Sunday, September 08, 2019

My Answer to Bradley Bowen on Blood and Water

Image result for taking Jesus body down from the cross





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 water] now 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 things 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


49 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]

The Pixie said...

If your argument is that there is a trend towards John being more historical, are you claiming a significant number of scholars now think it is 100% true? If not, then are some parts more likely to be true than others?

The usual position among scholars with regards to the Easter story is that there was a pre-Markam passion narrative that Mark used, and Luke and Mathew were in turn based on Mark.
Bauckham's book seems to argue against that position. Do you think Bauckman is right, and that Matthew, for example, was written by the disciple of that name, an eye witness account? Was Luke an eye witness?

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

I am curious what that is based on. My understanding is that they usually left the victim on the cross, and it was pretty obvious the rotten body was dead.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

If your argument is that there is a trend towards John being more historical, are you claiming a significant number of scholars now think it is 100% true? If not, then are some parts more likely to be true than others?

why should anything produced by the hand of man ever be 100% true? The question is can we trust the account when it says blood and a clear liquid poured from his side.I say we have no reason not to. They did not know the importance of that as diagnostic postmortum evidence. so why would they make it up?

The usual position among scholars with regards to the Easter story is that there was a pre-Markam passion narrative that Mark used, and Luke and Mathew were in turn based on Mark.


Bauckham's book seems to argue against that position. Do you think Bauckman is right, and that Matthew, for example, was written by the disciple of that name, an eye witness account? Was Luke an eye witness?

Buckham does not say 100% right most real scholars woudl never say that. It is a trend among scholars now to accept it as historically credible.

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

I am curious what that is based on. My understanding is that they usually left the victim on the cross, and it was pretty obvious the rotten body was dead.

the issue is would they TAKE the body down on the eve of a holy day? Ir before Nightfall to prevent profaning the day. we have percipient on that from from Josehus. He himself got friends off cross on that basis.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

That was based upon dealing with the Jews, Not all crucifixions where in Palestine. But in dealing with Jews they wanted to avoid making religion an issue, they did in general try to cooperate with the religions of those they conquered.

The Pixie said...

Joe: why should anything produced by the hand of man ever be 100% true? The question is can we trust the account when it says blood and a clear liquid poured from his side.I say we have no reason not to.

So we agree that it is uncertain if the account is accurate in this particular aspect. It may have happened, and it may not. We have no way to know either way. Agreed?

Joe: They did not know the importance of that as diagnostic postmortum evidence. so why would they make it up?

Why did the Romans pierce Jesus with the spear? The whole point was to determine death; it was precisely for diagnostic postmortem evidence. Are you saying that they did not know what they were looking for? Of course they did! That is why they did it.

And that gives good reason for an early Christian to make it up. He knew what the Roman's looked for, so claimed that that was what they found.

Joe: Buckham does not say 100% right most real scholars woudl never say that.

I asked if you agree with Bauckman that the authors of Matthew and Luke were eye witnesses to the resurrection. Try answering that question.

Joe: It is a trend among scholars now to accept it as historically credible.

Meaning what exactly? The whole of John is true? Or certain bits of it might be true? This is so vague it is meaningless.

Joe: the issue is would they TAKE the body down on the eve of a holy day? Ir before Nightfall to prevent profaning the day.

Wrong. The issue is whether the Romans pierced Jesus with a spear to determine if he was dead.

Joe: we have percipient on that from from Josehus. He himself got friends off cross on that basis.

Again wrong. He asked for clemency; his friends were taken down with the hope of saving them, quite the opposite of Jesus, whom you are claiming they verified was dead before taking down.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The Pixie said...
Joe: why should anything produced by the hand of man ever be 100% true? The question is can we trust the account when it says blood and a clear liquid poured from his side.I say we have no reason not to.

So we agree that it is uncertain if the account is accurate in this particular aspect. It may have happened, and it may not. We have no way to know either way. Agreed?

The Status quo has presumption Bowen's argument does not have presumption. He must overturn presumption of the Status quo. The Swoon theory assumes the written accounts of the revivification so he is not free to deny the whole of John THEN ASSERT Jesus swooned, he does nothing to over turn presumption

Joe: They did not know the importance of that as diagnostic postmortum evidence. so why would they make it up?

Why did the Romans pierce Jesus with the spear? The whole point was to determine death; it was precisely for diagnostic postmortem evidence. Are you saying that they did not know what they were looking for? Of course they did! That is why they did it.

You are trying to equate the reaction of a living man who was stabbed in the sided with a spear and the clear liquid from the wound. Those are not the same thing. They knew the Romans would poke him to see if he lived, they did not know the clear liquid proved he was dead and that set up the resurrection, no way they knew that,


And that gives good reason for an early Christian to make it up. He knew what the Roman's looked for, so claimed that that was what they found.

you are not thinking about the liquid,why would they say that? not all dead people bleed clear liquid what reason would they have? they did not need that for any reason,

Joe: Buckham does not say 100% right most real scholars wou;d never say that.

I asked if you agree with Bauckman that the authors of Matthew and Luke were eye witnesses to the resurrection. Try answering that question.

I don't if he says that.He says and proves that John was full of eye witnesses, no one thin 's Lie was a witness the bible never claims he was, Matthew was,I am sure both continuities had witnesses among then, my thesis is that the county itself was the author,here:

https://religiousapriorijesus-bible.blogspot.com/2018/12/community-as-author-part-1.html


Joe: It is a trend among scholars now to accept it as historically credible.

Meaning what exactly? The whole of John is true? Or certain bits of it might be true? This is so vague it is meaningless.

the book has historical credibility that doesn't mean everything is 100% true you have to go case by case; if you think soemthing is not you must show why,

Joe: the issue is would they TAKE the body down on the eve of a holy day? Ir before Nightfall to prevent profaning the day.

Wrong. The issue is whether the Romans pierced Jesus with a spear to determine if he was dead.

No, we know they did that's the way they did it,

Joe: we have percipient on that from from Josehus. He himself got friends off cross on that basis.

Again wrong. He asked for clemency; his friends were taken down with the hope of saving them, quite the opposite of Jesus, whom you are claiming they verified was dead before taking down.

No he he did not go them and say "Please take them down for competency":it was predicated upon the encroaching sun set,been a long time but I think think I recall it

8:08 AM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

you are right Px now that you mention it, Jo got them drown because he had contacts with the commander, but I was thinking of Brown in Death of Messiah says the Romans would have respected the holy day

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

evidence Romans would respect the day

The Conflict between Roman and Jewish practices is phrased thus by S. Liberman: "The Roman practice of depriving executed criminals of the rite of burial and exposing their corps to the cross for many days... horrified the Jews." In the first Jewish revolt the Idumeans cast out corpses without burial. Commenting with disgust on this Josephus states: "the Jews are so careful about funeral rites that even those who are crucified because they were guilty are taken down and buried before sunset." [Ibid. and Josephus in War 44.5.2 #317]

Brown on burial of Jesus


"An innocent or nobel Jew might be crucified for something that did not come under the law of God, or indeed for keeping the divine law. We find this issue raised in Talbad Sanhedirin 47a-47b when Abey complians 'would you compare those slain by a [Gentile] govenrment to those slian by the Beth Din? the former, since their death is not in accordence with Jewish law obtain forgvieness...'Such a distinction had to have been made earlier or there could have been no tradition of an honorable burial for the Macabean martyrs. Thus we cannot discount the possibility of an honorable first burial for one crucified by the Romans....Yet would the tendency be to give Jesus an honorable or dishonorable burial? According to Mark/Mat the Sanhedirin found him worthy of death on the charge of blasphemy, and Josephus would have had the blasphemer stoned or hung...on the other hand Jesus was executed by the Romans not for blasphemy but on the charge of being the King of the Jews...."[Brown 1210-1211]

The Pixie said...

