After 20 Years Plus of Flogging His Theory How Many Here at the Forum Believe Mountainman?

[Peter Kirby]

This paper explains how machine learning techniques can be used to develop expert systems that perform work like human paleographers:

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020P ... D/abstract

[Peter Kirby]

We now have this list for finding the terminus ad quem for a text:

(1) from dating its author, with both:
(1) (a) source criticism regarding authorship, using external and internal evidence
(1) (b) information regarding the author, using external and internal evidence

(2) from internal evidence
(2) (a) references in the text to contemporary people and circumstances
(2) (b) incidental use of certain words and phrases (identified individually)
(2) (c) statistical analysis of the text

(3) from external evidence
(3) (a) the first quotation or other utilization of the text by some other datable work
(3) (b) the reference to an earlier quotation that has been lost but has been dated
(3) (c) references regarding when the text was composed

(4) the dating of a manuscript of the text by:
(4) (a) stratiographic analysis (via archeology)
(4) (b) re-use of manuscript on recto or verso, when the re-use can be dated
(4) (c) use of papyri in the binding or wrapping that can be dated
(4) (d) specific references in the manuscript (e.g. in the margins) that can be dated
(4) (e) paleography (human-based)
(4) (f) paleography (computer-based)
(4) (g) ink analysis
(4) (h) radiocarbon dating

[Secret Alias]

and you forgot

(5) developing a conspiracy theory and making all evidence conform to the premise of the conspiracy theory by
(5) (a) ignoring all evidence to the contrary
(5) (b) quote mining actual scholars who critique one small part of the field
(5) (c) misrepresenting evidence
(5) (d) making up shit
(5) (e) spending much of your time frequenting discussion board hoping nobody notices you keep saying the same and have no academic credentials

[Leucius Charinus]

(6) Evidence is king. The integrity of it's chronology is of vital importance. Chronology is the backbone of history. Deduction of earliest and latest possible dates for any event, text, person etc. must be from the evidence wherever possible. Evidence is mute - historians must make hypotheses about it in order that it speaks and then be evaluated. Primary evidence is preferred over secondary evidence wherever possible. Relics are more credible sources than narratives wherever possible. Pious forgery is fraud. Question everything.

• “I would rather have questions that can't be answered
  than answers that can't be questioned.”
  ~~ Richard Feynman

[mlinssen]

(6) Evidence is king. The integrity of it's chronology is of vital importance. Chronology is the backbone of history. Deduction of earliest and latest possible dates for any event, text, person etc. must be from the evidence wherever possible. Evidence is mute - historians must make hypotheses about it in order that it speaks and then be evaluated. Primary evidence is preferred over secondary evidence wherever possible. Relics are more credible sources than narratives wherever possible. Pious forgery is fraud. Question everything.

• “I would rather have questions that can't be answered
  than answers that can't be questioned.”
  ~~ Richard Feynman

Uh-huh. I'm still awaiting - yet certainly not holding my breath for - your simple answer to the simple question posed:

it is impossible to find anything in Thomas, even a single letter, that attests to reacting to Judeo-Christianity

114. Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life

Devoid of anything else as usual. Verbatim agreement implies direction of dependence now?

From where did Thomas get the characters Simon Peter and Matthew and Mary? And for that matter where did Thomas get "IS" from?

IS said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."
Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger."
Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

And how exactly is this Judeo-Christian?

Simon Peter. Matthew et al are the standard Jewish/Christian characters in the traditional fictional story book about Christian origins. Which book features massive copy/pasted slabs of stuff from the Greek LXX.

The term Judeo-Christian is used to group Christianity and Judaism together, either in reference to Christianity's derivation from Judaism, Christianity's borrowing of Jewish Scripture to constitute the "Old Testament" of the Christian Bible, or due to the parallels or commonalities in Judaeo-Christian ethics shared by the two religions. The term "Judæo Christian" first appeared in the 19th century as a word for Jewish converts to Christianity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judeo-Christian

Indeed, you assert that verbatim agreement determines direction of dependence.
Let me just ask you one single dumb question:

Is it technically possible that Thomas first invented these characters Pete?
Or is it only possible that someone else first invented these characters Pete?

[Leucius Charinus]

“I would rather have questions that can't be answered
than answers that can't be questioned.”
~~ Richard Feynman

Is it technically possible that Thomas first invented these characters Pete?

Yes.

FWIW I cannot rule that possibility out. If you read carefully back through our exchanges (passing over all your ad hominem stuff) I have never ruled that possibility out. Where we seem to cataclysmically diverge is in the degree of certainty to be associated with that possibility.

For example a Thomas sayings priority fits with the priority of a Diatessaron-like narrative where both the narrative of "IS" and the sayings of "IS" are farmed out into the four gospels.

• "When you have eliminated all which is impossible
  then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
  ~~ Sherlock Holmes

[Secret Alias]

Game. Set. Match.

