|
Post by timoneill on Apr 25, 2012 2:38:33 GMT
Which is obviously a paraphrase but even so it lacks a lot of the overt Christian overtones from Eusebius which would have been useful to Agapius. If Agapius was working from a translation of Eusebius, why did he leave them out ?. Exactly. The interpolations into Antiquities XVII.3.3 are clearly there to counter Jewish objections to Christian claims about Jesus. So why on earth would the Agapius paraphrase just happen to leave out these key points? This reading of the passage in Agapius makes no sense at all.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 25, 2012 5:13:52 GMT
Godfrey has wasted no time putting the boot into Hoffman. I've posted a reply:
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 25, 2012 6:50:45 GMT
Remember Murdock's original statement:
* 'Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter.'
According to the new story from Murdock and her followers, her original statement actually means this:
* 'Bronze sculpture (never hidden in the Vatican treasury), of the Cock, but not a symbol of St. Peter'.
The new spin from Murdock's followers seems to be that Murdock never claimed it IS a symbol of Peter and never claimed it IS in the Vatican. So according to Murdock it's a statute representing Peter which isn't of Peter, and it's held in the secret Vatican treasury while not being in the Vatican at all.
What was amusing was that on Murdock's own forum one of her followers attempted to claim that she hadn't simply been using Google Books as a resource, and that she could certainly have owned all those books and read them, and used Google Books simply for the benefit of her readers. This attempt at helpful apologetic was promptly destroyed by Murdock herself, who acknowledged that she had actually used Google Books in exactly the way I described, a method of 'research' which she defended hotly.
Murdock's follower quoted Chausse (who does not say that the statue was in the Vatican), and Knight (who is the source on which later writers rely when claiming the statue was in the Vatican), whilst apparently failing to realise that Knight contradicts Murdock's claim that the statue was hidden in the 'secret treasury' of the Vatican. On the contrary, Knight claims it was displayed publicly in the Vatican Palace.
Murdock's follower even acknowledges 'Mr. Burke was correct when he wrote "the image is not hidden in the 'Vatican Treasury' ", because it IS in the Gabinetto, while in Knight's day it WAS in the Vatican Palace, and it was not HIDDEN, it was on PUBLIC display'. So Murdock's own follower destroys Murdock's original claim that this is a 'Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury'.
Unfortunately, Knight seems to be the only source we have for the statue ever being in any part of the Vatican (subsequent writers citing him), and since he made the claim in order to defend his publication of Priapic images ('The original, from which it is taken, is an antique bronze, preserved in the Vatican palace, where it has been publicily exhibited for near a century, without corrupting any one's morals or religion, that I have heard of'), his claim clearly involved a good deal of self-interest, so it's probably unsurprising that he's the earliest source subsequent writers cite. It is certainly unsurprising that a couple of the modern sources cited by Murdock treat Knight's claim with caution.
In the quotation I provided from Panzanelli & Scholosser was careful to quote them exactly, saying that the bronze in question (and another bronze they cite from Knight), was 'supposedly recovered at Pompeii/Herculaneum', indicating their own caution about the original source of each statue. I nevertheless believe that the case for this origin is good, given that the statues in question ended up in the Gabinetto Segreto, since it is a collection of items excavated from Pompeii and Herculaneum; a case would have to be made that this item was found elsewhere but later placed in the Gabinetto Segreto for some reason. The fact that it's in the Gabinetto Segreto is prima facie evidence that it was excavated from Pompeii or Herculaneum.
Murdock's follower opposes this on the grounds that they believe it's incredibly unlikely that there could be more than once such copy of either statue (which is a reasonable argument on the face of it). However, Murdock herself acknowledges this is possible, which her own follower appears not to have realised. Citing 'Sex and Sex Worship (Phallic Worship): A Scientific Treatise on Sex' (1922), Murdock shows what she says is ‘a photograph of what appears to be the original bronze statue (or at least its twin)’.
Regardless, even if this point is incorrect, the fact remains that I have disproved Murdock's original claim, which was this:
* 'Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter.'
Murdock has retreated on both these claims. She now says she never claimed this statue is a 'symbol of St. Peter', and has stopped claiming the sculpture is 'hidden in the Vatican treasury', which is progress. But it shows you really have to follow up these people and pin them down with proper research, or they'll try to get away with anything.
Additionally, Murdock's own follower has not only acknowledged ' 'Mr. Burke was correct when he wrote "the image is not hidden in the 'Vatican Treasury'', but has also acknowledged that Knight himself says the complete opposite of Murdock's claim; Knight says the sculpture was displayed publicly in the Vatican Palace for over a century, whereas Murdock claimed it is 'hidden in the Vatican treasury', and continued to defend this claim that it is 'hidden in the Vatican treasury' in her initial response to Ehrman.
Curiously, Murdock's follower asks 'Did Mr. Burke even bother to check Chausse's Museum Romanum?'. Of course I did., I even cited it in my original post, a fact which Murdock's follower appears to have overlooked; I made the point that Chausse's description of the bronze makes no reference to Peter or to the Vatican. Chausse's work contains the plates from which Knight made his own representation of two bronzes, though his representation of them differs slightly from that of Chausse.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 25, 2012 7:49:42 GMT
Since my reply to Carrier on his blog hasn't been approved yet, I've captured a screenshot of our original exchange just in case it all suddenly disappears for whatever reason. I've placed in bold the most interesting claims he makes. Is it really true that 'we have almost no literature that would use fictive kinship address', and is it really true that 'we mostly only have references to the existence of fictive kinship, not the formulas used'? I will be interested to see if he maintains or withdraws from these claims in future.
