spin

There are sites that people in this forum find essential resources. Other sites are good for provocative thought. Yet others have been created by members themnselves as a resource for others. I'm sure there are sites that you've found helpful, sites that you wished you had found when you first became interested in biblical studies, or sites that supply the resources you can't do without. The object of this post is to elicit those sites. What I would like from you are sites like the following:

[t2]

• resources sites, such as these:

  Peter Kirby's
  * Early Jewish Writings
  * Early Christian Writings
  
  Roger Pearse's
  * Tertullian texts
  * Additional Church Fathers plus lesser known classical writers
  
  * New Advent Church Fathers
  
  * Pseudepigrapha

• bible suppliers, such as:

  * Bible Gateway
  * Biblos

• scholarly materials, such as:

  * The Bible and Interpretation
  * Journal of Hebrew Scriptures

• helpful blogs, such as:

  * Richard Carrier
  * Tom Verenna
  * Vridar

• other sites of interest, such as:

  * Jewish Encyclopedia, 1906
  * Bernard Muller's Historical Jesus site
  * Michael A. Turton's Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark
  * Hermann Detering site

[/t2]

This is your opportunity to pass on what you consider the most essential or most interesting, or most helpful sites for people interested in this forum. What have you got?

stephan huller

Too many to count but here's two

www.roger-pearse.com
www.khazarzar.skeptik.net/pgm/PG_Migne/

maryhelena

http://biblical.ie/

A quick and easy site - it has the Josephus text with book and verse numbers. It has a few links - including one to Mark Goodacre's New Testament gateway. As well as the biblical texts and Josephus, it has a menu for the Apocrypha and a menu for the Patristic texts.

Toto

resources:
Robert M. Price
Biblegeek Podcast
Journal of Higher Criticism archives
Internet Infidels

blogs:

Paleojudaica- Jim Davila
Mark Goodacre
NT Wrong (archives)
Forbidden Gospels April Deconick

I also find James McGrath Exploring Your Matrix useful for its links to other sites.

stephan huller

I quite like James McGrath. I don't have to agree with everything that someone sense to respect their ability to reason.

Toto

I don't know him. I found his whole "mythicists are just like creationists" theme to be arrogant and stupid and an impressive negative example of how NOT to conduct an online discussion. Most of his posts are on science fiction or Romanian liturgical music in any case.

tanya

John Hurt's site is essential, for those of us who cannot read Hebrew.

Though there are several excellent web sites for instruction in Greek, I am most enamored of Interlinear bible.

A related topic, not precisely in accord with the OP, but similar in concept, is a list of forum participants whose submissions represent compulsory reading.

I would find such a list interesting. I am rather certain my own list would be quite different from spin's, or Toto's for example.

Finally, I think it would be useful to conduct a year end summary of the previous year's most important, or most informative, or most controversial, or most educational threads. Some threads are genuinely baffling. Others seem trivial, and meaningless. Some strike a chord, and generate enthusiastic responses, including an occasional heated exchange.

Compiled annually, such a list would prove useful, in the future, to acquaint new members with former discussions of merit. The search engine of the forum's web site, is quite deficient, in that one is obliged to search by hand to find the specific topic or keyword. If one goes to Edmunds, to look for an automobile, and enters Chevrolet, one gets all 40 different Chevrolets, but, if one narrows the search to electric vehicles, only 8 models show up, and none of them made by Chevrolet. That's how a search engine should operate. If I seek to read all those posts in which Andrew has commented on Hippocrates' view of "daimon", must I scroll through 300 odd posts to do so?

mountainman

* The Nag Hammadi Library


* Search the Archives







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

No.

1) From the main index to threads click the hyperlinked number of replies to any thread.

2) A small page will open showing all contributing replies per poster.

3) Select the hyperlinked number of replies by that poster.

4) You should see a list with all their responses in the selected thread.

5) If searches are capable of being "captured" here is your result set





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

tanya

This is very helpful, thank you Pete.

It is however, still a long way to Tipperary. What I am seeking, is not a list that I then use my rather mediocre vision/brain to sort, but rather a search engine capability with a bit more pizzazz than the forum's "advanced search", capability, which fails to isolate the desired post among several hundred.

Imagine a topic with these key words "Tacitus monastery" key user: "spin"

This pulls up a thread, with 250 replies, and spin has contributed several posts, so finding one isn't so difficult. In fact, spin has written the second post to the thread, one in which he links the subject matter of the thread, to his private blog, (occupying space on the forum), but, which, however, is inaccessible to those, including me, who follow the road less traveled.

If we then change the search keywords to "Tacitus forgery", key user "spin", we now obtain TWO threads, and this second thread has 500 replies, of which, 23 have been submitted by spin.

The first one encountered, authored by spin, is number 60: "Just noted ApostateAbe has gone self-ban."
Informative though this masterful gem of good writing undoubtedly is, it was not really that particular forum participant, or his life, which was of interest to me, but rather the analysis of the evidence of forgery in our sole extant manuscript of Tacitus Annals. I seek meat and potatoes, not fluff, like this gossip, which spin is known to promulgate, from time to time.

Point is, I shouldn't have to wade through scores of other posts, including this one, to arrive at a post which addresses the two key words. The way this forum's search engine operates, I am obliged to scan (in this case) 60 meaningless submissions, and still I have found nothing related to the topic of interest. A good search engine would have taken me directly to the first post which had been written by spin, and in which, at least one of the key words, had been included in the body of spin's text.