CX

<moderator hat on>
In general such protestations are better suited for the complaint forum. Posting your complaints on the forum itself only add fuel to the fire and muddy the discussion further. Likewise you can report any post privately to the moderators of the forum by clicking on the "Report this post" link. That being said I do not disagree with your complaints and would suggest to everyone that discussions be limited to the subject at hand. Please avoid personal attacks, vulgar language and so on. A person's individual credentials, activities outside this forum etc. are not topics of discussion here and are not relevant. Everyone please address the arguments themselves rather than the posters of the arguments.
</moderator hat on>

CX

I think we are talking about different subjects entirely. I was referring to MSS attestation for NT texts whereas you are referring to the means by which the autographs are dated. I don't think we disagree. Also, my tangent about bad apologetics was not in any way a response to your comments.

Yuri Kuchinsky

My credentials is that I'm the most radical NT scholar in the world today. My webpage speaks for itself, so take a look.

My theories are feared by all mainstream scholars. That's why they persecute me the way they do. Basically, I've created a whole new science of biblical criticism.

In real science, degrees, credentials, opinions, and appeals to authority make no difference. Evidence is the only thing that makes a difference. And I do have a lot of evidence on my side.

Quote:

BTW have you ever seent he fragment in person? I have not, but I know someone who has. OK now maybe you have credentials. Maybe you are that achaeologist on Pete's list? I don't know. I'm not an expert in this field. My actual field is 18th century British thought. But I just think you are being way too dogmatic about something that is strongly accepted in that field.

And you are not dogmatic? So I merely paid you back in the same coin.

Quote:

Besides, do you suspect Secret Mark was a fruad? If not why not? You use that term of P52 and you even imply that because we don't know the exact location then it's suspect. But do you suspect secret Mark? Not at all? Why not?

I was one of the very few to defend Morton Smith when he was being slandered, and under fire. I'm glad to say that, more recently, he's beginning to get more respect.

See my article on the subject,
http://www.trends.ca/~yuku/bbl/8secmk.htm

Quote:

Don't you find it just a bit coincidental that it just happened to confirm to Ph.D. thesis, which was floundering, and that he (Smith) found it hidden in the lining of a book cover?

This is just more uninformed slander against this great scholar. What you're saying has no basis in fact.

Quote:

Your page reminds me of a creationist, trying to invalidate every dating method. I just wonder if you apply that kind of sketpicism to texts that help your cause?

My only "cause" is the scientific study of history.

Yuri.

Metacrock

Meta => I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Maybe I wasn't clear. I have a lot of respect for Peter. I was not putting him down. I was also putting myself i the same category. I am a "real scholar" in reality. But this is not my field. It's my "hobby" i guess. I was just saying that I don't think any of us are actually professional academics in this field Of course I may be wrong, and if so I apologize. I wasn't trying to say that makes me right. I was trying to say let's stop goading each other about who has the evidence and just try to appreciate each other's views.

I do appreciate Peter's views, and his website. I appreciate that a lot.


Meta => That's a complete distorition. I was quoting Helmut Koester, who is major scholar, and arche liberal. Atheists should love him, he's not in the fundie camp at all. He's a real liberal's liberal. So what if I satrted a thread on why Paul woudn't mention the empty tomb in his letters? that doesnt' mean I'm backing off of the idea that there was PreMarkan redaction version of the Gospel mentioning the empty tomb.

btw you did nothing to refute that. You merely dismissed it by saying "I don't have to believe Koester." that's not refutation at all!


Meta => That too is a distortion. You had your three examples (and amitte done was wrong when Kirby backed me up). Of course you keep those quotes stairght because they are your quotes. but coming in the middle of a huge post when I'm writting like the dickens to answer it all, and not MS I'm familiar with (except Antheagorus). Really Maximus Felix, no one reads him, he's not important. And Trypho, I'm not a Justin Martyr scholar you know.


Meta => Again, that is totally dishonest as to what happend. All of you on this board just love to through about the epith "you have no evidence." It doesn't ocurr to you that Eusebius is evidence!