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 25, 2012 10:37:13 GMT
Hoffman's comment on Godfrey's latest:
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 25, 2012 10:52:03 GMT
I've just been reading James Hannam's excellent summary of mythicism's ragged history. His section on Wells is priceless:
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 25, 2012 11:09:04 GMT
Remember Murdock's original statement: * 'Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter.' According to the new story from Murdock and her followers, her original statement actually means this: * 'Bronze sculpture (never hidden in the Vatican treasury), of the Cock, but not a symbol of St. Peter'. The new spin from Murdock's followers seems to be that Murdock never claimed it IS a symbol of Peter and never claimed it IS in the Vatican. So according to Murdock it's a statute representing Peter which isn't of Peter, and it's held in the secret Vatican treasury while not being in the Vatican at all. What was amusing was that on Murdock's own forum one of her followers attempted to claim that she hadn't simply been using Google Books as a resource, and that she could certainly have owned all those books and read them, and used Google Books simply for the benefit of her readers. This attempt at helpful apologetic was promptly destroyed by Murdock herself, who acknowledged that she had actually used Google Books in exactly the way I described, a method of 'research' which she defended hotly. Nice
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 25, 2012 19:00:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 25, 2012 19:54:42 GMT
Hilarious - though I imagine Carrier will try and wriggle out of it (and generate more booksales and oxygen with the gnu atheists through this exchange). He is the consummate bullnuts artist.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 25, 2012 23:49:31 GMT
Scarr (Steve Carr), is still desparately denying that Murdock claimed the bronze was a statue of Peter. He seems to be reasoning thus:
* Murdock says the Cock is a symbol of Peter * Murdock says statue X is the Cock * Murdock is therefore saying statue X is not a symbol of Peter
Meanwhile, I'm impressed with Ehrman's latest reply to Carrier, which is having an impact on the rationally minded atheists following the debate.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 26, 2012 0:11:18 GMT
Scarr is approaching epic proportions of tragedy in his attempt to avoid answering my questions. Here's what I wrote to him. He replied 'I still have no idea what you are talking about'.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 26, 2012 0:42:52 GMT
A most interesting reply. It seems to me that Ehrman is able to show that many of Carrier's accusations are false, intemperate and immodest, but Ehrman does show himself to be a little careless on a few occasions - perhaps he rushed the book out a little too quickly? Overall score: Ehrman 4 - Carrier 1, no need for extra time!
|
|
|
Post by euglena on Apr 26, 2012 3:35:59 GMT
To me, none of the "errors" look significant at all. It's as if Carrier was trying to create mountains out of as many molehills as he could. It is a common nutter/conspiracy theorist tactic - you try to win as many nitpicks as possible to establish some type of credibility.
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 26, 2012 4:05:09 GMT
To me, none of the "errors" look significant at all. It's as if Carrier was trying to create mountains out of as many molehills as he could. It is a common nutter/conspiracy theorist tactic - you try to win as many nitpicks as possible to establish some type of credibility. Yes that's how it looks to me. Let's use the Bodkin to respond to Carrier's review with, well, Carrier's review. On Ehrman's treatment of Mythicists: * Criticism: Almost none of this 361 page book is a critique of the “bad” mythicists * Pushback: That alone I could live with On Ehrman's treatment of Murdock: * Criticism: Ehrman says that “there is no penis-nosed statue of Peter the cock in the Vatican or anywhere else except in books like this, which love to make things up” (p. 24) * Pushback: I do not assume Murdock’s interpretation of the object is correct (there is no clear evidence it has anything to do with Christianity, much less Peter) On Ehrman's reference to Pliny: * Criticism: He made two astonishing errors here that are indicative of his incompetence with ancient source materials * Pushback: modern scholars conclude, the same law is probably what was being applied in both cases (prosecuting Christians and banning firefighting associations). And that’s kind of what Ehrman confusingly says On Ehrman's reference to Roman records: * Criticism: Ehrman declares (again with that same suicidally hyperbolic certitude) that “we simply don’t have birth notices, trial records, death certificates—or other kinds of records that one has today” (p. 29) * Pushback: his conclusion is correct (we should not expect to have any such records for Jesus or early Christianity) On Erhman's reference to interpolation in Tacitus: * Criticism: Ehrman says “I don’t know of any trained classicists or scholars of ancient Rome who think” the passage about Christians in Tacitus is a forgery (p. 55) * Pushback: That the overall consensus of scholarship, myself included, sides with Ehrman on the conclusion is true On Erhman's reference to the theory Jesus lived before the first century CE: * Criticism: This is false. And it’s astonishing that he would not know this, since several other scholars have discussed the sources that place Jesus in the reign of Jannaeus in the 70s B.C * Pushback: These are all arguably “fringe” scholars, and they may well be as wrong as Wells or even more so. I am not defending anything they argue (I do not believe Christianity originated in the 70s B.C.)
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 26, 2012 4:33:51 GMT
My reply to Carrier on his blog still hasn't been approved, although my first post was approved and replied to within a day. I wonder if I have hit a nerve?
|
|