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)"

Comments

This is just in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dan Brown just had his next idea for a book...

Re:This is just in...

[packeteer]

And he has the most valueablue of sources. All i see in the article is a link to a page which does not cite any sources. The page makes commentary on a quoted piece of text in which the commentary is hardly even signed with an author. The page linked is confusing at best and assumes you understand whats going on already. How is this news? Hoe is it that someone's personal blog can be considered facts enough to publish?

Re:This is just in...

[vsprintf]

Works for Roland...

Whoa, it sounds like we need the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch.

Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[mrRay720]

'could lead to a 20 per cent increase in the number of great Greek and Roman works in existence'

Well no, but it could certainly increase the number of them that we can read.

Additionally, scientists think they 'are likely to find lost Christian gospels.'

What's the betting that the one that reads "'The Bible' copyright 134AD, Any resemblance to people past or present is purely coincidental" is quickly covered up?

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Seferino]

Well, who knows, the RIAA might wish to get involved. Somehow, I'm sure they can hold that Copyright, too, can't they ?

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Denyer]

What's the betting that the one that reads "'The Bible' copyright 134AD

Or the Red Dwarf version:

Newsreader: Good evening. Here is the news on Friday, the 27th of Geldof. Archeologists near Mount Sinai have discovered what is believed to be a missing page from the Bible. The page is currently being carbon-dated in Bonne. If genuine, it belongs at the beginning of the Bible and is believed to read, "To my darling Candy. All characters portrayed within this book are fictitous and any resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental." The page has been universally condemned by church leaders.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Adult film producer]

Secret Gospels of Mark

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[bersl2]

Well no, but it could certainly increase the number of them that we can read.

If we cannot perceive well enough to read something, does the phrase "in existence" really apply to it?

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Paris The Pirate]

Missing first page of the bible mentioned in the BBC sitcom Red Dwarf...

"To my darling Candy..."

"All fictional characters portrayed in this work are completely fictional and any similarity to real people living or dead is unintended and purely coincidental."

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[moranar]

I didn't know a timespan could copyright things...

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[mrRay720]

How about if "we" cannot read it but someone else can? Surely it exists.

Or are you suggesting that the act of reading it brings it into existance?

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[venicebeach]

If we cannot perceive well enough to read something, does the phrase "in existence" really apply to it?

Yes.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[bersl2]

It only comes into existence once the process has been applied.

Oh, never mind. We could be pedantic about things like this for another 2000 years, when they dig up our old hard drives and recover the data.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[William Robinson]

What? The Da Vinci Code is fiction? :D

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[aussie_a]

I reckon they'll find something saying Jesus was a second-child. That or Jesus was a twin, and that he had a goatee.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[aussie_a]

Just because my computer can't render kanji, doesn't mean the website's content doesn't exist ;)

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the betting that the one that reads "'The Bible' copyright 134AD, Any resemblance to people past or present is purely coincidental" is quickly covered up?

Not possible, since the Anno Domini system of dating wasn't invented until many centuries after 134 AD (invented in sixth century by Dionysius Exiguus, IIRC). And of course they didn't have copyrights and seldom dated their writings. But you knew that.

Of course, this is all moot anyway since Jesus never existed.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[digitalchinky]

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!

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Angstroem]

It really shows how much the Roman Catholic church has lied

The whole Christian church is based on a lie.

There never was any saying like "you're Petrus, the rock I'll found my church on" (or however the English lines are, I'm referring to "Du bist Petrus, der Fels, auf den ich meine Kirche baue").

What indeed was the radical new thought in Christianity was that there is no church, that there are no professional priests. Instead, every member of Christianity was able to fulfill tasks which were before attached to a professional priest, such as celebration, absolution, etc. The only restriction was that you can't perform these tasks with respect to yourself but only to others.

But, of course, that was an intolerable loss of power for certain people, so around 200AD this Petrus-the-rock line was introduced as a justification for instatiating a professional church (again). Once this step was fulfilled, the Catholic church slowly but surely went off-track and turned into the multi-billion Euro imperium it probably is since the medieval ages (change Euro into your favorite historical currency unit...); not that Jesus' intolerance towards bankers and racketeers was any reason to not introduce the "money-for-sin" program (commonly known as "selling of indulgences" / Ablaßhandel) and later became one of the biggest bank.

The last pope who wanted to turn the Roman Catholic church into a church again, only lasted for little more than 50 days before dying of still unknown causes. His name was Johannes Paul I.

the purge of 'witches' (six million deaths at least)

Interesting, how "6 million deaths at last" seems to be a universal constant...

But apart from that, I don't see the purge of witches as an effect of intolerance; it's one part sexually motivated, and one part cementing the church's power.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Hungus]

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.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[digitalchinky]

Just how am I trolling? I was dead serious! Who ever moddem me troll - you are a dickhead, plain and simple.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Shambhu]

I have to agree, although I am not expert. I got about half way through it before the piled up presumptions bore me down and I could go on no longer. It might be a good place to find some interesting things to research, but only if you can segregate what you learned in the book from what you find out elsewhere so that you remember to disregard it!

While they were working on Holy Blood, Holy Grail, the authors consulted or met with Umberto Eco, who in turn (loosely) based a novel on their actions. Foucault's Pendulum is about a group of editors of a vanity press who decide to start recycling the crap they have to edit and write their own book of mysteries. Things start to spin out of control as some of their clients now see them as holders of mystery.

The book is very good, though probably not the kind of book I make it sound. I've also only read the English translation (the original is Italian).

I've hear the that authors of HBHG were not best pleased with the comparison. Eco claims they just gave him the idea.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Hungus]

So all of those external references to these characters were also false? The Bible is one of teh most criticly attested documents ever studied. Archaelogy continuously affirms it and when it seems to contradict it it is usually only a few years before better studies (better meaning better documentation, archaelogical evidence, scholarship, acceptance in scholarly circles etc) show the Bible correct again.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[STrinity]

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.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[ElectricOkra]

I can see the headlines now...

"The Religious Right in the US embraces the Book of Armaments."

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Hatta]

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.

Yep, absolutely ridiculous. It's far more likely the story is entirely fictional.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Hatta]

So all of those external references to these characters were also false?

The ONLY outside reference to jesus that's roughly contemporaneous with his supposed lifespan is the account of Josephus, a jew. However his description seems to be largely copied from the gospel of luke, and edited by a later author. It cannot be seen as a primary source.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[hellings]

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.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Necrobruiser]

I tend to view the Bible like a Tom Clancy novel; based on real people/offices, set in real places, utterly fantastic, i.e. "wouldn't this be really cool if it were true", and a work of fiction. So, yes, the places that are mentioned in the Bible and then discovered by archeologists are not surprising. I don't suspect that the writers of the Bible were making up places; undoubtedly they were writing what they believed to be the truth. I guess we'll have to wait until we die to know for sure.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[mav[LAG]]

The whole Christian church is based on a lie.

s/Christian/Catholic/

There are plenty of Christians who don't believe in the papal succession.

There never was any saying like "you're Petrus, the rock I'll found my church on" (or however the English lines are, I'm referring to "Du bist Petrus, der Fels, auf den ich meine Kirche baue").

Sure there was but the original Greek is a lot clearer that it couldn't have been Peter Jesus was referring to. He says "you are Petros (masculine) and on this petra (feminine and obviously _cannot_ refer to Peter the man) I will build my church."

What indeed was the radical new thought in Christianity was that there is no church, that there are no professional priests. Instead, every member of Christianity was able to fulfill tasks which were before attached to a professional priest, such as celebration, absolution, etc. The only restriction was that you can't perform these tasks with respect to yourself but only to others.

Couldn't agree more.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[kilodelta]

What's the betting that the one that reads "'The Bible' copyright 134AD, Any resemblance to people past or present is purely coincidental" is quickly covered up?

I stronlgy doubt any of them ever wrote a disclaimer. Law hadn't yet come up with that particular vehicle in those days. You either took it on faith or not.

It will be interesting though if they dig up more evidence of the Gospels of Mary, and if they find clear evidence that Christ was married to Mary Magdelene.

Were those to pieces of evidence ever to be found and brought to the light of day would cast doubt on the foundations of the Christian religions. For example, if Christ had children which was entirely a Jewish custom if you will, it would mean that every pope including Peter was an impostor. It would also mean that there is a presence of Christ still in existence on this earth. How very interestng that would be.

Of all of it though, this is a worthy discovery. Yet another benefit of the militiary paranoia delivered to mankind.

and it's entirely likely that he did, he was Jewish after all and Jewish law encouraged men to breed like rabbits.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[M1FCJ]

Grafitti eh? Romanes Eunt Domus!

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Thomas Miconi]

Crackpot alert !

It's highly likely that Jesus had a wife. There's strong evidence to show that Jesus had Rabbii training, and strong evidence that his wife was Mary Magdelene, aka Mary of Bethany (yes, the one and same person). During that era, it was extremely unusual for a jewish male to not be married, and a Rabbii had to be married. It was basically a 'law'.

Voodoo theology. See the wikipedia article for a level-headed description of the matter.

The Roman Catholic church has long sought to hide the line of Jesus, spread by Mary Magdelene when she moved to the area of Marseilles.

Actually, in the area of Arles, in a locality which is now known as the Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer (I should know, I'm from there). Together with Martha, Mary of Bethany, Salome, and Lazarus, among others. Then Lazarus went on to become bishop of Marseilles, Martha went to kill a monster that wreaked havoc in Tarascon, and Magdalene ended her life in the Sainte-Baume moutains.

This happens to be one of the many popular legends that flourished in medieval folk christianism. One of the early bishops of Marseilles was actually called Lazarus, but there is no relation with the resurrected one. Similar stuff occured all over Europe, e.g. Saint-Denis, patron saint of France, has been wrongly identified with Denys the Areopagite. In my own city, Arles, the legendary first bishop Trophimus has been identified with the homonymous disciple of Paul mentioned in the New Testament.

While many such confusions may have arisen out of sincere self-delusion, one should keep in mind that holy relics (which attracted pilgrims in droves) were extremely important at the time, both in terms of prestige and of plain commercial interest. Exposing the relic of a Father of the Church was much more profitable, in any sense, than some obscure 3rd century bishop.

The deal with Clovis was renegged less than 100 years after his death, removing the line of the Menengoverians by the assassination of Dagobert II.

You are an ignorant ass. The Merovingians faded into irrelevance out of sheer incompetence. They were replaced by the descendents of Charles Martel (then a kind of "prime minister", in charge of the actual work of running the empire), not by cunning or assassination, but simply because the guy saved the country and the rest of Europe from Arab domination - which brings us to your next point...

Add to the fact that the Roman Catholic church is highly intolerant of other religions - the murder and war against the Saracens in the 11th century

Look, man, I have no particular sympathy for Catholicism, but you should remember that the relationship between Christian Europe and the Moslem world has been one of constant invasions and counter-invasions - and the Saracens called the first shots in the 7th-8th centuries, until they got their arses kicked big time by Charles Martel, and were driven out by his successors, the Carolingians - eponymous to Martel's grandson, a certain Charlemagne.

When you add up aggressions and atrocities from both sides, all you can say is that there's no winner - only a few million losers.

Thomas-

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Luxviaest]

That is not exactly true. The inquisition was a wholly Catholic affair that effected peoples of varied faiths, and assigned to them the role of heretic and firewood. That is not to say that the Protestants did not do their own fair share of mass-murder in the name of religious faith, but, try and find a religion that can wash its hands of that sort of claim. I doubt you will find many.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[William Tanksley]

For a very interesting read, and a very thought provoking read, try:
Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

That book makes a mockery of the boundary between fictional writing and outright fraud. It's another conspiricy theory, but unlike so many others, the facts it's based on are largely made up. (Unlike the other conspiracy theories, where the facts are usually real, but the implications and motivations are made up.)

-Billy

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Ieshan]

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.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Lemmy Caution]

The Inquisition is not the same as the witch-hunts. The targets of the Inquisition were more often literate urbanites, not pre-literate folk religionists.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[khelms]

Brother Maynard, bring out the holy hand grenade...

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[nofx_3]

Actually there is at least a 50% chance that existance in a cognative sense completely ceases at the time of death. IMHO there is a 100% chance but I'll have to conceed that there is no way to test it (Flatliners anyone?). Anyhow, this would mean that we can't *know* for sure after we die in many cases becuase the idea of knowing or thought will simply cease to occur. I truly feel that people only believe in life after death because they cannot concieve of their own non-existance.

-kaplanfx

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[smittyoneeach]

I liked Eco's book (in English), but I thought that the Illuminatus Trilogy was mo' betta.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

>Clearly, she was jealous because I get paid to play video games in my underwear. --Diablo Cody

What a strange place to play video games!

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[the-build-chicken]

Elvis living in Peoria under an alias created for him by the Federal Witness Protection Program.

Move in boys, this one knows too much...

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[STrinity]

That is not exactly true. The inquisition was a wholly Catholic affair that effected peoples of varied faiths, and assigned to them the role of heretic and firewood.

Heretics=/=witches.

For most of its history, the Catholic inquisitions were concerned with stamping out sects that went against church teachings, or, in the case of the Spanish Inquisition, making sure that Jews and Muslims who converted to Christianity stayed converted. It was only after the Protestants took up witch-burning that the Catholics discovered how effective it could be as a political tool.

There's a reason why the great witch-hunting manuals were written by Protestants (King James, frex), and the most famous incidents took place in Protestant territories (Scotland, New England).

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Joe Tie.]

The Bible is one of teh most criticly attested documents ever studied. Archaelogy continuously affirms it

What do you even mean by "the" Bible, or "it". It's a collection of documents, with vastly differing ages, not some unified whole. One might as well say that BSD is in fact quite dead, because a story on slashdot about robot dinosaurs proved factual.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[hellings]

Exactly. I've done quite a bit of work out of the New Testament and we have to deal with the Critical Apparati all the time, so I've read some about manuscript transmission. That was part of my point, though not so stated. No one bothered to copy and transmit someone's daily chores list because they saw no value in it, thus the large number of people who may have made them probably did not have them preserved and thus they are not difficult for us to find in the same way that finding manuscripts of great literature is difficult, if not impossible, in almost every case.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[BlueFashoo]

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.

First, the high middle ages lasted from 1000-1200 or 1050-1400, depending on your source. Either way, they started just before the time period given by the GP.

Second, the most famous witch hunting manuel is the Malleus Maleficarum, written by Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, on orders of the Pope Innocent VIII, a Catholic. The papal bull was issured on Dec. 9, 1484. The protestant reformation didn't kick off until 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his edicts to the door. There were earlier attempts, but none of them ignited like his did. Henry V, in 1419, prosecuted his stepmother, Joan of Navarre, for attempting to kill him via witchcraft. So, what we can see is that witches and witch hunting were in vogue before the protestants were around.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[mav[LAG]]

Yes - ORIGINAL Greek Mr AC. The New Testament documents are all written in Koine Greek, a lingua franca of the ancient near east, the same way English is used today around the world. And Jesus probably spoke Aramaic in day to day conversation, the other lingua franca of 1st century Palestine.

I'm sure it's no accident that Koine Greek was used either. It is a very precise language with exceptionally fine shades of meaning that can be used to communicate entirely unambigously if required. So the author has already conveyed his original meaning - you are Petros (Peter) and on this petra (Peter's faith) I will build my church.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[MemoryDragon]

Actually no real witch hunting occurred in the so called dark middle ages, which mostly were more civilized than the so codern era.

Most of the witch hunting over here in Europe occured after 1600 and endured sort of until around 1750.

The funny thing is, that mostly the catholics are blamed for the witch hunting, but in fact, the catholic church is to blame for many things, but not for being the most evil witch hunters. In fact witch hunting was sort of moderate in catholic countries, while in many protestantic parts it became sort of a plaque, which was even more fueled after the 30 years war, which left a thinned and devastated and basically frightened population.

If the americans speak of Salem, believe me, that is nothing compared to what happened over here, and in the end triggered the age of enlightment.

It in my opinion was the main mistake (besides his later day stance towards jews) of Marthin Luther, that he was bound by his times and could not see in how bogus the whole witch idea is, thus he enforced witch hunting in the long run, in the protestantic areas. (The whole witch idea came originally from greece btw. but never was really that important until the 15 hundreds)

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Stephan Schulz]

Add to the fact that the Roman Catholic church is highly intolerant of other religions - the murder and war against the Saracens in the 11th century, the purge of 'witches' (six million deaths at least) in the 14th century.

Not to defend the Catholic church (they have enough real dirty big secrets), but by far most of the witch hunts were conducted after the reformation and under protestant churches...

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[MemoryDragon]

Inquisition itself does not have anything to do with witch hunting per se. Although they were involved in that too.

In fact the bigger part of the witch hunting history goes towards the protestants. Believe me, you would not want to live in the protestantic areas of germany after the 30 years war, if you thing, McCarthy was bad, if you think, the current, either you belong to us or you are our enemy attitude is bad. That is nothing compared to what was going on then. Salem is a walk in the park compared to what happened in western europe between 1600 and the mid 17s. Often with famlies totally eradicated just because one neighbour wanted their money and there was a legal way to get rid of them.

The catholic church can be blamed for many things, but definitely not for being the biggest witch hunters. (Actually the stance of many catholics during the worst witch huntings were at the opposite side of affairs)

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[PsiPsiStar]

>>What's the betting that the one that reads "'The Bible' copyright 134AD, Any resemblance to people past or present is purely coincidental" is quickly covered up?

Those are called "gnostic gospels".

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[menace3society]

Sprenger, Kramer, and the _Malleus Maleficarum_ have a bone to pick with you.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[PsiPsiStar]

and it's entirely likely that he did, he was Jewish after all and Jewish law encouraged men to breed like rabbits. ...You mean breed like rabbis, right? ;)

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Hungus]

Actually there are about 7 different sources with regards to Jesus .. and in honesty I should be able to quote them from memmory bt cannot right now ... I will try and do a journal article in the next few days for them.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[nathanm]

It will be interesting though if they dig up more evidence of the Gospels of Mary, and if they find clear evidence that Christ was married to Mary Magdelene.

