Slashdot Mirror
Breakthrough Decodes 'Classical Holy Grail'
wka writes "Scientists at Oxford University have made a major breakthrough in their study of a large collection of Greek and Roman writings. Many of the documents known as the 'Oxyrhynchus Papyri' (found at 'ancient rubbish dump in central Egypt') are 'meaningless to the naked eye - decayed, worm-eaten and blackened by the passage of time.' Using an infrared technique originally developed for use with satellite imaging, scientists are able to view the original writing, which 'could lead to a 20 per cent increase in the number of great Greek and Roman works in existence'. Thus far, works by Sophocles, Lucian, Euripides, Hesiod and others have been (re-)discovered. Additionally, scientists think they 'are likely to find lost Christian gospels.' (via The Light of Reason)"
If we cannot perceive well enough to read something, does the phrase "in existence" really apply to it?
Yes.
brilliant headline for this story, especially as neither any actual decoding nor anything related to the holy grail is involved. Journalism? Yes, on the level of WeeklyWorldNews.
It's already been written: Matthew 5-7. You might want to take a read sometime.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
That's actually the criticism many people have of Christianity, you realise? As pertaining to trying to fit findings to a theory rather than theory to available evidence.
Reading the article (which is a form of heresy in itself...) this is an exciting development, though it does make you wonder how many previous archaelogical finds got discarded over the years because no-one had an inkling as to their possible value.
Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Gates M'dna wgah'nagl fhtagn.
Yeah, but that one is not meant to be taken literally. Duh!
It's like that stuff about wearing mixed clothing.... obsolete because it's convenient for it to be.
Hey, you know what? My comment wasn't defending Christianity (though I do think that, as long as people keep it out of my life, they can do what they want) -- just lamenting the lack of real discussion of this interesting issue. OTOH, there was a nice comment above me, made while I was commenting, which negates my post somewhat. I just don't like to see hate spewed out so much on a tech website about a science story.
OTs to the lot of them, I say!
Put identity in the browser.
I wonder what discoveries will be made that could cause a re-renaissance in our modern civilization.
This is my last post.
[6th Estate]
These two I imagine could be proved or disproved relatively easily.
Faith can be used to justify appaling acts and discrimination or can limit development of society, and is not something to be respected.
That's ridiculous. It's like saying 'physics can be used to destroy entire cities
:wq
Early gospels have virtually no historical value? What the hell? That's like claiming that the Federalist Papers or the Declaration of Independence are of little historical value.
I'm guessing you're referring to 'historical' in the sense of the gospels recording historical events. What about the rest of the world? People used the rhetoric and ideas of Christianity to address problems outside the usual scope of the religion, or tried to mold the religion to fit personal or political objectives. These lost gospels tell us how people use religion, whether or not the religion has any sort of cosmic truth to it.
And, as scholars are the people who write the history books, they are the ones who determin what has historical value.
Your post reminds me of the religion students who used to take Greek with me at university. "Why are we reading Attic Greek?" they would ask, "We only need Koine to read the Bible!" There's far more to the ancient world than the 50-something (depending on denomination) books of the Bible, and even the Bible doesn't represent a self-contained system of information.
mostly just bashes on Christians
Well, you can imagine why people in the sciences might be a little snarky on this subject. A lot of the history of Christianity revolves around bashing people who try to point out the actual reality of the universe. Those people (scientists) do get a little tired of the unrelenting "seek to tear down" (to use your phrase) attitude from the religious side of the spectrum. So, must of the comments in that tone about this article are made in the context of a more-secular-than-usual audience, and presume a certain world-weariness on this subject.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
You don't see historical value here ? How has the 2nd century view of Christ changed from the modern interpretation ?
Your example suggests that only 150 years after his death Christ was viewed as a super-human avenging spirit. 2000 years later we view him as a meek and mild self-sacrificing man. Yet the text of the gospels remains them same.
If you fail to see any interest here, I suspect you are more interested in reiterating the rhetoric of your teachers rather than studying early Christianity and interpreting the scriptures in the context of the epoch in which they were written and the church founded.
Also, it doesn't help your case that you point to a couple of "Jesus Myth" sites to bolster your case. You realize that these people are considered to be a joke in the world of New Testament scholarship, don't you? The "anti-Jesus" advocates are far worse than the "pro-Jesus" advocates, so far as distorting history goes. I would suggest you read a good, standard intro to new testament, such as Raymond Brown's, before you continue to spout this bilge.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Why is it that every scrap of paper or stone tablet that happens to be dug up must always be attributed to religion?
