Originally Posted by Stringbean

I have read this and do not see where you proved any eyewitness to anything.

Originally Posted by spin

I was working from the Petersborough Chronicle which comes in in the 14th c. You may be right though, as I'm not up with the full range of evidence. I would have thought that Prester John was more the odd man out, being obviously the least historical.

Originally Posted by Adam

Yes, that's the mantra here on FRDB regarding my thesis in Gospel Eyewitnesses. You responded a few times in that thread, but I doubt that you read and considered adequately the whole thread (over 600 posts). That's why I keep challenging everyone to read my peer-reviewed article in my Significance of John thread. spin never posted there and judging by his continued contumely never read it at all. No one has challenged it except Shesh (if that counts).

Originally Posted by Adam

... I keep challenging everyone to read my peer-reviewed article in my Significance of John thread.

Originally Posted by Adam

No use responding in kind. Not on this website, anyway.
If spin plans to shoot down my claims to authenticity, I need to repeat what I said here recently, if one is going to ask Editor David Bossman at Biblical Theology Bulletin if my paper was peer reviewed there in 1980, be advised that the title was not "Significance of John" but "The Three Sources and Five Editions of John"--or the other way round (no, not Five Sources and Three Editions of John").

And yes, BTB is put out by Roman Catholics. I converted to RC in 1969, largely as a result of historical study as an outgrowth of earning my M. A. in History that year (but turned Episcopalian in 1992 and Lutheran in 2004). BTB is rather liberal.

I think we all know what it means that spin still refuses to deal with my thread.
Edited to add:

Cincinnatus Society (1 out of 1,000)

Cincinnatus was founded by Grady Ward in 1987 at the 99.9 percentile during

a bitter dispute in the Triple Nine Society. Grady Ward declared himself

Dictator, which some found preferable to the chaos in TNS. Apparently

defunct since about 1989. It seems Grady faked his own death (there was a

death notice in the “Mensa Bulletin”), but has become well-known in

Internet free speech advocacy circles for his opposition to the Church of

Scientology.

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Yes, you obviously do.
And there is perhaps no better way to persuade people that your leaps of imagination and 'possibly's'', 'perhaps's', maybe's, and 'could have's are nothing but vacuous speculations build upon speculations, all of it without any solid foundation in provable fact.

One wonders what you mean by 'peer review'. I have read everything you have posted, but where are your 'peers' reviews, or second or third party commentary and support for your multitude of assertions?
Did these 'peers' just skim through your submission? or 'rubber stamp it' without offering any critical analysis of its reasoning or content?

Whatever. We have read your various submission here, your methodology is bankrupt and your multitude of assertions are not persuasive.
But I certainly encourage anyone that can endure Adam's walls of gutted and mutilated text, and endless flights of imaginative fancy to go ahead and read everything in Adam's thread's, as that is the most effective way of learning exactly what is wrong with his vaunted 'peer reviewed' writings.

Originally Posted by Stringbean

I have read it. But what I would like to know is how does he explain this?

It reminds me of Carrier's assertion in "Proving History" where he uses Bayes Theorem. It's like a murder committed on a street corner in New York City. Millions of people walk by and no one sees a thing. So police use statistics and probability to narrow down their witnesses to the crime.