It appears there's been some follow-up at this website.
I've crushed that in the following post below. Here you can see for yourself
how he tried (and failed) to squirm out from underneath the crushing weight of this refutation through slick wording that displays how Burke's obstinacy borders on the delusional, causing him to view this irrefutable rebuttal as an agreement
All the while he conspicuously omitted any acknowledgement of his own errors as well as omitting any link to here so that you can read my posts for yourself and compare it to his revisionist history to see how in reality he was exposed as being far more incompetent than either Murdock, Carrier, or Ehrman.
Anyway, let's get to it...
It’s entirely possible that the only source which says anything about the statue being in the Vatican is correct, and that the statue was later moved to the Gabinetto Segreto, even though there’s no record of any such thing happening. Certainly, we can build arguments on speculation instead of evidence, if that’s the way you prefer to roll.
Okay, first thing to notice here is how Burke is trying to emphasize there being only one source "which says anything about the statue being in the Vatican". Well, if by source he means independent sources, well then most likely that would be correct, as the later scholars stating as much do appear to be dependent on Knight. But the fact remains, later scholars have indeed repeated Knight's fact of residency in the Vatican, thus that would not be only one source, but merely one independent
source, but that's fine, for an obvious reason which I shall come back to in a moment. But other such scholarly sources following in Knight's claim are even listed by Burke himself in his initial post, namely, the key source that Burke is falling back on- Panzanelli & Scholosser. And Burke even wrote that out in quotation that they referred to the statue as the...
So the very source Burke is trying to use to deny any residency at the Vatican, has itself NOT
denied such, but infact, even seems to be alluding to such. And unlike their skeptical language of "supposedly" when treating the claim of discovery at Pompeii, Panzanelli & Scholosser did not invoke such skeptical language when mentioning the Vatican in connection with this statue either (nope, not even "notorious"
Now, to be fair, they didn't affirm it either, with anything to the effect of "yeah, it used to be in the Vatican", but they sure as hell did not go as far as Mr. Burke and try to deny it was ever there, and in fact, they even alluded to it by giving it the very name "Vatican bronze".
So in summation on this sub-point:
That it was ever in the Vatican-
P & S do not
P & S do not affirm.
P & S DO
allude to it.
So 1 point on the score board for having been in the Vatican.
That it was NEVER in the Vatican-
P & S do not deny.
P & S do not affirm.
P & S do NOT allude.
Burke strikes out on all three counts. 0 points.
So based on P & S, when we tally the final score:
Once at the Vatican vs. Never in the Vatican- 1 to 0.
But there are other scholarly sources as well, and yes, even more modern ones from this century (though Panzanelli IS a modern scholar herself). For instance, such as the late Keith Morris Hopkins, professor of ancient history at the University of Cambridge from 1985 to 2000, in his book A World Full of Gods: The Strange Triumph of Christianity
, on page xii, under "Illustrations (Between page 178 and 179)",
number 23, he wrote:
Human bust, with cock's face and beak as erect penis, labeled in Greek "Saviour of the World" ("VATICAN, Roman period).
Then on page 364, under "Notes to pages 207-11", number 5:
And an amazing figure now in the Vatican and rarely reproduced, in which a bronze figure of a chicken ends in a human phallus, engraved with the Greek words soter kosmou = savior of the world, indicates either that some Christians did worship the genitals of their founder or were thought to do so by others (plates 22-23).
Moreover, as I already proved, this, quote, "only source" that mentions public residency at the Vatican is a source that predates the existence of the Gabinetto, therefore it would have been impossible for this source to have even mentioned the Gabinetto, and it would have been impossible for the statue to have been located at the Gabinetto at that time anyway.
So that's one older source that mentions a residency in the Vatican (at a time when the Gabinetto did not exist).
One relatively modern source that mentions a residency in the Vatican.
One modern source that alludes to residency in the Vatican, while affirming current residency at the Gabinetto.
(Although, do note that Hopkins had written "now in the Vatican", which according to Panzanelli would be incorrect or it would mean it was only moved to the Gabinetto sometime between Hopkins book and Panzanelli's. It seems more likely it is the former.)
If we throw Carrier in there, that'd be three modern scholarly sources.
So one independent source, three dependent sources, two affirming & one alluding to a residency at the Vatican.