In a thousand years time from now will people still claim similar recognition for recovered hard drive data (Web Logs)
Some redneck bitching that his truck caught fire on the I95 - might be a funeral pire for some exalted leader.... While not only limited to one group, religious people do tend to have wide interpretations.
Where are all the shopping lists, doodling, drawings of children... In Australia we have aboriginal art dating back 30 odd thousand years, grafiti, animals, hand outlines of children, all kinds of stuff. Not all of it could be considered religious, but is still precious none the less!
Holy Blood Holy Grail is hilarious, Especially to scholarly study! For any one who has never read it it goes something like this in thought:
There is a very small likelyhood that someproposition is true
since it is true there is this other proposition that has a much better likelyhood it is true (from virtually impossible to only completely laughable) since it is true there is this other proposition we couldn't mention before because we would be laughed at for even looking at before. and so on.
The idea that trained executioners allowed a criminal to swoon rather than die, that guards whose lives were on the line would then allow a swooned criminal who had been peirced through the heart to push a several hundred or thousand pound rock in a channel away so he could walk out and they could likely be executed for failing their task and "sleeping" on the job. Then said criminal would first be encountered by a group of women (whose testmonies wouldn't have been allowed in courts). then he married one of those women ( a former prostitute) and his children founded the merovingian dynasty because they were half fish men is silly to say the least. Oh and that said criminal would have his birth certificate found in the desolated temple to begin everything ?
Seriously neon magic try taking a critical look at the things you read.
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
From the original comment:
> Evidence doesn't matter.
Therefore, the fact that you can disprove the point doesn't matter. The tall-tree thing is from some Dawkins book, a belief held by a tribe with no access to space travel, telescopes etc so they couldn't disprove the point, anyway.
Faith, as the original poster puts it, is the belief in something without evidence. It is logically inconsistent: if somebody believes one thing without evidence, why not everything? How does one decide which is a 'right' faith? Is there actually some evidence required? At what point does it stop, then, being something you believe through faith and something you know through evidence?
Physics is not a belief system, it cannot be used to justify anything. It's just a collection of theories which appear, given the evidence we have, to describe our universe reasonably well. As such, you can't judge physics: it just is. E may stop equaling mc2 tomorrow, that doesn't mean physics stops.
Faith, on the other hand, as a construct of human thought, can be judged as good or bad.
bashing people who try to point out the actual reality of the universe
Didn't scientists believe that the sun went around the earth about that time?
I want to be alone with the sandwich
I was right with ya until this "Physics is not a belief system". Science is based on the belief that the universe is predictable, ie : natural laws and relationships exist. Physics really would stop if the laws were constantly changing at random.
A person without some form of "faith" might aswell give up now, I mean what's the point, you and everyone else are going to die anyway. The same can be said of those who lack "logic", God won't protect you from a car accident because of the plastic Saint Christopher or stylised fish sticker on your car. However I do agree, God is redundant if you belive the Universe, (as opposed to physics), "just is"
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Well, anyone who expressed anything else then the 'sure' fact that the sun was going around the earth was excommunicated by the church and burned.
So it was not really much of a choice.
Just saying it like it are.
You should email the vatican about that one though. Maybe they should take a read? :)
www.whitedust.net
The most famous case being Galilleo being forced to retract und menace of excomunication and worse. Mind you, the church recognized its error... 400 year later in 1995+ if I recall correctly. So we can expect them to recognize the other terrible stuff maybe , by year 23789 or so.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
For a very interesting read, and a very thought provoking read, try:
Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
It really shows how much the Roman Catholic church has lied, cheated and killed to remain in power.
Too bad it's a work of fiction.
Look, I'm a hard-core atheist who believes organized religion is the biggest scam ever created, but that doesn't mean I have to accept every crazy depredation laid against a church. HBHG belongs in the same category with books about J. Edgar Hoover being on the Grassy Knoll, and Elvis living in Peoria under an alias created for him by the Federal Witness Protection Program.
And while we're at it, the Catholics didn't burn witches in the dark ages; it was a heresy to even believe in them until the High Middle Ages, and it was the Protestants who made witch hunting an organized sport.
