is not working:   
At this point it is important to observe that this is the argument in outmoded form. He thinks I'm saying the liquid has to be water and that proves the heart quite working. I never said the liquid has to be water for my argument to proceed. In the latter article which he does not address,I said it was probably not water per se. It is a medical fact that a clear liquid bled out the wound means hes dead that is empirical   does not have to be more than one line it NOT a matter of deduction. It is  evidenced,

1. Bowen's major argument against me at this point is that the clear liquid may not have been water

2. Bowen bases his argument on the wrong article by me

3. Had read the right article (which is "blood and water") he would see that I assume the clear liquid was not water

4. clear liquid pouring from a wound separate from blood is indicative o many condition  them all of
them are indicative of death. (I baked this with 3 sources  he has none)

5.therefore Bowen's attack on my argument so far is irrelevant and doesn't apply because I don't assume the premise he thinks I do.

Now he suggests my argumemt:
1. Water coming out separate from blood proves [the] heart is not working
True in so far as it goes but that is not to say that other clear liquids of the body don't prove the same thing.

 Bowen: First, even eyewitness testimony by a trustworthy person at the Crucifixion of Jesus cannot Establish that water came out of any part of Jesus body. This is because many different liquids LOOK LIKE water, and nobody did a chemical analysis of the liquid, or even tasted or smelled the liquid in order to verify that it was just water. So, no ancient historical document can establish that “water” came out of some part of Jesus’ body.
Here he is still assuming I am committed to  water (again with the water) as the liquid that came out with blood I am not, I accept it could have been another bodily fluid  they are all indicative of death,l

Bowen: Second, most of the Christian apologists and medical investigators who have suggested theories about the medical cause of Jesus’ death DO NOT BELIEVE that the transparent (or translucent) substance that (allegedly) came from Jesus’ wound was WATER. Instead, they believe it was pleural or pericardial fluids, or urine, or…? NOBODY thinks that it was “water” that came out of Jesus’ wound!

Now here he's creating a straw man argument. He wants to make the reader think that I'm committed to it being water, he totally ignores the fact that being another liquid does not change the reality that it indicates the man was dead. The other liquids are also indicative of death! (Treloar [3] Maslen [4] )
Bowen: Let me try to improve and clarify the first premise of Hinman’s sad little argument:
 In other words he is going to re-write my argument to make me say what he can answer. But don't forget he is still working on the wrong article,


1A. Fluid that LOOKED LIKE water came out of the spear wound in Jesus’ side and fluid that LOOKED LIKE blood also came out of that wound while Jesus was on the cross, and those two fluids came out of the wound separately.
1B. IF fluid that LOOKED LIKE water came out of the spear wound in Jesus’ side and fluid that LOOKED LIKE blood also came out of that wound while Jesus was on the cross, and those two fluids came out of the wound separately, THEN Jesus’ heart stopped working while he was on the cross
THEREFORE:
2. Jesus’ heart stopped working while he was on the cross.
3. If Jesus’ heart stopped working while he was on the cross, then it is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.
THEREFORE:
4. It is virtually certain that Jesus was dead when he was removed from the cross.

B0wen; "...Those Premises (1 and 2) are controversial and questionable so they must be supported  with evidence and reasoning to get eh argument off the ground. 
Arguments are clear and reasoned weather they have Numbers by them or not. The only controversy is if the liquid was water or not but it doesn't matter either way he was dead so my argument stands;  not controversial It;s a medical fact,yes I do document:


"So a spear to the heart will bring forth blood and water which is diagnostic of death."  (Adrian Treloar see above ft 3) "there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium" (Davis) [5]

what is so controversial? He wants us to think it;s the liquid being indicative of death but it's not.He has no source that denies it. It's because there are many theories of the exact cause of death. That does not work against my argument he knows it. Because  they all end in death. None of them support survival. No medical authority that Bowen presents(he didn't present any) denies that the clear liquid is indicative of death,it;s just that it could be caused by different things,


1. if there is a discharge from a wound with clear liquid separate from blood it is indicative of being dead.

2. apparently Jesus had such a discharge


3. Therefore Jesus was probably dead.


4. I support my view with medical evidence 


5. Bowen has no documented medical evidence to refute this position


6. therefore my argument is supported by expert testimony and his is not



MY OBJECTIONS TO HINMAN’S SAD LITTLE ARGUMENT
Concerning premise (1A), I have already provided ten reasons for doubting the accuracy, reliability, and historicity of the passage from the 4th Gospel that is used to support this premise. This historical claim is VERY DUBIOUS. This problem is sufficient by itself to sink this argument as being probably UNSOUND.
His famous 10 thins which I answer in the comment section of this post,

Up to this point those were not part of the debate but I will deal with those in the comments

Bowen;Concerning premise (1B), Joe is NOT a medical doctor. His educational background is in theology, so he is NOT qualified to make medical claims like this. NOBODY should believe (1B) just because Joe says so.

Brad is not a medical doctor. either. He has to quote them but I don't see him even doing that, I have quoted doctors, He has no expertise. He only has background in philosophy which means all he can do is ask questions and number his sentences. Of course he ignores the fact that my Ph,D, was history of ideas and my BS is in sociology and debate. the essence of 1B is 1B. IF fluid that LOOKED LIKE water came out ... Jesus’ heart stopped working while he was on the cross.


I have documented that with three different sources in this debate and in the blood and water article.

He OBVIOUSLY needs to provide evidence to support this claim. But Joe apparently doesn’t see this obvious point, because he simply asserts (1B), without providing any evidence for it.

He just ignores the three I;ve quoted above which were quoted in the paper he did read, actually I provided evidence in the artifice the one he links to "bread and Butter" so he;s just lying.
HINMAN’S PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO REPLY TO MY OBJECTIONS TO (1A)I have pointed out and explained in detail TEN problems with the historicity and historical reliability of the relevant passage from the 4th Gospel. Here is Hinman’s pathetic reply to those TEN detailed objections against premise (1A):
ME: "Sorry your understanding is out of date. Since Bauckham’s book Jesus and the Eye Witnesses it is form criticism that is now considered dubious and John has a new credibility. Remember our first 1×1 debate? You used Bauckham as your own source to argue against me."
Bowen: My understanding of the 4th Gospel is “out of date”.  That is Hinman’s brilliant reply to my ten detailed objections against premise (1A).
It's my field not his, I have Masters in theology from Perikns at SMU..   
,
  Bowen: I’m a bit skeptical that Bauckham’s book has in fact turned 150 years of NT scholarship on its head, and converted hundreds of NT scholars to believers in the historical reliability of the 4th Gospel.  That seems more like a fantasy that Hinman wishes were the case.  However, even if Bauckham’s book has actually pulled off this minor miracle, and turned NT scholarship around, that still DOES NOT ANSWER my ten detailed objections to premise (1A).
He knows nothing about biblical scholarship I've already said it was not that one book alone,


Is my fantasy how is it that Ben Wotherington III said it?

