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

An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

smithsonianmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 207 posts

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#41

Post by waynecochran »

jimbo9991 wrote: post #39
waynecochran wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a copy of Enoch 1, 2, 3; but I have not seen it included in any Bible. It is not part of the Apocrypha -- you don't find in the Orthodox Study Bible or a Catholic Bible. What Bible is it in? I would like to get it.

As a protestant I've certainly seen some of the deuterocanonical books in non-Catholic study Bibles. Not the same thing really as Enoch, which I think is a little bit more controversial.

Certainly -- you find Tobit, Judith, 1,2,3 Maccabees, Baruch, Wisdom of Sirach, and a couple others. But if there is a Bible with Enoch in it I want it. I try to read a different Bible every year.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#42

Post by Archelaos »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #23

This sounds like he's using handwriting analysis on ancient text. I don't think modern handwriting analysis has a stellar record, I can't imagine it works great on scraps of parchment from thousands of years ago.

Investigating wether manuscripts or inscriptions might by forgeries is a common taks in philology. There are a lot of them. "Good" forgeries use blank ancient papyros and even try to recreate ancient ink. So if the material looks authentic, it might neverthelss be a forgery. Therefore you look for mistakes of the forger. Perhaps the shape of a letter is too modern or too ancient, or a phrase, a word or a spelling does not fit. Or in the Qumran example: If you were sold a bunch of superficially very different manuscripts and then discover that they all agree in some subtle features, they are forgeries.

A single such observation may raise doubts, but is usally (exceptions exist) not enough to be sure that a forgery is present. However, the more there are, the more certain one can be.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#43

Post by DontchaKnowit »

waynecochran wrote: post #38
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Catholic Church at the Council of Rome formally defined what books were considered authentic and which ones were not (and this list was, with some reduction, also used by Protestants). The Book of Enoch was a bit contentious because of the quotation in an inspired book - but it was ultimately determined to be not inspired, and the quotation not necessarily either. (I.e. Imagine if scripture quoted a Roman decree…

I have a copy of Enoch 1, 2, 3; but I have not seen it included in any Bible. It is not part of the Apocrypha -- you don't find in the Orthodox Study Bible or a Catholic Bible. What Bible is it in? I would like to get it.

I believe that it is canonical in ethiopian christianity so I think maybe their bibles contain it.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#44

Post by DontchaKnowit »

komali2 wrote: post #16
waynecochran wrote: post #3

The book of Enoch (a non-canonical pseudopigraphal book) is a wild story that expounds on the strange events of Genesis 6:1-4 and is quoted by Jude and Peter. The fact that some of the DSS versions contain forgeries is interesting. I have always suspected there were a very ancient Enoch texts that are now lost and what we do have contains many forgeries.

Oh shit I've never heard of this, I wonder if this is from where the recurring character in Neal Stephenson's books takes his name, "Enoch Root."

Enoch is mentioned in the bible already

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#45

Post by brutusborn »

lapestenoire wrote: post #25
NateEag wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. If you want to live your life via the scientific method, awesome - it's a really powerful technique for refining the accuracy of predictions. It can't ever rigorously conclude whether anything was ever divinely inspired, though.

The burden of proof rests on those who make fantastical claims, not on everyone else to disprove their claims.

I used to believe this after reading Dawkins as a teenager. After reading lots of philosophy I’ve come to believe that the question as posed is unfalsifiable and thus not possible to test scientifically. Asking “is the bible divinely inspired” is similar to asking “what is the meaning of life”, it cannot be tackled scientifically, thus it falls into philosophy and theology.

The same thought process led me to abandon the Sam Harris notion that science can provide us with morals. A simple way to see my point is to ask yourself “what scientific experiment could I design to test whether science is a good basis for morality?” You will find this statement contains a categorical error: a “good” basis can only be defined prior to the experiment, thus the question can only be tackled philosophically.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#46

Post by wl »

waynecochran wrote: post #36
smeagull wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

non-canonical by a few churches. In my head canon it's the only one that is true.

I don't know of any church that considers it canonical. I think it certainly reflects what folks thought about the enigmatic Genesis 6:1-4 text before and around the time of Christ.

The Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Churches consider it canonical, which is why we still have complete copies of it, albeit in Ge'ez.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#47

Post by DontchaKnowit »

waynecochran wrote: post #36
smeagull wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

non-canonical by a few churches. In my head canon it's the only one that is true.

I don't know of any church that considers it canonical. I think it certainly reflects what folks thought about the enigmatic Genesis 6:1-4 text before and around the time of Christ.

The Tewahedo church in Ethiopia considers it cannon. There is no english translation of their bibles currently but wiki says a translation project is underway.

Can I ask - are you a biblical scholar? Reading a different bible each year us impressive

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#48

Post by krapp »

waynecochran wrote: post #37
lapestenoire wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Isaac Newton would disagree.

So? Brilliant as he was for his time, your average modern middle-school student has a more fundamental grasp of the natural world and its secrets than his alchemy would ever teach him.

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#49

Post by Archelaos »

jimbo9991 wrote: post #39
waynecochran wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a copy of Enoch 1, 2, 3; but I have not seen it included in any Bible. It is not part of the Apocrypha -- you don't find in the Orthodox Study Bible or a Catholic Bible. What Bible is it in? I would like to get it.

As a protestant I've certainly seen some of the deuterocanonical books in non-Catholic study Bibles. Not the same thing really as Enoch, which I think is a little bit more controversial.

We know much more Jewish and Christian religious literature from antiquity than found its way into the bible. The nomenclature for it is a bit confusing. There are the "apocrypha" of the "Old Testament" in the narrow sense, which are those parts nowadays excluded by the Protestants. And then there are the "apocrypha" in a wider sense, which is the literature that bears a certain generic resemblance to biblical writings. However, some texts related to the New Testaments were typically not called "apocrypha" because the term traditionally had something pejorative about it; so it is not used for "almost" canonical texts that were traditionally recommended as pious reading, such as the so-called "Apostolic Fathers"[1].

To everyone who is interested in the texts and backgrounds of the apocrypha of the New Testament, I can highly recommend the two volumns of Wilhelm Schneemelcher: "New Testament Apocrypha" (or for German speakers: "Neutestamentliche Apokryphen"): vol. I: "Gospels and Related Writings" and vol. 2: "Writings Relating to the Apostles Apocalypses and Related Subjects". They include a lot of texts, many in complete translations, and provide excellent philological introductions to each text. However, the Apostilic Fathers are not included. For this you must look for other editions.

[1] See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers

Re: An unorthodox scholar uses technology to expose Biblical forgeries

#50

Post by ars »

lapestenoire wrote: post #25
NateEag wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naturalism insists that anything which is supernatural cannot be scientifically investigated, by definition. If you want to live your life via the scientific method, awesome - it's a really powerful technique for refining the accuracy of predictions. It can't ever rigorously conclude whether anything was ever divinely inspired, though.

The burden of proof rests on those who make fantastical claims, not on everyone else to disprove their claims.

You can not just ignore their claims unless you have an alternative answer to why (or how) does the universe exist.

Science does not contain tools to refute or confirm any answer to that question.

So it's less "fantastical claim", and more a topic that you do not have any tools to approach.

Post reply on HN