tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post8544098826286143253..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Richard Carrier has more waffles than IHOPRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-12386204481462999052016-04-15T13:17:49.165-04:002016-04-15T13:17:49.165-04:00Very insightful AP, thanks for sharing. That'...Very insightful AP, thanks for sharing. That's a delightful point that I hadn't personally considered or came across until now.CRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03231394164372721485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-22359600451444818592016-04-15T10:24:23.469-04:002016-04-15T10:24:23.469-04:00Carrier (and others like him) has a nice 'head...Carrier (and others like him) has a nice 'heads I win, tails you lose' manner of scholarship.<br /><br />If two accounts have many elements in common, that's literary dependence.<br /><br />If two accounts are quite different, that's proof it's all a spurious legend.<br /><br />If two accounts are similar but different, that's still literary dependence but the later author redacted the earlier account for the needs of their reading community.<br /><br />FWIW, their very different accounts of the giving of the Spirit suggests to me that Luke and John are independent, and that they are simply relaying the same events. Steve, do you think there is any reason to believe there is interdependence, whether literary or of eyewitnesses?Thomas Keningleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01624894562826380210noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81873317418021026022016-04-15T04:41:00.399-04:002016-04-15T04:41:00.399-04:00One problem with Carrier's 2C date is that Joh...<i>One problem with Carrier's 2C date is that John accurately depicts the conditions of Jerusalem before the fall.</i><br /><br />The following is probably old news to Steve and Richard, but it's just one example of what Steve is talking about.<br /><br />Andreas Köstenberger in his article <a href="http://www.biblicalfoundations.org/was-john%E2%80%99s-gospel-written-prior-to-ad-70/comment-page-1/" rel="nofollow">HERE</a> states, "In several previous publications Daniel B. Wallace, professor at Dallas Seminary, has argued for a pre-AD 70 date of composition for John’s Gospel on what may appear to be a fairly inconspicuous feature: the use of the present tense form of the verb “to be” (eimi) in John 5:2: “Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda and which is surrounded by five covered colonnades.” According to Wallace, the present tense indicates that the structure here described was still standing at the time of writing. Since archaeological evidence suggests that the structure was destroyed in AD 70 [referring to 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans- AP], John’s Gospel must have been written prior to AD 70."<br /><br />Köstenberger continues in his article to argue against a pre-AD 70 date. Regardless of who is right on the issue, it's interesting that the author of John KNOWS about the pool at all and knows it has exactly 5 porches. The author(s) even knows its Hebrew (or Aramaic) name to boot! It's often claimed that John is an anti-semitic book, yet it is so intimately familiar with Jewish customs, Palestinian geography, Hebrew or Aramaic terms etc. that it's likely the author was Jewish rather than a Gentile with a Gentile agenda or as posing as Jewish when in reality a Gentile. You can almost hear the Jewish pride in the author of John when He records Jesus' statement, "You worship what you do not know; <b>we worship what we KNOW, for salvation is FROM THE JEWS</b>" (John 4:22). This is not a Hellenized Gnostic Jesus in the garb of Judaism.<br /><br /><b>Thirty years after 9/11 how many people would be able to describe the interiors of the twin towers without looking it up on the internet? Very few. Those who could would likely be people who actually had seen the interiors in person before they fell.</b> All this suggests that the Gospel of John was written by at least one Jew who lived in Jerusalem before 70 AD. Which would be in keeping with that same person being an eyewitness.ANNOYED PINOYhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00714774340084597206noreply@blogger.com