"There are books that are interesting, there are books that are important and then there are seminal studies that serve as road markers for the field, pointing the way forward. Richard Bauckham’s Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is in the latter category, to be sure. It thus deserves a thorough review, but a little background is in order."[6]

This is not only because of that one book, it's a trend involving many scholars:

\"But during the 1990s, the “Jesus, John, and History” section of the preeminent Society of Biblical Literature had a solid focus on this question of whether or not the Fourth Gospel is historically trustworthy. And they were moving toward the conclusion that it does, thus in opposition to most of the academy. Members of the panel of this section, such as Paul Andersen, Felix Just, and Tom Thatcher, have now produced three volumes on this subject as editors, with contributing chapters being mostly from section members. Their conclusion is that the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable." [7]

see also another book by Bauckham, Testimony of the BD: "there are signs that this dominant approach is now undermined or at least considerably modified by very recent trends in Johanine scholarship,,," fn p9 he says "a major transition in Johanine  scholarship  is widely acknowledged" He also cites scholars Ray  Brown, John Aston, J.Louis Martyn [8] the dominant view being undermined is the older view Bowen knows where John is seen as not historically reliable.
Hinman is again displaying his extreme intellectual SLOTH. If Bauckham’s book doesn’t answer my ten objections, then his book is basically IRRELEVANT to those objections. On the other hand, if Bauckham’s book really does make a strong case for the reliability of the 4th Gospel, then it should directly answer all (or nearly all) of my ten objections. But in that case, all that Hinman had to do was to POINT US TO THE PAGES in Bauckham’s book where my objections are answered.

His assertion that Bauckham must couter all ten things is wrong. All that book has to do is change attitudes about John because that is all I claimed for it. I did not advance Bauckham as answer to his 10 things but  as answer to the notion that John has no corroboration in the wound in the side (he does answer several of  the 10). And that's not my only source on that point, but since the first 2 of the 10 things are about the historicity of John's account this does answer some of them.
Hinman wouldn’t have to generate a single argument (unless Bauckham failed to cover one of my objections). But that would be far too much effort for Mr. Hinman. He would have to pick up Bauckham’s book and scan through it (or read it for the first time) to locate the pages where my objections are answered by Bauckham. That would take at least an hour of intellectual effort and might completely exhaust Mr. Hinman’s mind to the point he would be unable to ever write another comment on my posts. (Not that I would complain about that.)

It is his burden of proof to include the 10- things in this argument he can't refer to them from the past and expect me to know about them that is not debate. If he can do that I can say I beat them on message boards 20 years ago.

When Mr. Hinman decides to push past his extreme intellectual SLOTH, and put out just a tiny bit of intellectual effort,
I put forth my tiny bit of effort when I got my masters degree in theology from a major liberal seminary, That means I am qualified to understand the Biblical scholarship he's trying to use and he's not.

  
he can easily provide us all with the various page numbers in Bauckham’s book, where my ten objections are answered.
I have actually done that. see comments
 Since I already have a copy of Jesus and the Eye Witnesses, Hinman doesn’t even have to write out the quotes for me. I suspect that this, however, is too big of a request for Mr. Hinman, and that no such page numbers will be forthcoming, and that Mr. Hinman will continue to simply ignore my ten detailed objections against the reliability and historicity of the 4th Gospel and of the passage from the 4th Gospel that is used to support premise (1A).
He has thrown up an irrelevancy as a road block and then harped on it enough to where it becomes the point. Again he did not include the 10 things in the posts that I am dealing with so they are outside the jurisdiction of this discussion. But see the comment section for thumbnail answers to them.

HINMAN’S PATHETIC ATTEMPT TO REPLY TO MY OBJECTION TO (1B)
Premise (1B) asserts a questionable and controversial medical claim:
He asserts that clear liquid as indicative of death is controversial it is not in the least, he present no medical evidence to support his assertion i presented three sources,

1B. IF fluid that LOOKED LIKE water came out of the spear wound in Jesus’ side and fluid that LOOKED LIKE blood also came out of that wound while Jesus was on the cross, and those two fluids came out of the wound separately, THEN Jesus’ heart stopped working while he was on the cross.

I just answered that above

Here is Hinman’s pathetic attempt to reply to my objection to his sad little argument:

Joe: I already did that [i.e. presented evidence supporting premise (1B)] your majesty. In three different posts above.I am not a doctor but I quote several of them in the internet,

my source Adrian Treloar FRCP, “Blood and Water,” Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 63(1) (February 2013) http://www.cmq.org.uk/CMQ/2…

“To confirm that a victim was dead, the Romans inflicted a spear wound through the right side of the heart. The medical significance of the blood and water has been a matter of debate. One theory (Bergsma) states that Jesus died of a massive myocardial infarction, in which the heart ruptured [a]which may have resulted from His falling while carrying the cross [b]. Davis suggested that Jesus’ heart was surrounded by fluid in the pericardium, which caused pericardial tamponade [c]. Another theory that I have often heard is that in a sick man (Our Lord was badly beaten) after death the blood will separate into clot and serum. We do know that death of the cross occurs from exhaustion and inability to support the weight of the body and to breathe.”

There are so many problems with Hinman’s pathetic attempt to reply to my objection to his sad little argument that it is difficult to know where to begin.FIRST, the author of the article quoted by Hinman is a medical doctor, but his expertise is in an irrelevant area:Old Age Psychiatry (!)


This guy is really something he has no medical training at all, that is supposed to count against me but not agaisnt Bowen??Bergsma, Davis, Treloar, that's three doctors man!  Bowen doesn't  accept the medical credentials of  Adrian Treloar because he works on old people. What sense does that make? Old people have hearts, Old people die, knowing how to tell one is dead would seem to fit that job description.
Hinman does NOT claim that Jesus died of old age. Hinman does NOT claim that Jesus died as the result of Alzheimer’s or of some other mental illness. So, the expertise of the author of the quoted article does not apply to the medical issues concerning the alleged cause of death in cases of crucifixion and in the case of Jesus’ crucifixion in particular, since he was a relatively young man at the time of the crucifixion, and was not showing signs of dementia.

He thinks the only problems faced by the elderly are Alzheimer’s and the like what that shows a stunning lack of understanding! Old people have circulatory systems and physiology and their doctors must know all of that.

SECOND, the title of the publication where this article appeared is VERY MISLEADING:Catholic Medical Quarterly

This title, especially in the context of this debate, suggests that this is a MEDICAL JOURNAL, which it is NOT. This publication is clearly a Catholic propaganda publication, and most of the articles in the publication are NOT peer reviewed, not reviewed by medical professionals, at least most are NOT required to have such a peer review by the policy of the publication:
First does he expect me to change the title of the publication? I chose it because of the article not because it sounds like a medical journal. Moreover, he is hiding from the National Institute of health article (fn4) he can't even imply that it;s not scholarly. Not being peer reviewed does not change the fact that the source is qualified and Bowen has no competing sources.


I have refuted every point he made. I have sources which outweigh anything he offered, He offers no medical sources. Bowen's entire enterprise is refuted by the one simple point that bleeding clear liquid is a sign of being dead. Since his whole point is that Jesus did not die on the cross, then Jesus' bleeding clear liquid or the liquid cumming out with blood is indicative of being dead thus Jesus must have been dead. That means Bowen's entire argument is disproved. He offers nothing to counter this, all of his arguments against me have been based upon the wrong article.He's ignored the documentation *I clearly gave so his arguments fail.




1. if there is a discharge from a wound with clear liquid separate from blood it is indicative of being dead.

2. apparently a discharge had such a discharge

3. Therefore Jesus was probably dead.

4. I support my view with medical evidence (3 sources)

5. Bowen has no documented medical evidence to refute this position

6. therefore my argument is supported by expert testimony and his is not.
There is one other major point I ask the reader to keep in mind. Despite his proclivity to put his arguments in deductive form it is not a matter of deductive reasoning, Both of us are making arguments of probability with empirical means of checking the truth claims. He gives us no reason to assume Jesus did not die. I argue that there were three groups of "checkers" that saw Jesus' body (the Romans who took him off the cross, the men who transported him to the grave, the woman who prepared his body). The odds are one of these would have noticed if he was still alive.


1, both arguments his and mine, are arguments of probability


2. Bowen gives us no real reason to think Jesus was still alive.


3, If Jesus had been alive there were three chances for someone to see that in addition to the possible post mortum evidence of the liquids.


4, We are given no reason to think he was still alive.

