Page 9 of 13
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:10 pm
by Secret Alias
Ei-yei-yei Rkovsky I just demonstrated that just like Craig Evans and others Tarantino falsified or misrepresented his evidence to arrive at the desired conclusion. The words Tarantino cites as the ending of Top Gun are slightly different from the actual words in the ending. This is what Evans and others do with Secret Mark and the "spend the night together" business. And to say someone was gay when they never publicly came out as gay you need something like this
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:27 pm
by Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Roger Viklund wrote:rakovsky wrote:
What are the three strongest arguments for and against the legitimacy of Clement's document mentioning "Secret Mark"?
The strongest arguments, IMO, is a number of combined arguments.
There may be some further points. I think that Ben wrote a
really good article about Secret Mark. Although I have no final opinion about that, it was also my suspicion that it is a modern forgery. So far I know, the idea that there could be a gap in Mark 10:46, is a modern idea of the redaction critics.
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:30 pm
by Secret Alias
What's the earliest reference to that idea? Interesting
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:09 pm
by rakovsky
Secret Alias wrote:Ei-yei-yei Rkovsky I just demonstrated that just like Craig Evans and others Tarantino falsified or misrepresented his evidence to arrive at the desired conclusion. The words Tarantino cites as the ending of Top Gun are slightly different from the actual words in the ending. This is what Evans and others do with Secret Mark and the "spend the night together" business. And to say someone was gay when they never publicly came out as gay you need something like this
Whether Top Gun was secretly gay would depend on the screenwriter's and producer's intentions. The screenwriter is saying that the movie was done in a way so that it's unavoidable to say that it's gay, even though that was not the writer's intent (he claims), as I quoted previously.
It doesn't ultimately matter then whether Tarantino misquoted some text.
So to say it was gay requires good evidence like the photo you showed would mean that you need something like the writer's words that I quoted above. The writer's words are like the hidden camera- they go behind the scenes to find out what the intent and interpretation of the creators themselves was.
Do you think X Men was a gay film at all?
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:22 pm
by Secret Alias
So the only way a person could write a story about black people is if the story writer was black? Retarded. So if Secret Mark is authentic then we know Jesus and Mark are gay.
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:35 pm
by rakovsky
Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Roger Viklund wrote:I think that Ben wrote a
really good article about Secret Mark.
Yes:
If we ... focus only on the handwriting comparisons between the scholia, the disputed Mar Saba manuscript, and the other Mar Saba manuscripts, I think that Carlson has, barring a plethora of counterexamples from a widened pool of samples, made a very good case that the hand that scribed the document was, in fact, a modern hand and was, in fact, the hand of Morton Smith.
...
In this chapter the arguments that sway me are the hapax legomena, the Alexandrian paradox, and the salt anachronism.
...it has singlehandedly changed my position on the secret gospel of Mark from probably authentically ancient to almost certainly not. I have revised my site references to this text accordingly.
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:37 pm
by rakovsky
Secret Alias wrote:So the only way a person could write a story about black people is if the story writer was black?
No, but if someone is a black nationalist and then "coincidentally" "discovers' a lost 2nd c. document reasonably but uniquely alluding that Jesus was black, the "coincidence" seems to me an argument against its legitimacy.
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:39 pm
by Michael BG
rakovsky wrote:People in Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan, Antioch, Damascus spoke Aramaic, the main language of Judea.
People in Asia Minor, Greece, and Egypt spoke Greek, a common language among Judeans and the language of the NT.
Even if all I knew was Latin, I could still go to Jerusalem and ask the Romans basic questions. For example, did the Romans keep records of the crucifixions they performed? Were the Roman officials unhappy in 63-70 AD that Jesus' brother James got killed like Josephus said, and what was James' background? Did Joseph of Arimathea the influential Sanhedrin member that Pilate knew even exist? Had they heard about the gospels and Paul, and what did the Romans think about these stories?
There is a large question over how much Greek people would know living in Palestine as Aramaic was the common language of a huge area including Palestine. It might be that those who knew Greek also knew Aramaic and used that when talking with most of the people living in the villages. (I expect only a small percentage of Indians could speak English in the early nineteenth century.)
rakovsky wrote:
So if I go to Cana, Sepphoris, or Nazareth in 100 AD and everyone in the area is saying that Nazareth was just founded 10 years before (90 AD) vs. 70 years before, obviously that would be the kind of fact that discussions with villagers could easily bring out.
Now you are saying that you can discover if something is false rather than true, such as the existence of Nazareth.
We have no idea what records the Romans kept at Caesarea after 70 CE relating to earlier events. If there are no records regarding Jesus or James or Joseph of Arimathea or Paul what difference does it make?
If the only people you can find in 100 CE who say they know about the life of Jesus are Christians what difference does it make?
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:17 pm
by Roger Viklund
rakovsky wrote:Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:Roger Viklund wrote:I think that Ben wrote a
really good article about Secret Mark.
Yes:
If we ... focus only on the handwriting comparisons between the scholia, the disputed Mar Saba manuscript, and the other Mar Saba manuscripts, I think that Carlson has, barring a plethora of counterexamples from a widened pool of samples, made a very good case that the hand that scribed the document was, in fact, a modern hand and was, in fact, the hand of Morton Smith.
...
In this chapter the arguments that sway me are the hapax legomena, the Alexandrian paradox, and the salt anachronism.
...it has singlehandedly changed my position on the secret gospel of Mark from probably authentically ancient to almost certainly not. I have revised my site references to this text accordingly.
Well, I didn’t write that. You seem to have missed the last ten years of research. Carlson’s analysis has been proven wrong (as has most of his other hypotheses). He made his study of the handwriting on images which themselves produced all the signs of forgery he claimed to have found. I showed this already in 2009 and you can read my and Timo’s article on that too (if you wish). “Distortion of the Scribal Hand in the Images of Clement’s Letter to Theodore” (academia.edu/12223740/Distortion_of_the_Scribal_Hand_in_the_Images_of_Clement_s_Letter_to_Theodore)
Re: How did early Christian texts just go missing?
Posted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 3:25 pm
by rakovsky
Roger Viklund wrote:rakovsky wrote:[quote="
Kunigunde KreuzerinI think that Ben wrote a
really good article about Secret Mark.
Yes:
If we ... focus only on the handwriting comparisons between the scholia, the disputed Mar Saba manuscript, and the other Mar Saba manuscripts, I think that Carlson has, barring a plethora of counterexamples from a widened pool of samples, made a very good case that the hand that scribed the document was, in fact, a modern hand and was, in fact, the hand of Morton Smith.
...
In this chapter the arguments that sway me are the hapax legomena, the Alexandrian paradox, and the salt anachronism.
...it has singlehandedly changed my position on the secret gospel of Mark from probably authentically ancient to almost certainly not. I have revised my site references to this text accordingly.
[/quote]
Well,
I didn’t write that. [/quote]
Misquote by me.
Kunig wrote a recommendation of Ben Smith's research, which I cited in that message.