Les Miserables Volume 1 now up with my reading of
On the very page you link to, which I certainly would not agree with in whole, it estimates the time of writing of the Gospel of Thomas at around 200-300 AD, whereas say the Gospel of Mark (included in the Bible) the site estimates was written between 65-80 AD. It's clear to see which is more reliable. It's worth noting also that the so called "lost gospels" like the Gospel of Thomas have never been lost, were known to the Christian church at the time of their writing, and were condemned at the time of their writing for being heretical- the most prominent heresy being gnosticism (which you can also read about on the site you linked to). If you do any sort of overview of Paul's writings you'll see arguments against gnosticism. And for your general information, the other gospels and new testament works have not been "tainted" through translation or interpretation- anyone who wants to can still access the original greek of those texts. Mainstream versions of the Bible, such as the NIV (Zondervan publishing) were not translated from a translation or passed down through the church or anything like that, they were translated directly from the Greek text, like the same writing you link to. I agree that we should be looking into these things and examining the evidence, but try to not let what you want to believe about God influence what you believe about God, and I'll do the same.
Once they decode these papyrus rolls, it will be very interesting to see who will publish them. G** help us all in terms of copyrights, especially if we are able to "re-discover" a large number of the plays by ancient Greek playwrights!
But the thing of major interest is the discovery that there may be more than just Theogeny and Works and Days by Hesiod. What does Hesiod's other writings say?
Why is it that every scrap of paper or stone tablet that happens to be dug up must always be attributed to religion?
Because they generally were religious in nature. Remember that way back in the early days of writing that very few people could read and write. Usually on the religious and ruling classes could do so. Comparing what we find from 2000 years ago to what we have on our hard drives now is comparing apples to oranges.
With all this talk about finding lost Gospels, nobody has even thought to mention the greatest Greek poet, whose works, all but a few fragments, were destroyed over the years by religious zealots. I'm talking about Sappho, of course.
I'd be very keen on reading any of her poems. What little we still have is all fragmentary, and highly unlikely to be representative of her best
So come on, folks, please look for her poetry too, while you're reading about 50-foot tall crosses.
Lemon curry?
The problem is, while religions do not make it a secret that they have a particular worldview and a set of beliefs (and thus, sometimes violent and not-so-righteous acts to enforce those beliefs), science is supposed to be objective, fact-based, and experimentally-verified. I'm not here to say that scientists should be completely free of bias or any personal prejudices, but they definitely shouldn't let those things guide nor hinder their work in science---not anything more than initial inspiration, anyway. Religion-bashing does not belong to the "people in sciences". Religion, as far as science is concerned, should be irrelevant---personally significant (either in a positive way or negative way) to a particular scientist, maybe; but it should in no way influence (either positively or negatively) his work in science.
Is this a double-standard? Yes. But I put forward this double-standard as a double believer in scientific principles and Christ. And, as much as I don't like fundamentalists standing in the way of scientific progress, I am appalled by atheists exploiting success of science (which neither presumes nor denies existence of God, so far, at least) to bash religion. I would even go as far as to say that such coattailing is more cowardly act than oppressing minority beliefs under the authority of a powerful Church (a couple centuries back, anyway).
The problem with your argument that science (and scientists) ought not be concerned with religion at allis that religion, and people who are religious, have very real, measurable impacts on the world and society.
Many (if not most or all, depending on how you measure) of those impacts are negative - and it makes perfect sense for science (and scientists) to analyze, and comment on, religion.
I am an atheist recisely because I am a scientist. If I were to, say, go into my lab and decide to believe that the electron had a positive charge, without any evidence whatsoever, and certainly no evidence that was verifiable & repeatable, I would be ignorant and stupid. Worse, if I got other people to believe this 'fact' that had no evidence to support it, I would be guilty of something worse: intentionally misleading people.
I apply the same standards to everything, because a world (and human society) in which what is is more important than what we might wish is better than one in which we tell ourselves stories and them call them truth.
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
Realize that by the time of the Roman empire quite a large number of people could read and write. There ARE shopping lists, personal letters and so forth in great abundance all over the ancient Greek and Roman worlds. You can find graffiti on buildings, etc. True, it may be hard to find modern scholarly copies of them because more people are interested in reading the old copies of the religious texts than they are someone's shopping list, but they do exist. Also, what do you do with your shopping list when you're done with it? Probably not try to save it, as the ancient world did with its literature. So thus more of those small, petty writings would have been lost, but some did survive.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. "Whatever is said in Latin, seems prfound."
Just because it isn't for sale doesn't mean it's worthless.
Yes it is worthless if you have no intention of ever selling it. Imagine someone who keeps his father's ashes in a vase in his house. He could probably sell the ashes for fertilizer or something like that, but he doesn't intend to, so the ashes aren't worth anything to him.