5, Therefore we are more justified in our assumption that Jesus was dead



Sources 


[1] Bradley Bowen,
"Hinman's Pathetic Defense of his Sad Little Argument."  The Secular Outpost blog,  (Sept. 2, 2019 ) https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/  (accessed  sep 3, 2019)
[2] Joseph Hinman, "Blood and Water from Jesus Side," CADRE Comments (spt2.2-2019)

 [3] Adrian Treloar FRCP, "Blood and Water," Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 63(1) (February  2013)


[5] Dr. C. Truman Davis "A Physician's Analyzes The Crucifixion."  Baptized.org
http://www.bebaptized.org/Crucifixion.htm
From New Wine Magazine, April 1982.Originally published in Arizona Medicine, March 1965 Arizona Medical Association.Davis is a graduate of the University of Tennessee College of Medicine. He is a practicing ophthalmologist, 

[6]  Ben Witherington III, nook review: "Jesus and The Eyewitnesses," Bible History Daily, published by the Biblical Archaeological society. (December 31, 2011)

[7]  "the Historical Reliability of the Gospel of John" Kermit Zarley blog (Oct 8, 2018)

[8]Richard Bauckham,"Introduction,"  The Testimony of the Beloved  Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John. Grand Rapids Mi: Backer Academic, 9


5 comments:

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
Bowen's 10 things

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/08/25/defending-the-swoon-theory-part-10-the-blood-and-water-objection/





These are Bowen's "10 things"that supposedly demonstrate that John cannot be taken seriously as a historical source. Thus we can't accept the clear liquid as post mortem evidence on Jesus' death. Even though he calls these "detailed" they are not This is not the way textual criticism works. Thus I will only give thumb nails answers, I will do a full blog piece on this soon,.





POINT #1: The 4th Gospel was probably NOT written by an eyewitness of the life, ministry, or crucifixion of Jesus.


Answer: The point of Bauckham's entire book Jesus and the eye witnesses, us to show that the work is full of eyewitness testimony he points to and proves a huge number. Showing a specific page is irrelevant because it's all over the book. There is oneset of page in particular ,however, as they show his argument for the main authorship of the books is the eye witness "Edler John" named by Papias, 420-425

POINT #2: The 4th Gospel is the least historically reliable of the four Gospels.


Answer:
That is taken out by Bauckham and the three sources Zarely names (see the main article) as evidence if scholarship supporting John's reliability. Bowen's understanding of Biblical scholarship is false. Just having some mistake in John does not invalidate all of John. This answer and the one above actually do take out all 10 points.



POINT #3:The account of the trial and crucifixion in the 4th Gospel conflicts with the trial and crucifixion accounts in other Gospels.


Answer: 2 problems,


(1) he gives no details there's a good possibility what he calls "conflict" can be harmonized.He has to present the conflicts. It's meaningless otherwise,


(2) He commits the inerrant fallacy, the idea that one mistake in a given biblical document means that we can't trust anything in the document,



POINT #4: Internal conflicts in this passage cast doubt on the historicity and reliability of this passage.


Answer: I have answers. Sorry not enough, he claimed he had a detailed list, this is not detail. It's totally general. this is no better than me simply saying I have answers.
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
POINT #5: This passage is reasonably viewed as “prophecy historicized’, thus there is a good chance that Kreeft’s two key historical claims are FICTIONAL.


Answer: (1)Since he doesn't say what they are he can't prove I make the same clam. Nor can he prove that historicized prophecy doesn't use real history.

(2)no OT prophesy invokes water flowing from Messiah's side

POINT #6: Other gospels provide no corroboration of the two key historical claims that Kreeft derives from this passage in the 4th gospel.


Answer: The Source has credibility as I document in the main arithmetic. Simce

POINT #7: Other gospels provide no corroboration of Jewish leaders asking Pilate to remove bodies from crosses before the Sabbath day began.


Answer:totally unnecessary we we know they did it they had to.Hebrew Law. we know it from history.



POINT #8: Other gospels provide no corroboration of a wound in Jesus’ side.


Answer: no reason to make it up they had no it;s importance. We know from history the Roans did do that.



POINT #9: Other gospels provide no corroboration of the beloved disciple at the foot of the cross.


Answer: Bauckham argues for Elder john as author (making him the BD) which means he is attested as historical by Papias. The witness at the cross did not have to be the same guy who wrote the gospel He just had to report it to the author,



POINT #10: Other gospels provide no corroboration of stories about the beloved disciple.


Answer: Papias proves Elder john existed, Backham proves he was the BD.




https://www.amazon.com/Testimony-Beloved-Disciple-Narrative-Theology/dp/080103485X

"Bowen-Hinman debate: Papias" no date listed

http://religiousapriori.blogspot.com/2016/08/photo-authorbauckhamzpstjbww5ohpng.html



The problem for Bradley's view is that while Bauckham does think that there were two Johns it's far from saying that Papias did not have direct access to an eye witness to Jesus. His book is called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and he believes that EJ is one of the eyewitnesses. Not only that but Baukham believes that Elder John wrote the Gospel of John.[pp 420-425]

Comments

The Pixie said…

Joe: The point of Bauckham's entire book Jesus and the eye witnesses, us to show that the work is full of eyewitness testimony he points to and proves a huge number.

Bauckman may or may not be correct about multiple eye witnesses in the whole gospel, but the issue at hand is who was there to witness the crucifixion.

How many of them actually witnessed the crucifixion? How does he prove these people were eye witnesses? I appreciate the author of John claims to have been there, but when we are evaluating how reliable a text is, that does not count for much.

Joe: Sorry not enough, he claimed he had a detailed list, this is not detail. It's totally general. this is no better than me simply saying I have answers.

Actually, if you look on this page, you will see under point #3 that Bowen explicitly gives five instances of conflicts between John's account and Mark's, quote the verses and explaining why they are conflicting: the timing of the flogging, who carried the cross, the time of crucifixion, the distance of the women watching and Pilate's reaction to hearing Jesus was already dead.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2019/08/14/defending-the-swoon-theory-part-8-problems-with-break-their-legs-objection/

Joe: Nor can he prove that historicized prophecy doesn't use real history.

Very true. We cannot say either way. In my view, historicised prophecy is more likely, given the use of scripture, and Mark 14 alludes to the disciples fleeing Jerusalem. I expect you disagree, but as you say, we cannot know either way.

Joe: Answer:totally unnecessary we we know they did it they had to.Hebrew Law. we know it from history.

I have no idea what Bowen means on that one.

Joe: no reason to make it up they had no it;s importance.

Of course they knew its importance, that is why they recorded it.

Joe: We know from history the Roans did do that.

Can you expand on that? What historical sources do we have to confirm it?

Bowen makes the fair point that a Roman soldier commanded to break the legs is highly unlikely to disobey that order just because the victim was already dead. He has nothing to gain and much to lose. And we know they was some doubt, as he supposedly used the spear to test if Jesus was dead or not.

Why would a Roman soldier commanded to break Jesus' legs disregard that command?

Joe: Bauckham argues for Elder john as author (making him the BD) which means he is attested as historical by Papias. The witness at the cross did not have to be the same guy who wrote the gospel He just had to report it to the author,

Bowen's point is that the disciple at the cross, and Jesus speaking to Mary and the disciple, is absent from the other accounts. Were Jesus' words on the cross so meaningless that Mark thought them not worth reporting? Or do you think John kept it secret for over 40 years?
I want to conduct this on Metacrock because it needs the traffic.


Joe: The point of Bauckham's entire book Jesus and the eye witnesses, is to show that the work is full of eyewitness testimony he points to and proves a huge number.

Bauckman may or may not be correct about multiple eye witnesses in the whole gospel, but the issue at hand is who was there to witness the crucifixion.

