Yuri Kuchinsky

Oh, don't worry, Vork, I do have some general education about various forgery cases... Yet, as I've already explained, such generalities don't really help much in this particular case IMHO.

Quote:

I am not a mythicist, so this would certainly not bother me. Vorkosigan

You're not a mythicist?

I'm surprised, because, based on you previous posts, you certainly sounded like one... Was there some change in this department perhaps?

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

But never baselessly, Haran!

Quote:

Anyways, I'm not sure that everyone would agree that Morton Smith was a "respected scholar". Whenever he comes up, quite a few, even his "fans", remember that he was not always a particularly nice or agreeable fellow. All one has to do is read through the links on W.Willker's Secret Mark page to find that out. Did he know his stuff? Sure. However, a person can be scholarly without being a particularly respectable fellow.

This sure looks to me like a defamation campaign against a respected scholar. You may not like his theories, fine, but that's no reason to defame him personally.

I know that not all Christians are like this...

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

I see... So your suspicions are enough to condemn this document as unworthy of study. But, thankfully, I don't really need your permission to study it.

Quote:

and I do not like it when history is rewritten based on forgeries. This is why I have given up on the James ossuary. If I was truly motivated as you say, then I would still be supporting the ossuary as well. I simply want the truth and I'm sick and tired of people forging things to create their own history.

Sure seems like you're a realist enough to see that any further support for the ossuary would be counterproductive to your apologetic agenda. Good for you!

Quote:

And I'm surprised that you do not see that Ehrman should have interest in Secret Mark.

I definitely don't see it.

Quote:

He could be using it to show how the Orthodox have corrupted scripture.

Are you now saying that the Secret Mark was produced by the Orthodox???

That's a revelation! So maybe you're an Infidel, after all?

Quote:

Yet, looking at the similarity of this case to other forgeries,

Which similarity?

Quote:

he seems to come to the conclusion that Secret Mark is very possibly a forgery. It would fit right into his theories,

No, it won't!

You really seem to be quite confused about Ehrman. Have you really read anything by him?

Quote:

so what ideological reason would he have to reject it?

Your typical NT mainstreamer will have no use for Secret Mark -- simply because they strongly dislike anything that contradicts the received views.

And Ehrman is certainly a mainstreamer.

Yours,

Yuri.

Haran

That's quite questionable, Yuri. You took hearsay as evidence against Bruce Metzger in a thread here. Short of asking Metzger, there is no way to know what he meant.

If that wasn't enough you appear to blacklist most honest modern textual critics. Talk about conspiracy theories. Talk about baseless accusations.

Nice piece of rhetoric from someone who is still in the process of carrying out a "defamation campaign" against many respected scholars... One word... <insult deleted>.

Haran

Ah! So you see the James ossuary as a forgery too?? Who did it, Yuri? Do you have any conclusive evidence? Oded has been arrested and released and arrested and released.

Many times (maybe even most times) a pattern and circumstancial evidence is all you will be able to get with respect to a forgery and a forger.

No no no... Secret Mark can be used to show the early corruption of scripture.

In the JECS articles, Ehrman states what he believes Hedrick is trying to say about Secret Mark: (1) accept the letter (2) and "we will have additional evidence for both the wide diversity of the gospel traditions of the second century and the high instability of the texts that preserve them."

This second point is right in line with Ehrman's book and textual theories (if you don't agree with that, then you must not be very familiar with his works). As a matter of fact, Ehrman goes on to say of Hedrick's views:

So, what he seems to be saying is that he could use Secret Mark because it fits right in with his theories, Yuri. Exactly what I was trying to say. However, he also seems to see the strange circumstances as adding up to problems for the authenticity of Secret Mark which a scholar has every right to wonder about (as Quesnell pointed out).

Baseless accusation. Defamatory and wrong. What is your definition of "mainstream" anyways? Hedrick is not mainstream? He seems to think Secret Mark is valuable. Crossan and Koester are not mainstream? Secret Mark is quite useful to their theories. And Marvin Meyer? He makes quite a big deal of Secret Mark in his most recent book.

No more so than those who accept Secret Mark already and use it in their theories. As seen from the quotes above, it could be useful to his theories as well. However, he acknowledges the strange circumstances that seem to indicate a possible forgery and is hesitant to blindly accept authenticity.

Again, if you want to argue the definition of "mainstream", then I would say that Ehrman tends to "rock the boat" of textual criticism as it has been known along with others like D.C. Parker. In this sense, he is most definitely not "mainstream" like Metzger, the Alands, and many others.

Haran

Common' Jeremy... It's ok for Yuri to say I'm running a "defamation campaign" and I can't use the greek "h" word to accurately describe what his own views look like in light of his accusations?