Let me guess, you've read Dan Brown's book: "The DaVinci Code." But you seem to have missed the point that it's fiction.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[nathanm]

The ONLY outside reference to jesus that's roughly contemporaneous with his supposed lifespan is the account of Josephus, a jew. However his description seems to be largely copied from the gospel of luke, and edited by a later author. It cannot be seen as a primary source.

First, the two passages where Josephus mentions Jesus are generally accepted as authentic by scholars today, possibly edited by later copyists.

Second, there are other extra-biblical references to Jesus, including:

• Thallus (c AD 50-75)
  
• Pliny the Younger (Letter to Trajan, c 110)
  
• Tacitus (Annals, c 115-120)
  
• Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c 125)
  
• Lucian (mid-2nd century)
  
• Galen (De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3, c 150)
  
• Celsus (True Discourse, c 170)
  
• Mara Bar Serapion (< 200)
  
• Babylonian Talmud

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[NcF]

I applaud you soo much. Too many tards believe that certain parties did certain acts in a specific frame of time, when it was actually done by party B at a completely different time frame.

What's even more scary is how many people will believe what they read. I can write down that it's God's will for them to go kill themselves, and some 'tard out there is stupid enough to believe it and will actually do it!

Ugh. I fear the fate of this world.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[nacturation]

Archaelogy continuously affirms it and when it seems to contradict it it is usually only a few years before better studies (better meaning better documentation, archaelogical evidence, scholarship, acceptance in scholarly circles etc) show the Bible correct again.

Please tell me how archaeology affirms that miracles were performed. In other words, I could take the same people, locations, and general description of events as it appears in the bible and make up any bullshit story I want so long as it fits the archaeological evidence. And because the archaeology matches up with what I write, you would believe everything including all the non-archaeological crud?

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[nacturation]

I truly feel that people only believe in life after death because they cannot concieve of their own non-existance.

It amazes me when people say "How can there be no life after death?" What they fail to realize is that when a person dies, their life is just as it was before they were even born. It's not very difficult to think that before you were born, you didn't exist. Why's that so hard to consider that the same thing happens afterwards?

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[famebait]

The gnostic gospels and several other old christian texts have been known for ages, and some of them do differ quite a bit from most the established interpretations of the new testament. They have not been covered up; you can buy them anywhere with a good selection in religious texts. They're just not accepted as gospel by the major churches.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Angstroem]

s/Christian/Catholic/
There are plenty of Christians who don't believe in the papal succession.

Which still leaves the point valid that there is no concept of a professional church within original Christianity. I am fully aware that there are several Christian branches, but all of them still feature some sort of church hierarchy with professional churches and therefore taint the original concept.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Bush Pig]

Have you ever read "Canticle for Liebowitz"? One of the holy pieces of writing is exactly as you've said - a shopping list.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Bush Pig]

I had a look at the link, and I can't work out what you base that assertion on.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[MisterTut]

OK, but see, the rhetorical power of the line hinges on a pun. Would the pun still hold if the gender of the nouns were made to agree? I don't know Koine Greek, myself.

Can a rock be referred to in a masculine way, and would it still sound vaguely like "Petros"?

If not, then you have to allow for that relatively minor quibble.

-Tut
http://www.health-hack.com/

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Strange_Attractor]

I was exposed to this idea around the age of 9 (actually, I found out while getting the URL that I must've been 17, based on the publication date), when I happened across "Motel of the Mysteries by David Macauley (writer/illustrator of The Way Things Work) - it's about an archeologist 200 years from now trying to understand the remains of a Holiday Inn. The strip of paper sealing the toilet bowl was only part of the elaborate religious ritual he "reconstructs".

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[nofx_3]

Well yes, it seems simple to us, but for others it seems very, very difficult. Although its interesting that those who believe in the afterlife and relegious spirituality are often the very same who are so unwilling to leave this life even in the worst of conditions.

-kaplanfx

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[hawk]

>You can find graffiti on buildings, etc.

Generally, "Archaelogists go home!"

:)

hawk

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[Suidae]

For anyone interested in the Malleus Maleficarum or "Witch Hammer", you can read it and about it online.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[mav[LAG]]

OK, but see, the rhetorical power of the line hinges on a pun. Would the pun still hold if the gender of the nouns were made to agree? I don't know Koine Greek, myself.

Possibly, but it seems to me that if the meaning "you are Petros and on this Petros I will build my church" was meant, it would have been recorded as such. Petra does mean rock in the sense of bedrock (I've just discovered) so a more literal translation could be "You are Stone and on this bedrock I will build my church." Your average Greek reader would have paused for a bit there - the words are not the same so what did Jesus mean?

Context is helpful here; the passage is all about Jesus - not Peter. Jesus has just asked the question: who do you say that I am? And Peter then makes his great confession. For "bedrock" to mean Jesus himself is entirely plausible - he's explicitly referred to as a "petra" in the sense of foundation in other places in the NT.

If not, then you have to allow for that relatively minor quibble.

It might seem minor but it's one of the foundations of papal lineage and infallibility. Infallibility is quite tricky to defend since Paul writes that "Peter was clearly in the wrong" about an incident quite some time after this event.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[rssrss]

one that reads "'The Bible' copyright 134AD

Serious note to very funny comment. The first tipoff that this is a spoof is the use of the date 134 A.D. The Christian Era was not defined until the 6th century when Dionysius Exiguous ("Dennis the Little"), identified the epoch of that era as the January 1 following the birth of Jesus on Dec. 25, 753 A.U.C. (the era of the founding of Rome, A.U.C. - Anno Urbis Conditae).

The term A.D. (Year of our Lord) was first used by the Anglo Saxon monk known as the Venerable Bede in his Ecclesiastical History of England written in the eighth century.

References: Link, Link.

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[MisterTut]

"you are Petros and on this Petros I will build my church"

Being not a Catholic, but rather a former classics major, perhaps it is not for me to say, but the standard interpretation I'm familiar with is: "You are Peter, and on this bedrock(foundation) I will build my church", wherein the pun is that Peter is both Petros and the rock.

Now, I want to say I am not arguing the veracity of Peter's account, just the interpretation. It may be accurate, or it may be just another case like the Donation of Constantine

Perhaps if I had chosen Classical Greek over Latin as my core language I would now be in possesion of a highly lucrative Bachelor of Classics degree. ;)

-Tut
http://www.health-hack.com/

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[mav[LAG]]

Being not a Catholic, but rather a former classics major, perhaps it is not for me to say, but the standard interpretation I'm familiar with is: "You are Peter, and on this bedrock(foundation) I will build my church", wherein the pun is that Peter is both Petros and the rock.

Right. The Catholic view is that one, hence Peter was the first Pope and so on.

Now, I want to say I am not arguing the veracity of Peter's account, just the interpretation. It may be accurate, or it may be just another case like the Donation of Constantine

Interesting link - thanks!

Perhaps if I had chosen Classical Greek over Latin as my core language I would now be in possesion of a highly lucrative Bachelor of Classics degree. ;)

Si hoc postum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinus alacribus et fructuosis potiri potes :]

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[MisterTut]

Yes, and my failure to master latin explains the lack of said lucrative degree.

If only more classical authors had written in modern spanish, I'd have had a fighting chance!

-Tut

Re:Potentially Interesting Finds, and a correction

[einhverfr]

Funny.... Most of the early writings we have from the Greeks, Romans, etc. are commercial and record-oriented rather than religious. that is not to say that the religious ones don't exist.

Also some cultures, most notably the Celtic peoples refused to use writing for anything other than commercial transactions for a long while after they had access to the technology.

Which brings back to the Grandparent's question.

However, this is very clearly an important find. Note that most of the summary talks about ancient authors of plays, philosophy writings, etc. So no this isn't all about religion either.

Bibles

[Big Mark]

I hope one of the new gospels has something that will really get the Bible-thumpers in a rage.

Something like "Thou shalt not discriminate against gays", or "Thou shalt not fuck around with elections".

Re:Bibles

[Anonymous Coward]

"Thou shalth not be so goddamned hysterical about every 'life' issue".

Re:Bibles

[Vellmont]

I hope one of the new gospels has something that will really get the Bible-thumpers in a rage.


Doubtfull. It's well known among biblical scholars that there are works in Christianity that have been rejected from 'the cannon" of works that is the bible. These books are refered to as Apocrypha Rejecting alternative texts as authoritative is old hat at far as Christianity is concerned.

Re:Bibles

[Bazzalisk]

As if they'll pay any more attention to these gospels than they do to the many pre-existing non-cannonical gospels (such as Thomas, Mary, etc ...)

Now if they found a copy of the Gospel of St. Judas then I'd be amused.

Re:Bibles

[Darkon]

Now if they found a copy of the Gospel of St. Judas then I'd be amused.

They already did.

Re:Bibles

[MrHanky]

I think you mean the canon. Cannonization wasn't done before the 14th century, and then mostly to heretics. Canonization, however, is never done to heretics, because a person or text that has been canonized by the church is by definition sacred.

This might seem very confusing, but it isn't, really.

Re:Bibles

[wnknisely]

I'd add additionally that there have been controversies in Christianity from the get-go. (A number of them are alluded to in Paul's writings (which are the earliest Christian literature known.))

The "Lost Gospels" are not lost as much as they were *not preserved* by copiests in the early years of the Church. Fragments of many of them have been known. Occasionally an entire work - like the Gospel of Thomas are discovered.

They are extraordinarily useful for helping people understand the early fights within the Church. And for putting the writings that the Church has deemed Orthodox into perspective (since we finally have access to the documents that the cannonical works were written in response to).

Re:Bibles

[October_30th]

It looks like there already is a Gospel of Judas.

Re:Bibles

[Black Parrot]

> I hope one of the new gospels has something that will really get the Bible-thumpers in a rage. Something like "Thou shalt not discriminate against gays"

The (purported) Secret Gospel of Mark would fill the bill, though as others have already pointed out, Christians have spent the last 16-17 centuries ignoring the ones that the early Church decided were off-message.

However, the fact that all we have of the SGoM are quotes of the sexual shockers purportedly in it is makes me suspect that it is a modern hoax. The existence of layers of secrets to be progressively revealed only as an initiate advances would be no surprize, given that lots of contemporary religions operated that way, but the secrets were usually dull symbolic stuff, not scandals or fourth rate sci-fi yarns.

Re:Bibles

[coopex]

Hey, give the guy a break. I mean, if you could do that whole water into wine thing, wouldn't you get a bit carried away at times just to pick up chicks and have some fun?

Re:Bibles

[bluGill]

That would be an interesting situation, but it is unlikely. Christans of the time were mostly also Jews, any deviation from Jewish law was controversial, and therefore makes it into their writings.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Now christian teach on old testament law is a little complex, as the new testament replaces it. It replaces it as a continuation. It was a big deal with early Christians realized they were able to eat pigs and other "unclean animals". Several of the early books (particularly the writings of Paul, but also Acts) go into detail about this. If Homosexuality was suddenly allowed in the early teachings there would be a big deal made as many discriminated against those who practiced it and the elders had to correct them.

Homosexuality was fairly common in Rome. It was clearly illegal in Jewish law. So you can't claim it is a new thing that wasn't thought of back them, nor can you claim it was only done in closets and those who had no interest didn't know it existed.

I can't think of anything that says something about elections. However Leviticus 19:36-37 apply. Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment, in meteryard, in weight, or measure. Just balances, just weights a just ephah and a just hin, shall ye have.

Yes I was studying Leviticus this week.

Re:Bibles

[bcwright]

The term Apocrypha is very often used to refer to a specific set of Jewish writings that are known in the Greek Septuagint but not accepted in the current Jewish Bible. Most Protestant denominations reject the books completely, but they are fully accepted in the Old Testament canon by the Catholic Church and to a somewhat lesser degree by the Orthodox and Anglican (Episcopal) Churches. It is (very nearly) impossible for any more writings to be added to this collection of writings because the contents of the Septuagint are very well attested. Likewise many - perhaps even most - of the early Christian texts that might have been candidates for inclusion in the canon are fairly well-known, at least in large fragments. What might be more interesting would be texts that record early Church history without being likely candidates for inclusion as canonical texts. For example, Eusebius (a 4th century Church historian) records a good deal of Church history as it was known to him, but we don't have all of his source material nor do we know whether there were other similar major works which might have existed. Since he was writing after many of the major controversies of the early Church, he naturally presented the view of the winning side - but a different and/or earlier writer might well record events somewhat differently. I agree that it's unlikely that anything really earth-shaking for Christianity will be found - there's already quite a bit known about the ferment of ideas in the early Church, and it would require something really surprising to turn up to cause a major stir. More likely, more light might be on a confusing situation but not anything that would "get the Bible thumpers in a rage."

Re:Bibles

[Joe Tie.]

I believe you're thinking of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, rather than the collection of sayings more commonly labled as The Gospel of Thomas.

Re:Bibles

[Reziac]

Great, now I have this image of the early church officials modding various writings as "Off-Topic", and "Flamebait" :)

Re:Bibles

[moz25]

I find your critical stance interesting. How do you view the conflicting accounts of the different gospels regarding e.g. the resurrection?

From my point of view (someone who is not religious), you do believe things you've been told to some extent... without ability to really check them out. The only entity to be an authority is the god figure, yet that figure goes out of its way to only communicate in vague ways.

That's all well and good, but..

[ShaunC]

..can it decipher doctors' handwriting on prescription pads? That would be a momentous scientific advance!

Re:That's all well and good, but..

[mrRay720]

..can it decipher doctors' handwriting on prescription pads? That would be a momentous scientific advance!

I certainly hope not!! That would take all of the fun out of it. I quite like getting random medication every month - makes life really worth living.

Re:That's all well and good, but..

[antic]

What about some of the posts teens are putting on forums these days? I'm pretty sure it's not English that they're using. What language has such common usage of numbers in everyday conversation...? :P

Re:That's all well and good, but..

[goneutt]

What language has such common usage of numbers in everyday conversation...?

You're not in a geek science, are you. In mechanical engineering we can throw around numbers all day and just be talking about steel or aluminum alloys. The electrical engineers are worse with all thier components. And computer guys..... well, their numbers are outdated by the time they say them.
Interestingly, mathematicians have given up on numbers for the most part, traded them in for letters.

Re:That's all well and good, but..

[chthon]

My doctor uses a printer (well, not on visit of course).

"Holy Grail" indeed

[bersl2]

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'.

dei scientiam arrident :)

Obligatory...

[Attaturk]

Euripides papyri you pay for 'em.

Re:Obligatory...

[Strepsil]

Euripides? Eumenedies.

Re:Obligatory...

[MoogMan]

Whats the bets on the text...

"goatse rulesszz!!11!1111oneone"
"first post"
"windaz sux long live GreekOS"

Re:Obligatory...

[jimhill]

Unless, of course, you can find a trained restorer, in which case Eumenides.

God willing...

[Paris The Pirate]

God willing they'll find a new gospel which states that it is 'bad form' to take money from the faithful, establish church's worth billions and then proceed to sit on said wealth for all eternity.

Not holding my breath on that one though.

Re:God willing...

[Fished]

It's already been written: Matthew 5-7. You might want to take a read sometime.

Re:God willing...

[Fished]

I've got nothing against Jesus, I just don't like religion.

Maybe you need to pursue a better religion? There are many different churches claiming the name of Jesus. Logic dictates that they are not all necessarily the same. To my eye, the ones which come closest to truly following Jesus are the Anabaptists (Mennonites, Brethren, Amish, etc.) Not that this doesn't mean that you have to ride in a horse and buggy or wear a bonnet. Only a tiny fraction of Anabaptists choose to live "retro".

Take a look at the third way cafe.

Re:God willing...

[Paris The Pirate]

Hey don't preach to me, I'm converted.

You should email the vatican about that one though. Maybe they should take a read? :)

Re:God willing...

[Lady Jazzica]

U.S. journalist debunks myths about Vatican

The myth of Vatican wealth

"At the Vatican, everything is for sale, in the popular mind," Allen said. In reality, the Vatican's annual operating budget is about $260 million. Allen contrasted that to Harvard University, which has an annual operating budget of $1.3 billion.

"(Harvard) could run five Vaticans every year and still have pocket change left over for an endowed chair," Allen said, equating the Vatican's patrimony -- all the assets it could sell -- to that of a medium-sized Catholic university. Its total patrimony is $770 million. The University of Notre Dame's endowment is four and a half times greater, he said.

Allen noted that while people often assume a significant monetary value attached to the artwork the Vatican holds, it is not for sale.

"The Holy See's point of view is that the artwork is part of the patrimony of humanity," Allen said. It is listed as having a cash value of one euro.

Re:God willing...

[magarity]

Allen noted that while people often assume a significant monetary value attached to the artwork the Vatican holds, it is not for sale ... It is listed as having a cash value of one euro.

This is absurd. Just because it isn't for sale doesn't mean it's worthless. Just in Faberge Eggs the Vatican has hundreds of millions of USD in wealth. Then look at all the gold guilding on the inside of St Peter's; at $500 per ounce, it's not worth nothing. If an entity (the Vatican in this case, a commercial company in another) doesn't use normal accounting because it isn't required to doesn't mean that the numbers should be taken at face value. And there's a huge difference between "wealth" and "operating budget". One is a stockpile, the other is what you use. If there's a large difference between the two then it just means you're fiscally frugal. Good for them but don't tell me it means they're not sitting on a gigantic stockpile of wealth.

If you believe the Vatican has fairly little wealth, you probably also believe that no movie ever made by a Hollywood studio has ever turned a profit.

Re:God willing...

[rob_squared]

That's right after the 11th commandment:
Thou shalt not pay too much for a muffler.

Re:God willing...

[Lady Jazzica]

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.

Re:God willing...

[coopex]

I was one a poor ungrateful wretched athiest, but was saved by the morality of the Christian religion. I learned from this how I am far superior to others and to show this through my constant moral self-rightousness. I also learned that I owe everlasting thanks to my invisible creator whose only proof of existance is a 2000 year old book with no sources. It has provided me with thoughts, so there won't be a chance of me thinking heretical one, thank god. I'll say, if it wasn't for religion, I might actually contribute something to society!