The BD and two Marys are said to have been there, there is no reason to doubt that,

How many of them actually witnessed the crucifixion? How does he prove these people were eye witnesses? I appreciate the author of John claims to have been there, but when we are evaluating how reliable a text is, that does not count for much.

yes of course it does that is nonsense.

dx

Joe: Sorry not enough, he claimed he had a detailed list, this is not detail. It's totally general. this is no better than me simply saying I have answers.

Actually, if you look on this page, you will see under point #3 that Bowen explicitly gives five instances of conflicts between John's account and Mark's, quote the verses and explaining why they are conflicting: the timing of the flogging, who carried the cross, the time of crucifixion, the distance of the women watching and Pilate's reaction to hearing Jesus was already dead.

Mark wasn't there. It is alleged he went by Peter but are you willing to accept that Peter stands behind Mark?



Joe: Nor can he prove that historicized prophecy doesn't use real history.

Very true. We cannot say either way. In my view, historicised prophecy is more likely, given the use of scripture, and Mark 14 alludes to the disciples fleeing Jerusalem. I expect you disagree, but as you say, we cannot know either way.

Liquids issuing from Jesus' side are not part of the historicized prophesy

Joe: Answer:totally unnecessary we we know they did it they had to.Hebrew Law. we know it from history.

I have no idea what Bowen means on that one.

Joe: no reason to make it up they had no it;s importance.

Of course they knew its importance, that is why they recorded it.

they didn't know there was a circulatory system how are they going to know there relationship between the water like liquid and the heart?


Joe: We know from history the Romans did do that.

Can you expand on that? What historical sources do we have to confirm it?



Adrian Treloar FRCP, "Blood and Water," Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 63(1) (February 2013)
http://www.cmq.org.uk/CMQ/2013/Feb/Crucifixion.html



Bowen makes the fair point that a Roman soldier commanded to break the legs is highly unlikely to disobey that order just because the victim was already dead. He has nothing to gain and much to lose. And we know they was some doubt, as he supposedly used the spear to test if Jesus was dead or not.

Bowen is an idiot. it would pointless to break their legs if they were dead. ?

Why would a Roman soldier commanded to break Jesus' legs disregard that command?


you have no idea what orders were issued, They probably always culled the dead before that because it would just mean useless work

Joe: Bauckham argues for Elder john as author (making him the BD) which means he is attested as historical by Papias. The witness at the cross did not have to be the same guy who wrote the gospel He just had to report it to the author,

Bowen's point is that the disciple at the cross, and Jesus speaking to Mary and the disciple, is absent from the other accounts. Were Jesus' words on the cross so meaningless that Mark thought them not worth reporting? Or do you think John kept it secret for over 40 years?

nonsense. He is unknown so he could be in every account, The most likely candidates, Lazarus who was inner circle in Jesus' private life-he is actually called the disciple who Jesus loved, John son of Zebadeee,and elder John,, Elder John is known to Papias proven historical.
The Pixie said…
Joe: I want to conduct this on Metacrock because it needs the traffic.

That is a different discussion over there!

Joe: The BD and two Marys are said to have been there, there is no reason to doubt that,

The synoptics mention the women, but not the disciple. Why not? Most likely because he was a later embellishment.

Joe: yes of course it does that is nonsense.

When we are evaluating how reliable an ancient document is, do you really think an assurance within the text itself that it is true and reliable makes a difference?

Joe: Mark wasn't there. It is alleged he went by Peter but are you willing to accept that Peter stands behind Mark?

Mark was based on a previous account that had been circulating for decades. Are you saying that after four decades, Christians still had not got the story straight, and the details about the most important event in history (to them) were still debated?

Are you saying that Mark got these things wrong? He is wrong to say the Marys watched from a distance, he was wrong to omit the unnamed disciple with them, he got the time of the crucifixion wrong, he was wrong about when Jesus was flogged, he was wrong about who carried the cross.

And not just Mark, but everyone who contributed to the original passion narrative, and the authors of Matthew and Luke as well.

And indeed everyone who used those texts too. Interesting to think that the vast majority of early Christians were wrong in their beliefs about the passion narrative.

Joe: Liquids issuing from Jesus' side are not part of the historicized prophesy

No. The spear is from scripture. The blood and water are pure apologetics.

John 19:35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

Joe: they didn't know there was a circulatory system how are they going to know there relationship between the water like liquid and the heart?

So why did the Romans use that to test if Jesus was dead?

So why did the author make such a big deal about this proving Jesus was dead?

Whether they are true or false, the verses in John only make sense if they understood blood and water to indicate Jesus was dead.

Joe: Adrian Treloar FRCP, "Blood and Water," Catholic Medical Quarterly Volume 63(1) (February 2013)
http://www.cmq.org.uk/CMQ/2013/Feb/Crucifixion.html


But what is his source? The Bible? He provides references for some of his claims, but not this one.

This is in a Catholic publication, with a stated aim of "building faith" at the top of the page; hardly an unbiased source.

Joe: Bowen is an idiot. it would pointless to break their legs if they were dead. ?

But it does make sense if there was any uncertainty. And according to John, there was uncertainty.

Joe: you have no idea what orders were issued, They probably always culled the dead before that because it would just mean useless work

How much work is it for a Roman soldier to break legs? I would guess it would be quicker than poking in a spear, examining what comes out, and reaching a consensus on the state of the prisoner. And after all that, they might need to break the legs anyway. It is simpler, faster and more reliable to just break all the legs.

Joe: nonsense. He is unknown so he could be in every account,

But he is not. No mention in Mark, Matthew or Luke of a disciple witnessing the crucifixion.
Anonymous said…
Say it with me now: there is no contradiction if an event that is only reported in one Gospel is not written about by another evangelist.

The fact that Pixie still repeats these typical fundie atheist talking points without a hint of self-awareness and after debating Christians so long on these issues, is, well, truly mind-boggling. How about Pixie actually get acquainted with some conservative/Evangelical scholarship before he starts mouthing off about something he clearly knows nothing about?

On issues of historicity relating to John, see here: whatswrongwiththeworld.net

Anonymous said…
It should be pointed out that contrary to what Pixie is saying, the blood and water stream actually serves no theological or apologetical purpose in the Gospel of John. It's simply a small side detail included in the report as is. It makes sense if the Gospel of John was actually written by someone who was there and was aware of these minute details. (Luke, Peter, and Matthew were not eyewitnesses of the crucifixion. The fact that their respective Gospels contain some differences in reporting from John makes sense in light of this fact.)
The Pixie said…
Anonymous: Say it with me now: there is no contradiction if an event that is only reported in one Gospel is not written about by another evangelist.

With regards to the spear, it is even more problematic, because Mark was already reporting the event, so its absence from his account is even more difficult to explain. Had he not heard of it? Why not? Did he not think it important enough to warrant inclusion? Why then did John think it so important that he added a verse to emphasise it was true?

You seem to take the position that this is trivial, so I invite you to propose a plausible scenario that explains why Mark omitted the spear from his account (I will not expect you to prove it, I appreciate that is not possible). Exactly why, after 40 years, had Mark not heard of the spear? Then we can compare that to how plausible it was that the author of John made it up.

Anonymous: The fact that Pixie still repeats these typical fundie atheist talking points without a hint of self-awareness and after debating Christians so long on these issues, is, well, truly mind-boggling. How about Pixie actually get acquainted with some conservative/Evangelical scholarship before he starts mouthing off about something he clearly knows nothing about?

The reason these are "typical fundie atheist talking points" is because Christians have yet to come up with a good response.

I note that you have not, for example. If you see the same points made with such regularity, it should be trivial for you to explain these apparent inconsistencies.

