Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 11:56 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Aug 18, 2022 8:43 pm
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 11:00 pm
mlinssen wrote: ↑Thu Jul 28, 2022 2:37 pm
When will Christians demand honesty, sincerity and truth from their scholars and academics?
What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?
"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn"
Sorry Ken, I have nothing but praise and respect for you, and you deserve nothing but from my point of view. But what does it take to turn all this around - what does it take to simply do the right thing?
You appear to have misunderstood me Ken, given the fact that you took this quote
from another thread and used it to start this one - and I would very much like you to set things straight because
you give a completely wrong impression of the facts: not only of what I have stated but most importantly of what Mark and Simon have stated
"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn" is the actual sole response from both Mark Goodacre as well as Simon Gathercole to me when I sent them
my paper on the abundantly overwhelming presence of ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ and related forms with an ETA (ⲏ) in the Nag Hammadi Library
So please, do follow up on this, as
you wholly misrepresent what Mark Goodacre did, what Simon Gathercole did, and what I said they did - thank you
I do appear to have misunderstood what you intended to convey with the highlighted line. If I am understanding you correctly now, the highlighted line you placed in quotation marks following your question 'What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?' was not, in fact, what you wanted Gathercole, Goodacre, and me, to stand up and shout, but rather the sole response you had actually received from both Mark Goodacre and Simon Gathercole. I admit I did not understand that to be what you were saying. I do not think you communicated your meaning very well.
Could you restate what you were actually asking a bit more clearly? I see three or four questions there:
(1) When will Christians demand honesty, sincerity and truth from their scholars and academics?
(2) What will it take for the likes of you, Gathercole and Goodacre to stand up and shout?
(3 or 3 & 4) what does it take to turn all this around - what does it take to simply do the right thing?
I think I more or less understand the first question.
On the second, what is it that Gathercole, Goodacre, and I, should be standing up and shouting?
On the third, I don't quite understand what 'all of this' is. Is it everything you have ever argued on this forum and your Academia.edu site in general, or one or more of the particular issue you have addressed such as the dating of Chrestian/Christian terms like 'catholic', the origin of nomina sacra, or the direction of dependence between the synoptics and Thomas?
On the fourth, I may or may not have understood you on what the right thing is and who should be doing it who is not. I think you were asking why Gathercole and I have not come forward and publicly admitted that you are right about 'all of this' (whatever that happens to be). (If that is what you are saying, then I would guess that was also what you think G., G., I, and our likes should stand up and shout).
Best,
Ken
Thank you Ken, granted.
Let me ignore your direct questions please and instead go back to my original post and address the brief statements in there by elaborating on what laid in front of me prior to that:
1. The issue that I ran into well over 3 years ago concerned the "emending" of Thomas, like logion 65 "he didn't know them" -> "they didn't recognise him". An emendation that is very hard to justify of course from a scribal point of view, and attests to the desire of the "scholar" trying hard (and apparently failing) to make sense of the text.
And his resolution is to change the text so he can uphold his peerception
2. It didn't take long before matters went from bad to worse, and logion 74 has 2 completely different words "emended" into one -
and again, against all rules of treating a text, without any motivation or explanation whatsoever.
You get the gist I think. The more "scholarly works" I read, the greater the quantity and 'quality' of the emendations - and
the complete absence of any and all explanation for so grossly redacting the original text
3. Fast forward to my discovery of the XS ligatures in all their forms in the
NHL: 35 counts of XRHSTOS-xyz, 2 of XRISTOS-xyz.
That is a really very skewed distribution, isn't it?
Yet all of these get translated with Christ-xyz, and there are only two notes to all of it in the 5,000 pages that the Brill series on the NHL comprise and at no point is there any visible mark to the English translation that a word like XRHSTOS gets emended to XRISTOS.
Nor is there a comment from anyone who remarks on the fact that the word XRISTOS is not even present in the NHL; all there is, is XRHSTOS and XRHSTOS alone.
Christ doesn't exist in the NHL, Ken - and at that point I didn't yet know that the identical fact holds true for any and all Christian writings.
It had been 2 years since my initial discovery and I had set up a Discussion as I usually do for burning topics, which was frequented by quite a few professors and scholars - who all remained utterly silent
And that is when I, in despair after so many papers published by me on this topic, that went without any and all response, reached out to Mark and Simon with what I saw as splendid demonstration of blind bias that really and urgently had to be addressed "from within".
And I was well aware of the predicament there so I appealed to academic ethics, morals and values in general, and I called for a reaction from their side, if at least just a preliminary one to me
"Thank you for sharing your research Martijn" was all I got
Does this help, Ken?
In related news, I see you radically changed the thread title, which is quite intrusive for a running thread - but you started it so you're free to do that.
Yet it will be confusing to most