Re:God willing...

[M1FCJ]

There are alternatives to Jesus and his lot. When I have time and energy I follow the teachings of Eris and I'm quite happy with the outcome so far.

Oh, also I'm an ordained Priest of Universal Life Church but that ordination was probably done by the hand of Eris, nothing else. At least I can argue with a priest on the same level, both of us are the man of cloth, so to speak.

Re:God willing...

[bluGill]

No, the temples are not a place of sin. They are a place of holiness that was corrupted.

AFAIK the pope himself was not involved with alter boys. A few priests were, but in competition of people in society in total they are not anymore likely to abuse alter boys. All the existence of a few priests who did such things is prove that Satan can corrupt priests. But that is something that was true from the beginning, Judas was a disciple of Jesus and still was corrupted.

I have problems with the way a lot of churches are run. Look around though and you will see there are many to choose from. I found one that is (so far as I can tell) what Jesus intended. Not that we are perfect, perfection doesn't exist. We do better and are closer to God though. (Or so I say)

Re:God willing...

[magarity]

Yes it is worthless if you have no intention of ever selling it

I don't think you've really considered this. I don't intend to sell a family heirloom piece of furniture inherited from my Grandmother but if the house burns down, I'd expect the insurance company to shell out some cash for it. Do you think it's stupid to insure an heirloom I don't intend to sell? Is my Grandmother's furniture worthless? Under your reasoning, the insurance company will come back with "you didn't expect to sell it, so it isn't worth any money, tough". The same goes for the Vatican art, gold, and jewels. If I steal a bunch of it, do I only get charged with the mildest petty theft charge because it isn't worth anything? Last time I was there it sure looked like a lot of expensive surveillance equipment was watching out that none of their "worthless" art and jewelry was stolen. Spending even a penny to guard something worthless is a pretty lousy investment! If they were to insure it (they probably don't since it's all worthless, but just what-if), would they expect payment if it were damaged in a fire? Can their insurance company get off the hook since it wasn't intended for sale so it's worthless?

Re:God willing...

[Grab]

"Worthless" is a bad way of expressing this, yes. A better word would be "unrealisable".

But this does not invalidate the previous poster's point - you're arguing over the misuse of a word, not over the real point. The Vatican *does* have a large number of art treasures sat around, but it considers these to be held in trust and so they can never be sold. It therefore does *not* have a large fund of money that it should use to help the poor, because the conversion step of art treasure to money will never be taken.

Grab.

Re:God willing...

[Fished]

Oh and the fact that the early christian church, being middle eastern rejected the writings of mary magdeline? because she was a woman and therefore unworthly? (typical of middle east treatment of women today also)

This is idiotic. Nobody who knows enough about New Testament to know why it is redundant to write "the 'hoi polloi'" believes that we have any writings of Mary Magdalene.

That is to say, only conspiracy nuts think that Mary Magdalene actually wrote a gospel that is still extant. (N.B. just because it's says 'the gospel of Mary Magdaline' doesn't mean it IS 'the gospel Mary Magdaline'.)

Contained within that true statement is that you, sir, are a conspiracy nut.

Re:rawr

[FidelCatsro]

Anciant pornography is less likely to show in literary work and far more likely to be done in paint as often has been the case .

We have plenty of examples of this, we do have a fair bit of background from many already avaiable anciant greek and roman works as to the culture of morality revolving around sexual attitudes back then.

These works are more likely to be a boon to the study of the more esoteric areas of the cultures , not that i dont doubt we will find some works relating to the sexuality of the cultures , This is by far in a way not a main area of study.

Though you are right that eroticism has driven many technoligies , but this is more of particular note in more represed cultures, as the current theorys go the anciant Greek and (earlyer) anciant Roman society were far less prudish about their bodys then we tend to be nowadays so pornography would be far less prolific as it tends to thrive where sexuality is less open.

Classicist 3 Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

As a classicist, I want to express the incredible debt we owe to physical sciences. We dig stuff up all the time we can't read, and rely on chemists and physicists to find a way to get to the text. The Vindolandum tables, for instance - slats of wood on which Roman legionaires in Britan wrote letter on, and which were burned. Chemists managed to trace the residue of the ink on the wooden remains and we have volumes of personal correpondence.

In this case, lost works by Sopholces are invaluable; we have only 7 of his plays complete. Any scrap we can add to the corpus provides a much better perspective of greek tragedy in general. And the possibility of finding lost gospels is always exciting for those of us interested in the development of Christianity.

So to sum it up: Thanks for the help, guys! We'll be sure to include your names when people start asking who's responsible for the next crappy sword-and-sandal flick!

Re:Classicist 3 Scientists

[kfg]

"In this case, lost works by Sopholces are invaluable; we have only 7 of his plays complete."

As Carl Sagan explained it:

Imagine that we had some plays by this Shakespeare fellow, Titus Andronicus, Coriolanus, Cymbaline, Pericles, The Life of Timon of Athens, The Winter's Tale and Troilus and Cressida.

Fine plays all. We know from the record that he wrote a few other plays that were well regarded in his time, but alas, those have been lost.

KFG

Re:Classicist 3 Scientists

[goneutt]

Don't worry about the next sword-and-sandal flick. from "The Light Of Reason" link in the /. blurb:

Their operation is likely to increase the number of great literary works fully or partially surviving from the ancient Greek world by up to a fifth. It could easily double the surviving body of lesser work - the pulp fiction and sitcoms of the day.

Worry that the TV networks will get their hands on this.

Re:Classicist 3 Scientists

[AndroidCat]

Obviously they didn't have any Askvs Slashdottus articles about complete destruction of stored data back then. I wonder if archaeologists of the future will have much luck (or need) reading those harddrives that they find in ancient landfill sites?

"We have finally recovered all of the SCO Cycle Comedies!"

Re:Classicist 3 Scientists

[MtViewGuy]

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?

Re:Classicist 3 Scientists

[tepples]

"It could easily double the surviving body of lesser work - the pulp fiction and sitcoms of the day."

Worry that the TV networks will get their hands on this.

I hope the "pulp fiction" you speak of has nothing to do with Disney's Pulp Fiction (1994).

Frankly, I appreciate having more dramatic works enter the public domain ready for translation into 200 tongues.

Re:Classicist 3 Scientists

[tepples]

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!

Works created by authors who died before AD 1934 (which equals 2005 - 71) and first published on or after AD 2003 are in the public domain in the United States and the European Union.

Re:Classicist 3 Scientists

[TopShelf]

But what about translations, particularly when they involve more than simple transcription, a la Seamus Heaney's Beowulf? I'll have to check my bookshelf upstairs, but I would think he'd have a legitimate copyright to that.

Re:Classicist 3 Scientists

[SEE]

Me, I'm hoping for some of the lost dialogues of Aristotle.

Holy source code?

[DigiShaman]

Naaa. It's just a bunch of data written on paper punch scrolls. What we really need to find is the computer to decode this information. THEN we will make progress.

twenty + comments

[Daengbo]

20+ comments and no discussion of the science -- mostly just bashes on Christians. I hate the elitists who seek to tear down instead of build!

Re:twenty + comments

[Denyer]

I hate the elitists who seek to tear down instead of build!

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.

Re:twenty + comments

[Vellmont]

Destruction and creation are one in the same. If I destroy a car by crushing it, haven't I created a lump of metal? The same can be said of conceptual destruction. The only difference is you value the old thing and don't value the new. That's the only difference between the two words, one of personal value.

Re:twenty + comments

[Daengbo]

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!

Re:twenty + comments

[ScentCone]

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.

Re:twenty + comments

[benzapp]

A shallow vision.

Creativity by definition requires human imagination and technical skill. We don't even need life to destroy. The sun could go nova tomorrow; we wouldn't say the sun created anything.

Your view is highly nihilistic, just like Christianity. You have no understanding of the human soul, as yours is empty of all great virtues.

Now, go, return to your solipsistic waking nightmare of a life.

Re:twenty + comments

[bubbha]

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?

Re:twenty + comments

[Casca]

Possibly, but for a long time scientists believed (at least publicly) a lot of silly things because the church told them to.

Re:twenty + comments

[a_n_d_e_r_s]

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.

Re:twenty + comments

[LtOcelot]

Creativity by definition requires human imagination and technical skill.

A narrow definition.

You have no understanding of the human soul, as yours is empty of all great virtues.

Your cup, on the other hand, seems quite full.

Re:twenty + comments

[rob_squared]

You're right, of course. But slashdot's elitism isn't efficient enough. Instead we should be lording our ability to advance, adapt, and make rational decisions. To do that we simply need to gloat about our scientific prowess.

Re:twenty + comments

[novakyu]

Well, you can imagine why people in the sciences might be a little snarky on this subject.

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).

Re:twenty + comments

[Vellmont]

Someone got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Re:twenty + comments

[Vellmont]

No, no it could not. Conceptual is abstract, a car is not.


Actually a car is an abstract idea as well. It has physical presence, but the idea of "carness" is an abstract creation of your mind.


A much bigger difference would be the context in which you use them.

Maybe, but that's really beside the point I was trying to make. People put "creation" into a positive sense whereas "destruction" is negative. My only point is that positive and negative are only value judgements placed upon the thing created or destroyed. If I attack and destroy Christianity, or Paganism, or whatever I only make a new place for something else to exist in its place.

Re:twenty + comments

[luna69]

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.

Re:twenty + comments

[torinth]

A lot of the history of Christianity revolves around bashing people who try to point out the actual reality of the universe.

You are factually dead wrong and should take a look at books like "Against Method" by esteemed philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend to broaden your mind past the bunk you learned in 8th grade.

Re:twenty + comments

[luna69]

hallelujah!

Seriously, this is right on the money. Nice to see someone thinking around here.

Re:twenty + comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny I was raised as a Christian. I went to school with a christian background. I learned about evolution and darwinism, I've learned about the fact that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. I've learned about copornicus, the big bang, etc.

I don't have ethical or moral problems with abortion, euthanasia (if requested) and embryonic stemcell research. And yes I do see myself still as a Christian.

In Europe we even have Catholic (!) universities doing research with embryonic stemcells. Hell, some month ago they awarded an honour doctorate to an former student who's doing some great work in the field of embryonic stemcells.

We have a saying here, being more catholic then the pope. It seems that the problem of some American Christians is just that. It's all of nothing. Those people aren't your regular christians, but fundamentalists.

Re:twenty + comments

[physicsphairy]

Well, you can imagine why people in the sciences might be a little snarky on this subject.

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.

Re:twenty + comments

[ben_fucking_franklin]

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.

That may be. Yet that only makes it twice as grievous when such a practice is continued under a new cloak.

Re:twenty + comments

[St. Arbirix]

I hate the elitists who seek to tear down instead of build!

Militaries and religions have been doing both in succession for thousands of years to great effect. Tear down and rebuild is how any conversion works. Otherwise you're talking about including a person's original ideas in the new theory.

If this new discovery says something truly controvertial to our favorite Middle-Eastern religions do you really think they would just build it on into their beliefs? That's why sermons about undaunting faith and the "armor of God" are so important -- anything to keep the system in stasis.

Re:twenty + comments

[localman]

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.

Re:twenty + comments

[Solandri]

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.

So by your reasoning which is it? "Do as I say, not as I do," or "I have become what I beheld and I am content that I have done right"?

Bashing others just because they bash you is the reason our 21st century world is still mired in wars. Consider for a moment that you're seeking excuses for this behavior, while the book they're criticizing instructs people to simply turn the other cheek.

Re:twenty + comments

[Thomas Miconi]

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-

Re:twenty + comments

[zippthorne]

To be fair, the church got those ideas from previous scientists.. I think i remember reading somewhere that Gallileo or Copernicus got more of a licking from his contemporaries than the church which was funding his research. (but i forget which one and am shaky on the details so ymmv)

Re:twenty + comments

[killjoe]

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.

Re:twenty + comments

[Joe Tie.]

It's slashdot. The vast majority of both moderators and posters have computer science as their main, or only, scientific background. Anything that deviates from that topic is going to have an overwhelming amount of noise in it. Especially with finals closing in on a lot of us. I actually have some background that would allow for positive contribution to this story. But what am I going to do, spend three hours correcting slashdot posts and writing a refrence list whose contents no one is going to read and which would be quickly buried in +5 funny comments? Or should I spend my time trying to keep myself from drowning in my credit load?

Re:twenty + comments

[master_p]

I am appalled by atheists exploiting success of science (which neither presumes nor denies existence of God, so far, at least) to bash religion.

But religion is supported by certain people. These people have been proven wrong, time and again (think Galileo). So why shouldn't we think that these people are also wrong about the existence of God? at least from a religious point.

For example, Christianity says that sex outside of marriage is a sin. But the sexual urges are given by God. It's part of human nature to make sex. So how come God has given us something that is a sin but we can't escape from it? The only logical conclusion is that if there is a God, he has never told us that sex is a sin; it is only the twisted/perverted minds of humans that had come up with such a foundamentally wrong idea...and many more like this.

Re:twenty + comments

[ScentCone]

Do as I say, not as I do

Actually, I didn't say or mean any such thing. If you read my post, and the context in which it was written, you'll see that all I'm doing is pointing out why the audience here on slashdot is, as a slice of the wider society, perhaps more likely to take the news in the original post as an opportunity for some cracks/humor at the expense of the people who build entire belief systems around a selected crop of old documents.

The prospect of finding some new tidbits that might spin Christianity in a slightly different way is an opportunity to see how that movement handles it. Meaning, there's such a long history of using or ignoring, celebrating or suppressing this or that scrap of fable, fact, and wishful thinking that we can all assume that the appearance of some new grist for that mill will be interesting to watch. Interesting, in the sense that when millions of people agree to stick more or less to the same mystical tales, and various factions decide to internalize some (but not others), or just plain fabricate whole new pieces for the sake of cranking out a new sect or two - well, it makes for drama, and a little bit of comedy, too. Hence the tone among people who haven't personally decided to get onboard with that particular mythology. If you're not swimming in those waters, they look quite odd.

Bashing others just because they bash you is the reason our 21st century world is still mired in wars

You don't strike me a morally relativistic sort... so if you're a turn-the-other-cheek guy, why are you complaining about being "bashed" in the first place? Why are you not turning the other rhetorical cheek, and in your silent grace, converting the rational into your belief system? My guess is because just like everyone else, you recognize that when you think someone is wrong, and you think that having more not wrong people in the world will serve your interests, you make a fuss (like your post, for example).

But if turning the other cheek is appropriate, we'd have a Europe being run by either murderous fascists, or by murderous totalitarian Stalinists. Stopping people like that (or Stalin devotees like Saddam Hussein) is not "bashing." It's stopping people that do.

Consider for a moment that you're seeking excuses for this behavior

Not really. In fact, if you dig back through my posts, you'll find that I generally argue for a more refined discourse, a more thoughtful look at things, and a less shrill conversational environment. I'm not beyond a barbed comment when I think that such will succinctly drive home a point, or subtly jar someone's perspective enough to consider my point of view on something.

Re:twenty + comments

[Daengbo]

I'm the poster that you responded to. Thank you for your well thought out response. I guess this inability to stay on subject, which I commented on, is why I have slowly been weaning myself off Slashdot over the past two years.

Re:twenty + comments

[Daengbo]

Compensated how? What was my post's score when you commented. It has been from 0 to 5 and back again a couple of times. I don't need Karma, I don't post to get it. I have been maxed out for about three years now. What do I care about the mods?

Re:twenty + comments

[SonicSpike]

I also believe in scientific principles and Christ. The two can coexist if one has an open mind. Some of the most close-minded people I know are athiests. Of course to be perfectly fair my sister is Southern Baptist and she is just as closeminded about things but in the opposite direction.

We need more people like us around!

I beleive and follow Christ, love the Lord, but tend to actually lean towords the deism thought process (even though I grew up protestant). I like the concept of the "Divine Watchmaker". If you haven't read this yet you should - it is located here and only takes a couple of minutes - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism

Re:twenty + comments

[nathanm]

Destruction and creation are one in the same.

That's similar to the ideas of John Boyd. In fact, one of the only papers he wrote is titled Destruction and Creation.

Re:twenty + comments

[Threni]

> Actually a car is an abstract idea as well. It has physical presence, but the
> idea of "carness" is an abstract creation of your mind.

"a car" in the context of the OP's sentence, is not an abstract creation of your mind, as he meant [to my mind] an instance of a car.

Re:twenty + comments

[zonix]

Hint: What is the difference between a religion and a cult, except for size and political impact ?

cult: (n) a small, unpopular religion.
religion: (n) a large, popular cult.

(Credit: unknown.)

z

Re:twenty + comments

[rssrss]

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.

The Nazi's acted in the name of their science of eugenics. The Communists claimed sanction from their science of history.

You may respond that their so-called sciences were completely unscientific. I would reply that the preachers who burned men were completely unreligious.

Re:twenty + comments

[Vellmont]

It's still an abstract creation of your mind no matter if its an instance or not. A car is a concept, as all words are.

Re:twenty + comments

[Mezzrow]

Repeat after me.
Science and Religion are not opposites.

It is not a dichotomy.

When someone says they are religious, they are not attacking your belief in science. Just as when someone says they are a scientist, it does not mean they are a 'god-hating if he were to actually exist, but he doesn't' athiest.

When you define yourselves in terms of an opposite point of view, you only strengthen the opposition. You give them meaning, and something to rally against. In a true dichotomy, discussion is impossible. That doesn't need to be the case in science/religion.

Unless you really need something to vent against when you get home. In that case, carry on.

-Mezz

Re:twenty + comments

[SloppyElvis]

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.

It was a council of scientists whose invention burned not only preachers, but civilian men, women, and children in August 1945.

Absolute power does corrupt absolutely.

Ahh, those silly lost gospels

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> ...Lost Gospels...

Finally they can decode In The John 3:16: "An_ _e_us we_t dow_ on t_e me_ty co_k _hrou_h t_e gl_ry _ole."

Hopefully it won't upset too much in religion.

Re:Ahh, those silly lost gospels

[mopslik]

"And Jesus wept down on the meaty cook [who] brough[t] the glor[ious (sic.)] mole."