Anonymous: On issues of historicity relating to John, see here: whatswrongwiththeworld.net

I assume you are referring to the post: "The realism of Jesus' dialogues in John". However, that post is about whether the dialogues are historical, not the piercing by the spear, so in fact offers no support to the claim.

However, when Joe says there is a trend towards greater historicity in John, I do wonder if this is what that means; scholars are thinking that more of the dialogues in John are historical than they previously did. This, then, would give no support to the spear being historical.

Anonymous: It should be pointed out that contrary to what Pixie is saying, the blood and water stream actually serves no theological or apologetical purpose in the Gospel of John. It's simply a small side detail included in the report as is.

I very much disagree. The fact that Joe is making such a big deal about it proves that it serves an important apologetic purpose, and to clear otherwise is bizarre.

John 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

The second verse shows this was far more than "simply a small side detail" to the author, and he takes pains to establish that this point is true to a degree that is beyond pretty much anything in the gospel as far as I am aware.

Anonymous: It makes sense if the Gospel of John was actually written by someone who was there and was aware of these minute details. (Luke, Peter, and Matthew were not eyewitnesses of the crucifixion. The fact that their respective Gospels contain some differences in reporting from John makes sense in light of this fact.)

And you think the author kept these minor details - such as his presence at the crucifixion with the women - secret for some sixty years until he decided to write his own gospel? Or are you supposing the other disciples never spoke to the author? Perhaps they did not believe him...

I appreciate Christians are adept at trotting out these glib claims, but when we scratch beneath the surface, we find nothing there. I suppose the point is that the facade is enough to satisfy the Christian.
Anonymous said…
"With regards to the spear, it is even more problematic, because Mark was already reporting the event, so its absence from his account is even more difficult to explain. Had he not heard of it? Why not? Did he not think it important enough to warrant inclusion? Why then did John think it so important that he added a verse to emphasise it was true?"

Not really - it's actually quite common for different details to be scattered about independent sources that are addressing the same event. For an example, see here: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/how-did-judas-die.html

And yes, those are actually fairly reasonable explanations as to why Mark chose to exclude this detail from his account: lack of knowledge, lack of space, didn't fit the narrative he was crafting, etc. (And remember, it's an almost certainty that all three Synoptic Evangelists knew of the Resurrection appearance to James - yet none of them included it in their accounts. So even if Mark and co. were aware of the spearing, that doesn't necessarily mean they would have included it.)

Anonymous said…
"The reason these are "typical fundie atheist talking points" is because Christians have yet to come up with a good response.

I note that you have not, for example. If you see the same points made with such regularity, it should be trivial for you to explain these apparent inconsistencies."

So says Pixie, someone who's likely never even bothered to read a scholarly commentary on thw Gospels written by a Christian. Sorry if I don't trust your judgement.

"I assume you are referring to the post: "The realism of Jesus' dialogues in John". However, that post is about whether the dialogues are historical, not the piercing by the spear, so in fact offers no support to the claim.

However, when Joe says there is a trend towards greater historicity in John, I do wonder if this is what that means; scholars are thinking that more of the dialogues in John are historical than they previously did. This, then, would give no support to the spear being historical."

I included the link because the entire website deals with issues of historicity regarding John's Gospel. Readers are more than welcome to search the archives of the site - plenty of solid material to spend your time digging into.

"I very much disagree. The fact that Joe is making such a big deal about it proves that it serves an important apologetic purpose, and to clear otherwise is bizarre.

John 19:34 Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water. 35 The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.

The second verse shows this was far more than "simply a small side detail" to the author, and he takes pains to establish that this point is true to a degree that is beyond pretty much anything in the gospel as far as I am aware."

What Joe views as important is irrelevant to what the author of John's Gospel viewed as important.

And my point still remains - the mere act of the water/blood being spilled from Jesus's side isn't used for some apologetic/theological purpose - what's of theological significance to John is the act of piercing Jesus. The blood/water stream is a tangential detail \, as what's being testified by the BD is that none of Jesus' bones were broken and that he was pierced. To read John 19 in context: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+19&version=NIV

Anonymous said…
And you think the author kept these minor details - such as his presence at the crucifixion with the women - secret for some sixty years until he decided to write his own gospel? Or are you supposing the other disciples never spoke to the author? Perhaps they did not believe him...

I appreciate Christians are adept at trotting out these glib claims, but when we scratch beneath the surface, we find nothing there. I suppose the point is that the facade is enough to satisfy the Christian.

I think the Synoptics were relying on their own different sources - with Mark primarily being based on Peter's preaching in Rome. If Peter based his sermons primarily on what he personally witnessed, it makes sense that his accounts of the events would be lesser in detail. And I don't take it for granted that John would have for sure given a detailed exposition about Jesus's final moments to his fellow apostles - they were all quite busy, sometimes geographically separated, and they all more or less knew what happened. The intimate details John records are just that - intimate details. Heck, Mark and Luke probably didn't even know John and may not have even met many of his personal associates. (Also, mind you, I think John was likely written in the 60s AD.)

And yes, there are plenty of editorial reasons as to why the three Synoptic evangelists may not have included material they were aware of, even if only vaguely. (So, no, I don't think John kept anything secret. The churches he founded likely knew his version of the story - and perhaps he may have relayed some of the details to his fellow apostles. But think about it: when you're relaying a personal anecdote about some catastrophic event you witnessed, or are listening to someone else do the same, is it the irrelevant details that your mind hangs onto?)
The Pixie said…
Anon: Not really - it's actually quite common for different details to be scattered about independent sources that are addressing the same event. For an example, see here: https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2016/09/how-did-judas-die.html

I would suggest it is very common because later gospels got so much embellishment. The spear is just one such example. The death of Judas is an even clearer example, two authors made something up (or reporting what others had made up) without knowing what the other was doing, so we have two entirely contradictory accounts, whilst Paul say Jesus appeared to all twelve disciples!

Anon: And yes, those are actually fairly reasonable explanations as to why Mark chose to exclude this detail from his account: lack of knowledge, lack of space, didn't fit the narrative he was crafting, etc.

So explain then. How was there no knowledge of the spear piercing in the community when Mark was writing? Is it really reasonable to suppose Mark took the decision to omit parts of the passion narrative, the most important part of the whole gospel? In what sense does it not fit the narrative?

These are all tire, old excuses that Christians will trot out, without actually thinking about what they mean. Please show you can do better here.

Anon: (And remember, it's an almost certainty that all three Synoptic Evangelists knew of the Resurrection appearance to James - yet none of them included it in their accounts. So even if Mark and co. were aware of the spearing, that doesn't necessarily mean they would have included it.)

Mark took the decision to omit all the resurrection appearances (or the ending is lost), so that is easy. Robert Eisenman makes the case that James was redacted from the narrative as the Christology got higher. It became increasingly awkward for Jesus to have a brother. I think this provides a plausible and sufficiently detailed explanation for that omission. Can you see how "lack of knowledge" really does not cut it?

Anon: What Joe views as important is irrelevant to what the author of John's Gospel viewed as important.

However, the verse in John that I quoted very much does.
The Pixie said…
Anon: And my point still remains - the mere act of the water/blood being spilled from Jesus's side isn't used for some apologetic/theological purpose - what's of theological significance to John is the act of piercing Jesus. The blood/water stream is a tangential detail \, as what's being testified by the BD is that none of Jesus' bones were broken and that he was pierced. ...

That is an interesting assertion, but I think verse 19 indicates otherwise.

Anon: I think the Synoptics were relying on their own different sources - with Mark primarily being based on Peter's preaching in Rome. If Peter based his sermons primarily on what he personally witnessed, it makes sense that his accounts of the events would be lesser in detail.