But that hair splitting of source numbers aside, even humoring Burke, and assuming he meant only independent sources, his attempt to emphasize there being one "only source which says anything about the statue being in the Vatican" would result in special pleading in the minds of the readers who buy into that attempt.
For while indeed this leaves us with only one independent source affirming the fact that the statue was once located at the Vatican, so far we've likewise...only seen ONE independent source claiming current residence at the Gabinetto Segreto in Naples! That being Panzanelli & Scholosser's book!
And as I already pointed out, they don't deny, but even allude to a former Vatican residency as well.
Burke is engaging in special pleading by trying to play up the fact that there is so far only one independent source for Vatican residency.
So as far as independent sources go, the score is 1 to 1 for Vatican residency and Gabinetto residency. And as I already pointed out in a previous post, there is no contradiction between these two facts.
So it is not speculation, it is simple logical deduction. Knight says the statue was on public display at the Vatican for over a century, the Gabinetto did not exist then. Centuries later
Panzanelli says it's current
residence is at the Gabinetto. So NO
discrepancy there, thus no need for speculation, and no need to accuse one of being wrong and the other being right. Jonathan Burke has presented nothing whatsoever that discredits Knight.
Thus there is no need for there to be an EXPLICIT
, quote, "record of any such thing happening", when there is sufficient IMPLICIT
evidence to logically justifiably deduce that such a thing happened. Whereever it was in Knight's time, the fact is that it was NOT
at the Gabinetto, since that did not exist then- that is an indisputable fact. Therefore it IS a fact that it had to be MOVED to the Gabinetto when the Gabinetto came into existence.
The only source we have indicating ANY location at all prior to the establishment of the Gabinetto is Knight, who says it was at the Vatican. So prior to the Gabinetto, we so far have one source for Vatican residency and absolutely NO sources whatsoever for any alternate residency. The Gabinetto is out of the question, not an option, it did not exist, thus Panzanelli's statement is not applicable here. It is either Vatican residency during Knight's lifetime, or some alternate residency, which claim would bear the burden of proof, as the burden of proof for a Vatican residency at that time has already been met.
So there is indeed evidence for a former residency at the Vatican before the Gabinetto existed and thus by default relocation to the Gabinetto sometime after it came into existence.
Yep, presenting evidence is 'how I roll', as I have done so here and in my previous post.
Now as for Burke on the other hand, the way he 'prefers to roll' is clearly to "build arguments on speculation instead of evidence", as he has presented absolutely no evidence whatsoever for an alternate location for the statue during Knight's time, yet he has speculated that the statue was never at the Vatican, thus by extension is speculating that Knight was incorrect, without ever demonstrating as much.
Just as Burke likewise speculated that Chausse's "‘Romanum Museum’ (1692), couldn’t possible be referring to the same artifact."
So with that much having been refuted beyond all possibility of rebuttal, we now move on.
However, that’s not the point.
Yeah, true to form, this is a typical backpedal for those with failed arguments, such as Burke. Points which they previously placed significant emphasis on now suddenly become insignificant only ever AFTER the fact, AFTER such points have been thoroughly refuted, just as I have refuted his already. No, he is not fooling anyone with this transparent b.s. excuse. He places emphasis on this point in his initial post, and he even returned to Ehrmans blog to reiterate the significance of this particular point yet again when he wrote:
No, that would not have been clearer; it would have been wrong. The very statue to which Dorothy Murdock referred is actually in the Gabinetto Segreto (the collection of sexual and erotic artifacts found in Pompeii), of the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples, not in the Vatican. Additionally, there is no evidence it ever was in the Vatican.
And that's it. That's all he said in that post. That's the ONLY point he made in that post. So he tries to play it off as though the point has no significance or at least no important significance, that it is, quote, "not the point", yet he came back to the blog only to reiterate THAT point and that point alone.
No, it clearly had significance to Burke before I exposed it for the fallacy that it is, and he is only here and now, AFTER the fact, trying a deflection tactic to avoid having to admit his fail.
It wouldn’t save Murdock from being wrong on these counts:
* Claiming that that the statue is hidden in the Vatican treasury: the reality is that it isn’t hidden in the Vatican treasury, and the only source which says anything about it being in the Vatican says it was displayed publicly there, not hidden; she’s wrong about it being currently hidden in the Vatican treasury, and her own source is evidence that she’s wrong about it ever being in the Vatican treasury, hidden or otherwise
And with this we are agreed, for I have demonstrated Knight attesting to as much. However, as I would like to give Murdock the benefit of the doubt, I will allow her to address this one if she so chooses.