Sounds like Jesus had a terrific, Mexican-themed last supper. I'm sure people south of the border will be thrilled with this news.

This is exciting but not particularly new...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm writing a dissertation on the use of digital imaging technology applied to archaeological artefacts, so have been researching this sort of thing recently.

The use of multispectral imaging (MSI) to view ancient papyri has been going on for some years now, with the following being some of the most interesting projects:

- recovering text from a manuscript containing 10th century copies of some of Archimedes works which had been erased and over-written in the 12th century. http://www.thewalters.org/archimedes/frame.html

- similar to the project above, this is the recovery of carbonised Roman papyri found in Herculaneum (which was covered in 100 feet of lava during the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-14522 44_1,00.html

There are also lots of other artefact imaging projects, such as that being carried out by the Digital Hammurabi Project (http://www.jhu.edu/digitalhammurabi/), who want to digitise (make high-res 3D computer models of) ancient cuneiform tablets or the work at the University of Kentucky which may allow text to be 'read' without the artefact being touched at all - using a CT scan which can be decoded on a computer http://www.research.uky.edu/odyssey/fall04/seales. html

Awesome stuff...

Re:rawr

[bersl2]

The Satyricon and The Golden Ass, while not hardcore, most definitely have explicit sex in them. It's not much, but it's something, so there's always the small likelyhood that more of it exists.

And I also would enjoy the discovery of some more vulgarities in ancient languages. You get tired of the same 500 words for "whore" (which is the only one of plenitude) after a while.

CSI style

[LiquidCoooled]

How much are we betting that the scientists got their ideas by watching CSI?

Re:CSI style

[aussie_a]

Is that the new CSI show? CSI:Soviet Russia?

Re:CSI style

[AndroidCat]

Or the crossover show: SG-CSI:Atlantis

Re:CSI style

[rob_squared]

Nope, I don't think they had crappy digital cameras back then.

Now don't let them in on this...

[gt_swagger]

But I've discovered it's really an ancient Linux (kernel 0.2.1), where all console output is put on paper. What did they find important enough to try and save? Apparently the following command, entered over and over:
$ fortune

Re:Now don't let them in on this...

[ggvaidya]

Yes, this is verily the first evidence for the lost civilization of the Ancient Geeks.

Re:Now don't let them in on this...

[zoloto]

surely you mean ancient geeks?

Copyright?

[MarkByers]

I hope these works are not going to be reprinted without fully compensating the original authors, and their descendants.

Re:Copyright?

[cpuffer_hammer]

Or more likely the new text will be copyright as an image of the original. Much like many pictures of old paintings are copyright. So it will be the institution that will benefit. Not the authors long dead or even the creative scientists that did the work.

Re:Copyright?

[unitron]

"Or more likely the new text will be copyright as an image of the original. Much like many pictures of old paintings are copyright. So it will be the institution that will benefit. Not the authors long dead or even the creative scientists that did the work."

Oh, kind of like Disney, huh?

Re:Copyright?

[Abcd1234]

Of course, that copyright will only apply to the image, and not the contents of the text. Thus, once the works have been translated and the text available, anyone can copy it...

Re:Copyright?

[mysidia]

But a particular translation is a new derivative work of the original text, an expression in and of itself, that might be owned.

Re:Copyright?

[Selanit]

Sadly, when they're printed, they WILL be subject to copyright. The copyright will be held by the people who edit/translate them. Or, more likely, by the universities that employ those editors/translators.

"But," you'll sputter, "The authors have been dead for MILLENIA!"

And you're right. See, the thing is . . . these are in ancient languages, and don't imagine that handwriting is static either. You need years upon years of training to read this stuff. I'm a medievalist, and I frequently run into the same kind of problems. If you produce a facsimile of these things and publish that, only a few people in the world will be capable of deciphering them, probably less than 5,000 out of the 6 billion people on this planet.

So what do you do? Those 5K people (actually probably a lot fewer than that, since not everybody will have the time) will produce editions and translations.

I'm pretty sure an edition qualifies for a new copyright, but it'll depend on how much guesswork the editor had to do. Certainly the footnotes, errata, and commentary will be subject to copyright. I'm inclined to think that in this case, the text itself will probably be subject to copyright as well, because the editors will have to make decisions about the text in the process of editing it. Is that squiggle a lambda? Or some other letter? Which makes sense given the context? When you have two potential readings that can't be disambiguated based on context, which one do you put in the text, and which one in the footnote? That's creativity, qualifiying the editing itself for copyright.

That applies to editions of the original Greek/Latin/Syriac/Coptic/Whatever. Translations of the texts are quite definitely a derivative work and qualify for a new copyright.

I don't know about facsimile editions; typically, a facsimile of a public domain work does not qualify for copyright, because it's an exact replica of the page; there's no creative element there, and it's the creativity that qualifies the new work for continued copyright protection. But in this case, these documents have never been published. But I'm not certain whether an item that has never been published is in the public domain or not. It's a fine point. I think I'll email the IP lawyer for my university and ask - she's cool about arcane questions like this. Anyway, facsimile editions are not going to be useful to anyone who's not a specialist.

Re:Copyright?

[SEE]

But in this case, these documents have never been published. But I'm not certain whether an item that has never been published is in the public domain or not.

In the U.S., works produced before 1 January 1978 and published after 31 December 2002 are under copyright for the life of the author plus seventy years, or 120 years from creation for anonymous and pseudonymous works. That would assuredly put all these works in the public domain.

(If they'd been published after 31 December 1977 and before 1 January 2003, they'd be under copyright until 31 December 2047, under a special rule.)

Godzilla responsible for Indonesian earthquakes

[fuck_this_shit]

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.

Re:Godzilla responsible for Indonesian earthquakes

[Oniko]

The title's meant as a cliche, not as a reference to the Holy Grail itself. This is something really, really big for someone trying to piece together the ancient world. Sorta like if you said, "a quick way to factor friggin' huge numbers is the holy grail of public-key cryptanalysis".

Re:Godzilla responsible for Indonesian earthquakes

[fuck_this_shit]

no shit sherlock, of course the article is not about the holy grail itself, which is why in my opinion the reference to it must not be included in the headline as it's plain bullshit.

Re:Godzilla responsible for Indonesian earthquakes

[menace3society]

fuck_this_shit, meet metaphor. Metaphor, fuck_this_shit. Play nice.

Re:rawr

[FidelCatsro]

I always like to draw a distinction between the pornographic and the erotic .
Pornography is a much overused term in this day and age , Perhaps i am using an antiquated meaning of pornography , though i like to use it when refering to things that are slightly edgy and made to be sensational.

latin is indeed a very rich language , though i argue the point that these were vulgarities , as well tastes change and only now do we see them as vulgarities .
many may have been vulgarities , though i admit to not being having the widest grasp of roman culture so look forward to corection , i assume many of them were endering terms that only now apear to us as vulgar

i'm waiting

[Rageon]

Until it's capable of decoding Ogg Vorbis, I'm not buying it.

When they find it ...

[cablepokerface]

'Classical Holy Grail'

... for God's sake let them drink using the wooden cup and not the golden. I tell you, I've seen it happen before, I know.

Re:When they find it ...

[PoorLenore]

God drinks sake? So desu ne.

Re:When they find it ...

[really?]

Totally agreed. I would further state that just about any sake, not only God's[1], is better drunk from a wooden cup. :-)

[1]I haven't actually had any of this "God" sake you speak of, but, I have had a LOT of others while in Japan.

Yet another attack at the Church

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another pack of half-truths and lies aimed solely at hurting the Holy Church.

It makes me wonder why the Church is under such attack these days. Personally, I feel that the end times are near, the Father of Lies knows it and is doing everything to harm the Church.

Re:rawr

[bersl2]

Actually, it would most nearly be described as "hedonistic." Neither of those two terms, "pornographic" or "erotic," quite get the sense of it.

There are quite a few translations of each work online. Obviously, the original Latin can be translated in many different senses, but not all of us have the time or training to translate.

Re:rawr

[PDA_Boy]

Anciant pornography is less likely to show in literary work and far more likely to be done in paint as often has been the case .

I knew that Paint was old... I didn't realise it was that old!

Next you'll be saying that Plato used NotePad...

Re:rawr

[Sique]

Just to be nitpicking: Pornography is no latin word. It derives from ancient greek: porneia = whore and graphein = writing. So "a whore's text" or "text about whores" would be a good translation for the actual meaning of pornography.

Re:rawr

[oZt]

I've only been studying latin for a few months.. But to me, it isn't a very rich language. Most of the words have a lot of meanings. So basicly they don't have that many words. As far as what the word pornography really means I've no clue.

Re:rawr

[FidelCatsro]

agreed , hedonism is a perfect term for it .I did get a good laugh out of the self-indulgent hedonism bot on futurama that looked like some ceasor melted to his chair.

This is also one of the reasons i would love to find time to start learning Latin again, as honestly Reading Faust in its origional form is far superior to any translation so i imagine the same would be true for these works of which my latin couldnt even get near,

Non-Ecumenical Gospels

[TheMediaWrangler]

I am fascinated to hear that more gospels may be revealed. The Gospel of Thomas was enlightening and actually led me to a better understanding of mainstream Christianity. Non-ecumenical gospels are fascinating because they haven't been highly tainted through interpretations and translations.

Re:Non-Ecumenical Gospels

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Non-Ecumenical Gospels

[MemoryDragon]

I would not trust the Gospel of Thomas too much, it is to my knowledge and reading a heavily gnostic influenced piece of work. Gnosticism has been a strong side influence in many religons of the era 200 BC-500AD.

Several parts of it do not even suite to the character Jesus has shown to be in the other gospels, but basically could be rerooted into heavy greek influence of that era. There are probably lots of other gospels during that era, due to my knowledge it sort of was a fashion to write gospels and books back then (some of them with very dubious content regarding the real events). Some people with more knowledge into that stuff might correct me into this, but that is my current state of affairs regarding the knowledge of those things.

Re:Non-Ecumenical Gospels

[nathanm]

I am fascinated to hear that more gospels may be revealed.

They probably won't find any "new" gospels, just more manuscripts of ones we already know about.

The Gospel of Thomas was enlightening and actually led me to a better understanding of mainstream Christianity.

How did it help you understand mainstream Christianity? It isn't considered canonical by Christians.

Non-ecumenical gospels are fascinating because they haven't been highly tainted through interpretations and translations.

What do you mean by non-ecumenical? That doesn't quite make sense.

Also, the synoptic gospels aren't tainted by any stretch of the imagination. Many discoveries like this over the past couple centuries have given us more manuscripts. With over 5000 fragments of early manuscripts, the evidence is overwhelming that the original content of the New Testament has been remarkably well preserved. What is often tainted is how certain people interpret the meaning of the texts.

Re:Nature of faith

[rjw57]

All very interesting but not much to do with the discovery of a lot of ancient texts....

Tech where?

[mattr]

This is fascinating, but since this is a geek site I'd like more geek info. Like the tech behind it, info about the lab, if there are simple ways to use similar versions of this with neat hacks etc. Combined with this article ("Light Scattering Method Reveals Details under Skin") and other research I've been following in imaging and structured light, it is clear that there are a ballooning number of applications based on clever ways of radiating and analyzing specific wavelengths, polarizations, etc. of light with computers. How about some more info?

The significance of "new" gospels...

[Fished]

As a student of the New Testament and early Christianity, I have to say that discoveries of "new" gospels are rarely very interesting. There was an explosion of gospel narratives starting in the late 2nd century (say 175). Most of these narratives are quite fantastic and have virtually no historical vallue. (Think of a 50 foot tall cross walking out of Jesus tomb, shouting imprecations upon Jerusalem.) More imporantly than their content, they are so late that any trace of historical content is purely derivative of the four canonical gospels.

N.B. I don't include Thomas in quite this category - it is a much more complicated case. But, despite the shrill nonsense that comes from the entertainment industry (anybody see the epigraph on "Stigmata") most scholars, myself included, would not regard Thomas in its present form as even being in the same class as the 4 canonical gospels.

At any rate, I suspect that any "lost gospels" found here will be of limited interest, mostly to scholars and pedants. Move along, nothing to see here.

Re:The significance of "new" gospels...

[eddy]

>Think of a 50 foot tall cross walking out of Jesus tomb, shouting imprecations upon Jerusalem.

Yeah, because that's just sooo much more fantastic than floating axes and talking bushes.

Re:The significance of "new" gospels...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you are falling for the classic delusion that the "canonical" gospels were chosen because they were the earliest and the most historically accurate. This is nonsense.

They in fact are not much older than the "spurious" gospels and were not written within the lifetime of any of the alleged persons living in the time of the alleged Jesus. Some of the "spurious" gospels in fact may be older and more historicially accurate, in that they are simply sayings of "Jesus" without attempting to put "his" sayings into a historical context.

Christianity is in fact much older than the gospels, and older than the alleged historical Jesus. Christianity came first, with a non-historical Christ. The fictitious gospel story was invented, and generations later it came to be believed as historical truth, rather than what it originally was: a fictious salvation story to entertain neophyte Christians not yet ready for the meatier symbolic mysteries that higher Initiates learned.

http://jesusneverexisted.com

http://jesusneverexisted.com/chosen-people.html

Jesus wasn't real. Originally the Christ was simply a Judaized version of the universal god-man (Osiris, Dionysus, Serapis, Tammuz, etc) of an initiatory mystery school religion.

Once some Christians started to believe that the gospels were literally true history, literalist Christianity was born, and that's when things started to get rather nasty.

Re:The significance of "new" gospels...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:The significance of "new" gospels...

[rewinn]

Aren't you using the phrase "historical value" to mean something different than the parent's phrase "historically accurate"?

"Star Wars" is historically valuable in the sense of its impact on late 20th-century culture, but it's not very historically accurate.

Likewise, the Gospels are historically valuable in the sense that they had some measurable impact on history, but they are full of things that just plain never happened --->>> like the curtain in the Temple being torn top-to-bottom on the day of the crucifixtion. That, and tombs opening, and dead prophets coming forth and prophesying while Jesus' body was still on the cross, would surely have attracted some notice from the Jews & the Romans, who were a bit touchy about such things.

Re:The significance of "new" gospels...

[TykeClone]

Likewise, the Gospels are historically valuable in the sense that they had some measurable impact on history, but they are full of things that just plain never happened --->>> like the curtain in the Temple being torn top-to-bottom on the day of the crucifixtion. That, and tombs opening, and dead prophets coming forth and prophesying while Jesus' body was still on the cross, would surely have attracted some notice from the Jews & the Romans, who were a bit touchy about such things.

That's just a cover by the Jews and the Romans!

Re:The significance of "new" gospels...

[katz]

You seem to casually state this as fact; just know that the site whose link you posted is full of half-truths and strawmen, selective substantiation and downright mistranslations in an effort to villanize Jews, their reliigon, and their history. As far as their treatment of Jews, Judaism and Jewish History, it's nothing more than antisemitic vitriol dressed up as historical analysis.

- Roey

Re:The significance of "new" gospels...

[Fished]

that exists and was written DURING the time the others wrote theirs and not a dirivative?

Says who?

back to your hole, troll.

Re:The significance of "new" gospels...

[pudge]

Yes, new texts would almost surely be insignificant. If they did not survive through the church for the first few hundred years, there's no reason for us to have much care for it now. What would be interesting is if they found more ancient copies of the canon, perhaps to go alongside Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It might shed some light on some of the few mysteries we still have (such as the last 11 verses of Mark, for example).

As to Thomas: the only people who take it seriously are those who dislike the mainstream church and want to inject something else into Christianity that they like better. It has far less significant historical basis, and its contents are just bizarre in comparison, such as nonsense implying pantheism, and denigration of women: "every woman who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven" and "Let Mary go away from us, because women are not worthy of life." Those are not things the Jesus of the canon would have said.

There's a reason the Gospel of Thomas was rejected in the fifth century: because it had been rejected by the churches for the previous few hundred years. And the same logic would likely apply to any newly found "lost gospel."

So who said space research

[Bayleaf]

does not benifit mankind.

Re:So who said space research

[rob_squared]

"So who said space research does not benefit mankind?"

That'd be the church. http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/no de52.html

Re:Nature of faith

[Denyer]

Faith by definition is a belief in something that can't be proved or truly understood. It's not open to debate. It's a personal choice and should be respected.

Some people have faith in the inherent superiority of a particular race.

All opinions do not necessarily deserve respect.

70-some messages so far...

[Dot.Com.CEO]

and I find it amazing that there are people speaking of the possibility of discovering lost gospels as if something like that would be extraordinary. There is a series of lost gospels, otherwise called the "Nag Hamadi library" (google for it) that gave rise to a modern revival of the gnostic church, a set of believes that have deeply influenced popular culture (the Matrix is full of gnostic elements, for example.

Elaine Pagels work in the subject is fascinating - gnosticism itself is fascinating in its contradictions and, if anything, shows how different christianity might have been.

Re:70-some messages so far...

[prisoner]

Ya know, I like Pagel's books but the ones that I have read don't usually have much to do with what the title of the book indicates.

I thought that her book on Thomas, for instance, was pretty interesting but had much more to do with the struggle for modern orthodoxy than it did with the acutal Book of Thomas.

Re:70-some messages so far...

[MemoryDragon]

The problem with gnosticism is, that it was there way before christianity and influenced lots of other religions as well.

One of the reasons the early church dismissed many of those "gospels" was that they had a dubious heritage and they basically just should pave an inroad for gnosticism.

In reading for instance Thomas, you can clearly see the gnostic roots and also some greek influences which are totally in opposite of what you can gather about the personality of jesus in the other gospels.

Re:Nature of faith

[BenjyD]

It's not open to debate. It's a personal choice and should be respected.

A few counter-examples:

• I have faith that everybody I run over in my car goes immediately to heaven.
• I have faith that all people with blonde hair are stupid.
• I have faith that if I strap explosives around my waist and blow myself up on a crowded bus I will go to heaven.
• I have faith that if I climb a tall enough tree I will get to the moon (from Dawkins)

Faith can be used to justify appaling acts and discrimination or can limit development of society, and is not something to be respected.