Most scholars think the passion in Mark was based on an earlier text we no longer have, and I know Joe agrees with this. That likely was influenced to whatever degree by Peter, but not in the way you seem to be suggesting.

Anon: And I don't take it for granted that John would have for sure given a detailed exposition about Jesus's final moments to his fellow apostles - they were all quite busy, sometimes geographically separated, and they all more or less knew what happened.

Really? So over the course of forty years the pillars of Christianity never discussed Jesus' crucifixion in any detail? Do you actually find that plausible?

Anon: The intimate details John records are just that - intimate details.

Too intimate to share with his fellow Christians at any point over 40 years? Really?

Anon: Heck, Mark and Luke probably didn't even know John and may not have even met many of his personal associates. (Also, mind you, I think John was likely written in the 60s AD.)

Luke, I can see. Tradition has Mark in Jerusalem not long after the crucifixion, so it would be odd if he did not meet John.

Anon: And yes, there are plenty of editorial reasons as to why the three Synoptic evangelists may not have included material they were aware of, even if only vaguely.

So name three.
This comment has been removed by the author.
thanks Anonymous man please stick around.

If jabbing with spear to see if they were dead was common that would explain why the synoptic left it out. We don't know that Mark or Luke were there.

why John include it? Because he was psychologically freaked out by it,It was cruel thing done to Jesus he Jesus.
Anonymous said…
"I would suggest it is very common because later gospels got so much embellishment. The spear is just one such example. The death of Judas is an even clearer example, two authors made something up (or reporting what others had made up) without knowing what the other was doing, so we have two entirely contradictory accounts, whilst Paul say Jesus appeared to all twelve disciples!"

You know, Pixie - it would be incredibly helpful if you actually read the links I provided instead of mouthing off gibberish like this. If you read the link, you would have seen an example from secular history that proves independent reports, despite their apparent contradictions, can all be correct.

"So explain then. How was there no knowledge of the spear piercing in the community when Mark was writing? Is it really reasonable to suppose Mark took the decision to omit parts of the passion narrative, the most important part of the whole gospel? In what sense does it not fit the narrative?

These are all tire, old excuses that Christians will trot out, without actually thinking about what they mean. Please show you can do better here."

Who knows? Maybe Mark had heard about it through tertiary means, deemed it unreliable and chose not to include it. Maybe he was running out of space on his scroll and chose to cut out a portion of the story he deemed not as important as the other things he needed to record. I can think of many reasons why Mark could choose to omit such an anecdote, if he had known about it. Maybe he was being extremely faithful to Peter's sermons and didn't want to confuse the Roman church who were specifically asking for a written record of Peter's sermons by adding in foreign material they weren't familiar with. There might also be credibility issues that arose from Mark including unique material foreign to Peter's preaching that Mark just didn't want to deal with.

Unknown said…
"Mark took the decision to omit all the resurrection appearances (or the ending is lost), so that is easy. Robert Eisenman makes the case that James was redacted from the narrative as the Christology got higher. It became increasingly awkward for Jesus to have a brother. I think this provides a plausible and sufficiently detailed explanation for that omission. Can you see how "lack of knowledge" really does not cut it?"

I'm apart of the minority that believe that the last twelve verses of Mark are authentically Markan - but with that being said, Eisenman's theories sound like nonsense. The Christology between Matthew and Luke is pretty much identical, and I believe even Mark has a high Christology. And what does this have to do with the Resurrection narratives? Even if it were somewhat awkward for the Evangelists to deal with, a brief notice explaining James' Res. appearance would not only explain how James became as prominent as he did in the early church, but it would also serve as hostile corroboration of Jesus' Resurrection. And it's not like we have evidence of a pre-Markan narrative that specifically had James play a role in it, and that the four Evangelists were all independently trying to suppress such a reference.
Anonymous said…
"However, the verse in John that I quoted very much does."

John viewed Jesus being spared of having his limbs broken as theologically significant. Ditto for the spearing. Because they both fulfill prophecies according to John. The part about the blood/water is completely tangentially related and is merely an incidental detail.

"Most scholars think the passion in Mark was based on an earlier text we no longer have, and I know Joe agrees with this. That likely was influenced to whatever degree by Peter, but not in the way you seem to be suggesting."

Then I may have some disagreement with Joe on this issue, as I feel that Mark was likely relying mostly on Peter directly.

"Really? So over the course of forty years the pillars of Christianity never discussed Jesus' crucifixion in any detail? Do you actually find that plausible?"

Over the decades, I imagine they discussed it at length on a few occasions. But considering the personal trauma, shame and embarrassment the Crucifixion entailed for all of them - I don't think it's something they discussed specifically all that often. As for when they did, who can say what it is they all specifically shared? If anything, they probably fretted over its theological significance more than anything.

"Too intimate to share with his fellow Christians at any point over 40 years? Really?"

It's not like John was going over in explicit detail the story of Jesus's death constantly with everyone he met. The Gospel of John very much reads like someone sitting down to write a full personal recollection of an event they were intimately familiar with. When I write about personal anecdotes, I tend to take my time with filling in the story exactly as I remember it. In contrast to my more brief and spotty on the fly recollections in oral conditions.

"Luke, I can see. Tradition has Mark in Jerusalem not long after the crucifixion, so it would be odd if he did not meet John."

That is true. Mark at least knew of John - maybe interacted with him on rare occasion.

Robert Eisenman makes the case that James was redacted from the narrative as the Christology got higher. It became increasingly awkward for Jesus to have a brother. I think this provides a plausible and sufficiently detailed explanation for that omission. Can you see how "lack of knowledge" really does not cut it?"

no Textual evidence to back that up. where is James committed from? James appears in Acts and mentioned by Paul.
The Pixie said…
Joe: why John include it? Because he was psychologically freaked out by it,It was cruel thing done to Jesus he Jesus.

Interesting that you chose to answer a question no one asked, and not to answer the questions that were asked.

Joe: no Textual evidence to back that up. where is James committed from? James appears in Acts and mentioned by Paul.

When Paul was writing, James was the leader of Christianity, and Jesus was considered a man chosen by God to be the messiah, the prototype for the coming resurrection. Paul makes clear Peter was subordinate to James in Galatians.

Galatians 1:19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother.

Galatians 2:9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars...

Galatians 2:12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.

Even Josephus mentions James as a religious authority:

... Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought them the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others [or some of his companions]. And when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned...

But my the time Mark was written, James' status had diminished, and he was largely edited out or re-written so he was no longer Jesus' brother. For example, in Acts 12:2 he becomes John's brother, and no where in Acts (or Luke) is there any mention of a James who is the brother of Jesus. Mark 6:3 and Mat 13:55 do mention a brother called James, but it is not clear if this is a disciple or not, and no other brother is mentioned as far as I am aware. By the time John was written, James has been erased from history altogether - the last gospel does not even include the name at all!

How do YOU explain this?
The Pixie said…
Anon: You know, Pixie - it would be incredibly helpful if you actually read the links I provided instead of mouthing off gibberish like this.

Given your first link was to an entire blog (and you advised me to go find evidence to support your view); the second was discussing an entirely different topic (the death of Juda); and the third to the gospel itself which I have already quoted (copy-and-pasted from that very web site) you kind of shot yourself in the foot there.

Anon: If you read the link, you would have seen an example from secular history that proves independent reports, despite their apparent contradictions, can all be correct.

Sure they CAN be correct. It is also plausible that the reports are made up, or that the difference between them is a later embellishment.

Anon: Who knows?

No one; it happened too long ago to know what happened. But if your hypothesis is plausible, then you should be able to give a plausible detailed scenario that explains the evidence we have today.

Anon: Maybe Mark had heard about it through tertiary means, deemed it unreliable and chose not to include it.