Joe: The Status quo has presumption Bowen's argument does not have presumption. He must overturn presumption of the Status quo. ...

That is BS. If you are claiming John's account disproves the swoon, you have to show John's account must be accurate in this regard. You do not get to say that most scholars think John is mostly true, and therefore the spear definitely pierced Jesus.

Joe: .... The Swoon theory assumes the written accounts of the revivification so he is not free to deny the whole of John THEN ASSERT Jesus swooned, he does nothing to over turn presumption

Why not? It is almost certain that the accounts are embellished (the appearances in Jerusalem, the guards on the tomb, dead saints walking around, etc. are clear examples), but it seems likely at core there is some truth - that Jesus actually was crucified. The job of the historian is to divide the claims between fact and fantasy.

Joe: You are trying to equate the reaction of a living man who was stabbed in the sided with a spear and the clear liquid from the wound. Those are not the same thing. They knew the Romans would poke him to see if he lived, they did not know the clear liquid proved he was dead and that set up the resurrection, no way they knew that,

The Romans were experts at crucifixion. I think they knew what to look for to see if a victim was dead - if this was something they ever did. Is there any evidence this was a standards procedure?

Joe: I don't if he says that.He says and proves that John was full of eye witnesses, no one thin 's Lie was a witness the bible never claims he was, Matthew was,I am sure both continuities had witnesses among then, my thesis is that the county itself was the author,here:

That there were multiple authors/redactors of John is pretty well established. What is his evidence that they were eye witnesses?

If this is based on oral traditions, how do we tell what was an oral tradition based on what really happened and what was based on wishful thinking?

I would imagine the author of Matthew did not make up the guards on the tomb or the dead saints getting out of their tombs. These events were made up by the community earlier, and the author, or compiler, put all the accounts together into a new gospel.

Joe: the book has historical credibility that doesn't mean everything is 100% true you have to go case by case; if you think soemthing is not you must show why,

Exactly. If you are claiming the spear was definitely historical then you have to show that that particular account is true. Saying John has historical credibility - as you admit - does not do that.

Joe: No, we know they did that's the way they did it,

How? Where is the evidence? How much of it comes back to "We know they did it because that is what it says in John"?

Joe: you are right Px now that you mention it, Jo got them drown because he had contacts with the commander, but I was thinking of Brown in Death of Messiah says the Romans would have respected the holy day

Okay. I agree it is likely Jesus was taken down.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: The Status quo has presumption Bowen's argument does not have presumption. He must overturn presumption of the Status quo. ...

That is BS. If you are claiming John's account disproves the swoon, you have to show John's account must be accurate in this regard. You do not get to say that most scholars think John is mostly true, and therefore the spear definitely pierced Jesus.

wrong. Bowen's defense of swoon theory is not Status quo. The SQ is the understanding Jesus died on the cross. That's what historians believe.That is what Bowen seeks to change,he has the burden of proof. No the swoon theory assumes the docents about Jesus' death were actuate observations otherwise they have no basis for the theory. When their theory is put in doubt then they question the basis of the documents.



Joe: .... The Swoon theory assumes the written accounts of the revivification so he is not free to deny the whole of John THEN ASSERT Jesus swooned, he does nothing to over turn presumption

Why not? It is almost certain that the accounts are embellished (the appearances in Jerusalem, the guards on the tomb, dead saints walking around, etc. are clear examples), but it seems likely at core there is some truth - that Jesus actually was crucified. The job of the historian is to divide the claims between fact and fantasy.

why is it only the things that put anti christian in doubt? You can't doubt that Jesus died early that would eliminate the reason for the swoon theory. why would they makeup the clear liquid when it would have no meaning for them?

Joe: You are trying to equate the reaction of a living man who was stabbed in the sided with a spear and the clear liquid from the wound. Those are not the same thing. They knew the Romans would poke him to see if he lived, they did not know the clear liquid proved he was dead and that set up the resurrection, no way they knew that,

The Romans were experts at crucifixion. I think they knew what to look for to see if a victim was dead - if this was something they ever did. Is there any evidence this was a standards procedure?

yes but it would be really stupid to think they made it up. you admit they are experts does it make sense they would not check to see if he;s dead?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: I don't if he says that.He says and proves that John was full of eye witnesses, no one thin 's Lie was a witness the bible never claims he was, Matthew was,I am sure both continuities had witnesses among then, my thesis is that the county itself was the author,here:

That there were multiple authors/redactors of John is pretty well established. What is his evidence that they were eye witnesses?

Backham's book is big and think the whole thing is about that,It;s too comoplicated to go into read the book.



If this is based on oral traditions, how do we tell what was an oral tradition based on what really happened and what was based on wishful thinking?

Oral tradition never meat wild rumors or playing the whisper game, they memorized the sayings and told them in orderly way before the whole group so the older ones could correct mistakes. They could pass a factual tradition straight, But John was underpinned eye witness is not a big stretch to think the account at the cross was eye witness.

I would imagine the author of Matthew did not make up the guards on the tomb or the dead saints getting out of their tombs. These events were made up by the community earlier, and the author, or compiler, put all the accounts together into a new gospel.

Guards are corroborated by Gpet. You are committing the itinerant fallacy one mistake means whole thing is untrustworthy

Joe: the book has historical credibility that doesn't mean everything is 100% true you have to go case by case; if you think soemthing is not you must show why,

Exactly. If you are claiming the spear was definitely historical then you have to show that that particular account is true. Saying John has historical credibility - as you admit - does not do that.

you are distorting what I said you don;t have to prove each and every statement is true by corroborating with other sources,You just have to show they had no reason to make it up

Joe: No, we know they did that's the way they did it,

How? Where is the evidence? How much of it comes back to "We know they did it because that is what it says in John"?

why is it such a big stretch for you to think they would poke someone to see if he lives?

Joe: you are right Px now that you mention it, Jo got them drown because he had contacts with the commander, but I was thinking of Brown in Death of Messiah says the Romans would have respected the holy day

Okay. I agree it is likely Jesus was taken down.

why is it not Lille they poked him with a spear? they would need a way to check if he was alive before taking him down; more practical than climbing up to listen to breathing,

12:04

The Pixie said...

Joe: wrong. Bowen's defense of swoon theory is not Status quo. The SQ is the understanding Jesus died on the cross. That's what historians believe.That is what Bowen seeks to change,he has the burden of proof. No the swoon theory assumes the docents about Jesus' death were actuate observations otherwise they have no basis for the theory. When their theory is put in doubt then they question the basis of the documents.

It depends on if Bowen is saying the swoon theory is definitely what happened or is plausibly what happened. If the latter, he is in the clear. It is is plausible the status quo is wrong.

Joe: why is it only the things that put anti christian in doubt? You can't doubt that Jesus died early that would eliminate the reason for the swoon theory. why would they makeup the clear liquid when it would have no meaning for them?

They possibly made up the spear to counter claims Jesus was not dead. They did not want Jesus' legs broken because he was supposed to be the perfect sacrifice, and so had to be unblemished, as required by OT law. They needed some other "evidence" so made up the spear.

We KNOW they got these things from scripture:

John 19:36 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]

Joe: yes but it would be really stupid to think they made it up. you admit they are experts does it make sense they would not check to see if he;s dead?

What would make most sense is for the Roman soldiers to follow the command they were given and to break his legs, whether he was dead or alive.

Joe: Oral tradition never meat wild rumors or playing the whisper game, they memorized the sayings and told them in orderly way before the whole group so the older ones could correct mistakes. They could pass a factual tradition straight, But John was underpinned eye witness is not a big stretch to think the account at the cross was eye witness.

It is certainly possible there was an eye witness, though the other gospels suggest only the women were around. It is also possible this was made up from wishful thinking and scripture.

