Yuri Kuchinsky

You're dreaming... There's nothing subjective or speculative about my evidence. And this is what my opinions are based on.

My evidence is unchallengeable.

Quote:

Unfortunately, since I would probably be using modern scholarship to address your findings, you probably would not accept my conclusions anyway.

Try me.

Quote:

As I said before, most of what you have found are one or two word phrases in English (rather than addressing the actual Aramaic/Greek correlation which would be much more informative).

This is ridiculous. I do deal with both Aramaic and Greek. You haven't even bothered to look at my evidence, and you've dismissed it already!

Quote:

I just don't see these short "parallels" as making a good case for what you are speculating about Secret Mark.

There are no speculations in what I say.

Quote:

By the way, Morton Smith played mostly by the same game book as the other modern scholars you denounce. Why do you defend him and yet speculate about Bruce Metzger's integrity (and apparently every other modern textual critic)? I see great contradictions here... Do you not?

There are no contradictions. I'm defending Smith because the accusations against him are ridiculous, and often ideologically based. But even more, I'm defending the actual MS, rather than just defending Smith.

What I'm really defending here is the historical method itself against these ideologically based attacks.

Yours,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Haran,

Methinks this is your real agenda, to discourage the study of this text, and of what it implies about early Christianity.

Quote:

By the way, you condemn Ehrman, Yuri, but he has every reason to want Secret Mark to be authentic.

How so?

Quote:

It would be yet another building block for his current theories of textual development and early Christianity.

I don't see it.

Quote:

Yet, unlike other scholars with similar theories, he seems to be rejecting Secret Mark (Ehrman states this much better in the set of JECS article that you mentioned and I have now read). Why would he seemingly reject a "discovery" that would bolster his case if he didn't honestly feel it was a forgery, Yuri?

So how is this supposed to "bolster his case"?

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

"obviously a forgery"???

Hey, Vork, I do encourage you to shake hands with reality...

Just about all Clementine scholars have already accepted this letter of Clement as authentic. Just about all professional palaeographers have already accepted that the handwriting of this MS is an authentic 18th c. handwriting.

So this is what is "obvious". And yet, you, who know nothing about either of these two areas, are sure as sure can be that it's "obviously a forgery"?

So what is the source of your certainty, may I ask? Have you perchance received a special psychic revelation to that effect? :boohoo:

Best,

Yuri.

Vorkosigan

I think you mis-read here, or I mis-wrote. I only meant that it is more obvious that the Ossuary is a fake than that SGM is, because the actual object is in our hands, and because of other facts we possess, like the behavior of Oded Golan.

But there is a basic principle at work here, Yuri. When someone becomes famous for discovering lost manuscripts, you should start becoming suspicious. When Lemaire found this Ossuary on top of everything else he'd done, it stank to high heaven. Nobody is that lucky. Do yourself a favor and go read The Hermit of Beijing about a master forger of Chinese documents. The pattern is very much the same.

As for the Clement letter being accepted by scholars that is meaningless. Basic principle: you cannot authenticate an item based on scripts and content, you can only disprove it. That ought to be glaringly obvious after the ossuary thing. All the Clementine scholars have shown is that the forger is very good -- that the text falls within an acceptable range, which is what we would expect if the forger were good. The crucial evidence is the physiochemical evidence of the item and we cannot access that. Until we do and it confirms that the text is of ancient rather than modern origin, I will continue to believe this text is a forgery for sociological reasons.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

Yuri, in case you haven't noticed, Haran and I share no significant ideology in this area. Yet both of us are convinced this document is fake. You cannot dismiss your opponents on ideological grounds.

Vorkosigan

Roger Pearse

Indeed, I have never read a line of his works, as you might have found out, had you politely asked. My familiarity with him, such as it is, comes from another source.

As a matter of fact, I was present at a conference in which Ehrmann presented his upcoming Loeb edition of the Apostolic Fathers, over more than an hour. I had ample opportunity to listen to his views at that time, which I must say made me cringe with embarassment for NT scholars. How much others agree with him I cannot say -- the fawning introduction suggested that to know him was the apogee of American bible scholarship. I charitably hope this is mistaken.

I suppose a bad-tempered person would now demand that I offer a transcript of what he said. Such an unreasonable person will be disappointed.

I note that you offer no description of his views -- just an assertion that, whatever they are, they are mainstream. Should you feel like describing his views, and documenting the assertion, we could discuss them, but not as things stand.

Permit me a personal remark. This is the second time today you have attempted to pillory me personally for a general comment.
I know you are cross with Didymus for comparing your website and approach unfavourably with mine, but that is hardly my fault, is it? Please desist. Surely I have the same right to talk generally as anyone else, without people jumping on me and demanding footnotes, proofs, cross-references and the like?

Someone asked for some names. I offered some suggestions. If you don't like them, why attack me? -- instead why not demonstrate that the persons concerned do not hold the views attributed to them.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Would you document these assertions, please? For instance:

1. Are you familiar with all the scholars of Clement of Alexandria? Who are the people that know about him?

2. Who is 'all professional paleographers'.

In view of your willingness to complain about unsubstantiated assertion, you can hardly complain if I ask for something more detailed than your bare word.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Iasion

Greetings

I tend to agree with Roger here,
Bart's book seemd quite scholarly and well researched,
but,
the first issue I looked into and posted about was the alleged anti-adoptionist corruption at Luke 3:22 :
"... this day have I begotten thee"
vs
"... in thee I am well pleased"

Alongside a great deal of discussion of patristic citations, Bart had this small comment about the actual manuscript evidence for his claims :

".. in witnesses of the 2nd and 3rd centuries ... it is virtually the only reading that survives"

But,
according to my amateur reading of the NA27 apparatus, he is supported by :
D it; Ju (Cl) Meth Hil Aug

But it seems he is contradicted by all the other witnesses (how do you tell which witnesses support the text if its not specified?) such as the crucial P75, as well as bo(pt) and 1574 (I think.)

In sum,
I thought he was less than honest here.

Iasion

Steven Carr

http://members.aol.com/PS418/manuscript.html discusses Luke 3:22 pointing out the patristic evidence, but not what p75 says.

Steven Carr

When was 1574 written? Was Ehrman write to say it was not a witness from the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

Why is it dishonest to leave out a manuscript from the 14th century (I think 1574 is 14th century) when talking about virtually all witnesses from the 2nd and third century?

Is only p75 in your list from the second and third century?