However, I for one never made a claim of the statue being hidden in the treasury, so no burden on me to straighten that one out, but more to the point, Burke here is attempting deflection. Just as he is here emphasizing that these perceived inaccuracies do not just go away on account of pointing out someone else's inaccuracies, the same still holds true of Burke himself as well as for Ehrman.
In spite of whatever errors Murdock may or may not have actually made, Ehrman still made errors of his own which have not been successfully addressed and Burke's attempt to aid Ehrman has only resulted in producing errors of his own which he likewise has failed to address.
So no matter how many errors from other people Burke may want to try and bring up, his own errors are still brightly glaring right at him and just won't go away.
* Claiming that the statue is of ‘the Cock, symbol of St. Peter’: by ‘the Cock’ she is not referring to simply a rooster, but specifically to a phallic statue representing Peter, as she helpfully made clear in her text (‘‘Peter’ is not only ‘the rock’ but also ‘the cock,’ or penis, as the word is used as slang to this day’, ‘Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury of the Cock, symbol of St. Peter’); in reality the statue is no such thing
Nope. By the cock she IS simply referring to a rooster, and not the statue, as she has stated herself many times now, Burke is just being obstinate to that fact. While I don't want to put words in Murdock's mouth (or pen), if I recall correctly, and perhaps she can affirm or deny this, but she employed the usage of the statue simply to illustrate the fact there was indeed an association between the cock and the phallus. I mean, what would demonstrate that fact any more clearly than a cock with a phallus for a beak?
It is called a syllogistic argument. It is a fact that the Christian tradition has used the cock as a symbol for Peter. It is a fact that Roman culture of the early centuries C.E. used the cock as a symbol for the phallus.
Now whether or not the syllogism that follows from that is correct or not I myself am not going to try and argue and I never have, as I am not well researched enough into the topic of phallic symbolism or on the history of traditions about Peter to make such an argument. But the point here at the moment is that Murdock, as she herself has unambiguously stated many times, even before Ehrman's book was published, was NOT claiming the statue was a depiction of Peter. Seems evident to me she was just making a syllogistic argument and was simply employing that statue in order to illustrate but the first premise of that syllogism- that the cock was often symbollic of the phallus.
If, even after she had made the clarification several times before Ehrman ever even wrote this current book, Ehrman still chose to go that route, then he shows that he either researched the topic poorly and did not get the full scope of what all Acharya had written on the matter, or he was just flat out obstinate, and inspite of knowing of her intended meaning behind her statements and usage of that pic, he chose to go ahead and strawman her anyway. Either way, Ehrman was wrong to do so. And Burke is wrong to follow Ehrman on that point. They both fail.
And several of Murdock's reader's were already clear on her intended meaning when we first read Christ Conspiracy even before she further ellaborated on it. I know that was the case with myself, and as one of the moderators here, Tat Tvam Asmi, had stated, he was clear on her intentions as well. We both knew she was only making a syllogism and was not actually stating that the statue was of Peter. We were good, we moved on to the next page. It really is a simple thing to understand.
And quite frankly, I find Burke's attempted (and failed) argument here to be as fallacious as if someone went to a Christian website and saw something like this:
and then tried to strawman that website by claiming that "the website was saying that glass of wine right there and that very loaf of bread right there IS Jesus, which is of course, a fallacy, because according to my sources, that bread was made at so-and-so bakery and they NEVER claimed they were making the body of Jesus, and same with the wine, that was brewed at so-and-so brewery, and they NEVER claimed they were making the blood of Jesus. That website is wrong!"
And then the website operators reply back by stating that it was quite obvious that they were only using that pic of bread and wine simply as an illustration and that they were not claiming THAT bread and wine right there in the pic was actually THE blood & body of Jesus, but rather that the website was simply making the point that bread in a generic sense has traditionally been a symbol of the body of Jesus, and wine in general has traditionally been considered a symbol for the blood of Jesus. The website even admits that the photographer who took the picture was not using it to portray the body & blood of Jesus or anything relating to Christianity at all. It was just a helpful illustation, and that's a common practice on the internet.