Joe: Guards are corroborated by Gpet. You are committing the itinerant fallacy one mistake means whole thing is untrustworthy

We have been over this so many times. You need to re-read Brown. He clearly states the Gospel of Peter was written by an author familiar with Matthew, but without access to it when he was writing.

Joe: you are distorting what I said you don;t have to prove each and every statement is true by corroborating with other sources,You just have to show they had no reason to make it up

Are you saying that Jesus was definitely dead? If so, then yes, you have to prove each statement. If you are merely claiming it is plausible that Jesus was dead, then you are fine.

Joe: why is it such a big stretch for you to think they would poke someone to see if he lives?

Because according to the account they were specifically ordered to break his legs. I find it hard to believe a Roman soldier would disobey such a command in a situation where we know they were not certain Jesus was dead.

Joe: why is it not Lille they poked him with a spear? they would need a way to check if he was alive before taking him down; more practical than climbing up to listen to breathing,

Or they could follow orders and break his legs. Like they supposedly did with the other two guys.

If they were commanded to break the legs of the three prisoners, the only plausible outcome is that they broke the legs of the three prisoners, not caring whether one was dead already or not.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Blogger The Pixie said...
Joe: wrong. Bowen's defense of swoon theory is not Status quo. The SQ is the understanding Jesus died on the cross. That's what historians believe.That is what Bowen seeks to change,he has the burden of proof. No the swoon theory assumes the docents about Jesus' death were actuate observations otherwise they have no basis for the theory. When their theory is put in doubt then they question the basis of the documents.

It depends on if Bowen is saying the swoon theory is definitely what happened or is plausibly what happened. If the latter, he is in the clear. It is is plausible the status quo is wrong.

No you just told me you don't know what status quo means,you don't understand the basis of debate theory. Of course SQ could be wrong that's not the issue. The issue is presumption. What do we presume? In a dispute the way things are has to be presumed right and the one seeking change is under the burden to prove his case.

Joe: why is it only the things that put anti christian in doubt? You can't doubt that Jesus died early that would eliminate the reason for the swoon theory. why would they makeup the clear liquid when it would have no meaning for them?

They possibly made up the spear to counter claims Jesus was not dead.

there were no such claims. There is no trace of any kind of claim like that in history until modern times. If you understood even a small part of what Crucifixion victims went through you would know how stupid that is Plus he had 3 sets of people handling the body so one of them surely would have noticed him breathing

They did not want Jesus' legs broken because he was supposed to be the perfect sacrifice, and so had to be unblemished, as required by OT law. They needed some other "evidence" so made up the spear.

that is conjecture you have to prove the Johanine comuniuty saw it that way.


We KNOW they got these things from scripture:

John 19:36 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]


not proof they made it up there are thousands of verses they could interpret it through. If other things had happened they would find another set of passages to filter it thorough

Joe: yes but it would be really stupid to think they made it up. you admit they are experts does it make sense they would not check to see if he;s dead?

What would make most sense is for the Roman soldiers to follow the command they were given and to break his legs, whether he was dead or alive.


You don't know what command they were given, but their commander was not a fool why would he command them to waste time breaking legs of the dead when the precise of breaking legs was to hasten death? they already dead see?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: Oral tradition never meant wild rumors or playing the whisper game, they memorized the sayings and told them in orderly way before the whole group so the older ones could correct mistakes. They could pass a factual tradition straight, But John was underpinned eye witness is not a big stretch to think the account at the cross was eye witness.

PXIt is certainly possible there was an eye witness, though the other gospels suggest only the women were around. It is also possible this was made up from wishful thinking and scripture.

No the others don;t say only the women were at the cross


Joe: Guards are corroborated by Gpet. You are committing the itinerant fallacy one mistake means whole thing is untrustworthy

We have been over this so many times. You need to re-read Brown. He clearly states the Gospel of Peter was written by an author familiar with Matthew, but without access to it when he was writing.

He clearly says that GPet follows an older source that did not rely on Matthew he clearly makes the point not rely on Matt,
\Brown:
"I shall contend that the author of Gospel of Peter drew not only on Matthew but on an independent form of the guard-at-the-sepulcher story, and in GPet 8:28-11:49 the basic story is still found consecutively (even if the details in the story are modified by later developments.)" --Raymond Brown, "The Death of the Messiah", p. 1287



Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: you are distorting what I said you don;t have to prove each and every statement is true by corroborating with other sources,You just have to show they had no reason to make it up

PxAre you saying that Jesus was definitely dead? If so, then yes, you have to prove each statement. If you are merely claiming it is plausible that Jesus was dead, then you are fine.

medical fact the clear liquid is post mortum evidence,so that proves he's dead.if one accepts that reading then he had to be dead.

Joe: why is it such a big stretch for you to think they would poke someone to see if he lives?

Because according to the account they were specifically ordered to break his legs. I find it hard to believe a Roman soldier would disobey such a command in a situation where we know they were not certain Jesus was dead.

John 19:31-35 1 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. 33 But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.

it says nothing about what they were actually ordered to do, the purpose of breaking legs was to hasen death. are reading this? no poimt in breaking the legs of dead man they wanted them dead to get them off so they could have the holy day

Joe: why is it not Lille they poked him with a spear? they would need a way to check if he was alive before taking him down; more practical than climbing up to listen to breathing,

Or they could follow orders and break his legs. Like they supposedly did with the other two guys.

not if he was dead no point in it

If they were commanded to break the legs


it does not say that how do you know they wren;t ordred "break the legs of those still alive.

of the three prisoners, the only plausible outcome is that they broke the legs of the three prisoners, not caring whether one was dead already or not.

come on an use your brain,they might have had a hundred people to crucify in a day, or 50 that;s a lot of work why break their legs they are dead? just more work for nothing. they could still poke the with a spread if his legs were broken

8:05 AM Delete

The Pixie said...

Joe: No you just told me you don't know what status quo means,you don't understand the basis of debate theory. Of course SQ could be wrong that's not the issue. The issue is presumption. What do we presume? In a dispute the way things are has to be presumed right and the one seeking change is under the burden to prove his case.

It is quite simple Joe. If you are claiming your theory is true, then you have to prove it is true. If you are merely claiming it is plausible, then you only have to claim it is plausible.

If you are saying the spear in the side was definitely a historical event, then the onus is on you to prove that. If scholarship accepts it as fact, then fair enough. However, you do not get to say most scholars think John is largely historical, therefore the spear in the side is fact. You need to show that scholars across the religious spectrum believe that that specific incident is fact.

Conversely, if Bowen is said it never happened, then the onus is on him to prove that.

However, if either of you are merely claiming your theory is plausible, then all you need to do is show that this is not decided either way.

Joe: there were no such claims. There is no trace of any kind of claim like that in history until modern times.

That could be because Christianity chose not to preserve them. We know there were claims the disciple stole the body from Matthew, but I very much doubt there are any other records.

Indeed, it looks to me like this verse is very much there to counter objections:

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: If you understood even a small part of what Crucifixion victims went through you would know how stupid that is Plus he had 3 sets of people handling the body so one of them surely would have noticed him breathing

Sure, seems pretty unlikely Jesus was alive. I have already said I reject the swoon theory. But that does not make the spear historical.

Joe: not proof they made it up there are thousands of verses they could interpret it through. If other things had happened they would find another set of passages to filter it thorough

No, it is not proof, but it makes it plausible. More plausible than Roman soldiers disobeying a command.

Joe: You don't know what command they were given, but their commander was not a fool why would he command them to waste time breaking legs of the dead when the precise of breaking legs was to hasten death? they already dead see?

Sounds fair.... Except they did not know for sure that Jesus was dead. They supposedly had to test the body to confirm it.

Which is easiest for the commander:

- Tell the soldiers to break the legs of the prisoners and get them down

- Tell the soldiers to inspect each prisoner, and if the prisoner is definitely alive, break his legs and get him down, if not then poke a spear in his side, and if water and blood both come out just get the body down, otherwise break his legs and then get the body down

How long do you think it takes a Roman soldier to break a guy's legs?