As far as the Vatican's art is concerned, it isn't a "stockpile", it is considered something held in trust for all of humanity. If it were sold, then only the rich people who bought it could see it; but now anyone can see the art, or will be able to for generations to come.
Think of the medieval cathedrals. Back in those days, hardly anyone owned art. But there was plenty of beautiful art in the churches that anyone, even the poorest, could enjoy. And we can still see that art today.
Besides, the beauty of the art in churches (including the gilding) is meant to help us think of higher things, more spiritual things. "Man does not live by bread alone," as someone once said. If all the art in churches were sold, we'd have to start getting more, because it does serve a purpose.
Finally, the Bible says it's okay (actually, it's a command to the Israelites) to have beautiful and even valuable art in religious buildings and for religious uses: Exodus 25:8-39, Exodus 28:2-3,6,13-27.
Woah! Woah! Hold up!
Since when are comment posters intrinsically "people in the sciences"? You might note that the actual scientists quoted in the article didn't find it necessary at all to take any potshots, and most of the comments I've read here from people who claim to be in the field recognize Christian artifacts as a great archeological find, not an opportunity to slip in a few snide comments.
A lot of the history of Christianity revolves around bashing people who try to point out the actual reality of the universe.
No, Christianity revolves solely around the figure of Christ (hence the name) who was persecuted for violating the orthodoxy. If you want to assosciate ideology with the historical acts of those who submit to it, then I call atheists to account for the nigh-hundred million deaths assosciated with atheist governments over the past century.
Those people (scientists) do get a little tired of the unrelenting "seek to tear down" (to use your phrase) attitude from the religious side of the spectrum.
A lot of these people are Christian/Jewish/Muslim/religious in some way and would describe what you say as a load of bullock.
So, must of the comments in that tone about this article are made in the context of a more-secular-than-usual audience, and presume a certain world-weariness on this subject.
Actually, it's called trolling.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
I am appalled by atheists exploiting success of science (which neither presumes nor denies existence of God, so far, at least) to bash religion.
As an athiest, I don't think science puts the nail in religion's coffin. All the scientific explanations for the universe and it's functioning can be accepted as the design of God. And any contradictory passages in the bible can be labled as metaphor.
If anything puts the nail in religion's coffin, it's history.
Religions (at least the popular ones) have failed to help society on the grand scale. They fail to guide. And if they fail to guide then what is their use? Even if the bible really was the word of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving God, it has shown itself to be useless.
Blame it on man's free will or whatever but what's the point? Why should I allow a destructive philosophy to go on without criticism? I don't care what the author's original intent was -- I care only about the fruits of the followers. And by that measure I'd very much like to see most religions questioned and criticized until they adapt or disappear.
Cheers.
It would be far more interesting if this was to turn up the lost writings of Tacitcus and Cassius Dio rather than another lost gospel.
Hell, even a good novel would be a fantastic find: AFAIK, there are only 2 novels that we have from the Roman age: Apuleius's The Golden Ass and Satyricon, by the writer Petronius.
Most likely though the Papryus will record financial and legal transactions from the period. These are actually very common in Egypt, since the conditions there will preseverse dry matter for centuries.
I am appalled by atheists exploiting success of science (which neither presumes nor denies existence of God, so far, at least)
Science does not and cannot disprove God (i.e. the idea of a supernatural Creator): such a concept is beyond science altogether. It is not possible to prove or disprove the fact that the world was initially created by a sentient being.
However science, or even plain common sense, puts a lot of strain on religions, that is, particular teachings based on sacred revelations.
Religion consists in switching off your brain and believing the unbelievable. Not only that, but believing in one particular set of unbelievable things, to the exclusion of any other. Hint: What is the difference between a religion and a cult, except for size and political impact ?
I would even go as far as to say that such coattailing is more cowardly act than oppressing minority beliefs under the authority of a powerful Church
Show me a preacher burnt at the stake (as in real fire and real charred flesh, not metaphorically) by a council of scientists and I'll agree with you.
Thomas-
You're right - modern scholarly copies of them are hard to find. But so too are ancient scholarly copies.
Most of our classical work today survives in manuscripts from the middle ages and slightly before. Texts that you buy in the store are not of the form that they were found; they're pieced together from extant copies, changes are made where scribes made mistakes, etc.
I've no idea how much classical studies you've done, but if you read latin or greek, look to the bottom of a scholarly text [e.g., OCT] and look down to the App. Crit., which is a good place to find exactly which manuscripts were used to compile the text.