But then, even after the website made such a clarification repeated times, some Bible scholar still comes along and publishes a book strawmanning the Christian website and saying that the website claimed that THAT specific bread loaf and wine glass in THAT picture was THE body and THE blood of Jesus Christ.
Nope. Wrong. And Ehrman is wrong as well, as is Burke after him.
Flawless analogy, inspite of however Burke or anyone else may come along after the fact and try to reconstruct it.
There is no statue of ‘the Cock, symbol of St. Peter’, either ‘hidden in the Vatican treasury’ or anywhere else. The very statue to which she appeals for this claim is not of ‘the Cock, symbol of St. Peter’, is not ‘hidden in the Vatican treasury’, there’s no evidence that it was ever ‘hidden in the Vatican treasury’, and the only source which says anything about it being anywhere in the Vatican says it was displayed publicly, not hidden. She cites a source, ignores what her source actually says, and makes up a bunch of stuff for which she provides no evidence whatsoever, some of which her own source contradicts flatly.
And it contradicts Burke & Ehrman flatly on points as well. But that aside, I agree with Burke, and seeing as how Acharya has stated that she never claimed that the statue was of Peter, and thus never claimed there ever was a statue of Peter as a cock "either ‘hidden in the Vatican treasury’ or anywhere else.", that part of Burke's post is just moot. As for the hidden in treasury vs. public display, as I said, I will give Murdock herself a chance to address that if she so chooses.
One of Murdock’s followers helpfully states ‘Mr. Burke was correct when he wrote “the image is not hidden in the ‘Vatican Treasury”.
No, actually, I
The same source 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.
Moot, for I already stated as much.
I'm guessing Burke just wrote this part for the sake of any potential readers too lazy and/or scared to click the link to this thread and read my refutation of him for themselves.
What was amusing was that on Murdock’s own forum one of her followers attempted to claim
I made no such claim, and Burke obviously sees that and hence his employment of the word "attempted" to try and leave himself an out when I call him on this lie, as I am doing now, to the effect of "I never said you said that, I only said you ATTEMPTED to". I made no such claim.
What I DID do was point out that Burke's assumption and subsequent accusation was unwarranted, as such an assumption is not the only, nor even the most likely, of possible reasons for employing the usage of Google Books. I proposed another likely scenario, which is that she has read what she cites and simply uses Google Books for convenience of time and to avoid scanning, cropping, and pasting pics of the book herself, since Google has already done that much.
I know in my own experience, I do that quite often- link to Google Books for books that I myself own and have read several times. I also do the same with BibleGateway and BlueLetterBible/Strong's Concordance. I own four Bibles, each a different translation. I've read each more than once. That is how I know the key terms to search for when using BibleGateway or BlueLetterBible. I simply link to BibleGateway when on the internet out of convenience since it's already typed out and available online.
I also own Faulkner's translation of The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts, and the Coffin Texts, as well as T.G. Allen's Book of the Dead. I've read the former and latter more than once (still working on the Coffin Texts), so I know what terms to use when searching Google Books or Scribd.
I simply link to Google Books and Scribd out of convenience.
Simple as that.
Acharya affirmed that such is often the same reason why she links to Google Books as well.
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.
Eh... more or less, I'm not going split hairs over the specific wording here, but as I stated earlier, I did not CLAIM this, nor attempted to, I merely proposed it as another likely possibility as to why Acharya might have used Google Books.
Unlike Burke, who in his inital post to Ehrman DID make a positive affirmative claim, and not merely proposing a possibility, when he wrote in unambiguous language, quote, "so it’s CLEAR
Murdock doesn’t own them, hasn’t read them, and is simply searching for key words in Google Books for any references related to the subject at hand."
, Burke claims, thus this statement is not a hypothetical possibility, and thus he left himself no out.
This attempt at helpful apologetic
Nope, not an apologetic. As I said, I was proposing another likely possibility as to why she used Google Books.
was promptly destroyed by Murdock herself, who acknowledged that she had actually been using Google Books for her ‘research’, and had actually quoted bits and pieces from works to which she had limited or virtually no access (only snippet view).