Joe: No the others don;t say only the women were at the cross

Mark 14 indicates the disciple fled as soon as Jesus was arrested, and there is nothing in the synoptics to suggest any saw the crucifixion.

Joe: medical fact the clear liquid is post mortum evidence,so that proves he's dead.if one accepts that reading then he had to be dead.

Big "if" there. It only proves it once you prove the account in John to be definitely true.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

hey Pix sorry about that crack "use your brain didn't mean anything by it, wasn't using my brain then,


Joe: No you just told me you don't know what status quo means,you don't understand the basis of debate theory. Of course SQ could be wrong that's not the issue. The issue is presumption. What do we presume? In a dispute the way things are has to be presumed right and the one seeking change is under the burden to prove his case.

Px:It is quite simple Joe. If you are claiming your theory is true, then you have to prove it is true. If you are merely claiming it is plausible, then you only have to claim it is plausible.

Yes but: the idiot Bowen advanced the theory I am attaking it


Px:If you are saying the spear in the side was definitely a historical event, then the onus is on you to prove that. If scholarship accepts it as fact, then fair enough. However, you do not get to say most scholars think John is largely historical, therefore the spear in the side is fact. You need to show that scholars across the religious spectrum believe that that specific incident is fact.

No the swoon theory has to assume the basic historicity of the Gospels because it based upon them. Then I have demonstrate that John has new found respect as historical.



PX:Conversely, if Bowen is said it never happened, then the onus is on him to prove that.

He has to assume it happened. without that there' no swoon


However, if either of you are merely claiming your theory is plausible, then all you need to do is show that this is not decided either way.

that's what I jsut did do: the clear liquid is post mortum evidence

Joe: there were no such claims. There is no trace of any kind of claim like that in history until modern times.

That could be because Christianity chose not to preserve them. We know there were claims the disciple stole the body from Matthew, but I very much doubt there are any other records.

that's not the way historical evidence works you don't get to assume evidence is there because the people oppose might have covered it up.



Indeed, it looks to me like this verse is very much there to counter objections:

since you have no expertise and are certainly self interested in the matter they way it looks to you is unimportant,


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

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 If you understood even a small part of what Crucifixion victims went through you would know how stupid that is Plus he had 3 sets of people handling the body so one of them surely would have noticed him breathing

PxSure, seems pretty unlikely Jesus was alive. I have already said I reject the swoon theory. But that does not make the spear historical.

It doesn't have to be historical to be an obstruction to the swoon theory, It just has to be plausible. There is no good reason to doubt it,there is historical president to think it's true

Joe not proof they made it up there are thousands of verses they could interpret it through. If other things had happened they would find another set of passages to filter it thorough

PxNo, it is not proof, but it makes it plausible. More plausible than Roman soldiers disobeying a command.

how do you know what the command was Pix? how do you know it didn;t say find out who is still living then break their legs?


Joe You don't know what command they were given, but their commander was not a fool why would he command them to waste time breaking legs of the dead when the precise of breaking legs was to hasten death? they already dead see?

pxSounds fair.... Except they did not know for sure that Jesus was dead. They supposedly had to test the body to confirm it.

Which is easiest for the commander:

- Tell the soldiers to break the legs of the prisoners and get them down

- Tell the soldiers to inspect each prisoner,
stick them with a spear

and if the prisoner is definitely alive, break his legs and get him down, if not then poke a spear in his side, and if water and blood both come out just get the body down, otherwise break his legs and then get the body down

Crucifixion victims had to continually bob up and down to breath, those who stopped bobbing could be assumed dead.

How long do you think it takes a Roman soldier to break a guy's legs?

Joe : No the others don;t say only the women were at the cross

Mark 14 indicates the disciple fled as soon as Jesus was arrested, and there is nothing in the synoptics to suggest any saw the crucifixion.

that is limited to the people in that community. they didn;t know the BD so they didn't notice him there.


medical fact the clear liquid is post mortum evidence,so that proves he's dead.if one accepts that reading then he had to be dead.

pxBig "if" there. It only proves it once you prove the account in John to be definitely true.

not at all it's totally plausible since we know Romans did stick them

1:03 AM Delete

The Pixie said...

Joe: No the swoon theory has to assume the basic historicity of the Gospels because it based upon them.

Sure, but it seems far more likely that the events in Mark are historical than John, and anything in John and that is not in Mark never happened.

Joe: Then I have demonstrate that John has new found respect as historical.

Is it the whole gospel that is now considered historical, or just some bits (such as the dialogues)?

Where did you demonstrate this new respect? I only recall you asserting it and citing Bauckham. One Christian scholar is hardly a trend.

Joe: that's what I jsut did do: the clear liquid is post mortum evidence

Only if it actually happened.

Joe: that's not the way historical evidence works you don't get to assume evidence is there because the people oppose might have covered it up.

Nevertheless, it is possible. John 19:35 shows this was apologetically important; it fits the pattern we see with the guards, where again there is no historical evidence besides what we read in the gospel.

The Pixie said...

Joe: It doesn't have to be historical to be an obstruction to the swoon theory, It just has to be plausible. There is no good reason to doubt it,there is historical president to think it's true

It has to be historical in the sense that if it did not happen, then it is no obstruction to the swoon theory.

If it is plausible, then it is plausible the swoon theory is false.

Joe: ...there is historical president to think it's true

Well, there is an article in a Catholic journal that asserts it is true without any evidence.

Joe: how do you know what the command was Pix? how do you know it didn;t say find out who is still living then break their legs?

We do not know, but the text certainly suggests they were instructed to break their legs and take them down. That is the most likely outcome, if the text is right. It is plausible they were instructed otherwise, just as it is plausible the whole spear incident was made up later.

Joe: stick them with a spear

But what they actually had to do, if John is right, is inspect each prisoner, and if the prisoner is definitely alive, break his legs and get him down, if not then poke a spear in his side, and if water and blood both come out just get the body down, otherwise break his legs and then get the body down.

You want to pretend it was just "stick them with a spear", but that was not the case, and if your argument is based on such shenanigans, then you already klnow you have lost.

Joe: Crucifixion victims had to continually bob up and down to breath, those who stopped bobbing could be assumed dead.

So why stick a spear in him? The truth is that - according to John - they were not sure if he was dead or not. Again, you are obliged to pretend the situation is different. Why does this not make you reconsider if you have it wrong?

Joe: that is limited to the people in that community. they didn;t know the BD so they didn't notice him there.

You seem to imagine the author of Mark (or the earlier text anyway) was there, taking notes; he knew the women, so noted they were there, but did not know this other disciple, so he is absent from the account).

The reality is very different. There was no one there taking notes. The original text was the accumulation of all they knew of the events, gathered over perhaps decades. This unknown disciple apparently remained unknown for some forty years, when Mark was written, and only later revealed that actually he had been their to witness Jesus die when he wrote his own gospel.

Joe: not at all it's totally plausible since we know Romans did stick them

We do not know that at all. All you have to support the claim is a Catholic journal that makes the unfounded assertion.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

The Pixie said...
Joe: No the swoon theory has to assume the basic historicity of the Gospels because it based upon them.

Px:Sure, but it seems far more likely that the events in Mark are historical than John, and anything in John and that is not in Mark never happened.

that statement has no basis in fact "but it seems..."



Joe: Then I have demonstrate that John has new found respect as historical.

Px:Is it the whole gospel that is now considered historical, or just some bits (such as the dialogues)?

Joe: O good God. do you really think think scholars go "now how much of this book do I believe? what percentage of this is historical?

