mountainman

C14 may not always be the answer but the point is that it does introduce new and additional objective scientific analysis of the evidence into the discussion. Anything that does this should be promoted. The tool is sitting on the shelf. There are alot of technicians sitting around the workshop. Maybe the C14 will provide part of the answer.

Not using C14 is an exercise in unimagination.

tanya

I believe we are in agreement, for once. I too believe that radioactive carbon dating is not always the answer.

For example, if one seeks to know the age of a rock, or a copper roof, radioactive carbon dating is useless.

However, for establishing the age when the papyrus was harvested, radioactive carbon content of the papyrus sample, is the definitive method, generally accurate to within fifty years, over a two thousand year time frame.

Metallic copper particles, deliberately dropped into the liquid scintillation counter with one specimen of 2000 year old papyrus, but omitted from a second, identically sized piece of the same papyrus, would have no effect on the resultant measurement of the quantity of radioactive carbon found in the two vials.

DCHindley

It is not clear to me whether you are agreeing with Stephan (i.e., that "constants" may not always be the same at different points in archeological time), or disagreeing (i.e., metallic pollution does not affect c-14 results). Unfortunately, if the latter, that had nothiong to do with Stephan's point.

As for you, Stephan, corrosion rates of metal artifacts (usually lead and copper) has nothing to do with c-14 measurements of organic materials such as codex leaves or binding materials. FWIW, though, I have heard that there is speculation that the level of environmental c-14 in remote antiquity (think dinosaurs) may not have been the same as present day. In the period we are talking about, (1st to 9th century CE), any difference will be minimal at best.

Are you instead suggesting that the level of present day pollutants in the air may be affecting the results of c-14 tests? If so, Greg Doudna contributed a lot to this question back in the 1990s (he wanted to reexamine the dating question on account of a theory proposed by Ian Hutchesson that the key characters mentioned in the sectarian scrolls lived in the 1st century BCE rather than the 2nd century BCE). Since then he seems to have removed himself from the discussion and is now a teacher at a community college in WA somewhere. However, his research is published and peer reviewed. Check the Orion list archives or the g-Megillot list.

DCH

tanya

Sorry for my obscure writing. I was attempting irony.

Copper has nothing to do with radioactive carbon dating.

The fact that there are copper roofs on old temples is irrelevant to the question of the disputed age of an ancient manuscript. That age, established by radioactive carbon dating, has nothing to do with copper. Stephan had introduced a non-sequitur. His point was that pollution, derived from the copper roofs, may have led to a false date for the manuscripts, housed below the ancient copper roof.

Solo

Stephan, I'll level with you. The moment I saw the OP, actually, just on seeing the title of the new thread with your name, I thought: 'this paralleling is kind of obvious, isn't it ? If Morton Smith is a forger, it makes sense Tischendorf is a forger. If Tischendorf survived the accusation, we should demand Morton Smith's find should be treated with the same awe and reverence accorded to Sinaiticus'. That's how it comes across.

But there is no synchronicity, and no occult design in Tischendorf finding the codex at Sinai. It was probably more luck than anything, that it was him and not Tregelles. We do not find it amazing when a treasure hunter occasionally finds a treasure. Why then should a manuscript collector not have a chance to hit the jackpot ? Why would that be so counter-intuitive ? See what I am driving at ?

Blessed are the ones who have read the book, for they know what is in it !

Your near name-sake Stephan A. Hoeller is a well-known Jungian buff who published Jung's forged sermons (or via: amazon.co.uk) which purported to have been by Basilides. How is that for a coincidence ? Weird or what ?

Nietzsche was smitten by Dostoyevsky's profound insights into the mess of human soul. But there is no personal parallel between Nietzsche and Dostyevsky. The latter did not suffer any mental breakdown, in which he signed his letters as Dionysus or The Crucified.

As for the import of the Hunter's novel in the Mar Saba find, one could perhaps assign it to the Shatner's show if that was just one thing, but there are other serious issues with Morton Smith's discovery. To my mind, the most serious is the apparent loss of the 'original' pages, i.e. the crucial evidence which would confirm whether the Voss volume's was written into in the 18th or the 20th century. That the document should have gone missing shortly after it was impugned by Quesnell, makes the disappearance very suspicious. And of course there is the item of Morton Smith advocating very unique reading of Mark, e.g. interpreting 4:11 as evidence of spiritual and physical union of Jesus and the existence of Johannine traits which became fulfilled in the Theodore letter. This on top of all sorts of other issues, not last Andrew Criddle's study. See Craig Evans' well presented summary of the argument against the Secret Mark genuinennes. Whether you accept the case against the Secret Mark or not, I hope you will concede at least that the objections against Morton Smith's discovery are much more severe and persistent than against Tischendorf's finding an ancient codex rivalling Vaticanus in antiquity.