He heard the crucifixion account from a tertiary source at best. He supposedly got it from Peter, who was not present either.

More likely, he was using the earlier passion narrative, and who know how many times removed that was?

But say you are right, and he, writing 40 years after the event, considered the spear piercing apocryphal, why should we ignore his opinion. He was the expert. Why trust an author writing sixty years after the event over Mark?

Anon: Maybe he was running out of space on his scroll and chose to cut out a portion of the story he deemed not as important as the other things he needed to record.

Such as Jesus last words before he died on the cross. Clearly not worth saving. He could have purchased another scroll, but they were only Jesus dying words, who cares about that...

Anon: I can think of many reasons why Mark could choose to omit such an anecdote, if he had known about it. Maybe he was being extremely faithful to Peter's sermons and didn't want to confuse the Roman church who were specifically asking for a written record of Peter's sermons by adding in foreign material they weren't familiar with.

So now you are saying Peter considered the spear piercing apocryphal too, and you think that is a reason to think it actually happened!?!

Anon: There might also be credibility issues that arose from Mark including unique material foreign to Peter's preaching that Mark just didn't want to deal with.

As I said previously, it is generally reckoned the passion narrative in Mark is based on a prior written text, so you are arguing against scholarly consensus here.

Anon: It's not like John was going over in explicit detail the story of Jesus's death constantly with everyone he met.

Therefore he never mentioned it at all? What is your argument here?

My point is that at some point over forty years it is virtually certain they discussed in explicit detail the story of Jesus's death. You seem to be saying that cannot be so because he was not constantly doing that. There is a middle area between those two positions where John does that occasionally, and it is bizarre that did not occur to you.

Anon: The Gospel of John very much reads like someone sitting down to write a full personal recollection of an event they were intimately familiar with.

Scholarly consensus is quite the opposite; that it was written by multiple authors over a extended period of time.
Anonymous said…
"Given your first link was to an entire blog (and you advised me to go find evidence to support your view); the second was discussing an entirely different topic (the death of Juda); and the third to the gospel itself which I have already quoted (copy-and-pasted from that very web site) you kind of shot yourself in the foot there."

I linked whatswrongwiththeworld for those interested readers who are curious about John's Gospel - not directed specifically at you, per se. The second link contained a relevant example of the point that I was trying to illustrate, as I told you. I linked to chapter 19 of John's Gospel to provide fuller context to the text we're discussing.

"Sure they CAN be correct. It is also plausible that the reports are made up, or that the difference between them is a later embellishment."

Then it's a moot point to bring up these arguments from silence. To argue for a contradiction, you're going to need to make stronger arguments then "we should be skeptical that x happened because it's kind of-sort of in tension with the other accounts because they don't mention it."



Anonymous said…
"No one; it happened too long ago to know what happened. But if your hypothesis is plausible, then you should be able to give a plausible detailed scenario that explains the evidence we have today."

As I've explained, there is a multitude of potential reasons Mark may have omitted material he was familiar with.


"He heard the crucifixion account from a tertiary source at best. He supposedly got it from Peter, who was not present either."

But Peter was an apostle and had in built credibility - credibility a perhaps floating story/tradition wouldn't have. If he had heard about the spear tradition, say, from visiting Christians he didn't know very well, he may not have judged that a credible source from which to draw from.


Anonymous said…
"More likely, he was using the earlier passion narrative, and who know how many times removed that was?

But say you are right, and he, writing 40 years after the event, considered the spear piercing apocryphal, why should we ignore his opinion. He was the expert. Why trust an author writing sixty years after the event over Mark?"

I think Mark was written pre 70 AD, and likely was drawing upon Peter's and his own testimony for most of his material.

Because I don't Mark was inerrant in all decisions he made in life - him being skeptical of other Gospel traditions doesn't mean much, especially if he didn't quite fully understand the nature of some of these traditions. What;s important is if what he reports is incompatible with what his fellow Gospel writers wrote.

"Such as Jesus last words before he died on the cross. Clearly not worth saving. He could have purchased another scroll, but they were only Jesus dying words, who cares about that..."

Buying writing material wasn't cheap, so not recording Jesus' last words, which were fairly mundane, in favor of writing more about the Resurrection appearances makes good editorial sense.

"So now you are saying Peter considered the spear piercing apocryphal too, and you think that is a reason to think it actually happened!?!"

No, what I'm saying is that if Peter was primarily preaching from his own memory, then the spearing wouldn't have even been a topic of discussion. He wouldn't have known about, at least not from his own personal witness.

"As I said previously, it is generally reckoned the passion narrative in Mark is based on a prior written text, so you are arguing against scholarly consensus here."

That's fine - I'm more than willing to do so.

"Therefore he never mentioned it at all? What is your argument here?

My point is that at some point over forty years it is virtually certain they discussed in explicit detail the story of Jesus's death. You seem to be saying that cannot be so because he was not constantly doing that. There is a middle area between those two positions where John does that occasionally, and it is bizarre that did not occur to you."

Even if he did mention it, I doubt very many would have picked up on those inconsequential pointless details. If they knew anything about decomposing bodies, they would know such things aren't entirely uncommon. They were likely too busy waxing philosophical over the meaning of Jesus' death to be too concerned with such petty details. If I tell you a story about how I saved a woman from being raped, are you going to take note of the color of the dirt I was walking on? Are you even going to remember that detail? And if you do, are you going to make note of this detail if you were to tell it to anyone else?

"Scholarly consensus is quite the opposite; that it was written by multiple authors over a extended period of time."

They've been in their Ivory Towers for too long, I suppose.










"Scholarly consensus is quite the opposite; that it was written by multiple authors over a extended period of time."

That is a simplification Koester said it was redacted a lot, had lots of redactor heavily debated. But based upon the memories of one founding source,the BD
The Pixie said…
Anon: I linked whatswrongwiththeworld for those interested readers who are curious about John's Gospel - not directed specifically at you, per se. The second link contained a relevant example of the point that I was trying to illustrate, as I told you. I linked to chapter 19 of John's Gospel to provide fuller context to the text we're discussing.

If you want people to pay any attention to your links, you might want to consider making clear what exactly you are referring to and whether your link is for anyone interested or specifically for the posters named twice in the previous paragraph.

Anon: Then it's a moot point to bring up these arguments from silence. To argue for a contradiction, you're going to need to make stronger arguments then "we should be skeptical that x happened because it's kind of-sort of in tension with the other accounts because they don't mention it."

I disagree. Any sufficiently detailed scenario that fits the available evidence is, by definition, plausible. And I claim no more than that.

Anon: As I've explained, there is a multitude of potential reasons Mark may have omitted material he was familiar with.

Sure. But none them really stand up to scrutiny, do they?

Anon: But Peter was an apostle and had in built credibility - credibility a perhaps floating story/tradition wouldn't have. If he had heard about the spear tradition, say, from visiting Christians he didn't know very well, he may not have judged that a credible source from which to draw from.

So you are abandoning the claim that the story comes from the beloved disciple, but rather is just a "floating story/tradition" that Mark did not consider trustworthy enough to include? I can go a long with that.

Anon: Because I don't Mark was inerrant in all decisions he made in life - him being skeptical of other Gospel traditions doesn't mean much, especially if he didn't quite fully understand the nature of some of these traditions. What;s important is if what he reports is incompatible with what his fellow Gospel writers wrote.

That is fine. As you say, this was probably just some "floating story/tradition" that Mark did not consider reliable. You think he was wrong. I think he may have been right.

Anon: Buying writing material wasn't cheap, so not recording Jesus' last words, which were fairly mundane, in favor of writing more about the Resurrection appearances makes good editorial sense.