Most of the issues in finding classical work today isn't that there weren't very many writers, but there were very few copies made of things that were written. Our entire corups of catullus, for example, comes from one - *one* - single manuscript. This was, for all we know, quite a popular libellum, but we're stuck with one copy because of the way it was viewed during the 2000 or so years of history between then and now.
The issue is in the copying, not the writing itself.
As long as scientists turn the other cheek while the christians are hitting them in the face with shovels the christians will continue to win.
Right now the christians talibans control the US govt at the highest levels, the presidency, leadership of both houses of congress, the attorney generals office and even a good portion of the supreme court. There is a reason for that, they know how to figh and win.
It's time the atheists and the people who believe in science get active. We all know what happens when the religious fundamentalist tighten thier control on society. Look up "taliban" on google for an example.
evil is as evil does
If the whole thing is a simple matter of extortion, bribery and politics, then the disciples would have had to be added in later as pseudo-fictional characters as well. If that's so, then the "it's all made up" scenario trumps the "extortion, bribery and politics" scenario, I think.
Scientists, on average, are perfectly rational when at work, and are objective and unbiased at all times during the day. Religion-bashing is a hobby for when they get home at night. Consider the evolutionary biologist or palaeontologist who is automatically stigmatised by large groups of orthodox christians. On a lesser note, consider the average scientist, who sees in the attitude of religious groups a continual repeat of Caliph Omar's infamous command to burn the books of the Library of Alexandria because "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."
At the worst, expression of these attitudes online helps to blow off steam. At best, it helps to prevent a return to the same religious totalitarianism that Europe has spent the last millennium escaping from (the Catholics who slaughtered the Cathars and 'heretics', the Protestants who burned the Catholics and 'witches', and the Inquisition who burned everyone). I agree that, in an ideal world, a scientist's beliefs would have no impact on his work. However, in the world we live in, there are large numbers of Christian pseudoscientists (as opposed to actual Christian scientists) who spend their lives attempting to bolster Christianity at the expense of the scientific method (this applies to other religions too, notably Islam). Undesirable as extreme antireligion beliefs may be, IMO they provide a necessary counterweight to extremism on 'the other side'.
I also wouldn't say that using the effectiveness of science to bash religion is as bad or as cowardly as your example of the total obliteration of entire cultures. In particular, science may be value-neutral as far as the existence of a God is concerned, but it is entirely based on the assumption that any such God is not having an effect on events down here. As such, its success provides pretty strong evidence that, whether one exists or not, a god is probably not a prerequisite for the universe as it is today.
For the love of God, please learn to spell "ridiculous"!!!
You're saying that a couple thousand years afterwards it would cause problems, so they couldn't have done it? I don't understand your argument. If it made sense at the time, what do the negative consequences have to do with whether it happened or not? Are you saying the people involved could see into the distant future, and make their decisions based on that?
A lot of the history of Christianity revolves around bashing people who try to point out the actual reality of the universe. Those people (scientists) do get a little tired of the unrelenting "seek to tear down" (to use your phrase) attitude from the religious side of the spectrum.
a tican_observe_000716.html
"A graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Arizona, Consolmagno sees nothing incongruous about storing chunks of interplanetary debris next to the courtyard where Pope John Paul II presides over Mass on summer mornings. Like the telescopes studding the roof of Castel Gandolfo, the 200-year-old meteorite collection is a tangible expression of the Vatican's long-standing commitment to scientific research, he said. Analyzing the space rocks, or training the Vatican Observatory's $3 million Arizona telescope on a distant galaxy, are both ways of gaining "a closer appreciation of the personality of the creator," he said in an interview."This is our way of finding God," said Consolmagno, author of Brother Astronomer: Adventures of a Vatican Scientist, published in February by McGraw-Hill. The Vatican Observatory is one of the oldest astronomical institutes in the world and the only research group directly supported by the Holy See. The church funds the observatory to the tune of about $1 million a year, leaving its operation to the Jesuits, a religious order whose "charism," or special gift to the church, is scholarship. Ten Jesuit astronomers split their time between Italy and Tucson, Arizona, where the Vatican Observatory Research Group has offices at the University of Arizona's Steward Observatory. In collaboration with Steward, the Jesuits built the 70-inch (1.8-meter) Vatican Advanced Technology Telescope (VATT) on Mount Graham, 75 miles (120 kilometers) northeast of Tucson. "
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/v
FWIW, the dean of my chemistry department (at a state university) was a Catholic priest.
Stephan