Re:rawr

[FidelCatsro]

I stand corrected , although i didn't actualy mean to imply it was of roman descent , i acidently did .
i speak next to no anciant greek , but does porneia have any other meanings as im sure i have heard it explained with another meaning?

Re:Nature of faith

[zpok]

Well, I have a slightly different opinion: I don't respect someone's opinion a priori. I think it's a fallacy to pretend otherwise. The ability of adults to believe in santa clause and to reject scientific thought to me is very frightening. Otoh I do respect people in general. That's a big difference.

Only literal when it fits hateful agenda.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Let's wait for the book/movie tie-in...

[victorhooi]

Sounds interesting....and if you believe all the church conspiracy stuff from the books and movies, they'll send Vatican Knights after the handsome and square-jawed hero archaeologists, who will then escape with his beautiful, exotic and sultry assistant, along with the crucial evidence needed to prove , replete with requisite car chases, one-eyed villains who speak in a funny non-descript European accent, and the ending scene where the evidence is destroyed for the greater good *gasp*.

And I'm sure some bumbling idiot director will come along and make a movie of it, to join all those other quasi-religious movies...(viz. Dogma, Constantine, EOD etc.)

Re:Nature of faith

[Vellmont]

Those that lack it, can never understand it.

I can understand the impulse to believe something without proof because it makes your life easier. I understand it, but I don't believe in it. Life after death, judgement of the wicked, etc, etc are all beliefs that make living life a lot easier to live. Though really I don't get the appeal of actual eternal life though. People would go all batty after the first few hundred years. I suppose many people just haven't thought it through far enough.

It's a personal choice and should be respected.

Why should I believe someone elses beliefs carte-blanche? What if their beliefs in faith interfere with my own beliefs? This just strikes me as an easy way out to try to appease everyone. In other words "Why can't we all just get along?".

Shouldn't that be...

[EdZ]

Shouldn't that be 'from the invisible-ink department'?

A re-renaissance?

[sellin'papes]

Ancient roman and greek text were lost to the persian/ottoman empires. Western civilization (coincidentaly?) fell into the dark ages for centuries before the texts were rediscovered. This discovery let to renaissance of scientific and political thought.

I wonder what discoveries will be made that could cause a re-renaissance in our modern civilization.

Re:A re-renaissance?

[George Tirebuyer]

It's doubtful. The technology of the Roman empire was superior to that of the Dark Ages. I think it's safe to say that our current advancement has surpassed anything known to the Romans. We even have concrete and a loathing of all things Christian.

Re:A re-renaissance?

[ChrisMaple]

While a change massive enough to be called a re-renaissance is unlikely, the value of "new" plays is substantial. The possibility of rediscovering part or all of a superior philosophical system could indeed cause a modern renaissance.

Re:A re-renaissance?

[DeepHurtn!]

Well, I agree that this is unlikely to spark a new renaissance, but I think you're missing the point if all you're looking at is technology. The Renaissance wasn't about tech, it was about ideas.

Re:A re-renaissance?

[Frumious Wombat]

People could go to their local libraries, sign out copies of Kant and Hume, and read them. They could also read up on Europe 1618 - 1648 , and get an object lesson on why letting sectarian differences spill into the political realm is a bad idea.

Re:A re-renaissance?

[MemoryDragon]

Actually some texts were lost, but the so called dark ages were not that dark. Most of the texts (the most important ones) were copied thousands of times by the byzantine book vendors. They made their way to the arabs and there triggered arab science, which was the most advanced in the world until around 1000AD. Some texts were preserved in western Europe by european monks, but the so called dark ages only were dark in the former western roman parts and germany. Roman civilization still lived on in the Byzantine empire and then in the Ottman empire which basically blended the byzantine culture with its own.

The so called Rennesance (actually it in fact was the second western one, the first one was in the 11th century which was stopped by a plaque) was triggered by scientists and philosophers going to italy while the last years of byzantine decline. (Basically the original trigger was several lectures of Pleton in italy, where he discussed the works of Plato in comparison to Aristoteles, which made the knowledge hungry italians learn greek )

In the end, the complain, so much was lost in the so called dark ages, is totally untrue, civilization lived on continually, it is just a natural kind of thing that some knowledge gets lost on the way.

Re:A re-renaissance?

[George Tirebuyer]

About ideas. Like intellectual property. If they had this idea we'd be paying Guttenberg's descendants copyright and patent fees.

Re:A re-renaissance?

[hawk]

The so called Rennesance (actually it in fact was the second western one, the first one was in the 11th century which was stopped by a plaque)

No wonder dentists are so insistent on our brushing our teeth . . .

:)

hawk

Re:Nature of faith

[nihilogos]

• I have faith that all people with blonde hair are stupid.
  
• have faith that if I climb a tall enough tree I will get to the moon (from Dawkins)

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 ... '

I once read somewhere....

[MisanthropicProgram]

that one of the Popes, I think John Paul II, wanted to take the Catholic Churche's money and help the poor around the world. From what I understand and unfortunalely, I'm having a hard time corroberating, he was disgusted that the Curch had so much money and was sitting on it. The Cardinals or some such Church Bureauacracy wouldn't let him.
I'm beginning to think I didn't read it and it's just wishful thinking on this lasped Catholic.

Re:I once read somewhere....

[Lady Jazzica]

The Catholic Church does use its money to help the poor around the world. Africa would be in much worse shape than it is now if it weren't for the Catholic schools and hospitals there.

Re:I once read somewhere....

[bigsmoke]

Maybe they would be in much better shape if they were allowed to use condoms, or if the church hadn't come there in the first place to tell them there's no need for man to be free ;-)

You might be interested in reading 'Ishmael'. Or, you might not. Who knows?

Re:I once read somewhere....

[Lady Jazzica]

Maybe they would be in much better shape if they were allowed to use condoms

No, not unless you want the Africans to die of AIDS. Uganda was the one country to encourage abstinence outside of marriage as a means of fighting AIDS, and guess what? It had the greatest success in preventing the transmission of AIDS of any African country.

Re:I once read somewhere....

[Lady Jazzica]

Sure, it will lead to more AIDS. Let's say that condoms are 98% effective in preventing AIDS, assuming they're used properly. The problem is that eventually the 2% ineffectiveness will catch up to you. And that's not even counting people who don't use them properly or consistently in the first place.

Condom use gives people a false sense of security, since many will think they're absolutely safe from getting AIDS. And so they will end up more promiscuous than they would otherwise have been. But this promiscuity leads to the 2% ineffectiveness of condoms adversely affecting more and more people.

Keeping sex within marriage, on the other hand, works 100% of the time.

Ok, after reading the post, again, after submiting

[MisanthropicProgram]

... I see that my spelling errors and amount of caffine intake (or lack thereof) is highly correlated.

You don't find this interesting ????

[anat0010]

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.

Re:You don't find this interesting ????

[DimGeo]

By the way, Orthodoxy still views Christ as a super-human that has power over all. It would indeed be worth seeing though. And it would be most interesting to see secular ancient writings, to find out more about our history.

Re:You don't find this interesting ????

[Jerf]

Yes, anat0010, that one document changes everything. One document, written by one guy somewhere, with no sanction and the general historical consensus it wasn't worth keeping, and suddenly we have a better understanding of "the 2nd century views of Christ".

By the way, have you read that Unabomber manifesto? Turns out the average American is anti-technology and bombs people through the mail system, which is apparently the primary use of the mail system in 20th century America. And the recent find of "Dianetics" provides a fascinating view into the religious beliefs of the average American of the 20th century.

No, wait a minute, that's not right.

(One of the persistent fallacies is that the humans of the past are somehow different than today, particularly in their uniformity. They aren't, and the historically-rejected writings of one guy are about as representative as the same happening today, which is to say, not necessarily useless, but you might only learn about the dominant paranoid schizophrenic fantasies of the day (like black helicopters and mind-control beams today), not the common man. You are getting one very small fragment of an image of the time, don't make the mistake of focusing on one small piece and projecting it out on the entire time period. You are the blind man examining the elephant, not a well-informed almost-omniscient observer.)

There is more than enough data to study the 2nd century church, one need not over-intepret one piece of evidence to push an agenda.

Re:You don't find this interesting ????

[jregel]

I don't personally know anyone who has studied the Gospels take the view that Christ was meek and mild. Unfortunately this is a distortion that, as you rightly say, a lot of people today seem to have, but listening to the words and actions of Jesus is a very different story.

Re:You don't find this interesting ????

[DerekLyons]

Yes, anat0010, that one document changes everything. One document, written by one guy somewhere, with no sanction and the general historical consensus it wasn't worth keeping, and suddenly we have a better understanding of "the 2nd century views of Christ".

The funny part is... The four 'canonical' Gospels were *also* written by 'one guy somewhere' sans sanction. Sanction came centuries later when the Church picked and chose among existing writings those that best fit their current theology and worldview. There was no historical consensus, just a bunch of guys excersising control over what would and would not be published as 'official'.

Today, we call that censorship.

Re:You don't find this interesting ????

[dvdeug]

One document, written by one guy somewhere, with no sanction and the general historical consensus it wasn't worth keeping, and suddenly we have a better understanding of "the 2nd century views of Christ".

We do. It is simple statistical fact that the more something was copied, the more likely it was to be preserved. And especially considering how much work it was to copy something, if something was copied frequently, it was probably important to a lot of people.

And the recent find of "Dianetics" provides a fascinating view into the religious beliefs of the average American of the 20th century.

It is an interesting viewpoint on the religious view of quite a few Americans of the 20th century. It's interesting you pulled that up, because you're looking at the Scientology of the 1st century and completely dismissing the Aberree as completely unimportant.

the dominant paranoid schizophrenic fantasies of the day

And how do you know that what got historical sanction wasn't the dominant paranoid schizophrenic fantasises of the day? There are a lot more believers in Nostradamus than James Randi; perhaps the document we find will say that the Cottingley fairies weren't real.

Re:You don't find this interesting ????

[hawk]

"Excuse me, sir. Might I have your permission to tip over your table? And would you be offended if I chased you out of the Temple? If so, I won't, so don't worry. If that's all right with you, that is."

:)

hawk

Proof that Sophocles was a geek like us

[kanweg]

From the article:
"Key words from the master of Greek tragedy

Speaker A: . . . gobbling the whole, sharpening the flashing iron.

Speaker B: And the helmets are shaking their purple-dyed crests, and for the wearers of breast-plates the weavers are striking up the wise shuttle's songs, that wakes up those who are asleep.

Speaker A: And he is gluing together the chariot's rail.

These words were written by the Greek dramatist Sophocles,"

"Ahuttle's songs". Sophocles puts characters on stage with iPods!

Bert
Or was Sophocles a marketeer, busy with product placement. It is not easy to understand history properly, especially if it is some 2k years old (hint, hint to another subject).

Nonsense

[Fished]

Critical scholarship (i.e. scholarship that has no a priori commitment to the historical reliability of the gospels) dates the gospels more or less as follows:

Mark - 68-75
Matthew - 80
Luke - 80-85
John - 90

Then, consider that most scholars date Thomas in its present form no earlier than 145. Any "new" gospel is likely to be much later. Further, there is good evidence to suggest that the Canonical four existed in proto-forms much earlier, with a proto-Mark dating back to the 40's.

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.

Re:Nonsense

[ChrisMaple]

theological scholarship is an oxymoron.

Re:Nonsense

[Alomex]

Those dates are more like the earliest possible accepted by scholars. Quite a few scholars place the last of the gospels into 120-140AD.

Re:Nonsense

[salemlb]

Only if you are so closed minded that you only consider scholarship to be valid if it is an area that interests you. There are scholars of science fiction. Is 'science fiction scholar' an oxymoron? No. The scholar is studying science fiction. So how is 'theological scholar' and oxymoron? It is someone who studies theology. And that study would be... wait for it.... theological scholarship. You may believe both areas of study to be absolute fact (and wonder why the Enterprise hasn't shown up lately), or to be absolute fiction (probably your case). Doesn't matter. At all. They are still areas worthy of study, and that study would be 'scholarship.' I fail to see how anyone with above a fifth grade education could consider a study they don't like to not be real. Either such a person is impossibly stupid, blinded by ideology (your case I suspect), or trolling. Intelligent troll... now THAT's an oxymoron.

Re:Nonsense

[dasunt]

If you think that most scholars place the Gospel of Thomas after 145 AD, then I would suggest finding your references, heading over to wikipedia, and correcting their article.

The wikians seem to think that the Gospel of Thomas was most likely written in the 50s or 90s.

Re:Nonsense

[Fished]

Hm. How's your Hebrew? Is it as good as your Greek?

Re:Nonsense

[Fished]

Do not be like a horse or a mule, without understanding,
whose temper must be curbed with bit and bridle,
else it will not stay near you.

Psalm 32.9

BYU?

[circusboy]

anyone else find it curious that researchers from Brigham Young might be finding new christian gospels?

Re:BYU?

[basking2]

I suppose they don't like what the existing ones say. ;)

Re:BYU?

[circusboy]

quite likely,

I just meant to point out that the basis for the mormon church is that they had already "found" more new testament books.

Something about jesus having appeared in the Americas at some point. there were some tv ads in the early 90s, but it's been a while.

Re:BYU?

[zoloto]

The students and faculty of BYU are some of the most curious people when it comes to discovering old artifacts of historical significance; especially of it being closely related to religious or early symbolic representations of their culture as to identify and understand the symbolism within the cultures. Thus, better enabling them to understand the scriptures in a cultural and spiritual way since the scriptures are literally littered with symbolism. Take a look at Isaiah sometime and tell me that's not difficult without understanding symbolism.

It's not that 'Mormons' aren't happy with the teachings, writings and 'second bible'. In fact they are, quite a bit. But anything of historical value within this direction of understanding culture and history is definitely what they're after.

~zo

Re:rawr

[smittyoneeach]

Infidel!
Plato was an Emacs user!
<dons asbestos boxers>

Re:Nature of faith

[BenjyD]

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.

Re:rawr

[smittyoneeach]

"One seeking elected office"

Re:rawr

[smittyoneeach]

Where is your argument?
You can progam Perl in it, for example...

Re:rawr

[smittyoneeach]

Sure. Even the Hebrews, to read the Song of Solomon.

Re:rawr

[PDA_Boy]

Why have you got Don's absestos boxers? Does he know?

Some are even predicting a "second Renaissance".

[smchris]

About time.

400,000 fragments. When can I get a translated set on Amazon?

Bible = 'acceptable gospels'

[seven of five]

The bible has already gone thru zillions of revisions, leaving out many parts along the way. Remember, there was a huge pile of hallucinatory writing done by starving desert dwelling hermits. They had to toss out the completely incoherent gibberish so they could publish the quasi-coherent hallucinations.

William Burroughs and Ted Kaczynsky had predecessors.

Re:Bible = 'acceptable gospels'

[demo9orgon]

Dip-shit Peckerweek mods! Let's hear it for the nerdly knee-jerk goddist who can't suffer a less than perfectly aesthetic view of their religion.

The parent-post is perfectly legitimate in that it describes just one of several methods employed by aspiring holy-men. Deprivation and seclution are still practiced, formally and informally even today by various flavors of every popular religion. Several of the gospels were the result of some really crazy bugger stumbling back into town/village/citystate and claiming they had a vision (or a revision). They'd be granted audidence and if they entertained the esoterics/priests/king their story would be written down. Stories which gained popularity would be adopted and other ascetics would pick up on what worked and embellish it and eventually one version or another of a story would be comitted to parchment and accepted as a sort of informal cannon for that particular locality. Humanity abhorrs new stories.

Just remember, that streetcorner preacher isn't just distasteful and embarrasing, he's a tradition.

Re:Bible = 'acceptable gospels'

[anubi]

I wish I had modpoints for you, Seven.

I have to accept the fact we were created - as my existence is evidence of my creation.

But just how this happened has been the subject of endless speculation.

My sig indicates my exact sentiments on it. And yes, its taken right from the Bible.

Science is the word we use for the act of proving all things to get to the truth.

My take is if God does indeed exist as an entity, and deliberately created us as we are, does he expect us to use the intelligence he gave us to try to find him, or just mindlessly meander like sheep?

If indeed God created us as we are for a purpose, my logic tells me God intended me to find him through truth - that is provable - not speculation or "following the crowd".

The Bible and other Holy Books warn of this too: False Prophets, The path to truth being narrow and few will find it, etc.

If the God beliefs are true, and God wanted sheep, he could have stopped right there and then. Why create the intelligence that would just cause us to question authority, when we have no way of knowing if the authority is that of God, or of those who just use His name as the means to subjugate us?

Although I consider all religions as having honorable intentions, I don't know as any have it right. I consider it my responsibility to at least try to question things to get to the truth, just as an investor would not want his advisors mindlessly accepting whatever the 'leaders' of the day were saying.

Especially when history shows time and time again the leaders say whatever is necessary to promote their own self-serving empires.

The Floating Axe Gospel

[Anonymous Coward]

The Lost Axe Head (2 Kings 6:1-7)

Re:The Floating Axe Gospel

[novakyu]

The Lost Axe Head (2 Kings 6:1-7)

I was so surprised when I read this for the first time---this story is so similar to a Korean legend of an honest forrester (timberer? well, he makes living out of cutting/gathering wood from mountains and selling it to the people on the plains) who dropped his axe in a deep lake by mistake, weeped next to the lake (because that was his only possession), at which time a lake divinity appeared and presented to him silver, golden, and iron axes in that order, and when the forrester honestly said that iron axe was his, the divinity gave him all three axes (well, the original stories is more eloquent and developed than this, but this is as much as i can do in one sentence).

I'm not sure whether the similarity is because this is such a common motif or because of some shared ancestry between Israelites and Koreans (or whatever Asian race modern Koreans descended from).

Re:The Floating Axe Gospel

[killjoe]

The story of Noah is from the sumerians. There are some passages in the old testament that very closely follow the tao.

The old testament is simply a collection of stories from around the world as told by merchants and travelers. It's more like a book of short stories which contain retelling of myths.