1) He was an eye witness
2) he was quoting the wirttings of Melito of Sardis, who was the second century pilgrim
3) the claim i was making was very small (not that the empty tomb was proven--but that you can't calim no one ever vinerated it early)
4) it was corroborated by modern archaeology
5) quoted 2 other pilgrims from pre -Constatine era.
6) linked to page defending Eusebius.

the thing about sticking E with the epithet "master forger" is the kind of amaturish bS that I'm upset about. No historian that I know would say that. There are suspeicions that he made up some names in his Bishop list, but no proof of it, and most don't even say that. There's no evidence he forged anything, all that comkes form Gibbon! Get it? biased sketpic of 18th century who is no longer very respected himself. You just blithely ignore the page defending E.







Meta => How the arrogant hate to be showen up! Illiteracy means that one cannot read. I dare say I've read more you and understand it better. Your comment is like calling a crippaled person "slow." Making fun of someone in a wheel chair because he can't walk. I have an offical disability. It would stop most people from trying to even go to college. And I have gotten to the doorstep of a Ph.D becasue I presisted. If that seem like illiteracy to you then I suggest you need to re think your defition.spelling is not litteracy

Your ego is brused because I disproved your little precious theory.


Meta => that's just the typical skeptic bait the christian game. I've been sworne at more on this board than any other. When atheists sware does it bother you? I doubt it.

If my arguments are so empty then why did you say nothing about my page long Koester evidence? You said nothign about the Diatesseron readnig, nothing about Gpete, nothing about thomas, nothing about Egarton 2. Page long thing backed up not just by Koester, but by four other scholars, including Crosson. So that's what you are calling "no evidence."


Meta => Well I call them to step in and make you be honest and respond to my arguments.


Meta =>I call upon the spirit of Madalyn Murry O'Hair to tell this Doherty wanna be that he isn't fooling anyone with his "you don't have any evidence." when all he's done is ignore the evidence.


Meta => I am not trying to put myself over Peter. I think very highly of him. He would not ignore the Koester evdience.He wouldn't try to twist and distort the quotations the way you did. That was the wrost job of interpriting a text I've ever seen.


Meta => part of civility is honesty. And when you go saying things like "you didn't have any evidence" when my evidence is a whole web page long, that is total dishonesty.

Metacrock

OK so it doesn't even dawn on you that credentials are a sign of expertise? Ok fine. why even bother to quote scholars then? Why bother to show what some scholar thinks if being a scholar is just a matter of having a website?




OK forget the credentials thing. Sorry I brought it up. Let me ask you this. I saw on your page the argument that dating methods in general can be flawed. This is what it seemed to me you were saying:

1) datiing can be flawed

2_ P52 is dated with these same methods


3) therefore, p52 is flawed.

from that you conclude its a 'fraud' which seems like a huge leap in logic and a very serious charge to make, not backed up by any evidence.

that seems like a fallacious way of reasoining. Surely you accept the validity of dates of other MS, what makes them better? What specifically shows that p52 is flawed?

Toto

Meta - the is the third thread I've followed you to asking what Melito of Sardis is supposed to have said about the tomb.

I've already challenged your "eye witness" evidence, I've already said I wasn't charging Eusebius with lying, I've already quoted Roger Pearse's page "defending" Eusebius as noting how unreliable he is. I've given you a scholarly paper that you ignore, saying that Melito did not venerate the tomb. . .

But you still claim that you have shown something.

:banghead:

Metacrock

Meta=> I told you what he was suppossed to have said. I don't know why this is so hard for you. He said that he went to Jerusalem, the Christians there told him that the Jewish Christians, before they were exiled told them, that they marked the site of the tomb, which they vinerated until the Romans defiled it in 135 AD. They marked it by keeping track of the fact that a temple to Venus was put over it.


MEta => Do you see how many threads I'm in and how many arguments I have to deal with. It's a message board. IT's not going anywhere. Just don't get your knickers in a twist.

But you still claim that you have shown something.

:Meta =>all I've ever claimed is that it's too brash to say "they never vinerated a tomb." The evidence that they did may not be the best, but there is evidence. as long as there is, you can't dogmatically insist they didn't.


I don't remember you saying anything that would disprove E's statment that he went there and saw the temple of Venus under the site!

Melito himself didn't venerate the tomb, others told him they did.