Uhhh... no. She said:
Yes, of course, I avail myself of Google Books - does this person not do likewise? How foolish that would be. Ditto for any other scholar who does not use Google Books. Please find me a scholar who doesn't use Google Books, or the public library, or a university library, but who owns all the books he or she cites? And please find me one who reads all of every book he or she cites? Remember, we are not dealing with reviews here, in which we pretend to read the books we are criticizing but in reality have only had assistants pass us "Cliff Notes" of them. We are dealing with REFERENCES, and REFERENCES can be an entire book, a paragraph, a sentence or a single word, such as a dictionary. Do you read the entire dictionary before you use it to define a single word?
So again, Burke attempts a strawman, and a pitiful one at that. But that's pretty much all he's got. The only apparent valid criticism is that the staue was on public display in the Vatican palace (which refutes his claim that it was NEVER there) versus it having been hidden in the Vatican treasury.
Everything else has been fail upon fail upon fail on his part.
So thus his own errors far outweigh any Murdock may have on this subject. Even Ehrman's errors outweigh Murdock's on this particular topic.
Burke was wrong about it having never been in the Vatican, and has in no way demonstrated error on the part of Knight.
He was wrong about it being impossible that Chausse referred to the same object when Occam's Razor indicates he most certainly was.
Since Chausse wrote in 1690, Burke was thus wrong about it being excavated from Pompeii and/or Herculaneum (though he wouldn't have been wrong if he had followed Panzanelli's example and chosen wording that reflected, quote, "scholarly caution over the unsourced and unsubstantiated claim"
And Burke was wrong about Acharya having ever claimed that the cock statue itself was a statue of Peter.
He was wrong to attempt to strawman things I had written.
Being wrong seems to be his modus operandi.
So he did return to Ehrman's blog afterall, begging for a third round of punishment.
(He also posted more or less the same thing at this forum as well: http://jameshannam.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=history&thread=934&page=9#11630
so that post is likewise debunked by the following as well.)
Thank you Avery. 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 follower, her originally 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.
No, this is not a new spin, seeing as how she never claimed the statue was Peter in the first place. It's the spin she's always had from the beginning. It's just new to Burke because he never encountered what Acharya had to say on the matter until Ehrman brought it up.
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.
Already refuted in my previous post.
Murdock’s follower quoted Chausse (who does not say that the statue was in the Vatican),
No, actually I
am the one who quoted Chausse, and hence why I never said nor even so much as alluded that he did say that it 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.
No, there was nothing to not realize, in fact, I even explicitly agreed with him on that. What Burke apparently has failed to realize is that I myself have never made such a claim nor have I ever attributed infallibility to any of the authors I read. In fact, I can't think of any author, even among my favorites, who I am in complete agreement with on every issue.
God knows Mr. Burke himself does not do so, and this very exhcange is a perfect example, for he is currently siding with Ehrman on this particular issue, and yet he has a PDF article floating around the web explaining some disagreements he has with Ehrman.How accurate is the New Testament text? by Jonathan Burke 
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’.
No, actually, it was ME
, I was the one who acknowledged that.
So Murdock’s own follower destroys Murdock’s original claim that this is a ‘Bronze sculpture hidden in the Vatican treasury’.
Already addressed in my previous post.
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.
As I already pointed out in my initial post (which Burke clearly has already seen and is thus simply obstinate here) Knight said it was on PUBLIC display at the Vatican, and had been for over a century. His claim was easily falsifiable at the time, and thus accusations of falsehood on his part as to the location are unwarranted. Even Thomas James Mathias, who had some very critical things to say about Knight's work (on account of the obsene nature of the objects, displaying nudity and sex, etc., very taboo at the time), Mathias didn't dispute about the location of the statue being at the Vatican, something he no doubt would have employed against Knight if he could, given his disdain for Knight's book.
Again, Burke has presented absolutely nothing to discredit Knight, and has even here engaged in speculation rather than evidence, something he tried to staunchly forbid in an earlier reply. He has also not presented any evidence for an alternate location during the time of Knight's writing, since the Gabinetto is out of the question given that it did not exist at the time.
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.
Nope. Again, that's impossible since those excavations took place decades after Chausse wrote (1690), and Knight unambiguously stated that Chausse was his source, hence why his plate clearly depicts the same object as Chausse's plate.
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)’.
