Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 02-13-2007, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Why not?

Surely your own knowledge of the paleographic tradition provides
the answer as to why paleographers cannot be expected to detect
a good forgery.

S.C.Carlson · 02-13-2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Surely your own knowledge of the paleographic tradition provides the answer as to why paleographers cannot be expected to detect a good forgery.

What do you mean? Are you asserting that Eusebius et al. were paleographers?

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 02-13-2007, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Phase 1 (312-316 CE): Rome - the fabrication of the Galilaeans is composed.

Phase 2 (317-324 CE): The literature is sent to the eastern empire
(in advance of the military insurgence which was planned to follow).
The fabrication possibly included forged ancient handwriting. The
whole lot would have been thrown by Licinius et al, on the rubbish
heaps of Oxyrhynchus.

I was afraid my understanding of your views was correct. Nevertheless, your conspiracy theory cannot explain why some of this literature supposedly fabricated in Rome and dumped by Constantine's opponent Licinius would be written on the backs of letters, contracts, and other mundane documents involving everyday second and third century affairs in and around Oxyrhynchus. Did Constantine have advanced knowledge of where Licinius would dump the fakes? If not, did he use his special powers of mind control (perhaps given to him by his UFO alien overlords?) to cause Licinius to not-so-coincidentally dump (rather than burn!) the fakes precisely in the right town?

Stephen

mountainman · 02-13-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

What do you mean? Are you asserting that Eusebius et al. were paleographers?

They were men clever in rhetoric and intrigue, and if as they say
they were enconsed in Caesarea library for decades, they should
have gotten a general idea of the scripts of different centuries.
There should be nothing remarkable about this.

mountainman · 02-13-2007, 07:27 PM

The following has been taken from a usenet post last year.
Take it with a grain of salt, but it states a position close
to my own, in regard to paleography not always being able
to detect forgeries...

Quote:

Even if the owners of theses few fragments were openminded enough to
want to get at the truth, very few of the vast readership of these
newsgroups is aware that the fragments are very small. And to say that
such and such a fragment is from such and such a gospel/epistle might
be sheer coincidence. Having opportunities to examine both ancient
manuscripts and fragments I can assure you (but then you yourself know
this of your own experience) that reading those things is not straight
forward. Fragments are especially troublesome. Many times we read
that fragment X contains verses 20:5 -- 21:2 of such and such. What
closer examination shows is that about half an inch to an inch of every
column of both sides is missing; that letters drop in and out due to
fading or blotting; that letters are as easy to read as my brother's
handwriting (almost impossible); and that the passage is a generic one
with counterparts in both the Old Testament or literature in general.

But putting all that aside, while there might just possibly be enough
papyri to date, there might well not be enough ink though I doubt that
might be necessary even if possible. While Eusebius might be cognizant
of the difference of old writing papyrus, I doubt anyone back then
would worry about ink as long as it looked oldish. Modern document
forensics is probably not older that the 16th century when forgers
tried to duplicate old paint.

I was interested in your ideas of graphology, but having studied it for
quite some time (actually wrote a book on the subject) I don't think
judging a script by its era (as in 1920, 40s, 60s, etc) is distinct
from the personality of the writer. In other words a master forger can
forge a 1920s script very accurately leaving little or no script from
the 2005 era, yet leave his "personality" highly distinguishable in
both eras, and still be datable to the 1920 except by the very
discerning expert. I think paleography in many respects fails on this
bases. Too many experts look at the form but not the minutia of the
"personality". Keep in mind that many of these paleographic examiners
do not have labs equipped with the necessary tools. Some gradient
measuring devices alone cost as much as $32,000 dollars, not to mention
the photgraphic microscopes necessary to demonstrate these
characteristics. Most seem to be experts by proclamation [self
proclamation]. Problem is that the field is very narrow. Most
document examiners are too busy earning a living by dealing with more
or less contemporary writing and access to the old stuff is both
limited and income deficient.

mountainman · 02-13-2007, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

I was afraid my understanding of your views was correct. Nevertheless, your conspiracy theory cannot explain why some of this literature supposedly fabricated in Rome and dumped by Constantine's opponent Licinius would be written on the backs of letters, contracts, and other mundane documents involving everyday second and third century affairs in and around Oxyrhynchus. Did Constantine have advanced knowledge of where Licinius would dump the fakes? If not, did he use his special powers of mind control (perhaps given to him by his UFO alien overlords?) to cause Licinius to not-so-coincidentally dump (rather than burn!) the fakes precisely in the right town?

When Ardashir rose to ABSOLUTE MILITARY power c.224 CE,
and created the monotheistic theocrasy of Iran, out of the
ashes of a few lines of ancient Parthian literature, was this
a conspiracy?

Our postulate is that the christian literature is not older
that 312-317 CE. It may well have been written after this
date, in fact anytime after this date.

I am happy to have one of the suspect prenicene fragments,
only a little piece is required, there is a great deal of blank
space in some fragments, to be carbon dated. This may
appear overly skeptical, but surely it pays to be sure about
our postulates.

spin · 02-13-2007, 07:53 PM

According to this, the "gospel of Judas" has been carbondated (amongst other methods) to circa 300 CE, written in Coptic. But of course super-editor Eusebius could have handled that.

spin

S.C.Carlson · 02-13-2007, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

They were men clever in rhetoric and intrigue, and if as they say they were enconsed in Caesarea library for decades, they should have gotten a general idea of the scripts of different centuries.
There should be nothing remarkable about this.

You don't know when paleography was invented, do you?

Stephen

S.C.Carlson · 02-13-2007, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

When Ardashir rose to ABSOLUTE MILITARY power c.224 CE,
and created the monotheistic theocrasy of Iran, out of the
ashes of a few lines of ancient Parthian literature, was this
a conspiracy?

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Our postulate is that the christian literature is not older
that 312-317 CE. It may well have been written after this
date, in fact anytime after this date.

"Our"? There's more than one of you who believes this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am happy to have one of the suspect prenicene fragments,
only a little piece is required, there is a great deal of blank
space in some fragments, to be carbon dated. This may
appear overly skeptical, but surely it pays to be sure about
our postulates.

No, you'll just claim that Eusebius et al. not only decided to imitate old handwriting prior to the invention of paleography but the cabal also decided to use old papyri prior to the invention of carbon dating.

Stephen

mountainman · 02-14-2007, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

According to this, the "gospel of Judas" has been carbondated (amongst other methods) to circa 300 CE, written in Coptic. But of course super-editor Eusebius could have handled that.

The original results were published 280 CE +/- 60 years.
The article notes:

Minute samples of papyrus and leather were tested at the University of Arizona's world-renowned radiocarbon dating Accelerator Mass Spectrometry laboratory in January 2005. The results showed the likely date of the codex to be between A.D. 220 and A.D. 340.

Super-editor Eusebius had an obliging boss with stacks of moolah.
Quantum physics would have been a problem, but forgery and
Coptic writing scribal-technology was old hat, and no problem.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-13-2007, 07:53 PM	#17
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	According to this, the "gospel of Judas" has been carbondated (amongst other methods) to circa 300 CE, written in Coptic. But of course super-editor Eusebius could have handled that. spin

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.