Peter Kirby

Metacrock says: "he was quoting the wirttings of Melito of Sardis, who was the second century pilgrim"

Metacrock says: "I told you what he [Melito of Sardis] was suppossed to have said. I don't know why this is so hard for you. He said that he went to Jerusalem, the Christians there told him that the Jewish Christians, before they were exiled told them, that they marked the site of the tomb, which they vinerated until the Romans defiled it in 135 AD. They marked it by keeping track of the fact that a temple to Venus was put over it."

Where does Eusebius quote Melito?

Here are all the references to Melito in the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius.

Book IV
The Emperor Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus, Armenicus, Pontifex Maximus, fo rthe fifteenth time Tribuine, for the third time Consul, to the Common Assembly of Asia, Greeting. 2I know that the gods also take care that such persons do not escape detection. For they would much rather punish those who will not worship them than you would. 3But you throw them into confusion, and while you accuse them of atheism you only confirm them in the opinion which they hold. It would indeed be more desirable for them, when accused, to appear to die for their God, than to live. Wherefore also they come off victorius when they give up their lives rather than yield obedience to your commands. 4And in regard to the eqrthquakes which have been and are still taking place, it is not improper to admonish you who lose heart whenever they occur, and nevertheless are accustomed to compare your conduct with theirs. 5They indeed become the more confident in God, while you, during the whle time, neglect, in apparent ignorance, the other gods and the worship of the Immortal, and oppress and persecute even unto death the Christians who worship him. 6But in regard to these persons, many of the governors of the provinces wrote also to our most divine father, to whome he wrote in reply that they should not trouble these people unless it should appear that they were attempting something affecting the Roman government. And to me also may have sent communications concerning these men, but I have replied to them in the same way that my father did. 7But if any one still persists in bringing accusations against any of these people as such, the person who is accused shall be acquitted of the charge, even if it appear that he is one of them, but the accuser shall be punished. Published in Ephesus in the Common Assembly of Asia." 8To these things Melito, bishop of hte church of Sardis, and a man well known at that time, is a witness, as is clear from his words in the Apology which he addressed to the Emperor Verus in behalf of our doctrine.

Book IV, Chapter 21
1 At that time there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before,142 and Dionysius,143 bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete,144 and besides these, Philip,145 and Apolinarius,146 and Melito,147 and Musanus,148 and Modestus,149 and finally, Irenaeus.150 From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from apostolic tradition.151

Book V, Chapter 24
Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris355 who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius,356 or Melito,357 the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?

Book V, Chapter 28
For who does not know the works of Irenaeus400 and of Melito401 and of others which teach that Christ is God and man?402 And how many psalms and hymns,403 written by the faithful brethren from the beginning, celebrate Christ the Word of God, speaking of him as Divine.

Book VI, Chapter 13
In them he promises also to write a commentary on Genesis.103 In his book on the Passover104 he acknowledges that he had been urged by his friends to commit to writing, for posterity, the traditions which he had heard from the ancient presbyters; and in the same work he mentions Melito and Irenaeus, and certain others, and gives extracts from their writings.

The closest thing that I have seen to a quote of Melito is the statement in the Catholic Encyclopedia: "It is recorded that Melito of Sardis visited the place where 'these things [of the Old Testament] were formerly announced and carried out'." Never mind the fact that I don't know who quoted Melito on this point--it doesn't say Eusebius did--or even if these are Melito's very words. The explanatory note says that Melito was visiting sites of the Old Testament. If the Catholic Encyclopedia knew of something written by Melito supporting the site of the Holy Sepulchre as the tomb of Jesus in some way, don't you think that they would have quoted that, instead of referring only to his visit to Jewish holy sites?

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto

It appears that you read New Advent, which creates a possible chain of evidence, and have transformed it into actual evidence.

There is actually no indication from Melito that he talked to any Jewish Christians about the location of the tomb, only idle speculation that he might have, and this would have preserved the knowledge if he had, thus validating St. Helena's choice of a site. But there is no evidence that he did.

This may seem like a minor point, but it seems to epitomize historical Jesus scholarship - speculation about what might have happened suddenly becomes what must have happened.

Metacrock

see my post on the thruth about the tomb thread. It's footnoted where he says it in the article that Toto posted in link as a text version, in the fn on Melito. I can't get in there cause I had computer trouble. You can look it up.