I struggled to find another word since I know the "h" word can be as inflammatory as "defamation campaign". Do you find "contradiction" more acceptable?

Vorkosigan

No. I think the weakest part of Doherty's extremely comprehensive and strong case is not the Death Tradition, but the Life Tradition. For Q1 I agree with his analysis, but I have problems accepting Q2 as a communal tradition as well. IMHO Communities produce and store wisdom sayings, but not vituperative attacks. I tend to see the eschatological/apocalytic preachings as the product of a real individual. So on the whole, as far as the HJ goes, I think at least some portions of the Life Tradition are probably more likely to be stemming from the actions of a real individual than the Death Tradition, where I think Earl is dead on. Earl's position is that Q1, Q2, and Q3 AND the PN are ALL "mythic" in the sense of being communal or individual constructions and collections. I am uneasy with that clean sweep. I admit he makes a good case, though, for the most part.

The other reason I am not a mythicist is because the evidence is so uncertain, contradictory and incomplete, hence I am unhappy simply declaring it all one thing or the other.

Vorkosigan

Roger Pearse

Have you read these links which Wieland has? I'm not sure why we should suppose that Haran is running a campaign rather than reporting what people say about the guy.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Yuri Kuchinsky

Never mind the ossuary, Haran. No use beating the dead horse...

Quote:

No no no... Secret Mark can be used to show the early corruption of scripture. In the JECS articles, Ehrman states what he believes Hedrick is trying to say about Secret Mark: (1) accept the letter (2) and "we will have additional evidence for both the wide diversity of the gospel traditions of the second century and the high instability of the texts that preserve them." This second point is right in line with Ehrman's book and textual theories (if you don't agree with that, then you must not be very familiar with his works). As a matter of fact, Ehrman goes on to say of Hedrick's views: (quote Ehrman in JECS article) "I should stress at the outset, however, that there is no dispute among the three of us {i.e. Ehrman, Hedrick, and Stroumsa} concerning the diversity of early Christianity and the instability of its texts. These views hold true, however, regardless of one's position on Secret Mark." So, what he seems to be saying is that he could use Secret Mark because it fits right in with his theories, Yuri. Exactly what I was trying to say.

Not quite... It seems like nobody is disputing that there was "the diversity of early Christianity and the instability of its texts." So what need is there for Ehrman, then, to use SecMk for this purpose?

Quote:

However, he also seems to see the strange circumstances as adding up to problems for the authenticity of Secret Mark which a scholar has every right to wonder about (as Quesnell pointed out).

All this is speculation only.

Quote:

Yuri: "Your typical NT mainstreamer will have no use for Secret Mark -- simply because they strongly dislike anything that contradicts the received views." Baseless accusation.

But at least this was not a _personal_ accusation.

Quote:

Defamatory and wrong. What is your definition of "mainstream" anyways? Hedrick is not mainstream? He seems to think Secret Mark is valuable. Crossan and Koester are not mainstream? Secret Mark is quite useful to their theories. And Marvin Meyer? He makes quite a big deal of Secret Mark in his most recent book.

All, right, I'll not argue with you about the definition of a "mainstreamer".

So how about a new non-personal accusation then...

Your typical NT specialist will avoid the study of new textual evidence at all costs -- merely because it is new. They just love to stay "in the box" with what they already know. Thus, any excuse is good enough to avoid spending the time with new evidence

Quote:

Yuri: "And Ehrman is certainly a mainstreamer." Again, if you want to argue the definition of "mainstream", then I would say that Ehrman tends to "rock the boat" of textual criticism as it has been known

I'm not really aware of him "rocking the boat". His ORTHODOX CORRUPTION OF SCRIPTURE didn't rock the mainstream TC boat at all. It merely rattled some orthodox commentators who are not TC specialists. Because the TC specialists already knew all this stuff long ago...

Quote:

along with others like D.C. Parker. In this sense, he is most definitely not "mainstream" like Metzger, the Alands, and many others.

Perhaps Parker is a bit less "mainstream" than Ehrman, but only a little.

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Please note your (and Earl's) underlying assumptions here, Vork.

1. There was a Q.
2. This Q consisted of various layers.
3. These layers (of a non-existent document) can now be identified with some certainty.
4. The above task has already been done correctly.

But I would say that each of these 4 assumptions is still lacking foundation...

And if _even one_ of these is false, then the whole of Earl's theory comes crashing down.

Quote:

The other reason I am not a mythicist is because the evidence is so uncertain, contradictory and incomplete, hence I am unhappy simply declaring it all one thing or the other. Vorkosigan

Well, here we agree for the most part...

Best,

Yuri.