That photograph is not identitical
(which, remember, is exactly the criteria I listed when writing the hypothetical rebuttal of there possibly being two distinct statues being referred to by Chausse(pre-Pompeii) and Knight and/or Panzanelli(post-Pompeii)). Yet Knight explicitly states Chausse was his source and his depiction is clearly the same object as Chausse's, and bears a hell of a lot more similarity to Chausse, rather than the photo in Sex & Sex Worship, which contains substantial differences. Had, like Knight, Wall cited Chausse as his source, or even just cited Knight, then this would be a little more convoluted. But alas, it is not. Chausse & Knight are obviously referring to the same object just as Knight said and no reasonable doubt has yet been presented to refute him. Not even his own critics of his own time disputed him on that particular point.
^These two are clearly depicting the same object.
Moreover, Burke has not only been quick to forget my first criteria of being IDENTICAL, but he has also obviously forgotten that I stipulated other criteria as well that go along with being identical, which was that both would be referenced by two allegedly independent authors (in my example, Chausse and Panzanelli) right alongside two other distinct yet identical phallic griffins.
Because as Burke has also clearly either forgotten or failed to grasp, my argument was not against there simply having existed two different objects of a similar appearance, much less two that were identical,
but rather, my argument was that it was highly improbable that two separate yet identical cock statues AND two separate yet identical phallic griffins would each be mentioned together, in the same sections in each respective book, by two authors allegedly writing independent of each other on this point (i.e., Panzanelli was not referrencing the same two objects as Chausse). And that not only would both pairs of objects be identical yet distinct and also mentioned together by two independent authors, that'd be one hell of a coincidence itself, but then the later pair of objects that Burke speculates were post-Chausse, were also allegedly discovered in the same location? What are the odds of that? All of those criteria actually being met, as would be necessary for what Burke originally tried to propose, shit, that would drastically increase the improbability of such a scenario as each criteria is considered and added to the list.
As I already said, sure, ultimately it's possible.
But it's clearly so improbable as to be essenitally impossible in any practical sense.
Remember, that was Burke's non-succinct defense- that Chausse was not depicting the same object, since he predated Pompeii & Herculaneum. Burke was NOT (as he is trying to oversimplify here) merely arguing that two similar cock-headed statues existed, or even merely that one was known before Pompeii and the other after Pompeii.
And in fact, if anything, the differences Chausse's object has with the clearly distinct object in the photo from Wall's book only further supports MY point of the improbability of Knight/Panzanelli referring to a second distinct yet IDENTICAL
statue as Chausse, because as we can see from Wall's photo, when this motif of a cock with a phallic beak was in fact reproduced, the reproduction resulted in substantial significant differences and did NOT
produce a work identical
to the object depicted by Chausse, therefore identical
reproduction has just been shown to be that much more improbable, such as the kind of identical depiction we see in Chausse & Knight/Panzanelli. Now reproduction of the motif in general? Definitely probable, and in fact, appears to be proven, but IDENTICAL
reproduction, not so much.
Nope, the reason Knight/Panzanelli's depiction is virtually identical to Chausse's is for the very reason that Knight stated- because they ARE identical.
And since I for one never denied a likelihood of reproduction in general, but only denied a likelihood of IDENTICAL
reproduction, the fact that Wall's object is NOT an identical reproduction has only worked out in MY
favor, not Burke's.
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.’
Again, I have already agreed more than once that Knight said it was on public display in the palace and thus NOT hidden in the treasury (at least, not at the time of Knight's writing, another possibility Burke's bias is preventing him from considering), but what Burke here fails to grasp is that this, aside from not being an error of MINE, is that such an alleged error is inconsequential to what Murdock was trying to demonstrate, and is precisely analagous to the error one Mr. Jordan Day, a paying subscriber to Ehrman's blog, pointed out (which Ehrman subsequently corrected and then deleted Mr. Day's post without any acknowledgment).
It clearly was a valid error, since Ehrman corrected it, but it was a trivial error inconsequential to the overall argument Ehrman was trying to make. About as trivial as people who get hung up on how many times the cock crowed before Peter denied Christ. In other words, when the error is accounted for and corrected, does the overall thesis fail? No, it does not. And the same goes for Murdock. The point was that Ehrman claimed the cock-headed statue did not exist, regardless of whatever name he or Murdock or anyone else allegedly heaped upon it. The point was, it was the statue in the pic in Murdock's book that was being referred to, and Ehrman, inspite of his current backpedalling, claimed that it did not exist and thus was never in the Vatican or anywhere else (which BTW, would include the Gabinetto
). Ehrman was wrong. And Burke likewise claimed that the statue was never at the Vatican. He too was wrong and has presented no evidence to dispute Knight on that point.