PX: Where did you demonstrate this new respect? I only recall you asserting it and citing Bauckham. One Christian scholar is hardly a trend.


from the paper:"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." '
notes 6-8


[6]Ben Witherington III, book review: "Jesus and The Eyewitnesses," Bible History Daily, published by the Biblical Archaeological society. (December 31, 2011)
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/jesus-and-the-eyewitnesses/

[7] KERMIT ZARLEY, "the Historical Reliability of the Gospel of John" Kermit Zarley blog (Oct 8, 2018)
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/2018/10/historical-reliability-johns-gospel/

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





Joe: that's what I jsut did do: the clear liquid is post mortum evidence

PXL Only if it actually happened.

why would hem make it up when it had no meaning? I said that about 10 times now you have no answer,

Joe: that's not the way historical evidence works you don't get to assume evidence is there because the people oppose might have covered it up.

Nevertheless, it is possible. John 19:35 shows this was apologetically important; it fits the pattern we see with the guards, where again there is no historical evidence besides what we read in the gospel.

screwball thinking, you have no evidence so you assert there's a lot of evidence but it;s covered up,why should we assume there is any?you don;thae any,

they could not have known that clear liquid was post mortum, they didn't know about the circulatory system, who would they have answered? there was no indication anyone ever questioned Jesus' death.


A:there is a lot of evidence for X but we don't see it because it's covered up, but it's there so it proves stuff,

B:How do you know it's there if it;s covers up?

A:well it has to be because it reminds me of this other case

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: It doesn't have to be historical to be an obstruction to the swoon theory, It just has to be plausible. There is no good reason to doubt it,there is historical president to think it's true

Px:It has to be historical in the sense that if it did not happen, then it is no obstruction to the swoon theory.

Except that there's no evidence for it,


If it is plausible, then it is plausible the swoon theory is false.

Joe: ...there is historical president to think it's true

PX: Well, there is an article in a Catholic journal that asserts it is true without any evidence.

so?:


Joe: how do you know what the command was Pix? how do you know it didn;t say find out who is still living then break their legs?

PX We do not know, but the text certainly suggests they were instructed to break their legs and take them down.

that would be stupid, it makes no sense, break their legs to make them die sooner so be sure and break the legs of the dead, what?

That is the most likely outcome, if the text is right. It is plausible they were instructed otherwise, just as it is plausible the whole spear incident was made up later.

You can;t use that to support an argument

Joe: stick them with a spear

But what they actually had to do, if John is right, is inspect each prisoner, and if the prisoner is definitely alive, break his legs and get him down, if not then poke a spear in his side, and if water and blood both come out just get the body down, otherwise break his legs and then get the body down.


if nit what> they poke then to make sure they are dead. Crucifixion victims had to move up and down to breath. He;s not moving up and down he;s probably dead,so Jesus was dead do they stick them just to be sure.It's obvious, You are so obstinate about accepting the obvious it seems really suspicious.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

PxYou want to pretend it was just "stick them with a spear", but that was not the case, and if your argument is based on such shenanigans, then you already klnow you have lost.

Christianity cant be true because I refuse to believe it,

Joe: Crucifixion victims had to continually bob up and down to breath, those who stopped bobbing could be assumed dead.

So why stick a spear in him? The truth is that - according to John - they were not sure if he was dead or not. Again, you are obliged to pretend the situation is different. Why does this not make you reconsider if you have it wrong?

why are you denying the obvious? it not only logical it;s just obvious they would do one final check to be sure, whats so hard about that? Christianity can't be because I don't want it

Joe: that is limited to the people in that community. they didn;t know the BD so they didn't notice him there.

PxYou seem to imagine the author of Mark (or the earlier text anyway) was there, taking notes; he knew the women, so noted they were there, but did not know this other disciple, so he is absent from the account).

I can't imagine what i said to suggest that. We have no real evidence other than the word of Papias that Mark wrote Mark, We have no idea where John Mark was on that day. I get it. Fear that Christina might be true leads you to reject all truth about it,


PXThe reality is very different. There was no one there taking notes. The original text was the accumulation of all they knew of the events, gathered over perhaps decades. This unknown disciple apparently remained unknown for some forty years, when Mark was written, and only later revealed that actually he had been their to witness Jesus die when he wrote his own gospel.

fear and desperation leads you to trust your imagination, you made all that up with no basis but the need to deny truth,

Joe: not at all it's totally plausible since we know Romans did stick them

We do not know that at all. All you have to support the claim is a Catholic journal that makes the unfounded assertion.

that quote does not come from the Catholic Journal. that's just trying to hedge your bets antagonism evidence that disprove your case by biasing the sources, swoon theory is by biased God haters

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

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

S Afr Med J. 2003 Dec;93(12):938-41.
The history and pathology of crucifixion.
Retief FP1, Cilliers L.

“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.”

The Pixie said...

Joe: O good God. do you really think think scholars go "now how much of this book do I believe? what percentage of this is historical?

I would guess they examine each account and try to determine how historical that particular account is.

Joe: from the paper:"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]

Okay, but what does "historically reliable" mean? Are they claiming it is 100% reliable? Are they talking specifically about the dialogues? What exactly is their position on the spear piercing?

Joe: why would hem make it up when it had no meaning? I said that about 10 times now you have no answer,

Why do you claim it had no meaning? What do you think the soldiers were looking for to confirm death?

Joe: screwball thinking, you have no evidence so you assert there's a lot of evidence but it;s covered up,why should we assume there is any?you don;thae any,

All I am saying is that it is possible. What we have today is what we would expect to have if the hypothesis is true, i.e., nothing in the records.

Joe: they could not have known that clear liquid was post mortum, they didn't know about the circulatory system, who would they have answered?

So what were the soldiers hoping to achieve by prodding Jesus with a spear?

Joe: there was no indication anyone ever questioned Jesus' death.

There is no evidence either way - except John 19:35, which tells us the author felt it important to make a big deal about this point.

Joe: so?:

So the only evidence you have is a recent religious publication asserting it is so.

Joe: that would be stupid, it makes no sense, break their legs to make them die sooner so be sure and break the legs of the dead, what?

From the text, I would expect the command to be: Go break the legs of the prisons, wait X minutes for them to die, go take the bodies down.

What do YOU think the command was?

Joe: if nit what> they poke then to make sure they are dead. Crucifixion victims had to move up and down to breath. He;s not moving up and down he;s probably dead,so Jesus was dead do they stick them just to be sure.It's obvious, You are so obstinate about accepting the obvious it seems really suspicious.

He was "probably dead", therefore "Jesus was dead"? Do you actually think before you post?

If John is right, then we know they were not sure if Jesus was dead or not, so your comment about moving up and down is irrelevant. They had three prisoners, two alive, one they were not sure about. The easiest, simplest and most reliable thing to do was break the legs of all three.

Joe: I can't imagine what i said to suggest that.

You could look back at you comment to find out. You said "that is limited to the people in that community. they didn;t know the BD so they didn't notice him there". It reads as though you think the community was there at the crucifixion, but none of the noticed the BD was also there.

Joe: that quote does not come from the Catholic Journal. that's just trying to hedge your bets antagonism evidence that disprove your case by biasing the sources, swoon theory is by biased God haters

What quote? All you have presented to support your claim that sticking spears into crucifixion victims was common is an unsupported comment in a Catholic journal.

The Pixie said...

“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.”

So the soldiers were trying to kill Jesus, rather than testing to see if he was dead?

Are you sure you want to go down that path? That would indicate that they chose to hasten the death of two of the prisoners by breaking their legs, but chose to do it another way for the third. Why would they do that?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Joe: O good God. do you really think think scholars go "now how much of this book do I believe? what percentage of this is historical?

I would guess they examine each account and try to determine how historical that particular account is.

Joe: from the paper:"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]

Okay, but what does "historically reliable" mean? Are they claiming it is 100% reliable? Are they talking specifically about the dialogues? What exactly is their position on the spear piercing?