The monks are said to have vigourously denied that the first sheets that Tischendorf found were in waste backets, destined for burning. This I would not read as more than a bit of a dramatic license.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

Jiri,

I'm just “oot and aboot” as you guys say in Canada but while I am standing at a Hamburger stand I recommend you read James McGrath's (not one of the usual voices in the debate) demolition of the points brought up in Evans retread article. There is no smoke and even less fire. I also happened to converse extensively with Quesnell. He actually took photos of the document in the early 80s long after his article appeared. I call the monastery every three months. The document is likely still there. All we need is money, as the Beatles song goes

stephan huller

More from the TC Alternate site:

To continue the question of the Mayer papyri (which would include the Letter of John):

From Volume 2, (1864) The Periplus of Hannon, King of the Carchedonians,
Concerning the Libian Parts of the Earth... - Constantine Simonides http://books.google.ca/books?id=GYAB...onides&f=false

Here is the formal statement from Mayer himself concerning the origin of the papyri:


• That I unrolled the Papyrus in his Museum, Mr. Mayer acknowledges in the following letter:â€"

"THE MAYER MANUSCRIPTS.

"liverpool, December 18th, 1861. "You have in your review of the recent publication of Dr. Simonides made use of my name. I therefore claim the insertion of a few lines defining my own position in reference to the Papyri, which you have thought proper to notice in such unqualified terms of distrust. The simple facts are, that the MSS. of which the facsimiles are before the public are part only of a collection which I acquired from two different sources, viz., from the late Mr. Sams and from the Rev. H. Stobart; and as they have been disarranged more than once in my Museum, it is not in my power to state with perfect accuracy from which of these two sources any particular Papyrus was derived.

"Dr. Simonides was introduced to me, as stated by him, at my Museum; and after we had been acquainted for some time, and he had given me in writing his interpretation of several of the hieroglyphical inscriptions in the Museum, I requested him to unroll and decipher for me some of many rolls of Papyrus which were on my shelves; and he shortly afterwards commenced his operations in the Library of the Museum, the necessary materials for the unrolling, such as linen, starch, etc., being supplied by the Curator, who attended on him, and, with myself, saw many of the MSS. opened.

"Dr. Simonides told me during the time that he was thus engaged that the Papyri were of extreme Biblical interest, and from time to time the results of his discoveries were communicated to the papers.

"I leave to Dr. Simonides himself the vindication of his character from the charges brought against him; but it is absolutely necessary that the public should be made aware that the Papyri in question are in no way connected with Dr. Simonides, except in as far as he has unrolled and illustrated them [i.e., translated them], and that they are, and have been for some years, the property of, Yours Respectfully, Joseph Mayer."

This is one of a series of letters reproduced in the prolegomena, which do much to explain both the unreliability of the 'forgery' evidence, and the confusion regarding the actual appearance of the papyri.

The volume is available on Google for download and viewing here:

Periplus of Hannon (1864) - Simonides, (Google)

This shows that certainly most of the important papyri were published in facsimile in the first two volumes, (1861,1864).

The seeming disappearance of the Letter of John, which we presume was planned for publication in a third volume, and which may be assumed to still be present in the Liverpool

stephan huller

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alt...tart=1&dir=asc

I have uploaded a scan from the Harvard copy of Vol. 2 of Siminides,
which shows what the papyri look like:

This may give readers an idea what they were talking about.
The resolution of the photo is what I found on Archive.org.
There may be better or higher resolution versions around.

stephan huller

More:


I don't know offhand what the claim was in regard to the Periplus of Hannon, but I think the sample looks similar to Greek papyri like this:

http://www.schoyencollection.com/Gre...les/ms2648.jpg

...so maybe, 200-400 A.D.??

The writing however looks too block-like and not curly enough in comparison to the above, so again:
Would the style of letters (rigid unflourished straight letters)
make it older?

A really old hieriatic papyrus looks like this:

http://www.henryzecher.com/ipuwer_papyrus.jpg

And I notice the variations in papyrus color are wide,
again negating the judgements of the 1863 literary critics.

But I've seen this very pale yellow and consistent color papyrus before somewhere....
Here's a 1st Cent. BC sample below:
http://library.princeton.edu/librari...emosthenes.jpg

It looks more regular and square-writing,
and also notice the papyrus itself has the more consistent,
light yellow coloring. This may reflect a method of manufacture
or of choosing the type or age of papyrus to make the sheet,
which may have gone out of practice later.

stephan huller

Even more:

Dear List: It turns out that Volume 1 of Simonides is also available on Google Books, and downloadable as a .pdf:

http://books.google.ca/books/downloa...Dpdf%26hl%3Den

In this volume, you can see the method of "facsimile" used in 1861 (the dawn of photography)...
I have uploaded some scans from this first volume in our Photos Section
so people can see for themselves what the fuss was about in 1861.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alt...24410/pic/list

mr.scrivener