Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Reading Ancient Scrolls

caseyhandmer.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#31

Post by verisimi »

angiosperm wrote: post #24
verisimi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its amazing to me that I think I'm stating the obvious - that you can't read burnt paper - and yet I'm downvoted, with no comment to explain why the downvote. I guess people like to live in a fantasy reality, where technology is capable of magic, and anyone who questions what sounds like a lovely story is just mean. Downvote!

People are encouraged to post facts, not lazy, random speculation. Please read the posting guidelines.

At least you are expressing something about your discontent - so thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond.

Perhaps its random speculation to you, but I cannot read what was written on burnt paper. I don't think the idea that some software/hardware fix can or ever could read what was written on burnt paper is viable.

However, I'm not just criticising the purported facts. I'm also offering a suggestion whereby I can be shown to be wrong, as I suggest a verifiable way to prove this idea works. I'm saying that you should surely test this system out on something that you can prove works, before rolling the idea out onto actual historical artefacts and adding to the ancient works on the bookshelf.

I just don't see what's objectionable to what I'm saying - it seems entirely based in common sense. However, I think it upsets people, as it snaps them out of a 'merry daydream' they have about how wonderful technology is.

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#32

Post by nemo »

angiosperm wrote: post #30
nemo wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Historicist vs Mythicist debate is not about Christian vs rationalists or whatever you imagine. It's about evidence-based history vs conspiracy theorists. Using Bayes to rationalize the conspiracy of an invention of Jesus is fine with him since he's a crank and no professional historians are engaged with his work so he can make up whatever conspiracy theories he likes. In the end the Mythicist position always req…

We have no reliable documentary evidence. The Josephus we have is all based on a single manuscript held by Eusebius. The consensus position of historians is that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at minimum , heavily doctored, so is objectively useless as evidence one way or the other. Other independent sources are all similarly copies of copies performed by monks. Thus, any conclusion is no better than opinion. Nobody n…

You've picked up some misinformation there since your goal is to make some Christological point rather seek the truth. And thus, rather than accepting evidence you work to deny it. You may not be a Christian but you're engaging in the same kind of thinking - denying evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs.

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#33

Post by nemo »

nemo wrote: post #32
angiosperm wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have no reliable documentary evidence. The Josephus we have is all based on a single manuscript held by Eusebius. The consensus position of historians is that the Testimonium Flavianum is, at minimum , heavily doctored, so is objectively useless as evidence one way or the other. Other independent sources are all similarly copies of copies performed by monks. Thus, any conclusion is no better than opinion. Nobody n…

You've picked up some misinformation there since your goal is to make some Christological point rather seek the truth. And thus, rather than accepting evidence you work to deny it. You may not be a Christian but you're engaging in the same kind of thinking - denying evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs.

Also are you capable of recognizing that this is a conspiracy theory? This is a Creationist-class argument. Responding to a critique that you position is based on conspiracy theories and denying evidence, you responded with a conspiracy theory to deny evidence.

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#34

Post by angiosperm »

nemo wrote: post #33
nemo wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've picked up some misinformation there since your goal is to make some Christological point rather seek the truth. And thus, rather than accepting evidence you work to deny it. You may not be a Christian but you're engaging in the same kind of thinking - denying evidence that doesn't fit your beliefs.

Also are you capable of recognizing that this is a conspiracy theory? This is a Creationist-class argument. Responding to a critique that you position is based on conspiracy theories and denying evidence, you responded with a conspiracy theory to deny evidence.

My point is that in Christology there is literally nothing but conspiracy theories all the way down, by every active participant for fully two millennia. If you imagine anything, anywhere is even a hair better than a conspiracy theory, it is a trick of the light.

To any sane historian, the whole topic is plastered over with "Nothing to See Here" signs.

About Carrier, I find nothing but "crank crank crank crank" name-calling that is beneath any actually respectable historian speaking of another credentialed academic. The only response that does not itself identify the speaker as himself a crank is, "We differ on details, as follows." Of course every historian differs on details with literally every other historian.

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#35

Post by angiosperm »

verisimi wrote: post #31
angiosperm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are encouraged to post facts, not lazy, random speculation. Please read the posting guidelines.

At least you are expressing something about your discontent - so thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. Perhaps its random speculation to you, but I cannot read what was written on burnt paper. I don't think the idea that some software/hardware fix can or ever could read what was written on burnt paper is viable. However, I'm not just criticising the purported facts. I'm also offering a suggestion whereb…

What is objectionable is that you are just making shit up. Calling it "common sense" does not help.