98.4%

Joe: why would hem make it up when it had no meaning? I said that about 10 times now you have no answer,

Why do you claim it had no meaning? What do you think the soldiers were looking for to confirm death?

they weren't looking for blood and water

Joe: screwball thinking, you have no evidence so you assert there's a lot of evidence but it;s covered up,why should we assume there is any?you don;thae any,

All I am saying is that it is possible. What we have today is what we would expect to have if the hypothesis is true, i.e., nothing in the records.

I am not sure what we are talking about at this point If the swoon theory was true we would have no Christian region because Jesus would have been left for dead in the tomb,

Joe: they could not have known that clear liquid was post mortum, they didn't know about the circulatory system, who would they have answered?

So what were the soldiers hoping to achieve by prodding Jesus with a spear?

to make sure he was dead so they would not have to break his legs


Joe: there was no indication anyone ever questioned Jesus' death.

There is no evidence either way - except John 19:35, which tells us the author felt it important to make a big deal about this point.

you are intuiting with no evidence and not historical practiced that this issue of the swoon was hovering in the background even tough no one brought it up? brilliant, why?,

Joe: so?:

So the only evidence you have is a recent religious publication asserting it is so.

what is so, swooners have the burden of proof,I;m not sure what you are taking about here,naturally understood not to apply to the dead.

Joe: Crucifixion victims had to move up and down to breath. He;s not moving up and down he;s probably dead,so Jesus was dead do they stick them just to be sure.It's obvious, You are so obstinate about accepting the obvious it seems really suspicious.

He was "probably dead", therefore "Jesus was dead"? Do you actually think before you post?

Use your brain. the fact that he was no longer moving would indicate he was probably dead, just to be sure they stuck him

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

If John is right, then we know they were not sure if Jesus was dead or not, so your comment about moving up and down is irrelevant. They had three prisoners, two alive, one they were not sure about. The easiest, simplest and most reliable thing to do was break the legs of all three.

trying to turn probably dead into not sure tells me you know you lost that one,

Joe: I can't imagine what i said to suggest that.

You could look back at you comment to find out. You said "that is limited to the people in that community. they didn;t know the BD so they didn't notice him there". It reads as though you think the community was there at the crucifixion, but none of the noticed the BD was also there.

Of course meaning the original foundational members of that community is not unrealistic.the women were there


Joe: that quote does not come from the Catholic Journal. that's just trying to hedge your bets antagonism evidence that disprove your case by biasing the sources, swoon theory is by biased God haters

What quote? All you have presented to support your claim that sticking spears into crucifixion victims was common is an unsupported comment in a Catholic journal.

did you not see the quote in thread? from pub med article.that is scholarly medical journal

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

S Afr Med J. 2003 Dec;93(12):938-41.
The history and pathology of crucifixion.
Retief FP1, Cilliers L.

“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.”




1:06 AM
The Pixie said...
“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.”

So the soldiers were trying to kill Jesus, rather than testing to see if he was dead?

Are you sure you want to go down that path? That would indicate that they chose to hasten the death of two of the prisoners by breaking their legs, but chose to do it another way for the third. Why would they do that?

that;s fro a schoolyard source, you have to obey

1:10 AM

The Pixie said...

Joe: 98.4%

So nothing about whether the bit about the spear is considered historical. As expected.

Joe: they weren't looking for blood and water

What were they looking for? And how do you know?

Joe: I am not sure what we are talking about at this point If the swoon theory was true we would have no Christian region because Jesus would have been left for dead in the tomb,

I am saying that just as some opponents of Christianity in the first century said the tomb was empty because the disciples stole the body, there were others who said Jesus did not actually die. The guards on the tomb were invented to counter the former, the spear was invented to counter the latter.

We have nothing outside the Bible about either claim, but we would not expect to. The church was selective in what was preserved and naturally would not want to preserve such material.

I do not believe the body was stolen, or that Jesus was still alive. However, I do believe both the guards and the spear were later embellishments, and this is the most likely reason they were invented.

Joe: to make sure he was dead so they would not have to break his legs

How did prodding with a spear ensure he was dead? What were they looking for?

Joe: you are intuiting with no evidence and not historical practiced that this issue of the swoon was hovering in the background even tough no one brought it up? brilliant, why?,

It seems the most probable explanation for the inclusion of the incident, especially given John 19:35, which is at such pains to persuade us it is true.

Joe: what is so, swooners have the burden of proof,I;m not sure what you are taking about here,naturally understood not to apply to the dead.

Okay fine. As long as we are quite clear that the claim this was a standard Roman procedure is an assertion with no evidential support whatsoever.

Joe: Use your brain. the fact that he was no longer moving would indicate he was probably dead, just to be sure they stuck him

Your position seems predicated on you oscillating between the soldiers being sure Jesus was definitely dead, so no need to break his legs and Jesus probably being dead, so they stabbed him to make sure.

Perhaps you need to use your own brain here and decide one way or the other.

Joe: trying to turn probably dead into not sure tells me you know you lost that one,

Really? To me they sound like the same thing.

Joe: did you not see the quote in thread? from pub med article.that is scholarly medical journal

Quote the bit about how they tested to see if the prisoner was dead. I only saw where they stabbed the prisoners to kill them. That is different.

Joe: that;s fro a schoolyard source, you have to obey

So ARE saying they stabbed Jesus to kill him, not to determine if he was already dead? So why did they break the legs of the other prisoners to kill them, but decided to do it differently for Jesus?

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

the quote is actually saying yacht they had many ways to kill them they were ordered to get them down so breaking legs is one way, it would take longer than spear to the heart. maybe they just took a short cut. Actually I am really still arguing that the jab was to see if he was still alive. I quoted that because it says they night stab them the heart since you doubted that.

last call make your summation

Bradley Bowen said...

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 [Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham], 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."


This is a quote from Kermit Zarley, who is a professional golfer with an undergraduate degree in business. Zarley is NOT an NT scholar, so this quote is basically worthless.

However, the legitimate Jesus scholar James Charlesworth (of Princeton Theological Seminary) has an article in which he argues for the occurrence and the reasonableness of a paradigm shift in Jesus scholarship that takes the 4th Gospel seriously as a legitimate source of historical information about the life of Jesus, which I think is the main point Joe Hinman was trying to make:

The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?

https://jpcatholic.edu/NCUpdf/courses/BIBL526-Charlesworth_The_Historical_Jesus.pdf

This article, unlike the above quote from Kermit Zarely includes some significant qualifications to the misleading statement by Zarely that "Their conclusion is that the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable."


Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

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.

Did you read my essay Brad? i clearly state that it was not the book alone [from my paper]: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.

--I clearly provided a lot of documentation on that point all but that one guy are top scholars.


BowenThat 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).


I answered your 10 things at the top of this page.

Zarely is not a scholar but it is extremely unfair to say he knows nothing. He uses many quotes from major scholars his own discussion is clearly well informed. Those of us who failed to get our doctorates, need to cut slack. I speak of myself.

I also quoted four major scholars on the point I used him for.


8:26 AM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Brad gives us a source:

https://jpcatholic.edu/NCUpdf/courses/BIBL526-Charlesworth_The_Historical_Jesus.pdf

He says: "This article, unlike the above quote from Kermit Zarely includes some significant qualifications to the misleading statement by Zarely that "Their conclusion is that the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable."

thanks for the source

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

I don't take Zarley as any kind of thirty and I don;t recommend his work He has a heretical christology. I liked the quote about the SBL.

Bradley Bowen said...

The Jesus scholar James Charlesworth (of Princeton Theological Seminary) argues for the occurrence of a paradigm shift in Jesus scholarship that takes the 4th Gospel seriously as a source of historical information about the life of Jesus:

The Historical Jesus in the Fourth Gospel: A Paradigm Shift?

https://jpcatholic.edu/NCUpdf/courses/BIBL526-Charlesworth_The_Historical_Jesus.pdf

Charlesworth points to two scholars who were out ahead of the others:

"This recent trend was foreshadowed by C.H. Dodd’s well-known Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel and Raymond E. Brown’s publications, including The Death of the Messiah."