I appreciate scrolls were expensive, but presumably the costs were shared across the community, given what we read in Acts. I cannot imagine any reason any Christian would consider anything Jesus said and was still remembered 40 years later not worth writing down. If it was preserved for 40 years it was important.

By the way, Mark did not write about the resurrection appearances. That is a later addition.

Anon: Even if he did mention it, I doubt very many would have picked up on those inconsequential pointless details.

Not that inconsequential and pointless if the author of John had memorised them and chosen to record them.

Anon: If they knew anything about decomposing bodies, they would know such things aren't entirely uncommon. They were likely too busy waxing philosophical over the meaning of Jesus' death to be too concerned with such petty details. If I tell you a story about how I saved a woman from being raped, are you going to take note of the color of the dirt I was walking on? Are you even going to remember that detail? And if you do, are you going to make note of this detail if you were to tell it to anyone else?

If I was to write down the details of the event then I would include all that I could. Is someone going to remember the inconsequential pointless detail of the spear? Not after 40 years when Mark was writing about it. But twenty years later, when John writes about it, apparently he will.
The Pixie said…
Joe: That is a simplification Koester said it was redacted a lot, had lots of redactor heavily debated. But based upon the memories of one founding source,the BD

What is the evidence the BD, whoever that is, was the author?

Which redactor added the piercing with the spear?
1 it say he was the author

2 he clearly fills that role at least in terms of being the leader of the community it is the testimony of the community that is being recorded

The Pixie said…
Joe: 1 it say he was the author

You refer to this, I guess:

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

I am curious. Do you think the beloved disciple is still alive? Or has Jesus already returned?

But wait, people were already pointing out this inconsistency when the text was written, and so we read the counter to that in verse 23. So in fact even when this was written the beloved disciple was already dead, and therefore he was not the author.

So then what we know is:

* the disciple wrote some things down, but nothing to suggest that that is the Gospel of John, and indeed it is clear he was dead before the gospel was written
* the actual author(s) of John believed the testimony of the disciple

Joe: 2 he clearly fills that role at least in terms of being the leader of the community it is the testimony of the community that is being recorded

That seems quite reasonable.
Joe: 1 it say he was the author

You refer to this, I guess:

22 Jesus answered, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me.” 23 Because of this, the rumor spread among the believers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, “If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?”
24 This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.

I am curious. Do you think the beloved disciple is still alive? Or has Jesus already returned?

do you not read English? do You not get the repudiation of the idea the would not die,probably issued because he did die,

But wait, people were already pointing out this inconsistency when the text was written, and so we read the counter to that in verse 23. So in fact even when this was written the beloved disciple was already dead, and therefore he was not the author.

that is quite lame. How many times in our dialogues have I said the single author model is dead? (a lot) they don't attire them to one guy any more. There is an initiator of the narrative then redactors out the wasou.

So then what we know is:

* the disciple wrote some things down, but nothing to suggest that that is the Gospel of John, and indeed it is clear he was dead before the gospel was written
* the actual author(s) of John believed the testimony of the disciple

essentially the case but irrelevant,basically what I've always said, Perhaps the original teacher only taught orally and didn't write anything, it was the testimony of the commute as whole.,.

Joe: 2 he clearly fills that role at least in terms of being the leader of the community it is the testimony of the community that is being recorded

That seems quite reasonable.


ok
Anonymous said…
I should have made my first link to WWWTW more clear - but I provided an adequate amount of context to determine what the second two were about.

Let's break down Pixie's logic:

John mentions it - Mark does not
Mark mentions it - John does not

This is a contradiction according to Pixie.

But, like the example I provided shows, this type of spotty reporting from different sources is not unheard of amongst even secular authors. And there is no prima facie reason to deny the historicity of both reports if they don't contradict or can even be read together harmoniously. In fact, as the example shows, sometimes independent accounts, which at face value differ, can all be correct.

It's plausible that space aliens are pretending to be me writing this very comment. That's just not very likely. What's plausible is not necessarily probable?

They certainly stand up to your scrutiny.

Although this should be obvious, I'm afraid I'm going to have to clarify for Pixie: a story can both originate from the BD while also being a floating tradition of sorts. Especially considering the context of the ancient world, where fact-checking was a bit harder than it is now - Mark may have simply been hard-pressed to include details of the story that were being passed down to him through tertiary means. Sure, the traditions might have claims of apostolic origin, but Mark in Rome can't exactly easily verify if John in Ephesus actually was the originator of these traditions.

I don't think was Mark was wrong or right to avoid including material he may not have had full confidence in.

Communal funding would obviously help, but even then, it's not as if a community of slaves, woman and peasants were exactly "rich."

Jesus was a public speaker, who likely said very many things over the course of his career. I don't think the Gospel authors we're trying to be exhaustive in their recording of Jesus' speech.

Picture this: Mark is coming to the end of his scroll and still has yet to even get to the Resurrection appearances. He's running out of space rapidly but the Res. appearances need to be fit in. Every line counts at this point. What is Mark to do? Sacrifice space for Jesus' more mundane words to John or save that space for the Great Commission?

Suffice to say, people don't usually pick and choose what is it they memorize. Hard to forget your good friend in trusting his mother's care to you. Also, I believe all the Evangelists were under divine guidance, so if they did forget some details, well, the Spirit could take care of that.


My point being that petty details often get lost in the shuffle, especially after a (relatively) long period of time. I don't expect John's personal recollection of events to necessarily be very well known (he may have kept some things close to his chest), and even if they were, people probably glossed over the minute details like the blood/water flow. It should be obvious that what's important to John has a special sort of significance to him, significance that might not exist with his fellow Christians.
The Pixie said…
Anon: It's plausible that space aliens are pretending to be me writing this very comment. That's just not very likely. What's plausible is not necessarily probable?

So like the resurrection. The over-arching point here is that you are trying to support a claim that is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment.

I appreciate you see it differently, but you start from the assumption the resurrection happened, and filter everything through that. I do not.
Pix a fact that alluded the discussion so far, The swoon theory is only made to make the Passover plot work. The idea that Jesus fakes his death on the cross by being put to sleep with a drug when they gave him a drink on the sponge.

That is really how it had to happen, but the SOP guys are afraid to try and sell a conspiracy theory so they just assert he fainted then came staggering out of the tomb three days latter. But that doesn't work because the tomb was sealed.t took several guys to move the stone,they had no reason to open it again.That defeats the purpose of the theory which is to explain the resurrection.


when you say "It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment." That highlights even more the useless nature of the swoon theory without the Passover conspiracy theory.
Anonymous said…
"So like the resurrection. The over-arching point here is that you are trying to support a claim that is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment.

I appreciate you see it differently, but you start from the assumption the resurrection happened, and filter everything through that. I do not."

Yawn.

How could the disciples be mistaken over something like the Resurrection? It either didn't happen or it did - it's like saying I'm mistaken over saying I just went to the bathroom.

Funnily enough, I treat the Gospels like I would any other ancient document, I just don't staqrt with the assumption that supernatural events don't happen.
Pix said:

"So like the resurrection. The over-arching point here is that you are trying to support a claim that is highly unlikely. It is far more likely that the disciples were mistaken about the resurrection, and the accounts we have today are based on guesswork and scripture for the crucifixion itself, followed by decades of embellishment.

I appreciate you see it differently, but you start from the assumption the resurrection happened, and filter everything through that. I do not."

I am going to answer this for Monday;'s major post,I ask Anon t come back for that, and Pix of course

let's close this

Popular posts from this blog

More evidence for the Historical Truth of David and Goliath

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

A Simple Illustration of the Trinity

The Genre of the Gospel of John (Part 1)

Bread and Butter apologetics

Do God's Omniscience and Omnipotence Contradict?

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark