Bowen's 10 things

Image result for manuscript gospel of john
Gospel of John







Last fall (around Sept 20,2019) Bradley Bowen (secular outpost) and I had a sort of debate over his take on the swoon theory of resurrection. He asserts with no evidence that Jesus did not die on the cross but merely swooned,revived latter in the  tomb and somehow got out. Thus the empty tomb is accounted for without miracles. I think I won rather handily. The reader be the Judge: Here. Now he comes back on it. He's attacked me on Metacrock's Blog concerning quoting a certain source. He had reference to 10 arguments he makes,[1] he called them "the 10 things" that he thought just settled the matter and proved his swoon theory cold.   He fell back on them  a lot.

I answered these "10 things" in the comment section of that last debate. But I post them here since he's dug it all up again, I am enhancing my answers.  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 one set 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.
https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/7431/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses-2nd-ed.aspx


"This critically acclaimed work argues that the four Gospels are based on the eyewitness testimony of those who personally knew Jesus. Noted New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham challenges the prevailing assumption that the stories about Jesus circulated as "anonymous community traditions," asserting instead that they were transmitted in the names of the original eyewitnesses.?


N. T. Wright"The question of whether the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts has long been controversial. Richard Bauckham, in a characteristic tour de force, draws on his unparalleled knowledge of the world of the first Christians to argue not only that the Gospels do indeed contain eyewitness testimony but that their first readers would certainly have recognized them as such. This book is a remarkable piece of detective work, resulting in a fresh and vivid approach to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of well-known problems and passages."
Graham Stanton"Shakes the foundations of a century of scholarly study of the Gospels. There are surprises on every page. A wealth of new insights will provoke lively discussion for a long time to come. Readers at all levels will be grateful for Bauckham's detective work that uncovers clues missed by so many."

Times Literary Supplement"Bauckham's careful and eloquent presentation of his argument, supported not just by careful scholarship but by admirable common sense, deserves earnest consideration by all."
Martin Hengel"Fascinating! . . . This book ought to be read by all theologians and historians working in the field of early Christianity. Further, Bauckham's convincing historical method and broad learning will also help pastors and students to overcome widespread modern Jesus fantasies."



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.

Paul  N. Anderson:
 [John]...alone claims to be rooted in eye witness memory among the canonical Gospels...the prevalent scholarly opinion kn the modern era has come to relate the Jeannine Gospel to the canons of myth and theology rather than history; therefore John's gospel has become off limits for historical quests for Jesus. On the other hand...John has more archaeological content and topographical detail than all the other gospels put together. John also bears any features of Historical realism that contriubte a more plausible view of Jesus ministry than the Markan Gospels...Furthermore John possess a great deal of mundane and theologically innocent material this cannot be adequately explained on the basis of john's alleged ahisoticity,[2]
Major scholar James Charlesworth,
We began this essay with one focused question: Is it wise to ignore the Fourth Gospel in re-constructing the life, mission and message of Jesus from Nazareth? The answer is ‘no’. It is now time to move beyond the caricaturing of John as a non-historical theological treatise, a judgment that has plagued scholars since they interpreted Eusebius’s report that Clement of Alexandria correctly characterized the Synoptics as factual but John as ‘spiritual’. I do not think that Clement was defining John as mythological, legendary and unhistorical ( EH 6.14.7). 146 John’s highly interpreted story of Jesus is becoming a telescope to peer back into first-century Jerusalem so we may see not only Jewish stone vessels and mikvaot but also the shadows of a Galilean bringing healing and a renewed oneness with the Father. Is it possible, then, to observe a paradigm shift from ignoring John and focusing only on the Synoptics to including John and sometimes giving priority to some of the traditions preserved in it? Yes.[3]
These quotes would seem to suggest we can;t just sweep aside things  in John as not historical. Also see Bauckham's book om believeddec9ple page 93 he establishes historicographical 





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.
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.

[I think the issue here is that Romam soldier did not break Jesus legs because he thouht Jesus was already dead. Boen argues that "because Roman soldiers were NOT modern medical doctors; they did NOT have modern medical knowledge, and they did not have modern medical technology, and they did not receive modern medical training.  So, Roman soldiers were quite capable of making an incorrect diagnosis of death."]


Answer: The idea that you had to be a doctor to know if someone is dead is just laughably absurd, Talk about overkill. Just ponder that for a minute. That means before the advent of modern medicine every most people were buried prematurely. A guy is dying someone says to him "shut up Harry you died."

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 no understanding of  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.





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

How do we know the Romans would stick a spear into crucifixion victims to see if they are dead?

I am aware of Treloar's article in CMJ, but, while that article does have several references, he gives none in respect of this claim, making it possible that the Gospel of John is his source.
NCBI Pub med
S Afr Med J. 2003 Dec;93(12):938-41.
The history and pathology of crucifixion.
Retief FP1, Cilliers L.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14750495

"The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."
It took me two minutes to find that
The Pixie said…
Good for you. I only have access to the abstract. Can you tell me what their source is? Is it the Gospel of John?
The Pixie said…
This article does not address the specific issue testing for death with a spear, but does discuss how poor many of the papers are in this area.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/014107680609900416
US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health

Pub med is the site it's a publication of abstracts for papers by the national library of medicine. The one I quote documents that they did stab them to show they were dead. That answers the argument,
This article does not address the specific issue testing for death with a spear, but does discuss how poor many of the papers are in this area.

yes it does, I quoted it, it's in the abstract, what do you think it says in the article? this proves they did the were known to have so you think in the article it says "not really"?
this is a quote from the abstract: "The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."

It will not un do that in the article
this is the entire abstract: Abstract
In antiquity crucifixion was considered one of the most brutal and shameful modes of death. Probably originating with the Assyrians and Babylonians, it was used systematically by the Persians in the 6th century BC. Alexander the Great brought it from there to the eastern Mediterranean countries in the 4th century BC, and the Phoenicians introduced it to Rome in the 3rd century BC. It was virtually never used in pre-Hellenic Greece. The Romans perfected crucifion for 500 years until it was abolished by Constantine I in the 4th century AD. Crucifixion in Roman times was applied mostly to slaves, disgraced soldiers, Christians and foreigners--only very rarely to Roman citizens. Death, usually after 6 hours--4 days, was due to multifactorial pathology: after-effects of compulsory scourging and maiming, haemorrhage and dehydration causing hypovolaemic shock and pain, but the most important factor was progressive asphyxia caused by impairment of respiratory movement. Resultant anoxaemia exaggerated hypovolaemic shock. Death was probably commonly precipitated by cardiac arrest, caused by vasovagal reflexes, initiated inter alia by severe anoxaemia, severe pain, body blows and breaking of the large bones.The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim.

PMID: 14750495
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on Google+
Publication type, MeSH terms
The Pixie said…
Joe: Pub med is the site it's a publication of abstracts for papers by the national library of medicine. The one I quote documents that they did stab them to show they were dead. That answers the argument,

The issue is whether stabbing to determine death comes solely from the Gospel of John or whether there is an alternative source to collaborate that.

The PubMed abstract gives no indicate what the source is for their claim, so does not tell us one way or the other.

Joe: this is a quote from the abstract: "The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."

It will not un do that in the article


That is talking about how they would hasten death, not how they verify death. The formr action would be if they believed the victim was a live, the latter if they believed the victim death, so two very distinct situations.

This does not help your case one little bit.
Joe: Pub med is the site it's a publication of abstracts for papers by the national library of medicine. The one I quote documents that they did stab them to show they were dead. That answers the argument,

The issue is whether stabbing to determine death comes solely from the Gospel of John or whether there is an alternative source to collaborate that.

that is not the issue you must prove that John is not trustworthy.

The PubMed abstract gives no indicate what the source is for their claim, so does not tell us one way or the other.


pub med is authoritative, you have no basis for questioning,

Joe: this is a quote from the abstract: "The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."

It will not un do that in the article

what the hell?

That is talking about how they would hasten death, not how they verify death. The formr action would be if they believed the victim was a live, the latter if they believed the victim death, so two very distinct situations.


that is stupid, it's not exactly a grand canyon leap if they could stab them for one thing they could stab them for another, you are reaching

This does not help your case one little bit.


you are clutching at straw
they can stab them for a but not for b, stupid really

so pro council we have to put you to death you stabbed that guy to see if he was dead if only you stabbed to hasten his death we could let you go!

geeeezzzz
The Pixie said…
The point here is whether the Roman soldiers, instructed to kill the prisoners by breaking their legs, came to Jesus, believed he was dead, so instead stabbed him with a spear to confirm that.

It is important to emphasise that (according to this account) Jesus was very definitely NOT stabbed to kill him - if they were going to do that, they would have broken his legs.

Any evidence that the Romans would stab a crucifixion victim to hasten death therefore offers no support to the claim that they would stab with a spear to confirm death. These are two entirely separate things - and trying to conflate them can only be see as the work of someone who knows he has no real argument.

Joe: that is not the issue you must prove that John is not trustworthy.

The argument is about whether we have any evidence outside of John to support the claim that Roman soldiers would stab a crucifixion victim with a spear to confirm death.

Joe: pub med is authoritative, you have no basis for questioning,

PubMed is authoritative only on whether an article has been published; it makes no attempt to verify the veracity of the papers - that is assumed as part of the peer-review process. Thus your statement here is a simple argument from authority fallacy.

Furthermore, the article on PubMed is about hasten the death of a living crucifixion victim, and not about confirming the death of a dead crucifixion victim, so the article itself is about a different topic.

Joe: what the hell?

This appears to be responding to your own words: "It will not un do that in the article".

Joe: that is stupid, it's not exactly a grand canyon leap if they could stab them for one thing they could stab them for another, you are reaching

It is possible, certainly, but you have no evidence they ever did. Remember, in your blog post you stated: "We know from history the Roans did do that." That appears to be untrue. We have the abstract of a paper that says they would stab victims to kill them, and it is therefore possible they also stabbed victims to verify death, but that we quite different to [i]knowing[/i] that they did that.

Joe: they can stab them for a but not for b, stupid really

You have evidence (or a sort) that they stab for a, so you claim we know they stab for b. It is not stupid, it is dishonest.

The point here is whether the Roman soldiers, instructed to kill the prisoners by breaking their legs, came to Jesus, believed he was dead, so instead stabbed him with a spear to confirm that.

It is important to emphasise that (according to this account) Jesus was very definitely NOT stabbed to kill him - if they were going to do that, they would have broken his legs.

John had no medical understanding of what blood and water meant,so he would not have made it up for any foreseeable reason. There is no problem historically with thinking the solider would stab Jesus to make he was dead. He could have done it to hasten death,we don't have his testimony (the guard's), about why he did it,



Any evidence that the Romans would stab a crucifixion victim to hasten death therefore offers no support to the claim that they would stab with a spear to confirm death.

that is just idiotic, its not a far leap to the assumption. We are going by the witness's assumption about why he did it

These are two entirely separate things - and trying to conflate them can only be see as the work of someone who knows he has no real argument.

no they are not,the are both rooted in the same moment the same man just matter of motivation the motives are close,

Joe: that is not the issue you must prove that John is not trustworthy.

The argument is about whether we have any evidence outside of John to support the claim that Roman soldiers would stab a crucifixion victim with a spear to confirm death.


I quoited some,the extrapolation from hasten to is he dead is short trip.

Joe: pub med is authoritative, you have no basis for questioning,

PubMed is authoritative only on whether an article has been published; it makes no attempt to verify the veracity of the papers - that is assumed as part of the peer-review process. Thus your statement here is a simple argument from authority fallacy.

they are peer reviewed they will not publish an arictle by me for example you have to be a medical choral

Furthermore, the article on PubMed is about hasten the death of a living crucifixion victim, and not about confirming the death of a dead crucifixion victim, so the article itself is about a different topic.

no it;snot it;s about Crucifixion in general not merely hastening death, saying they stabbed to hasten death does not preclude stabbing to see if they are dead,

Joe: what the hell?

This appears to be responding to your own words: "It will not un do that in the article".

Joe: that is stupid, it's not exactly a grand canyon leap if they could stab them for one thing they could stab them for another, you are reaching

It is possible, certainly, but you have no evidence they ever did.


that is so stupid, one source i read said the guards would often crucify people in humiliating positions, the victim's belonged to the guards, John is grief stricken at the foot of the cross, he sees the guy stab him, why? he asserts to see if he's dead maybe it was to hasten death, who knows who cares? It is extremely ludicrous to think there is this impenetrable line between hastening death and testing to see if dead. you havenoting, chicken shit argument,



Remember, in your blog post you stated: "We know from history the Roans did do that." That appears to be untrue.

you are leaping to a conclusion that is nowhere documented.


We have the abstract of a paper that says they would stab victims to kill them, and it is therefore possible they also stabbed victims to verify death, but that we quite different to [i]knowing[/i] that they did that.


clutch those straws tight,

Joe: they can stab them for a but not for b, stupid really

You have evidence (or a sort) that they stab for a, so you claim we know they stab for b. It is not stupid, it is dishonest.

they could crucifix then bending over their own generates but they can't stab to see if they are dead, brilliant, ridiculous argument,
John chapter 19

32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 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. 36 These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”[c] 37 and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.”[d]


the witness, (John himself?) sees him stab Jesus and asserts they are doing it to make sure he is dead, They could have just as easily really done it to see if he was dead. making sure after all he died far sooner than he should have given the normal course of thatmethod of execution, two days, or more.
Interesting quote fro Bbile.org

"John’s Gospel is truly unique in its portrayal of our Lord’s death. John may have been the only Gospel writer to have been an eye-witness of the crucifixion (see 19:35). John omits much that is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, including:"
Anonymous said…
The claim I question is: "We know from history the Roans did do that" I note that precious little in your comments address that point. Why is that?

Joe: John had no medical understanding of what blood and water meant,so he would not have made it up for any foreseeable reason. ...

Very clearly the point of the verses in John is to show Jesus was dead, so obviously the author was of the view that blood and water did indeed prove Jesus was dead.

Joe: ... There is no problem historically with thinking the solider would stab Jesus to make he was dead. He could have done it to hasten death,we don't have his testimony (the guard's), about why he did it,

It is possible, but you made the claim that "We know from history the Roans did do that". Are you saying that you are revising your position?

Joe: that is just idiotic, its not a far leap to the assumption. We are going by the witness's assumption about why he did it

Nevertheless, it IS a leap. You seem to be admitting that actually we do NOT know from history that the Romans did that.

Joe: no they are not,the are both rooted in the same moment the same man just matter of motivation the motives are close,

The motivation is of the uttermost important. You are claiming that we know from history that the Romans would confirm death by stabbing to the heart. That is simply not true.

Furthermore, the motivation is vital to the narrative in John too.

Joe: I quoited some,the extrapolation from hasten to is he dead is short trip.

No you did not. You quoted a paper with sources unknown that says one thing and are pretending it says another.

Joe: they are peer reviewed they will not publish an arictle by me for example you have to be a medical choral

The papers they collect are presumably peer-reviewed; as far as I know, PubMed itself is not peer-reviewed. If you want to claim PubMed is peer-reviewed, then the onus is on you to prove it.

Either way, the article fails to support your claim.

Joe: no it;snot it;s about Crucifixion in general not merely hastening death, saying they stabbed to hasten death does not preclude stabbing to see if they are dead,

It does not preclude it, but neither does it prove or even support it.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: that is so stupid, one source i read said the guards would often crucify people in humiliating positions, the victim's belonged to the guards, John is grief stricken at the foot of the cross, he sees the guy stab him, why? he asserts to see if he's dead maybe it was to hasten death, who knows who cares? It is extremely ludicrous to think there is this impenetrable line between hastening death and testing to see if dead. you havenoting, chicken shit argument,

It is the author of John who has contrived this impenetrable line between hastening death and testing for dead. The author of John is very explicit that the supposed stabbing was NOT to hasten death. They broke legs to hasten death, but supposedly decided that that was not required in this case. Therefore, if the account is correct, there is no way the stabbing could possibly be to hasten death.

Joe: you are leaping to a conclusion that is nowhere documented.

My conclusion is that there is no historical evidence outside of John that the Romans using stabbing in the heart as a test for death. That conclusion is based on your continued failure to find any such evidence, despite your claims that it is well established.

Joe: they could crucifix then bending over their own generates but they can't stab to see if they are dead, brilliant, ridiculous argument,

I am not saying they never did it, I am saying there is no historical evidence they ever did so (outside John). Do you understand the difference?

Joe: John chapter 19

Read it carefully. The author is at pains to establish that the Romans were not hastening death, but were trying to confirm death - that impenetrable line you object to.

Joe: the witness, (John himself?) sees him stab Jesus and asserts they are doing it to make sure he is dead, They could have just as easily really done it to see if he was dead. making sure after all he died far sooner than he should have given the normal course of thatmethod of execution, two days, or more.

The text is clear. If it is right, the Romans were breaking legs to hasten death. They did something different to Jesus because in his case they were NOT trying to hasten death:

John 19:32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

Joe: Interesting quote fro Bbile.org
"John’s Gospel is truly unique in its portrayal of our Lord’s death. John may have been the only Gospel writer to have been an eye-witness of the crucifixion (see 19:35). John omits much that is recorded in the Synoptic Gospels, including:"


What is your point? Naturally a Christian site takes the text as "gospel". I disagree.

Pix
The motivation is of the uttermost important. You are claiming that we know from history that the Romans would confirm death by stabbing to the heart. That is simply not true.

you are asserting that in absentee of proof show me a historian who says it.
The text is clear. If it is right, the Romans were breaking legs to hasten death. They did something different to Jesus because in his case they were NOT trying to hasten death:

Ut's not fiction. All the eye witness did was to say what he saw. He saw the act and assumed he knew the reason,

you want to parle that into dennying the historical event that is a fallacious way to thinl about a text.
Anonymous said…
Joe: you are asserting that in absentee of proof show me a historian who says it.

Never mind proof, there is nothing to support the claim outside John.

Joe: Ut's not fiction. All the eye witness did was to say what he saw. He saw the act and assumed he knew the reason,

Can you think of ANY plausible reason for the soldiers to stab Jesus in the heart, having been commanded to break the legs of all the prisoners and having done just that for the other two?

I find trying to confirm death pretty unlikely, but there is no other plausible explanation.

Joe: you want to parle that into dennying the historical event that is a fallacious way to thinl about a text.

I want you to support your claim that we "know from history" that the Romans would stab a crucifixion victim to confirm death.

I think by now we can be pretty sure you cannot.

Pix
Joe: you are asserting that in absentee of proof show me a historian who says it.

Never mind proof, there is nothing to support the claim outside John.

Joe: Ut's not fiction. All the eye witness did was to say what he saw. He saw the act and assumed he knew the reason,

Can you think of ANY plausible reason for the soldiers to stab Jesus in the heart, having been commanded to break the legs of all the prisoners and having done just that for the other two?

I find trying to confirm death pretty unlikely, but there is no other plausible explanation.

Joe: you want to parle that into dennying the historical event that is a fallacious way to thinl about a text.

I want you to support your claim that we "know from history" that the Romans would stab a crucifixion victim to confirm death.

I think by now we can be pretty sure you cannot.


I did document that they would stab them to hasten death I said you are being super legalistic and irrational to think they could not also do it to see if they are dead that;s inane if you think that;s a good arguent it;s crazy,
Anonymous said…
Joe: I did document that they would stab them to hasten death I said you are being super legalistic and irrational to think they could not also do it to see if they are dead that;s inane if you think that;s a good arguent it;s crazy,

There are two issues here that you seem keen to conflate and confuse:

1. Did they hasten the death of Jesus by stabbing?

If they wanted to hasten death, then they would have followed their orders and done to Jesus what they did to the other prisoners - break the legs.

The text is very specific that they did not do that.

Are you really claiming that the guards were ordered to break legs to hasten death, so they broke the legs of the other two prisoners, but when it came to Jesus they decided to disobey their orders and instead decided to hasten death by stabbing to the heart? Do you honestly think that makes any sense at all?

2. Do we know they used stabbing to the heart to verify death?

You claimed we know this from history. Now you are saying that it is plausible, given they hastened death this way. Yes, it is plausible, but that is quite different to knowing it is true from history. If you will confirm that you have changed your position, and accept we do NOT "know from history the Roans did do that", we can move on.

Pix
Joe: I did document that they would stab them to hasten death I said you are being super legalistic and irrational to think they could not also do it to see if they are dead that;s inane if you think that;s a good arguent it;s crazy,

There are two issues here that you seem keen to conflate and confuse:

1. Did they hasten the death of Jesus by stabbing?

If they wanted to hasten death, then they would have followed their orders and done to Jesus what they did to the other prisoners - break the legs.


You are making assumptions not in evidence. you are assuming breaking legs was the only prescribed method and that any other method was foreseen,you have no such evidence,


The text is very specific that they did not do that.

bull shit! you have no evidence that they says they were forbidden to check for death by stabbing,

Are you really claiming that the guards were ordered to break legs to hasten death, so they broke the legs of the other two prisoners, but when it came to Jesus they decided to disobey their orders and instead decided to hasten death by stabbing to the heart? Do you honestly think that makes any sense at all?

You are splicing together things I quoited from evidence and assertions of your own,you have no evidence that any order forbade stabbing to check for death,that is stabbing.

2. Do we know they used stabbing to the heart to verify death?

they stabbed the side. He's up above them on the cross so they ran it up real hard it went up into the heart

You claimed we know this from history. Now you are saying that it is plausible, given they hastened death this way. Yes, it is plausible, but that is quite different to knowing it is true from history. If you will confirm that you have changed your position, and accept we do NOT "know from history the Roans did do that", we can move on.

You need to brush upon your reading comprehension you are confused about I said we know from history.I never said we anything about Jesus specific case from history,we know from history the guards were verify death by anyway they needed tol we know they did stab and do other things to them, read the account again:

here is a quote from pub med Clarice and the statement in John:

PM: The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart, sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim.


"32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 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."

this passage tells us:

(1)the witness is interpreting what he saw he;s not necessarily in a position to Know absolutely why they did what they did.

(2) He's assuming they knew Jesus was dead he doesn;t explain why they stabbed him. I assume it was to be sure he was dead,

pub med:

"The attending Roman guards could only leave the site after the victim had died, and were known to precipitate death by means of deliberate fracturing of the tibia and/or fibula, spear stab wounds into the heart sharp blows to the front of the chest, or a smoking fire built at the foot of the cross to asphyxiate the victim."



John
"32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs. 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."


the evangelist probably means to say:


The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was [probably]already dead, they did not break his legs. 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.
Anonymous said…
Joe: You are making assumptions not in evidence. you are assuming breaking legs was the only prescribed method and that any other method was foreseen,you have no such evidence,

I am talking hypothetically about the account in John being true. Breaking legs was the only prescribed method for that specific occasion. That is what the soldiers were told to do, and that is what they did in the other cases.