Why somebody based a whole religion around it is a mystery to me, why people this day and age believe it to be 100% true and want to hang passages from it in their court house and schools is incredible to me.

I guess it's the power of myth.

Re:rawr

[smchris]

Define pornography.

I'm sure somebody would be offended by Lucretius' chapter on "plowing the furrow" no matter how musing and studious the guy's tone..

Re:Nature of faith

[TapeCutter]

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"

Re:Nature of faith

[BenjyD]

Ah, but there might be another, taller, tree which *would* let you touch the moon. It's just that you haven't found one yet.

Nothing to see here, move along.

[AtariAmarok]

Turns out that this was merely a grail-shaped beacon at the Egyptian rubbish dump.

Re:Nature of faith

[BenjyD]

Science is based on the *assumption* that the universe is predictable: proof by induction. It seems to be working out pretty well for us so far, but if it stopped being true tomorrow, science wouldn't be wrong.

As is inevitable in threads like these, I should mention Karl Popper.

Re:rawr

[FidelCatsro]

Imfidel
and i say he used VI ;)

Re:Nature of faith

[dalutong]

A short commentary on faith:

One, a definition from Hewbrews:
"Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."

That is very open to interpretation, so don't be so sure you've figured it out.

A nice comment from one evangelical I like, Jim Wallis,

"Perhaps the greatest heresy of twentieth-century American religion was to make faith into a purely personal matter and a private affair."

It is risky business, protecting faith as you do. Once you say your faith can't be criticized, then you say that faith doesn't have to be developed.

Epure Si Mueve

[aepervius]

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.

Re:Epure Si Mueve

[bubbha]

My original post referred to the parent's reference to science's ability to describe actual reality which I took issue with....a subtle point which those posting after me missed entirely....

Re:Epure Si Mueve

[dasunt]

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.

Don't consider Galileo's spat with the church to be a matter of science vs. a matter of religion.

Galileo was often a rather brash, blunt person. One of his writings that attacked the geocentric viewpoint could be interpreted as attacking the pope.

If you google, you can find Galileo's denouncement of the Jesuits for believing that comets are bodies that exist between the earth and the sun: Galileo knew that comets were an artifact of the atmosphere and basically said that the Jesuits had no concept of (natural) philosophy [science].

Combine this personality with a theocracy and its not hard to see why he was put on trial.

Re:Epure Si Mueve

[ScentCone]

That was my post you responded to. Please re-read. You said:

reference to science's ability to describe actual reality

Whereas what I actually said, referring to science-types, was that they are "people who try to point out the actual reality of the universe"

Science is a process. People who use that process to examine the universe are scientists. I'm suggesting that the difference between them, and their religious detractors, is significant and emotional enough (on the part of the religious believers/mystical crowd) that the scientists tend to get tired of all the ducking and weaving that they have to do each time the scientists come up with an ever-more demonstrable explantion for How Things Work, or What Happened In The Past, etc.

When, as in the case of the original post/item, we have science uncovering some old writings that may or may not short-circuit a lot of after-the-fact myth making in organized religion, it's understandable if the science crowd essentially expects some of the usual ad hominem attacks from the I-know-all-I-need-to-know-because-God-wrote-it-dow n side of the tracks.

only on Roman Era Rapper Biggus Dickus

[infonography]

He had has wife, did you know what her name is?

wow

[lazlo]

Cool. They were dumpster diving for antiquities. Sweet.

Re:wow

[AndroidCat]

Dumpster diving? Ha! Do you know how much good stuff got dropped into ancient latrines?

Re:how about a quote for us heathens?

[jbarr]

The parent stated Matthew 5-7 which means chapters 5 through 7, not Matthew 5:7 which means chapter 5, verse 7.

"Canticles of Leibowitz"

[MsSmartyPants]

again

Help from Brigham Young?

[nixman99]

Oxford academics have been working alongside infra-red specialists from Brigham Young University, Utah.

There's a ruby spectacles joke in there somewhere.

Re:Nature of faith

[prisoner]

I like this "Perhaps the greatest heresy of twentieth-century..." quote. Of all the strange, confusing things that come out of modern (and acient) orthodxy, this is the one thing that really strains my patience (sp). It is almost as though many churches teach that one should be afraid or ashamed to acknowledge your faith. I think this is especially true in the Western world.

For instance, one thing that I still have a tough time getting used to is when tv news shows clips of Muslims marching through the streets carrying pictures of whatever religious figure it is that they are lionizing that day. I wonder what the reaction would be here in the states if Catholics, instead of meekly going to their Churches to pray for the Pope, had a giant parade through Washington with people carrying pictures of the pope?

ha

[Robocoastie]

and the early RCC thought they had all those "heretical other" gospels destroyed! Ha!

Lost works

[MsWillow]

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.

ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[bobalu]

I mean, really, think you couldn't bribe a sympathetic Roman? You think people just started to play politics in the the 20th century? I can hear it now:

"Alright Paulus, I'll do it just to f*ck that bastard emperor for sending me to this Zeus-forsaken desert, but get his ass outta the Roman empire because if anyone ever sees him again we're toast."

"Where's he gonna go? It's the whole known world?"

"Hell I dunno, send him back to friggin' heaven if he's such a hot shot".

"YES! Listen Jesus, this guy's gonna wing you to make it look good. No don't worry, he's highly trained, says it happens all the time in the gladiator fights. You spend a couple of days in the cave until they all split, then we say you've been recalled to heaven and will come back in a couple thousand years. Or better, we'll make up some vague signs so we can do it anytime. You head up to the hills and make your way to Japan. Nice people, can't understand a thing we say, so who'll know?"

"No, you can't take Mary, so make the best outta that time in the cave, man."

It doesn't take much imagination or unbelievable actions to make that all happen, just a little back-room dealing. WHEREAS all the rest you say DO require events which have never happened before or since or are in the least provable. So what's more believable? That there was one and only one "Son of God", Virgin Birth, and resurrection? Or that somebody was playing politics, and PR in an ethnic squabble with the Romans, and that history is written by the winners?

For me, the latter.

I'm perfectly happy following the teachings and philosophy of Jesus without needing him to be the "Son of God", any more than I am. Especially since he seems to have copped a good deal if it from Buddhism.

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[bobalu]

The logic is simple: Extortion, bribery and politics and church PR are much more likely to be involved than virgin birth, coming back from the dead, and ascending into heaven. Or UFO's, for that matter.

The former happen millions of times a day in all societies, the latter you claim to have happened exactly once, and it's surely a good claim to make if you're in 40AD selling a religion. As Mel Brooks said "Christians are so poor they only have one God." If that's the case, you might want to at least have his son be a local boy, literally part of your tribe. So you must be the people of God. Want someone to follow you around? A little flattering helps. That's how we know us Americans are the best people on the planet. Because they tell us all the time. Right before they ask for our money.

On the other hand, I was just out doing some yard work and I think photosynthesis is surely a miracle if there ever was one. And evolution.

Difference is neither of those tells me how to live or who to hate.

And if you believe in the story so strongly, why do you post as Anonymous?

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[Peter La Casse]

I think you're misunderstanding the question. It's a specific problem that the poster had with the extortion, bribery and politics scenario: why would the disciples willingly die horribly for something that they knew to be the result of extortion, bribery and politics?

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.

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[mellon]

If that's the case, you might want to at least have his son be a local boy, literally part of your tribe.

Er, Jesus was a Jew, not a Christian, and the Jews do not generally consider him to have been a legitimate Messiah. Furthermore, the Church, up until Pope John Paul II, held to the principle of supercession, meaning, that the Christian church believed that Christianity superceded Judiasm, which led to the persecution and murder of Jews as heretics, arguably culminating in the Nazi imprisonment and slaughter of the majority of all Jews living in Europe at the time. So this particular argument is completely bogus - having the Son of God (who refused that name, by the way) be a member of the local tribe was a total disaster for his tribe.

Oh, also, the idea of the Jews as the chosen people came much earlier, I think (not a biblical scholar - sorry) when Moses received the ten commandments. The idea isn't that they're chosen in the sense that they get all the goodies, but rather that the burden of bringing God's law to the rest of the world has been placed upon them. History has shown that being the chosen people isn't always a happy thing.

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[Anonymous Coward]

So this particular argument is completely bogus - having the Son of God (who refused that name, by the way) be a member of the local tribe was a total disaster for his tribe.

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?

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[smittyoneeach]

Jews refers to the tribe of Judah, one of the twelve rolling out of Egypt.
The concept of being chosen by God refers to Abram (later, Abraham) rolling out of Mesopotamia and being given everything he could see from the top of Mount ... and knowing that through his seed, all nations should be blest.
Moses on Sinai comes later, after Egypt, and the organizational behavior lesson that real change takes two generations.

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[bobalu]

Yes, nice Jewish fella. I don't recall him renouncing that either, but I'm not a biblcal scholar myself. And yes I know the chosen people part is earlier, but it would play in anyway. And you're right about the effect on the Jews, but we're talking about the proto-typical Christians pushing their religion, not Judaism. The Christians did eventually get the Roman empire to turn Christian, i.e. they won!

All I'm saying is let's get obvious for a minute. It's pretty easy to imagine any number of scenarios in which this story came to be. There are people with ambition and agendas and political situations to deal with, and unless you have video of the events all you know is what was written and allowed to be included If you believe, fine, enjoy. I think it's more likely he pulled a David Copperfield, or the whole thing was vastly pumped up for the growth of the church. We all know how unreliable eyewitnesses are, and the group was promoting their agenda, which I think it's a bit more plausible story.

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[Citizen of Earth]

Or that somebody was playing politics, and PR in an ethnic squabble with the Romans, and that history is written by the winners?

This particular piece of 'history' was written by deeply indoctrinated cult members. You certainly can't count on their objectivity, but you can count on them to do irrational things for their beliefs. Some cult members have been known to blow themselves up.

"Son of God", Virgin Birth, and resurrection?

The "Virgin" Birth & manger story was ripped off from "The Golden Ass" by Lucius Apuleius. A supposed king needs a miracle-origin story, right? As for the resurrection, nobody actually checked that he was really dead.

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[Anonymous Coward]

As for the resurrection, nobody actually checked that he was really dead

Actually, they did. When the Romans crucified people, they typcially came back after a while and broke their legs as an act of merciful euthenasia (you see, if you can't support your weight with your legs, you hang by the arms, leaving you unable to breath properly and suffocating you.)

When they got to Jesus, they found he was already dead, so there was no point in breaking his legs. Instead, they ran a spear through his chest, and when they pulled it out, a mixture of blood and water came out of the wound, leaving no question that his ticket was punched.

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[mellon]

Actually, the Senhedron (the ruling council) was, rather famously, against him. Thus the whole thing with the pieces of gold, and the arrest and crucifixion.

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[mellon]

It's just as bogus to rewrite history to conform to your conspiracy theories as it is to rewrite it to conform to someone's miracle theories.

In fact, all we have are the texts and the lineage, which is over 2000 years old at this point. I think it would be very difficult to determine who, if anyone, still holds a pure lineage from 2000 years ago.

So the relevence that these books have for us now is whatever we are able to make of them - disputing the events described in them in the sense that you are trying to do is essentially nonsensical. At this juncture, it doesn't *matter* what happened 2000 years ago, except in the sense that that was the beginning of a chain of events the ongoing culmination of which we are now observing.

If you think there might be something of value in the books, you can try to put it into practice and see if it works; if it does, then you've found something true. If it doesn't, you probably missed the mark. And if you enjoy speculating about history, then you can validly take it that way, but remember what you're doing: speculating.

Re:ever hear of bribes and extortion? POLITICS?

[rssrss]

Moderators: This deserves a mod up and a Funny!

I've already got one, you see.

[AndroidCat]

I already have a book with all the classic Python Holy Grail. It has all the various notes, cut scenes, pictures from the making of it. Honestly, rather than going to all that trouble, they could have just asked!

Re:Nature of faith

[danila]

Faith by definition is a belief in something that can't be proved or truly understood.

Wrong definition. I may understand something very well, but it will be a subject of faith for someone else. E.g. I say "life evolved this way" and another person says "I don't understand anything. I believe that god created life in 6 days". There is no rational reason why such personal choice should be respected. IMO, it should not.

no, let's go straight to stem cells...

[bobalu]

... if you want just one current case.

Re:Nature of faith

[dizzy8578]

We must repsect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart."
-- Henry Mencken

"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free than Christianity has made them good."
-- Henry Mencken

Too True.

[turgid]

The sad thing is, you've been modded down to -1.

Re:Too True.

[DrXym]

It's not trolling to state the bleeding obvious. Besides, it'd only be trolling if the average Slashdot reader was a godbothering fundie. Since they're not, I thought I was on safe ground. Oh well.

Lost Christian Gospel Translated!

[hey!]

Always look on the bright side of life,
doo-doo, doo-doo-dee-doo-dee-doo!

-- Gospel of Terry

Here's another quote for us heathens?

[lobsterGun]

The Shoveller: Yeah, I've heard of this guy. He's a big crime-fighter down east.
Mr. Furious: What's his power?
The Blue Raja: Well, he's terribly mysterious.
Mr. Furious: That's his power, he's mysterious?
The Blue Raja: He's TERRIBLY mysterious, actually.

Copyright on new editions

[tepples]

however, any translations or images of those works would be copyrighted by their [authors].

Translations yes, images no. Images of a public domain work are mere copies, and new editions are subject to U.S. copyright only in the parts that were added or changed in a way involving creative effort. And as for translations, who's to say that at least one translator won't CC license his or her translation?

Competing translations

[tepples]

Because it's a public domain work, multiple competing translations will likely appear, and I'm rawther sure that at least one of them will carry some sort of Free license.

Re:rawr

[sarastro_us]

Some of the frescoes from Pompeii are particularly revealing. There are thousands of works like these out there, most of which were hidden in museum collections by prudish 18th and 19th century collectors. But a little research is always fun to do. It's probably easier than finding good porn with Google ;-)

A technicality: 17 USC 303

[tepples]

These images of an early Greek papyrus are clearly copyrighted by Oxford.

There is a technicality in U.S. copyright law (17 USC 303) that applies only to works fixed before 1978 but published between 1978 and 2002, that such works are copyrighted at least until December 31, 2047. Is this the case? I can't tell because the copyright notice at the Bodleian Library copyright page is incomplete, lacking a year of first publication.

If the manuscript was first published before 2003: It falls under this technicality and is copyrighted until December 31, 2047.

If the manuscript was published on or after 2003: Oxford claims a copyright, but is it enforceable in the United States?

ObTopic: The works that are the subject of this article are first published in 2004 or 2005, so the special dispensation for works first published in 1978 to 2002 inclusive does not apply.

New Gospels Doubtful...

[drumsetdrummer]

Consider:

While Sophocles wrote over 120 plays, only 7 have been uncovered in their entirety. Missing texts may be a common theme for classical Greek literature (??), but is really not very common for Christian texts.

There are literally thousands upon thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. Hundreds of copies of writings of the church fathers exist as well. In short, no one's really looking for any *new* gospels or epistles since there really aren't any indicators that they exist like with Sophocles plays.

That being said, this still could potentially be profound for Christianity in other ways. For example, while we have thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the originals from (or anything copied during) the First Century are scant at best.

Couple that with many scholars' theory that several books of the New Testament were orginally written in Hebrew or Aramaic (many Oxyrhynchus Papyri are in Hebrew & Aramaic), then you could potentially uncover a copy the Gospel of Matthew in it's orginial, First Century Hebrew.

The potential for "get[ting] the Bible-thumpers in a rage" is there, but only from the perspective of realizing how Jewish and Old Testament law-upholding Jesus/Yeshua really was.

45 minutes

[dbcad7]

It's always 45 minutes to fill a prescription even when your in their computer, and paying cash

It must be this decipering thing that's the real problem... I mean what's involved ??

Get the med from the shelf, count the amount, put it in a bottle, and print a lable.

Typical scenario... You wait in about a 4 or 5 person line to drop off you prescription. usualy there is 1 person both getting the new perscriptions and cashiering the filled prescriptions... and there are like 3 or 4 people in the back who are actually doing the counting and lable thing... After your 45 minute wait you get to again wait in this 4-5 person line.

I don't get it.. I just don't

dbcad7

Re:Nature of faith

[firewrought]

Faith can be used to justify appaling acts and discrimination or can limit development of society, and is not something to be respected.

Doubt is a virtue, and faith is a means for extending denial contrary to evidence. Still, there are a lot of people with a lot of weird beliefs on this planet, and we should respect them as people. Always.

Remember too that most people want to think of themselves as a good person. Religion (at least in the forms that I have encountered in the U.S.'s Bible Belt) often uses this desire to discourage critical examination of sacred beliefs. A gratuitous example: a local church billboard reads "blessed are those who believe but have not seen".

We humans are a young species yet, and we have a ways to go before coming to terms with our lack of Adult Supervision. As we get there, let's not lose the opportunity to work with religious people to obtain mutually desirable goals ("feeding the hungry", "wise economic policies", etc.). Ultimately, it's up to all of us to make this world a better place.

Floating axes.Re:The significance of "new" gospel.

[3seas]

I read that story in the Torah (interesing how the torah is more readable than the bible..)

Anyways, being a carpenter I actually fully understood the non-miracle of the event.

What occured to me afterwards is that people back then had teh same eyesight problems as they do today, but today we have corrective vision tools, like glasses and lasic surgery.

But the story is really quite interesting. From it is easy to deduct that they were falling the trees away from the river. (Falling is a term to describe the cutting the last part of the tree from the opposite side in which you want it to fall, so not to get your axe stuck as the tree begins to.) As such the, the swing was such that the axe head, upon comming lose during a swing, went into the rapidly flowing river - a little bit of white water - enough to block clear sight of the axe head, especially if you have bad eyesight to begin with.

But the Master/lord saw where it was, and grabbing a forked branch (of which there were plenty of - a by-product of cutting trees down) and put it into the water to hook it into the fork.

As the water was moving, such an act caused not only the water to take an altered path, clearing the sight of the axe head for the others to see, but also helped to raise the axe head up to the surface (like skiing on water). But the branch was either not strong enough to lift it out of the water, or such an attempt could have been to risky, as the rushing water may have been helping to keep the axe head in place in the stick fork.