Then Charlesworth names five leading scholars who illustrate this "paradigm shift" concerning the 4th Gospel:

"We have chosen to indicate five leading scholars have now argued that John must be included in Jesus research; they are Meier, Theissen with Merz, Bauckham, Anderson, and Smith."

So, my questions are these:

Q1. Do EITHER of the two scholars who were
out in front of the pack
believe that the 4th Gospel is "historically reliable"?

Q2. Do ANY of the five scholars who Charlesworth identified as leading scholars who illustrate this paradigm shift believe that the 4th Gospel is "historically reliable"?

Q3. Do ANY of these seven scholars indicate any SIGNIFICANT QUALIFICATIONS to the claim that the 4th Gospel is "historically reliable"?

Bradley Bowen said...

Charlesworth points to Raymond Brown as being out in front of the pack in terms of the paradigm shift concerning the 4th Gospel. But I'm familiar with The Death of the Messiah by Brown, as well as Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, and it is clear that Brown does NOT believe that the 4th Gospel is "historically reliable".

This is clear from the VERY FIRST PAGE of Volume 1 of The Death of the Messiah:

The subject for discussion is the passion of Jesus. Understandably there is a desire to know what Jesus himself said, thought, and did in the final hours of his life. Yet Jesus did not write and account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account. Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of whom were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations. That intervening preGospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content. When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus, himself, we are speculating.

This is a VERY SKEPTICAL statement about the Gospels and specifically about the passion narratives found in the Gospels. This makes it VERY CLEAR that Raymond Brown, one of the greatest NT scholars of the 20th century, would NOT agree with the statement that "The 4th Gospel is historically reliable".

I fully agree with Brown that when we attempt to get at the actual words and actions of the historical Jesus in the hours before, during, and after his crucifixion by means of interpretation and analysis of the passion narratives in the four Gospels (including the 4th Gospel) WE ARE SPECULATING. But if the best NT scholars in the world can ONLY SPECULATE about the actual historical details surrounding Jesus trial, crucifixion, and burial, then it CANNOT be the case that "The 4th Gospel is historically reliable". The skeptical statement issues by Brown on the VERY FIRST PAGE of his two volume work The Death of the Messiah is logically incompatible with the claim that "The 4th Gospel is historically reliable."

I don't disagree with Charlesworth that Brown was ahead of the pack in using the 4th Gospel as a source for work on the historical Jesus, but this "paradigm shift" does NOT IMPLY that Brown believes that the 4th Gospel presents an historically reliable account of the trial, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus.

So, this is a bit of evidence that Joe Hinman's quote from Zarely ended with a false and misleading claim that the scholars who adopted the paradigm shift concerning the use of the 4th Gospel as a source in the study of the historical Jesus believe that "the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable."

I will work my way through the list of leading scholars who Charlesworth points to as illustrating the "paradigm shift" concerning the use of the 4th Gospel, and it will become obvious that the claim by Zarley that Hinman quoted is very misleading, to the point that it may reasonably be judged to be FALSE.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Q1. Do EITHER of the two scholars who were
out in front of the pack believe that the 4th Gospel is "historically reliable"?

Q2. Do ANY of the five scholars who Charlesworth identified as leading scholars who illustrate this paradigm shift believe that the 4th Gospel is "historically reliable"?

Q3. Do ANY of these seven scholars indicate any SIGNIFICANT QUALIFICATIONS to the claim that the 4th Gospel is "historically reliable"?

Do any of those scholars think the swoon theory is anything but a joke? how reliable does 4th gospel have to be before we can trust the info about the water and blood? ho many of those scholars would even enteritis the notion of tang the swoon thing seriously?

No one at Perkins did, Not Ogden, not Babcock, Not Abraham, not Corney

Bradley Bowen said...

James Charlesworth pointed to a second scholar (in addition to Raymond Brown) who was out in front of the pack in relation to the "paradigm shift" on the use of the 4th Gospel in the study of the historical Jesus:

This recent trend was foreshadowed by C.H. Dodd’s well-known Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel...

An article by the Evangelical NT scholar D.A. Carson discusses the key ideas in this book by Dodd (https://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1981_carson_historical-tradition-in-fourth-gospel_reformatted.pdf), and what Carson says clearly indicates that Dodd did NOT believe that the 4th Gospel was "historically reliable":

Already in IFG [The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel], Dodd writes both that he regards ‘the Fourth Gospel as being in its essential character a theological work, rather than a history,’ ... Dodd assumes (his word) that although the evangelist intended to record that which happened, he nevertheless felt free ‘to modify the factual record in order to bring out the meaning.’

...his [Dodd's] work [in Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel] is rich in asides which affirm the historicity of this or that detail, although it boasts an almost equal number of asides which deny the historicity of some other detail.

...compared with the work of Bultmann, HTFG [Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel] is a very conservative book indeed. Nevertheless, George Johnston is correct when he says of Dodd: ‘At the same time, he reminds us that John is a theologian of profound subtlety, who exploits in the interest of his own spirituality whatever traditional units he has preserved. It will not do, therefore, to jump to hasty conclusions about the factual accuracy of the Gospel narratives as they stand.’

Since Dodd rejected as unhistorical about as many details in the 4th Gospel as he accepted, that clearly implies that he did NOT believe that the 4th Gospel was "historically reliable".

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

you have not answered my argument that the odds are against the 4G author making up some bit of post mortum evidence that really tells us something serious about the condition of the subject.

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Charlesworth points to Raymond Brown as being out in front of the pack in terms of the paradigm shift concerning the 4th Gospel. But I'm familiar with The Death of the Messiah by Brown, as well as Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, and it is clear that Brown does NOT believe that the 4th Gospel is "historically reliable".

You way of thinking about that is way too superficial.You wont find many scholars that think about such broad black and white categories. On could think of a book as generally not reliable in some ways and still find it giving historically factual information in some ways.

This is clear from the VERY FIRST PAGE of Volume 1 of The Death of the Messiah:

The subject for discussion is the passion of Jesus. Understandably there is a desire to know what Jesus himself said, thought, and did in the final hours of his life. Yet Jesus did not write and account of his passion; nor did anyone who had been present write an eyewitness account. Available to us are four different accounts written some thirty to seventy years later in the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, all of whom were dependent on tradition that had come down from an intervening generation or generations. That intervening preGospel tradition was not preserved even if at times we may be able to detect the broad lines of its content. When we seek to reconstruct it or, even more adventurously, the actual situation of Jesus, himself, we are speculating.


it does not say what you are looking for it does not say we can't
trust anything the fourth Gospel


FRANCIS J. MOLONEY
The Catholic Biblical Quarterly
Vol. 65, No. 1 (January 2003), pp. 1-21 quotes Brown "fourth Gospel rooted in historical tradition about Jesus..." He's talking about Brown's attitude.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/43724896?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

This is a VERY SKEPTICAL statement about the Gospels and specifically about the passion narratives found in the Gospels. This makes it VERY CLEAR that Raymond Brown, one of the greatest NT scholars of the 20th century, would NOT agree with the statement that "The 4th Gospel is historically reliable".

Horse shit! if that's a sample of whoa you think constitutes a scholarly argent you haven't a clue.

It says:(1)Jesus didn't write
(2)no eyewitness account of the passion that does not mean we have no actuate evidence about it. It could as easily mean that since Brown wasn't a doctor he didn't realize the importance of the blood and water,



I fully agree with Brown that when we attempt to get at the actual words and actions of the historical Jesus in the hours before, during, and after his crucifixion by means of interpretation and analysis of the passion narratives in the four Gospels (including the 4th Gospel) WE ARE SPECULATING. But if the best NT scholars in the world can ONLY SPECULATE about the actual historical details surrounding Jesus trial, crucifixion, and burial, then it CANNOT be the case that "The 4th Gospel is historically reliable". The skeptical statement issues by Brown on the VERY FIRST PAGE of his two volume work The Death of the Messiah is logically incompatible with the claim that "The 4th Gospel is historically reliable."