[Leucius Charinus]

Vatican open?

[Leucius Charinus]

It is possible Christianity was elevated in the 2nd half of his rule but how or to what actual extent will be hard to determine: almost all the assertions and legends about Constantine's interactions with Christianity, apart from those related to the Council of Nicea, apply to early in his rule, related to his military activity).

In regard to the elevation of Christianity, how is the appearance of the Chi Rho on the coins of Constantine and his sons (316-360 CE) to be viewed and evaluated?

Some data here:
Constantine & the Sacred Name Code ☧ (Chi-Rho)
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/chi%20rho.htm



Constantine: Silver Medalion 316 CE:
The first instance of a chi-rho on a coin of Constantine is on a rare silver medallion issued from Ticinum in 315. Eusebius even stated that Constantine “was in the habit of wearing on his helmet [the chi-rho] at a later period." (Vita Constantini)



Constantine: Bronze Coin 336 CE:
15mm 1.4gm CONSTANTI-NVS MAX AVG rosette-diadem, draped, cuirassed GLOR-IA EXERC-ITVS [The glory of the army] Two soldiers helmeted, stg. facing one another, reversed spear in outer hands, inner hands on shields resting on the ground; between them one standard inscribed with a Chi-Rho. in ex. SCONST RIC VII Arles 394 r5




Magnentius - usurper of the Roman Empire from 350 to 353:
Double Centenionalis Magnentius; XR, s4017
Chi Rho with Alpha and Omega

[Peter Kirby]

And once again you show that you don't know how historical reasoning and evidence work.

I reject that proposition. I have pointed out the elements of historical methodology as used by classical source criticism and biblical source criticism and how these differ in some of their approaches to historical reasoning. You have not responded to this at all. Do you have a problem with it?

The ad quem dates of composition are usually fixed by the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.

If there are no other datable works with historical integrity then the ad quem looks to the earliest proof of existence of the texts, represented by the earliest physical extant manuscript copy. Or something that is very close to this.

For some reason I'm up late and noticing this stuff from another thread...

Momigliano supports my method - classical not biblical.

So you might expect a quote from Momigliano specifically about "classical not biblical" method? But no, the quote comes from Gmirkin, in a book where he thanks Greg Doudna first for his valuable suggestions, with Thomas L. Thompson as editor, just for some context about which department all of these are in. So we're getting LC quoting Gmirkin in a biblical scholarship tome, not directly concerned with method, where Gmirkin himself is also claiming to characterize classical studies methods. It's certainly interesting to find where LC lifted this faulty description of method in the Christian history subsection of the forums. And it's not Momigliano or any book about classical studies. No, LC is quoting the Gmirkin Classical Studies Method, essentially a rumor about a tendentious line someone once wrote about what classical source criticism is.

Historical methodology.

And here it is!

METHODOLOGY

The source-critical methods used in this book for dating texts - including biblical texts - are those familiar from classical studies, deductively establishing "terminus a quo" and "ad quem" dates between which the composition of the text under investigation must have taken place.

The latest possible dates of composition (terminus ad quem) is fixed by the earliest proof of existence of the texts, such as (rarely) the earliest physical copy, or (commonly) the first quotation or other utilisation of the text by some other datable work.

The earliest possible date of composition (terminus a quo) is usually fixed by the latest datable work the text in question quotes or utilises, or by the latest historical allusion within the text. This book is essentially an extended exercise in classical source criticism applied to the Hebrew Bible. [1]

With a footnote that changes the topic and slams the investigation of hypothetical sources, as if that explains anything about what Gmirkin claims is the limited set of ways we can investigate the latest possible date of a text:

[1] There is a sharp methodological distinction between classical source criticism and traditional biblical source criticism. The latter used a variety of techniques to isolate hypothetical sources within biblical texts. The identification of sources J, E, D and P preliminary to the dating arguments of the Documentary Hypothesis is a prime example of biblical source criticism. Such source documents must remain perpetually hypothetical, since they no longer exist as independent entities. This type of source criticism is rarely encountered in classical scholarship ...

From the book:

Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus: Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies) Hardcover – May 15, 2006 Russell Gmirkin

By the way, in case you're wondering, yes, the book itself really is this bad about presenting this baloney description of classical source criticism, without any support whatsoever, without any reference or any basis in fact, with nothing more than a rambling footnote about the hypothetical sources JEPD. Maybe Doudna should have given some more suggestions about tightening up the second paragraph of this book.

This is the source that LC was using when coming up with his faulty description of classical source criticism here: Gmirkin.

I would also claim plagiarism, but I have an impression here that LC was so immediately endeared to these brief, low-quality remarks that he simply thought of them fondly always, until there was no notion of where the peculiarly limited "Gmirkin Classical Source Criticism" ended and where historical method itself began.