Being the that lord (landlord??) was holding this stick, he probably couldn't reach the axe head himself, so told one of the others to grab it.

How do you feed alot of people?
Q: are people that stupid to follow someone for an extended period of time without taking some food with them? NO! But considering why they were following Jesus (to learn how to excape the dishonesty of society) they just needed an excuse to be able to eat what they brought without letting others know what they had brought (so to better avoid possible attempts to steal from them). The solution: pass a basket around that will allow or provide an excuse as to where they got their own food from...in teh eyes of those "others" around them.

There is plenty more commn sense explainations to the "miracles"... from walking on water to turning water to wine...... many of which are related to common knowledge of an experienced carpenter/boat builder.. of that time. - a vessel in which wine was made, when emptied, still contains residue that adding water to will help wash out giving color and taste to teh water - where at a wedding there is no need for alcohol in order to get drunk with the event. Was Jesus a surfer? Cetrtainly he understood wood and floatability and what happens when you walf to the end of a surfboard.... and the eyesight problem of an observer at a distance.

Perhaps any writtings newly exposed will help to show this.

Is that "the time is at hand" a reference to something being a matter of time, or is it a statement of choice, and the ability to do it now or later.?

Talking bush? There is a type of bush that produces some sort fo burnable oil on it leaves and can be set a fire -- cooler blue flame -- without burning the bush.

But Talking.... Well when you have the world listening to a lying president, hearing the illusuion of war drums and believing them, is it really so hard to believe bicameral mind (search google for julian jaynes work) voices can exist?

In the movie and entertainment business special effects are created all the time.... 50 foot tall cross walking out of a tomb..... easy as pie...

Hmmmm, what was the nature of alot of the writting being now exposed?????

Re:Since everyone's talking about God

[Dregnus]

To quote Religioustolerance.org - paraphrase - Since he's a higher power, why not simply rearrange a couple of stars to read "I AM". You'd see the number of atheists drop to zero.

Of course the religions would still argue, as Muslims, Jews and Christians wouldn't know who, if any, are correct :)

Re:Nature of secularism.

[dalutong]

"Critisizm is fine. Backing it up is much harder."

it doesn't even have to be legit criticism -- someone can ask a worthwhile question without knowing why it is worthwhile, or, if they doing, without being able to prove it.

Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-One

[Sevnn]

"And Saint Atila raised the hand grenade up on high, saying, 'Oh, Lord, bless this thy hand grenade that with it thou mayest blow thy enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.' And the Lord did grin, and people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large.."

Less gospel stuff please...

[posternutbaguk]

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.

We have no original texts

[cquark]

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.

We have no original texts; the earliest texts that we have are fragments of copies of copies. Unsurprisingly, these multi-generation copies disagree with each other in places. One well known disagreement is the ending of Mark. The modern ending is found in none of the earliest manuscripts, and when we do begin finding manuscripts with an ending, we find two different endings. The Catholic Church declared the currently popular ending canonical at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

There is also no "the Bible." Each major branch of the Christian church has their own Bibles, with numbers of books ranging from about two dozen for the Syrian church to 66 for the Protestants to 81 for the Ethiopian church. The most common dates I've seen for the Gospel of Thomas are 100-150, which puts it in about the same range as the 90-120 dates for the Gospel of John.

Since you brought up Paul, it's worth examining the authenticity of his writings too. For example, the Ethiopian Bible has 3 letters to the Corinthians, while the Catholic/Protestant Bible has only 2 such letters. Several of his epistles, including 3rd Corithians, were debated strongly when the Catholic church began putting together its Biblical canon in the 4th century. The Catholics rejected 3rd Corinthians, but kept several of the other more dubious epistles, which modern scholars now have come to same conclusion that some 4th century bishops did--they were forgeries.

The controversy over what was really canonical or not erupted again in Europe with the Protestant Reformation. Luther rejected the apostolicity of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and moved them to the back of his translation of the Catholic Bible. Modern rediscoveries of the gnostic gospels, and communication between the European branch of Christianity with branches in Asia and Africa with their different Bibles have brought these controversies to life again.

Re:We have no original texts

[Jagasian]

Religious fundamentalists do not listen to reason. They have already made up their mind and their conclusion was not deduced via logical reasoning from facts.

Re:We have no original texts

[hawk]

Ahh, but it's fun to listen to them to try to use the Bible in an anti-Catholic rant, given that they're using Luther's hack of what the (Roman) Catholic Church selected out of the various writings . . . :)

hawk

Re:We have no original texts

[almightyjustin]

We have no original texts; the earliest texts that we have are fragments of copies of copies.

Yes, but the parent was making a valid point, which is that translation is irrelevant since we have copies in Greek and Hebrew. I've heard the argument a number of times that "oh we have no idea what the Bible originally said because it's been translated so many times" like it was a game of Telephone, which is a complete non sequitur and I have no idea where people get it from.

The issue of manuscript variation is a different and valid one but I hate it when people bring up the number of translations like it's meaningful somehow.

Re:rawr

[FidelCatsro]

" he used VI with greek localization. :)"
You beat me to that joke , i was going to say '" back then they were probably still using IV or III"

OT reply to sig

[Feztaa]

You verses diety? Prabobly rediculos, but launch missiel with nickle kernal... amandemtn, speach highrarchy... you lose, soully!

Mandatory Life of Brian quote

[smittyoneeach]

Centurion : What's this, then? "Romanes eunt domus"? People called Romanes, they go, the house?
Brian : It says, "Romans go home. "
Centurion : No it doesn't ! What's the latin for "Roman"? Come on, come on !
Brian : Er, "Romanus"!
Centurion : Goes like?
Brian : Annus.
Centurion : Vocative plural of "Annus" is?
Brian : Er, er, annus, anni, anno, annum, anno, anni... "Romani"!
Centurion : (Writes "Romani" over Brian's graffiti) "Eunt"? What is "eunt"? Conjugate the verb, "to go" !
Brian : Er, "Ire". Er, "eo", "is", "it", "imus", "itis", "eunt".
Centurion : So, "eunt" is... ?
Brian : Third person plural present indicative, "they go".
Centurion : But, "Romans, go home" is an order. So you must use... ?
(He twists Brian's ear)
Brian : Aaagh ! The imperative !
Centurion : Which is... ?
Brian : Aaaagh ! Er, er, "i" !
Centurion : How many Romans?
Brian : Aaaaagh ! Plural, plural, er, "ite" !
Centurion : (Writes "ite") "Domus"? Nominative? "Go home" is motion towards, isn't it?
Brian : Dative !
(the Centurion holds a sword to his throat)
Brian : Aaagh ! Not the dative, not the dative ! Er, er, accusative, "ad domum" !
Centurion : But "Domus" takes the locative, which is... ?
Brian : Er, "Domum" !
Centurion : (Writes "Domum") Understand? Now, write it out a hundred times.
Brian : Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Hail Caesar, sir.
Centurion : Hail Caesar ! And if it's not done by sunrise, I'll cut your balls off.

Re:Mandatory Life of Brian quote

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Thank you--if you hadn't have done it, I would have had to :).

You misunderstand

[Lifewish]

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.

Re:You misunderstand

[infolib]

Scientists, on average, are perfectly rational when at work, and are objective and unbiased at all times during the day.

That's so much bullshit I really thought you were sarcastic. Heard of the Einstein-Bohr debates? The Newton-Leibniz controversy? The average scientist - and the outstanding one - is often quite biased, not to mention the cutthroat competition to get his/her own results into the limelight.

That doesn't mean science is useless, rather that its secret is in the process, not in the people. Here it actually helps having biased people, as long as they have different biases. (Actually in court, we pay the prosecutor and the defense to have opposite bias.) The problem with religion is that it agglomerates people all with the same bias.

Re:You misunderstand

[rssrss]

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."

One of the master meme plagues of western civilization is the supposed story of the burning of the library of Alexandria. IIRC, Carl Sagan waxed most eloquent about that supposed disaster. Edward Gibbon, to my mind the greatest historian and prosidist the Anglosphere has yet produced, recounts the story in Chapter LI: Conquests By The Arabs -- Part VII of his History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire:

I should deceive the expectation of the reader, if I passed in silence the fate of the Alexandrian library, as it is described by the learned Abulpharagius.

The spirit of Amrou was more curious and liberal than that of his brethren, and in his leisure hours, the Arabian chief was pleased with the conversation of John, the last disciple of Ammonius, and who derived the surname of Philoponus from his laborious studies of grammar and philosophy. Emboldened by this familiar intercourse, Philoponus presumed to solicit a gift, inestimable in his opinion, contemptible in that of the Barbarians -- the royal library, which alone, among the spoils of Alexandria, had not been appropriated by the visit and the seal of the conqueror. Amrou was inclined to gratify the wish of the grammarian, but his rigid integrity refused to alienate the minutest object without the consent of the caliph; and the well-known answer of Omar was inspired by the ignorance of a fanatic. "If these writings of the Greeks agree with the book of God, they are useless, and need not be preserved: if they disagree, they are pernicious, and ought to be destroyed." The sentence was executed with blind obedience: the volumes of paper or parchment were distributed to the four thousand baths of the city; and such was their incredible multitude, that six months were barely sufficient for the consumption of this precious fuel.

Since the Dynasties of Abulpharagius have been given to the world in a Latin version, the tale has been repeatedly transcribed; and every scholar, with pious indignation, has deplored the irreparable shipwreck of the learning, the arts, and the genius, of antiquity.

For my own part, I am strongly tempted to deny both the fact and the consequences. The fact is indeed marvelous. "Read and wonder!" says the historian himself: and the solitary report of a stranger who wrote at the end of six hundred years on the confines of Media, is overbalanced by the silence of two annalist of a more early date, both Christians, both natives of Egypt, and the most ancient of whom, the patriarch Eutychius, has amply described the conquest of Alexandria. The rigid sentence of Omar is repugnant to the sound and orthodox precept of the Mohammedan casuists, they expressly declare, that the religious books of the Jews and Christians, which are acquired by the right of war, should never be committed to the flames; and that the works of profane science, historians or poets, physicians or philosophers, may be lawfully applied to the use of the faithful. A more destructive zeal may perhaps be attributed to the first successors of Mohammed; yet in this instance, the conflagration would have speedily expired in the deficiency of materials.

I should not recapitulate the disasters of the Alexandrian library, the involuntary flame that was kindled by Caesar in his own defense, or the mischievous bigotry of the Christians, who studied to destroy the monuments of idolatry. But if we gradually descend from the age of the Antonines to that of Theodosius, we shall learn from a chain of contemporary witnesses, that the royal palace and the temple of Serapis no longer contained the four, or the seven, hundred thousand volumes,

Re:Nature of faith

[Pecisk]

No, actually.

Yes, Faith sometimes is blind. Sometimes it's good - because it leads human being trough hard times.
It has very big possiblity to blind you, and yet, sometimes it can get you to your aim, while logic in such situations would lead you nowhere.

I actually respect your thoughts and what you have faith for - as long as you don't force your beliefs, as long as we can disscuss in peacful manier.

Faith DON'T kill (lie, cheat, disturb, manipulate, etc.).

People do.

Greek government is sueing

[the-build-chicken]

....under DMCA.

Copyright Notice

[LittleBigScript]

All characters here unto pretaining are ficticious and any resemblence to living ...

No meat on friday - good nutritional advice

[AHumbleOpinion]

the catholic church does lots of things to milk the believers.

remember no meat but fish on friday?

Sounds like modern medical and nutritional advice. So when a doctor or nutritionist says eat fish once a week he/she is doing the right thing, but when coming from the clergy it is wrong?

Regarding past sins of the church, you confuse a church functioning as a political body not a religious body. The church got royally screwed up centuries ago when it got into the business of government. Power corrupts, even the church, even the agnostics, even the atheists. However today the church is back to its proper role.

You did know Vatican contributes to hard science?

[AHumbleOpinion]

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 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/va tican_observe_000716.html

FWIW, the dean of my chemistry department (at a state university) was a Catholic priest.

Re:Armaments, Chapter Two, Verses Nine to Twenty-O

[slothman32]

[voice=in "The Fly"]Don't eat me.[/voice]

Re:You did know Vatican contributes to hard scienc

[ScentCone]

I'd say that the long tradition of scholarship within the Catholic church has happily spilled over some into science. They, as an institution (though not necessarily as a larger population of belivers), seem to be a little less willing to be painted into the "God of the gaps" corner that so many others do.

The Vatican's support for certain falvors of hard science strikes me more as a carefully crafted effort to disarm the more obviously damaging (to their credibility) critiques of the faith-based view of the universe. Obviously, as science approaches clear descriptions of what it means to be sentient, or deals with philosophically weighty issues of cognition, the church's structure tends to step in and draw a pretty hard dogmatic line, regardless of how much they spend on telescopes or how comfortable a given MIT grad is at finding God in a pile of rocks (no matter how interplanetary they may be).

Obviously, any organization that focuses its entire thought process (and basis for authority/reward/punishment etc) on what they say happens after you die, when the very stuff that makes "you" exist has stopped functioning - that's a way of conducting human affairs that doesn't truly embrace science. I'd say they (the Catholics, in particular) are perhaps more thoughtfully engaged in using technology towards an understanding of how the universe, in practical terms, works - but they're not necessarily ready to tackle what such research will ultimately demonstrate about the Why (which is to say, there will be an awkward moment at some point when the random, capricious nature of the universe's behavior, clearly absent any anthropomorphized bearded personality, just won't square with Sunday school Genesis lessons).

Now, all that being said, I'd much rather have the Catholic influence on culture and education than I would the fully creepy world view of the newer fundamentalist protestant crowd. Yikes, I say!

Witch Hunting Manuels

[BlueFashoo]

The most famous witch hunting manuel is the Malleus Maleficarum, written by Heinrich Kramer and James Sprenger, on orders of the Pope Innocent VIII. The papal bull was issured on Dec. 9, 1484. The protestant reformation didn't kick off until 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his edicts to the door. There were earlier attempts, but none of them ignited like his did. Henry V, in 1419, prosecuted his stepmother, Joan of Navarre, for attempting to kill him via witchcraft. So, what we can see is that witches and witch hunting were in vogue before the protestants were around.

Re:Witch Hunting Manuels

[Bush Pig]

Still, the Protestants (particularly in Germany) really took to the Final Solution to the witch problem in a big way.

Re:rawr

[FidelCatsro]

:( you broke my chair . (IE: i fell off it laughing so prepare for legal action ':D)

You need to read more carefully

[Fished]

Note that I said, "in its present form."

As for sources, here is one that took me less than 5 minutes to find: "In the Jesus Seminar, all or most of GTh is treeated as a composition of the 50s antedating the canonical Gospels; but the majority of scholars thinks that, although GTh may have preserved some original sayings of Jesus, as a whole the work is a composition of the 2d century and reflects at time incipient gnosticism."

Raymond Brown. An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday, 1997.

To translate: according to exactly the same standards used to date the Canonical gospels (esp. John) later than 70, Thomas is late indeed.

This illustrates exactly the problem with treating Wikipedia as a definitive source: it tends to attract the work of talented amateurs or marginal scholars. It very often misses the mainstream in fields where there is a lot of controversy, and nearly always misses the mainstream in subjects related to the New Testament. In this case, the wikians have taken as correct a marginal view held by what most scholars would consider the radical fringe of New Testament scholarship - viz. the Jesus Seminar and especially Crossin. No serious, careful scholar of the field would have made a strong claim that the majority of critical scholarship regards Thomas as being of 1st century Provenance. On the other hand, someone who picked up a couple of the tendentious, popular treatments at Barnes and Noble certainly would.

A good, popular treatment of the Thomas controversy (and why the Jesus Seminar theories are unlikely to stand up) take a look at "Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way" by Phillip Jenkins. This book is admittedly conservative in outlook, but it's basically factually accurate and it lays out the issue in a way understandable to the lay person.

(And, for what it's worth, I'm a Doctoral Candidate in New Testament in a rather good program at a non-religious school, so I like to think I know more than some random wikipedia contributor.)

I'll trot over and edit the Thomas article later.

Get a grip

[Fished]

Do you have any IDEA how many gospels we already have? A couple more second or third century gospels just won't change much. Now ... if they were early 2nd or first century, THAT would be interesting.

uh huh

[Fished]

When you've got an M.Div., come talk to me. In the meantime, I won't fight with an unarmed man.

Re:uh huh

[M1FCJ]

Why should I bother? I don't believe in god or God.

Re:uh huh

[Fished]

Why should I bother? I don't believe in god or God.

Exactly. God is like Chocolate & Peanut Butter. Those who "get it", "Get It." Those who don't will be forever deprived.

Re:uh huh

[M1FCJ]

That logic is flawed. There is no supreme being therefore why should I waste all that energy on it? There are more worthwhile pursuits in the world so I'm channelling my energy to those.In the other hand Goddess Eris, the goddess of mischief and chaos is quite useful if I want to beleve in something.

No...

[Fished]

Those are consensus dates for contemporary, mainstream scholarship. Virtually no serious scholar has accepted second century dates for about 50 years. Back in the hayday of higher criticism, some very late dates were accepted. They've been almost completely debunked - unless of course you listen to Earl Doherty.

Re:You did know Vatican contributes to hard scienc

[AHumbleOpinion]

Personally I'd say that your "belief" that science will eventually be able to define "what we are" is is merely an article of faith. Science will only be able to deal with the detectable, to describe the mechanics of the universe. It will never be able to prove that there is no God, that the mechanics of the universe or our creation was random not somehow guided. Neither science nor religion have all the answer.

Church preserved art/knowledge as civilzation fell

[AHumbleOpinion]

When discussing whether or not the church should sell its art and other valuables you have to realize that the Catholic church has witnessed the fall of civilization and preserved art and knowledge until a new civilization arose. Why should they believe someone else would be a better custodian of the history and treasures they posses?

Re:Nature of faith

[nihilogos]

Faith, as the original poster puts it, is the belief in something without evidence.