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

the importance of the clear liquid in blood stream is not speculation

I don't disagree with Charlesworth that Brown was ahead of the pack in using the 4th Gospel as a source for work on the historical Jesus, but this "paradigm shift" does NOT IMPLY that Brown believes that the 4th Gospel presents an historically reliable account of the trial, crucifixion, and burial of Jesus.

So, this is a bit of evidence that Joe Hinman's quote from Zarely ended with a false and misleading claim that the scholars who adopted the paradigm shift concerning the use of the 4th Gospel as a source in the study of the historical Jesus believe that "the Fourth Gospel is historically reliable."

He was talking about those three specific guys.You have no information about them,

I will work my way through the list of leading scholars who Charlesworth points to as illustrating the "paradigm shift" concerning the use of the 4th Gospel, and it will become obvious that the claim by Zarley that Hinman quoted is very misleading, to the point that it may reasonably be judged to be FALSE.

Not if your work on it is as slip shod as you have already demonstrated. all he can see i I dared to quote a golf pro named Zarely *say Brad where dud you get your Ph,D in biblical scholarship? all the scholars i quoted he can;t see.

quoting from by blog piece above: 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."

9:29 PM

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Bradley Bowen said...
James Charlesworth pointed to a second scholar (in addition to Raymond Brown) who was out in front of the pack in relation to the "paradigm shift" on the use of the 4th Gospel in the study of the historical Jesus:

This recent trend was foreshadowed by C.H. Dodd’s well-known Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel...

An article by the Evangelical NT scholar D.A. Carson discusses the key ideas in this book by Dodd (https://preteristarchive.com/Books/pdf/1981_carson_historical-tradition-in-fourth-gospel_reformatted.pdf), and what Carson says clearly indicates that Dodd did NOT believe that the 4th Gospel was "historically reliable":

Already in IFG [The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel], Dodd writes both that he regards ‘the Fourth Gospel as being in its essential character a theological work, rather than a history,’ ... Dodd assumes (his word) that although the evangelist intended to record that which happened, he nevertheless felt free ‘to modify the factual record in order to bring out the meaning.’

...his [Dodd's] work [in Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel] is rich in asides which affirm the historicity of this or that detail, although it boasts an almost equal number of asides which deny the historicity of some other detail.

...compared with the work of Bultmann, HTFG [Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel] is a very conservative book indeed. Nevertheless, George Johnston is correct when he says of Dodd: ‘At the same time, he reminds us that John is a theologian of profound subtlety, who exploits in the interest of his own spirituality whatever traditional units he has preserved. It will not do, therefore, to jump to hasty conclusions about the factual accuracy of the Gospel narratives as they stand.’

Since Dodd rejected as unhistorical about as many details in the 4th Gospel as he accepted, that clearly implies that he did NOT believe that the 4th Gospel was "historically reliable".


straw man, you set him up as a rep then knock him down. I never mentioned him and Bauckham never mentioned him in that regard as a representative of the new trend. the harbeningers of the new view are John Aston, J.Louis Martyn and Bauckham himself.

Note: Brown is not one,Bauckham lists him among the "dominant approach"

Bradley Bowen said...

An article by the Evangelical NT scholar D.A. Carson discusses the key ideas in C.H. Dodd's book Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (https://preteristarchive.co..., and what Carson says clearly indicates that Dodd did NOT believe that the 4th Gospel was "historically reliable".

Carson presents a LONG quotation from a scholar who was reviewing Dodd's approach to the Fourth Gospel, Carson agrees with the basic point of the quote, which I would summarize this way:

In the end, Dodd's view of the 4th Gospel implies that the 4th Gospel is basically and on the whole HISTORICALLY UNRELIABLE, and that what we can realistically expect based on Dodd's view of the 4th Gospel is that with a great deal of effort by our best NT scholars, we may be able to extract a few bits and pieces of information about the historical Jesus from the 4th Gospel, but this additional information is unlikely to make a significant difference to our understanding of the historical Jesus.

If I have summarized the quote accurately, then this is further evidence that Dodd did NOT believe that the 4th Gospel presents an "historically reliable" account of the ministry of Jesus and the events surrounding the crucifixion of Jesus.

Because of the character limit on comments, I will probably need to break the long quote into chunks in separate comments.

Bradley Bowen said...

Here is Carson giving the LONG quotation from W. Beare about Dodd's view of the 4th Gospel:
===============
W. Beare spells this out more pointedly; and, for a final extensive quote, I shall cite him at length:

Professor Dodd has greatly strengthened the case for taking the Fourth Gospel seriously as a quarry for historical facts concerning Jesus of Nazareth. I am left with the feeling that when its evidence has all been sifted and weighed, it does not add greatly to the meagre store of facts which are supplied by the Synoptics. Where it differs from them, it is not to be automatically ruled out of consideration; the ‘pre-canonical’ traditions which it has employed have as much title to be looked upon as reliable as those which the Synoptists had at their disposal. But I wonder if the total effect of this investigation may not be misleading, in that it does not take into account the unreality of the general picture of Jesus in this Gospel. These fragments of ‘historical’ traditions are embedded in a complex theological structure from which they can be recovered in any degree only by an extraordinary exhibition of critical virtuosity on the part of the searcher. To set the matter in perspective let us recall briefly that John the Baptist did not in fact hail Jesus as the Lamb of God (the question here is rightly put by Dodd: ‘What measure of historical truth, then, if any, can we assign to the statement of the Fourth Gospel that John the Baptist bore witness to Christ?’ - p. 301). Jesus did not talk to a ruler of the Jews about regeneration, did not talk with a woman by a well in Samaria about his own Messiahship and about the spirit-nature of God; did not discourse to the multitudes about his descent from heaven as the Bread of Life... Above all, the Jesus of history did not address his hearers in the structured dialogue and monologue of the Fourth Gospel; and if there are bits of teaching―parables, sayings, brief dialogue here and there―which may be traced to a pre-canonical tradition (as Dodd has succeeded in doing), it must be said that in the Gospel these are submerged in the Evangelist’s own constructions and all but dissolved in his theological expositions... And in general, the value and interest of this Gospel surely lie in the developed theology of the Evangelist and not in such occasional fragments of actual verba Christi as may be uncovered by patient search.

This is not to suggest that Professor Dodd himself fails to give due weight to these considerations. It is a caution, rather, to his readers against an over-enthusiastic reversion to the historical approach to this Gospel. British scholarship has an unquenchable longing for brute historical and biographical fact, and there is a perpetual danger that the wish may give birth to the persuasion that the facts are more readily ascertainable than is actually the case. After all has been said, and every last particle of primitive gold-dust extracted, the Fourth Gospel is in its total character a much less reliable source of historical (especially biographical) information than Mark, even though it may in some instances preserve a more accurate recollection of what occurred.
The ‘new look’ on the Fourth Gospel has already, in my opinion, set a number of my colleagues dancing down a false path....


In my [D.A. Carson's] view, Beare’s analysis of HTFG [Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel ] is profoundly accurate, irrespective of whether or not
one wishes to follow him in his degree of scepticism.
=========================

Joseph Hinman (Metacrock) said...

Dodd is not major to my argument. He was a great theologian but he has a bias that may have colored his view; his theology of realized eschatology might lead him to deny eye witness account.

Be that as it may (or may not) until you answer my arguments you have said nothing. you have said nothing. That Dodd died in 173 well before the trend to more historical view of John so it's irrelevant what he said.

Still waiting for you to answer my argument that the clear liquid being post mortum evidence means it;s highly unlikely that is not part of an eye witness account.