It is a fact that actually-ancient manuscripts are vanishingly scarce; almost everything you cite on bookshelves today is from copies of copies of copies. And, extended text has already been extracted from charred scrolls from that very site, albeit destructively. So, what you insist is impossible has already been done. The goal is to do it better. You could have found out all this yourself with a tiny amount of reading, and not wasted everybody's time.

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#36

Post by verisimi »

angiosperm wrote: post #35
verisimi wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least you are expressing something about your discontent - so thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond. Perhaps its random speculation to you, but I cannot read what was written on burnt paper. I don't think the idea that some software/hardware fix can or ever could read what was written on burnt paper is viable. However, I'm not just criticising the purported facts. I'm also offering a suggestion whereb…

What is objectionable is that you are just making shit up. Calling it "common sense" does not help. It is a fact that actually-ancient manuscripts are vanishingly scarce; almost everything you cite on bookshelves today is from copies of copies of copies. And, extended text has already been extracted from charred scrolls from that very site, albeit destructively. So, what you insist is impossible has already been done…

Is it ok with you if I base my thoughts on my own experiences, rather than this or that claim on a website?

In your experience, can you really read text on paper, once it has been pyrolysed/burnt?

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#37

Post by angiosperm »

verisimi wrote: post #36
angiosperm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is objectionable is that you are just making shit up. Calling it "common sense" does not help. It is a fact that actually-ancient manuscripts are vanishingly scarce; almost everything you cite on bookshelves today is from copies of copies of copies. And, extended text has already been extracted from charred scrolls from that very site, albeit destructively. So, what you insist is impossible has already been done…

Is it ok with you if I base my thoughts on my own experiences, rather than this or that claim on a website? In your experience, can you really read text on paper, once it has been pyrolysed/burnt?

Think any way you like. I doesn't make the rules for what you can post without getting dinged.

I have read text on undisturbed burnt paper, in the past. (Of course, what they have is not paper.) If you believe you cannot, then you certainly cannot, but you are not asked to. They have been doing it, and will continue. Among modern marvels you accept daily without demur, it does not stand out.

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#38

Post by verisimi »

angiosperm wrote: post #37
verisimi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it ok with you if I base my thoughts on my own experiences, rather than this or that claim on a website? In your experience, can you really read text on paper, once it has been pyrolysed/burnt?

Think any way you like. I doesn't make the rules for what you can post without getting dinged. I have read text on undisturbed burnt paper, in the past. (Of course, what they have is not paper.) If you believe you cannot, then you certainly cannot, but you are not asked to. They have been doing it, and will continue. Among modern marvels you accept daily without demur, it does not stand out.

Does reading an academic text trump personal experience?

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#39

Post by angiosperm »

verisimi wrote: post #38
angiosperm wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think any way you like. I doesn't make the rules for what you can post without getting dinged. I have read text on undisturbed burnt paper, in the past. (Of course, what they have is not paper.) If you believe you cannot, then you certainly cannot, but you are not asked to. They have been doing it, and will continue. Among modern marvels you accept daily without demur, it does not stand out.

Does reading an academic text trump personal experience?

Your personal inability to read text off charred, rolled paper tells us literally nothing about whether the people actually doing it can. If a paper implied that nobody could, but you were doing it, that would be of interest provided you could explain how.

Re: Reading Ancient Scrolls

#40

Post by angiosperm »

nemo wrote: post #29
angiosperm wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one reliable thing you can say about Richard Carrier is that surprisingly many otherwise pretty-sensible, competent people, Ehrman among them, absolutely lose their f'in minds when anything about him comes up. He might be wrong about some things, but he is certainly right about others. Which each is will become clear as more books are restored from Herculaneum. Carrier is unpopular among Christians and crypto-Chr…

As a little background, I did an MA in Classics (focusing on ancient philosophy), and started a PhD. I'm not a Christian, and mostly ignostic - religious debates are a waste of time. Since then I've kept reading, I have a lot of Ehrman's titles, and I've read a lot of the sources in Greek. While I started with more of a focus on philosophy and poetry I've gotten more interested in history and have kept reading for a…

"Crypto-christian" just means saying they are not Christian, yet still assuming things just because Christians insist upon them. Bart Ehrman is a good example. You can shriek "crank" all you like, but either you engage with the evidence, or you are a crank yourself. Carrier exposes all his evidence and all his reasoning for public inspection. Ehrman just huffs and blusters disgracefully.

Your assessment of a "minority position" carries exactly zero weight. Either the gradient is positive, negative, or static. For the case of mythicism, the gradient over the past century is strongly positive: a hundred years ago nobody could even discuss mythicism. Twenty years ago, few found it plausible. Since then, the number has risen sharply. As Max Planck said, science advances one funeral at a time. The trend is clear.

Does it actually matter? Only as much as any history matters.

Post reply on HN