Acharya, however, DID say that it was in the Vatican, albeit, instead of the palace, as Knight said, she said it was in the treasury.
So if there is any error (which assumes it was never in the treasury at all, which is fine for the moment since no source yet presented states as much) it was simply an error of confusion, unlike Burke & Ehrman's error, which was an error of complete denial, even in the face of evidence.
Murdock, even if she was off the mark, was not off by much, but only by an almost negligible margin.
Ehrman & Burke, however, were entirely off the mark, since that mark here being the Vatican, they completely denied entirely. So Acharya was a hell of a lot closer than Burke or Ehrman. And again, that's assuming (as we should for the moment) that the statue was NEVER in the treasury and that no source stating as much can be produced. Though I would like to give Murdock the benefit of the doubt, since, as I said, she has been a lot closer to the truth here than Ehrman.
The Gabinetto cannot be the mark when citing Knight, nor can be anywhere near the mark, since the Gabinetto did not exist when he wrote the two books that concern us here.
Murdock has retreated on both these claims. She now says she never claimed this statue is a ‘symbol of St. Peter’,
Already dealt with before. She indeed never claimed that the statue was the symbol of Peter, but rather, that the rooster, i.e., the cock, was a symbol of Peter.
But this is also redundant, as I have already addressed this much more thoroughly in my previous post.
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.
Indeed, so you're welcome, as I was the one in this exchange who pointed out that Knight said it was on public display in the Vatican palace and not that it was hidden in the treasury (which thus refuted Burke's claim that it was NEVER at the Vatican). Yet Burke himself is not like that, for as you see, even after pinning him down with proper research, he is still trying (and failing) to get away with falsehoods.
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.
Again, redundant. This was never a point of contention with me, as I have already said in previous posts.
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;
Mentioning the title once in passing is a far cry from checking into the contents of the book itself, and would seem to be something Burke would condemn given his hasty unwarranted assumptions over the whole usage of Google Books issue.
In that initial post, he cited only part of the title, which is not a big deal, but if indeed he indeed was not familiar with the book, then being unfamiliar with the full title is to be expected.
Burke then wrote the wrong date by a margin of two years, and entirely omitted the author's name, plus he claimed that the object cannot possibly be the same object that Knight and any subsequent authors are referring to, when not only did Knight himself explicitly state that it was, but also the pictures are clearly depicting the same object. Now, they are clearly the product of two different pairs of hands, but still, as per Occam's Razor, it's the same object hence why Knight said that it was the same object.
Unlike the object in the photo from Sex & Sex Worship, which has noticible significant discrepancies, already pointed out above. (Hence they are not IDENTITCAL, the very criteria I had stipulated in my previous post concerning any dubious highly improbably arguments that Chausse & Knight were referring to two distinct objects, inspite of Knight's claim to the contrary.)
Mr. Burke showed no familiarity with Chausse's work, but in fact, even gave clues that he in fact had not checked the actual contents of the book itself. And now it's too late, it is AFTER the fact, AFTER he has already been called on it. So his claims to having actually examined its contents come across as false and an attempt to save face. Now that he has been called on it, he can easily go back and actually check the contents this time around, so doing things like quizzing him on it after the fact would not resolve the issue either.
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.
Differs how so? In ways that are even less significant than one would expect to find if two different competent artists produced pictures of the Statue of Liberty, i.e., Chausse's and Knight's depictions vary even less than these two pictures that are likewise of the exact same object.
And it would be one one thing if Chausse and Knight were independent of each other, but when Knight himself explicitly stated that his object is the same as that of Chausse, then it only follows that his depiction IS of the SAME object, and hence their 'uncanny resemblence' is because they are in fact the same object, thus chalking up any differences to the fact that they were made by two different pairs of hands. Therefore any differences are insignificant, unlike the differences they have with the object in the photo from Sex & Sex Worship, which I must say, is quite noticible. And again, don't be so quick to forget like Burke did, that I had only ever mentioned the improbability of Chausse and Panzanelli referring to four distinct yet identical (in pairs, of course, not all four) phallic objects, the latter pair being discovered at the same location as well, and each pair being referrenced in the same sections of their respective books. I did NOT, EVER, argue against there simply being two similar looking cock heads at some time in the past, as Burke dubiously tried to oversimplify and strawman.