I think it's important to distinguish faith from dogma. 'Real' faith is based on personal experience - practically everybody has sporadic experiences that suggest there is a lot more to the universe than our senses and rational minds perceive or infer. The purpose of religion is to provide a structure within which these experiences can be supported, and used to develop an understanding of the universe different (but oftern complementary) to that provided by science. Developing such an understanding and faith stimulates further experiences which further strengthen faith and so on. You wouldn't say faith is based on evidence, but there is still discernment.

'Faith' that someone will fo to heaven if you run them over is not a personal faith, it is a misuse of dogma that is intended to support personal faith.

Re:Nature of faith

[TapeCutter]

From my point of view, science is more flexible and has a much better track record of prediction than religion, but *assumption* and belief are still synonyms (proof by Thesaurus).

I doubt, therefore I may be.

Re:Nature of faith

[wayland]

<i>Though really I don't get the appeal of actual eternal life though. People would go all batty after the first few hundred years. I suppose many people just haven't thought it through far enough.</i>

Maybe you should get a life :).

Personally, I'm looking forward to eternal life. Not the kind Jonathan Swift depicts (ie. getting older and older for thousands of years, and becoming mentally deranged, etc), but eternal enjoyment of eternal life.

I don't know what God has planned for us, but I know I'd be happy for a few thousand years just learning stuff. I'm currently interested in everything except unimportant current events (ie. sport and celebrities), and that's more a decision based on using my time to achieve what I want; I could develop a (theoretical) interest in those too. Presumably, also, living in a "country" where the government *never* messes up (ie. new heavens/new earth, w/ Jesus ruling), things will be a lot more efficient. Current government has to be designed to hold this-world humans in check; the next world won't require that.

While I wait for that to happen, though, God wants me here :).

Electron SHOULD have a positive charge

[DoubleReed]

Heh your comment about just randomly believing the electron has a positive charge reminds me...

Semiconductor physics class the teacher draws a diagram of current moving through a wire then says
"ok, so the current goes this way, why do the electrons go the other way?"

Everyone starts mumbling about negative charge etc etc and she all of a sudden bursts out "NO! The electrons move against the current because Benjamin Franklin was an asshole"

If Benjamin Franklin had gone into his lab and assumed things such that the electron would have had a positive charge, generations of second semester physics students would have had an easier time.

Re:Electron SHOULD have a positive charge

[luna69]

Heh.

I was hoping someone would point this out. This is the kindof things that gives physics geeks the hee-hees.

Re:Church preserved art/knowledge as civilzation f

[AHumbleOpinion]

Just to be clear I am not saying that the Catholic church did all the preservation, just some of it, more than governments and individuals of the time. I am aware of the vast amounts of knowledge that Islamic scholars preserved and added to.

Re:rawr

[Sique]

I don't have the correct word here right now, but derived from porneia is also the greek word for adultery (something like porneion).

Re:WitchHuntinCalvins-Evil,Lutheran-Good,Catholics

[MemoryDragon]

Luther was very moderate in many ways and even Catholics nowadays have a high opinion of him (he probably would not have any needs for going a separate route nowadays) but he had several mistakes a) his stance towards Witches, yes, Calvinism was awful, but Luther also had a very problematic opinion towards witches, he simply was a child of his times, and also was infected by witch paranoia b) his later writings against jews basically were one of the corner stones which the nazis could built upon in the long run (one of them not the main one) c) His role regarding the farmers revolts is also somewhat problematic, but that is a non issue in this discussion here

Good point

[Lifewish]

Thanks for the excellent summary. I'd been pondering whether to add an apologia for intrascience controversy but I decided a) I'd been rabbiting on for too long as it was and b) I couldn't express it nearly well enough.

Of course, the argument could be made that, if scientists are biased in all different directions, then it's true that, on average, they're perfectly rational... :P

Re:Good point

[infolib]

Since it seems we're into retracting statements today I'd like to unsay that the problem with religion is that it agglomerates people all with the same bias.

First of all, it's preposterous of me to speak of "the problem" with religion. In many respects religion isn't problematic at all, and when it is, it's in many diverse ways.
Secondly, I must say that a greater problem (as far as truth-seeking is concerned) is that people who think they've found the Truth stop looking for it. Their ideology is completely focused on spreading and understanding that Truth, rather than questioning it. Scientists will at least pay lip service to the idea of throwing out accepted wisdom and starting over. That attitude traditionally reflects on young scientists caught in a conflict between two theories before they "attach" themselves to either one.

Re:Nature of faith

[Scroatzilla]

>>Faith, on the other hand, as a construct of human thought, can be judged as good or bad.

I'm not particularly religious per se, but I'm a Unitarian Universalist. Just a disclaimer.

I take issue with seperating the idea of faith from science, or even the mere suggestion that science is NOT a product of human thought just like any concept of god. After all, science is hypothesis and proof. It is the human imagination, kicked off by some kind of human perception, that forms hypotheses. To be able to repeatedly prove something in science doesn't answer anything about the universe as a whole. Neither does attaching a meaning to the results.

Why? Because the more complicated the inter-relationships among the sciences and their bodies of knowledge become, the fewer people who will effectively be able to wrap a plausible explanation around the findings. So meaningfully being able to scientifically prove something will eventually be impossible, at least without blowing up the universe and creating a brand new big bang, but then how the hell would you document the result of that?? ;)

IMHO, the human imagination will always ask the next question and form the next hypothesis, to an eventual infinite and unprovable degree. It's really a pet peave of mine to see science folk so nastily rebuff religious folk on the mere notion of how faith is "not respectable." What's not respectable is the human behavior surrounding any belief system that is designed to protect that belief system at all costs. We are all ignorant to some degree.

Err, no.

[hawk]

For example, if Christ had children which was entirely a Jewish custom if you will, it would mean that every pope including Peter was an impostor.

Not even close. Aside from the the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has *always* acknowledge the validity of married clergy, Peter had a mother in law, clearly referred to in the Gospels.

hawk

Thanks

[hawk]

Thanks for these details. It's a welcome relief from the noise . . .

hawk

Re:rawr

[rishistar]

Actually he used Tablet hardware. What OS though is anybody's guess.

Still a good point

[Lifewish]

Replace "the problem" with "a major problem" and you've got a rock-hard case there. And the word "agglomerates" really isn't used enough these days.

Re:Floating axes.Re:The significance of "new" gosp

[3seas]

interesting how the parent has been mod'ed first insightful, then flamebait (though no flames) and then overated and finally interesting... I think I messed something, cause it don't add up beginning with a value of two.

At any rate...

The Exodus is another interesting story, as its plenty clear that the landscape included volcanic activity... everything from water turning to blood (clay-silt) to the insects, hail of fire, the guiding signs of smoke in day and fire at night.... crossing the river with good timing (like old faithful in yellowstone park) to fish whatever from the sky... it all in the sequence of natural events triggering the next...

And Moses brother, a salesman that leaves a tinge of "after sleeping on it" distrust.... and Moses knew this and used it.

Egypt has a lawsuit against the jews today for massive theift, the evidence is the jews own Torah. Search google...

reading of teh time before moses, how the jews got into egypt in the first place - they were invited and given the best of the land..... when told that they would have to gather their own grass for brick making,,,, the egyptians were simply tired of collecting up grass for the jews to do the job they were hired and paid for, when the jews were taking it home to feed their livestock instead...

I disagree: assumption vs belief

[N3wsByt3]

"*assumption* and belief are still synonyms"

This is not really true. A scientific assumption inherently is temporaly in nature. It always involves doubt and the acknowledgement that what we consider today to be a valid theory, could well prove to be utter nonsense when observation contradicts that theory.

In contrast, 'belief' (as it is meant in a religious context) accepts something as being true, regardless of observation. There is no true believer that 'assumes' there is a god - but also accepts the notion that it's perfectly possible there is no god at all. They don't 'assume' God exists, they 'know' god exist; it's not a matter of possibility, but of a certitude. Therefor, to assume something and to believe something are two different things altogether.

Re:I disagree: assumption vs belief

[TapeCutter]

Everything you can sense is based on faith, science at it's root's is not a religion but it is broadly based on the philosophy of Plato. Like you infer, philosophical beliefs are somewhat easier to change than religious beliefs, but I still have faith that the Sun will come up tommorow regardless of wether I survive to appreciate it. I don't have any trouble with faith in science or religion but as another post pointed out most people confuse faith with dogma.

Re:I disagree: assumption vs belief

[N3wsByt3]

"Everything you can sense is based on faith"

I think we're losing ourselves into semantics, now.

What I sense is not based on faith, but on what I sense, plain and simple. My senses are biological in nature, not a matter of faith. If I move a piece of cloth before my eyes, I can see it and track it...and so does my cat. If I could only see it because I have faith in what I sense, how comes my cat notices it too? does my cat has 'faith' in her senses as well? If your answer is yes, I doubt we're talking about the same thing (= the religious meaning of the term 'faith').

If our senses were just a matter of faith, and that was identical to the faith of religion, then someone that had absolute faith in the fact that his visual senses (eyes) couldn't be blinded - because god will protect him or something) by laserlight would, indeed, not be blinded by it. I have to see the first one where that happens.

So, while one may contemplate about the semantics of it all, the fact is, 'faith' does not enter the picture when you sense something (though it may influence the feelings/thoughts surrounding the sense, of course). You do not have to believe in anything, to be able to sense. If my senses only worked because I had faith in them, then they wouldn't work at all, because I doubt them. And in fact, doubting everything is the core of scientific progress - unlike faith.

So, no. I don't 'belief' in my senses in the way relgious 'belief' is viewed. It could well be, that all my senses are profoundly flawed (which they are, no doubt). You do not have many regious believers that claim their beliefs are probably flawed, do you?

It may wel be that we're all living in a 'the matrix' kind of system, and all our senses are worth squat. But...how to know? Unless some proof for that is offered (which, again, you have to be able to observe in some way), you can not make the difference between a perfectly simulated world and the real world, because both are the same in every sense - literally.

Once again: science is not based on faith, but on presumtions - that may be right or wrong, but at least this is acknowledged. I don't see a priest saying: I believe in god, but that's an assumption; it may well be that there is no god at all. No; for him, it is an absolute fact that god exist. People who say "there might be a god, but it might also be not the case" are called agnostici, not believers.

In true science, there are no absolute facts, however. Therefor, (religious) faith and (scientific) assumption are not synonyms.

Re:I disagree: assumption vs belief

[TapeCutter]

No, it is not semantics and I still implore you to look up a thesaurus.

Descartes - "I think therfore I am" - You really can't prove anything beyond that, and what's more, you can only prove it to yourself. You literally cannot determine that your cat exists outside of your own thought processes, you can only have faith that it does. (Matrix did not invent this idea and neither did Descartes).

You are talking about dogma (belief regardless of evidence) not faith (accepting something as true). Many people have faith that God exists and wathces over the Universe but as I said earlier, God is redundant if, (like me), you have faith that the Universe "just is".

Re:I disagree: assumption vs belief

[N3wsByt3]

"faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.

- Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

- Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

- Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

- often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

- The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

- A set of principles or beliefs. "

As you can see, almost all definitions of faith clearly indicate that science (or assumptions) and religion (or belief) is not the same at all, on the contrary. Especially the faith in a religious sense (as I said) is at odds with what science strifes for.

As you yourself say: faith is accepting something is true. Science never accepts something is true, it *assumes* some things are closer to the observable reality then others, but they also always assume this could turn out to be wrong.

It also assumes, ofcourse, that our senses are that which with we observe; mainly because it's the only logical option. But even there: if a new sense popped up suddenly, then they wouldn't consider our current senses as being the (only) basis for observation anymore. Christian or other religious believers claim to posses such a sense, but this poses the difficulty that they don't ever show a case where it can be demonstrated that that extra sense really exist (as in: observable for other non-believers).

I really do not see that the two things are synonimes, at least in the majority of cases (which is why I pointed to semantics).

Re:I disagree: assumption vs belief

[TapeCutter]

You seem to have an aversion to the thesaurus and gave only a definition of one of the words. A synonym is when two words have the same or very similar meanings in a particular context.

So now let's make full use of the dictonary, (Assumption).

Definitions 3,4 & 6 are the ones that apply to our little debate.

d3. The act of taking for granted: assumption of a false theory.

d4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition: a valid assumption.

d6. Logic. A minor premise. ( look up premise for yourself ).

Now looking at your definitions for "faith" we find all but one of the definitions seem to line up with what I have been saying and are also synonyms for one or more of your definitions of "faith", except for one...

The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

As I and other posters have pointed out you are talking about dogma not faith.

So back to the start, Physics and indeed all of science is based on faith. Scientists do thier best to state this using specific assumptions eg: Newton's theory of Gravity has an explict assumption that time is constant, Einstien challenged that assumption. The collection of all these assumptions is sometimes called Scientific dogma. Religion assumes there is a God and then goes on to assume things like "God wants us to punish/cure homosexuals", this collection is called Religious dogma.

I think the philosophical difference that you are trying to express, (and the reason that science "works"), is that, Religion does not question it's own assumptions, it exits to preserve them. Science is based on questioning it's own assumptions, it exits to erradicate them. The vast majority of humanity have thier foot firmly planted in both camps.

Some contempory material on this topic: If you get the chance read Carl Sagan's "Contact" (or watch the excellent movie version). Also another (non-fiction) book by Sagan is worth a flick through, "Demon haunted world". Other opinions are numerous and varied, most of the Scientific icons I can name have had something to say about faith and science. Some of the more recent ones are, (turns to bookshelf), S.J.Gould, R.Dawkins, Penrose, Hawking, Einstien, Godel, Martin Gardner, Tim "the toolman" Allen...."I'm not really here"...wtf..., oh yeah, life is a journey type of thing, not a bad philosophy actually.

This was a truly revealing post

[ianscot]

As a student of the New Testament and early Christianity, I have to say that discoveries of "new" gospels are rarely very interesting.

The value of any new text from antiquity is many-sided -- we have so little to work from -- and I find it queasying to read a series of posts from someone self-described as "a student of the New Testament" who thinks new gospels are nothing to write home about. Heck, you tell others not to be interested too. ("Move along...")

Essentially the gift of a new gospel is that it gives us that much more perspective on what Christianity was about then and what it's become. The canonical works were written partly in reaction to the stuff that got left out, so new texts help us understand them too.

New gospels also present challenges, tacit or more aggressive depending on the text, to the authoritarian use of Jesus's name and message, which can be nothing but a good in my book. You're right, the powers that be have long since gotten used to denying the importance of these texts. It's because they're threatened by those texts. Still. The Pharisees would be proud to have such stubbornly self-concerned intellectual heirs.

I don't find it necessary to shove anything that didn't make the canon into a convenient category of "Unabomber manifesto-types" in order to distance myself from it. You remind me of naturalists who demonize invasive foreign species. It seriously bends a person's conscience, doing stuff like that, and corrodes understanding.

Re:This was a truly revealing post

[Fished]

First of all, I wasn't the one who compared extra-canonical gospels to "Unabombber manifesto-types." However, I think that poster had a legitimate point - namely that a new gospel doesn't necessarily tell us much of anything about the beliefs of the church in its period.

The thing that you (and others who are commenting here) don't seem to realize is the sheer number and variety of non-canonical material we already have. Literally, there are hundreds already extant. The reason these are not in the canon is because they were found by the church as a whole to be of limited value. The number of truly interesting new documents (like the didache) is vanishingly small. Not to put too fine a point on it, but in most cases there was a REASON why the church lost interest in these documents, and for the most part the reason was not prejudice against the content, but a measured judgment of the documents' theological, ecclesiological and historical value.

As an example, one major category is the "gnostic" gospels. Said gospels advocate gnosticism, and in particular advocate a form of Christian "mystery religion." Gnostic beliefs, to be frank, were just wacky, and they were not found to be useful in the advancement of the Christian faith. This is particularly the case since gnostic ecclesiology tended to be quite secretive. So, they were left behind. It wasn't so much that gnostics were persecuted - that came later, esp. in the middle ages (such as with the Albigensian issue) - they were just ignored, because those who held more public, accessible theologies won the evangelistic battle.

My judgment as to the value of potential new gospels is not founded in fear or threat from these texts, but out of a realistic assessment of what they will contain (i.e. nothing new - recycled gnostic diatribes) and from when (3rd-5th century, since Oxyrynchus was abandoned in the 6th century. Having read dozens of these sorts of documents, I am simply not impressed with them, and certainly don't see them telling me anything significantly new about Christianity or Christian belief.

To be frank, your rant leaves me with the impression that you haven't read many of these documents, or you would be much less ready to insist that they are of great value.

nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition

[mikeee]

As I understand it... To be perfectly fair, at least some of the church-sponsored witch-hunting was a purposeful attempt to take that job away from local governments (who often used it for political purposes), and impose a more standardized and logical system. In many cases local governments coopted it anyway, and those were many of the worst, or at least broadest, abuses.

Dang it!

[Blitzenn]

The only reason I read this article was because I thought it pertained to Monty Python. Now I have broken my new years resolution to not learn anything this year. Thanks Slashdot!

let's agree to disagree..or maybe not.

[N3wsByt3]

well, actually I think we more or less agree, seen the current clarifications. To some extend, there are definitions that could apply to assumption as wel as belief, agreed. Whether the terms are true synonims, is debatable. And whether or not the scientific principles and the principles of religion are similar, is most unlikely.

d3 and d4 are not elements of science, though they are elements of almost all religions. Also, note that I said I was looking to the definitions in the context of science vs. religion, and in that case, it doesn't only refer to dogma, but you have other (differences in) definitions, such as "The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will." Which all the major religions have in common (but not science).

But I guess we basically agree, and it's just a matter of what the context is of the definitions we use.

As for your suggestions, I fear you come to late: carl sagan has been one of my favorite authors since years. I have (and have read) both books you mention, and I thought they were exellent, as far as fiction as non-fiction goes. (I thought the movie was not as good as the book, however). In fact, I'm still searching for 'pale blue dot', which, for some reason, is difficult to find in my country. :-)

It's good to see other people enjoying carl sagans' works.

You had to ask ...

[Fished]

"The hoi polloi" is redundant because the hoi is just the Greek for "the", nominative masculine plural.

Cheers!