John 19:31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.

Joe: bull shit! you have no evidence that they says they were forbidden to check for death by stabbing,

And neither am I claiming that. But I guess you need your little victories where you can get them, right?

Joe: You are splicing together things I quoited from evidence and assertions of your own,you have no evidence that any order forbade stabbing to check for death,that is stabbing.

And again, that is not what I am claiming.

You made the claim that "We know from history the Roans did do that." What I am claiming is that we do not know that; that is quite different to claiming we know it did not happen. Can you see the difference.

Joe: they stabbed the side. He's up above them on the cross so they ran it up real hard it went up into the heart

Sorry, yes, stabbed in the side.

Joe: You need to brush upon your reading comprehension you are confused about I said we know from history.I never said we anything about Jesus specific case from history,we know from history the guards were verify death by anyway they needed tol we know they did stab and do other things to them, read the account again:

I know you are not claiming that. But you are claiming that we "know from history" that crucifixion victims were stabbed to verify death. That is a claim you have repeatedly failed to substantiate.

Joe: here is a quote from pub med Clarice and the statement in John:

The PubMed quote says nothing about its sources and nothing about stabbing to verify death so does not help your claim at all.

Joe: this passage tells us:
(1)the witness is interpreting what he saw he;s not necessarily in a position to Know absolutely why they did what they did.


So talk us through. Give a plausible scenario where the soldiers, instructed to break the legs to hasten death, instead chose to hasten death by stabbing for one prisoner, but did as instructed for the other two.

I say it makes no sense. If you think it is reasonable, you will be able to contrive a version of events that makes sense, even if we cannot tell if it is true or not.

Joe: (2) He's assuming they knew Jesus was dead he doesn;t explain why they stabbed him. I assume it was to be sure he was dead,

Actually the author is clear that in his view it was because they believed Jesus was already dead ("But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.").

Pix
Joe: You are making assumptions not in evidence. you are assuming breaking legs was the only prescribed method and that any other method was foreseen,you have no such evidence,

I am talking hypothetically about the account in John being true. Breaking legs was the only prescribed method for that specific occasion. That is what the soldiers were told to do, and that is what they did in the other cases.

sorry, that makes no sense it's the only one he names that does not mean they really had an order "on;y use leg breaking," come off it.

John 19:31 Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jewish leaders did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down. 32 The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.

Joe: bull shit! you have no evidence that they says they were forbidden to check for death by stabbing,

And neither am I claiming that. But I guess you need your little victories where you can get them, right?

if yo are not claiming that why are you arguing? what are you saying?

Joe: You are splicing together things I quoited from evidence and assertions of your own,you have no evidence that any order forbade stabbing to check for death,that is stabbing.

And again, that is not what I am claiming.

???????

You made the claim that "We know from history the Roans did do that." What I am claiming is that we do not know that; that is quite different to claiming we know it did not happen. Can you see the difference.

now who needs a little victory? I had quote that said they hasten death by stabbing you said that means they can;t use it to determine death which is abused and silly

Joe: they stabbed the side. He's up above them on the cross so they ran it up real hard it went up into the heart

Sorry, yes, stabbed in the side.

Joe: You need to brush upon your reading comprehension you are confused about I said we know from history.I never said we anything about Jesus specific case from history,we know from history the guards were verify death by anyway they needed tol we know they did stab and do other things to them, read the account again:

I know you are not claiming that. But you are claiming that we "know from history" that crucifixion victims were stabbed to verify death. That is a claim you have repeatedly failed to substantiate.

No I don;t think that's what i was referring to.

Joe: here is a quote from pub med Clarice and the statement in John:

The PubMed quote says nothing about its sources and nothing about stabbing to verify death so does not help your claim at all.

what it does say allows a logical inference

Joe: this passage tells us:
(1)the witness is interpreting what he saw he;s not necessarily in a position to Know absolutely why they did what they did.

So talk us through. Give a plausible scenario where the soldiers, instructed to break the legs to hasten death, instead chose to hasten death by stabbing for one prisoner, but did as instructed for the other two.

Hey Caligula, I think this guy is dead,We don't need to bother breaking his legs just give him a poke to make sure. You would not break legs to determine death it's overkill.

I say it makes no sense. If you think it is reasonable, you will be able to contrive a version of events that makes sense, even if we cannot tell if it is true or not.

Joe: (2) He's assuming they knew Jesus was dead he doesn;t explain why they stabbed him. I assume it was to be sure he was dead,

Actually the author is clear that in his view it was because they believed Jesus was already dead ("But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.").


but he did not know
Anonymous said…
Joe: sorry, that makes no sense it's the only one he names that does not mean they really had an order "on;y use leg breaking," come off it.

The account in John indicates they were told to break legs. We can ignore that and assume it is nonsense if you want. I feel pretty sure it was made up too.

Joe: bull shit! you have no evidence that they says they were forbidden to check for death by stabbing,

Pix: And neither am I claiming that. But I guess you need your little victories where you can get them, right?

Joe: if yo are not claiming that why are you arguing? what are you saying?

Have you REALLY not got what we are arguing about?

I am NOT saying they were forbidden from checking for death by stabbing.

I am saying we do not "know from history" that they checked crucifixion victims for death by stabbing.

Can you not see the difference?

Joe: now who needs a little victory? I had quote that said they hasten death by stabbing you said that means they can;t use it to determine death which is abused and silly

I have the big victory. You claimed we "know from history" that they checked crucifixion victims for death by stabbing, and at this point it is clear that that is just BS.

Apparently you are too dumb to even know what we are arguing about, let alone realise you have lost, but you surely have lost.

Joe: No I don;t think that's what i was referring to.

So what does "We know from history the Roans did do that" refer to?

And why has it taken you so long to say this? Look at my very first comment. I was quite explicit in what I thought it referred to, and here we are, 28 comments later, and only now you want to say that I was wrong? Looks to me like we have some revisionism going on here.

Joe: what it does say allows a logical inference

Which of course you do not state, because either it would be false or fail to support your original claim.

Pix: So talk us through. Give a plausible scenario where the soldiers, instructed to break the legs to hasten death, instead chose to hasten death by stabbing for one prisoner, but did as instructed for the other two.

Joe: Hey Caligula, I think this guy is dead,We don't need to bother breaking his legs just give him a poke to make sure. You would not break legs to determine death it's overkill.

Fail.

Your scenario is about checking for death. You were claiming they stabbed to hasten death, so I asked for a scenario that includes that.

Joe: but he did not know

Of course not. It is not like any of the disciples were there to see it.

Pix
Anonymous said…
Whoever this Bowen fellow is, he obviously has a laughably bad understanding of history. All of his arguments amount to arguments from silence, as if every Gospel is supposed to give the exact same story. As if the different Gospel authors weren't selective with what material they were using to compose their accounts, or as if the Gospel authors had no practical reasons for not including certain material. And some aren't even true - for example, Luke's Gospel vaguely acknowledges that the apostles and women followers of Jesus had some presence at the crucifixion. Which dovetails nicely with the Beloved Disciple's account of the crucifixion.

-ChristSeeker
Bowen is a regular on Secular outpost, he has a background in Philosophy and has done graduate work. But U think he;s very pompous and not a deep thinker. He's a former evangelical turned atheist so he's very critical of everything, needlessly so.
welcome to the blot by the way,
Anonymous said…
I would log into my actual account, but I've had trouble with blogger recently. I don't like posting anonymously, but thanks for the welcome.

Does Bowen ever interact with actual Christian scholarship like Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?

-ChristSeeker
Does Bowen ever interact with actual Christian scholarship like Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses?

Yes but he doesn't take on those I consider to be top level,he only deals with top level evangelicals such as Kreft,

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