User talk:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Archive 3

Middle English Bible translations
Looking under Middle English Bible translations it shows John Wycliff produced the first complete English language Bible in the late 1300s with the New Testament completed about 1380 (perhaps 1382). To translate the complete Bible how long would it have taken him (with associates)? Also I do NOT see any New Testament translations into any language before the Fourteenth Century (being Wyclif's Bible). Where is there a record or documentation of the Vulgate Latin translations of the New Testament hand copied (a.k.a. hand-printed) by a Copyist with a known name before the Fourteenth Century? Looking for good documented evidence that the New Testament (not the Old Testament) was in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century in any language (i.e. the Vulgate Latin, English, Italian, French, Greek). Have looked under the following Wikipedia titles with no luck: Bible, Renaissance, Italian Renaissance, Holy Roman Empire, Papal States, Holy See, Avignon Papacy, Early Christian church, Christianity, History of theology, Christian theology, Christianity in the British isles 410-1066, History of the Church of England, and World Council of Churches. Where is there such documented records that the New Testament itself (or in combination with the Old Testament as a complete Bible) was in wide spread circulation in Europe (or elsewhere) before the Fourteenth Century? --Doug 14:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Try Bible translations although it seems that you have already arrived at your own opinion and are seeking only to support it. Rmhermen 15:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have studied this much and came to this conclusion since I can not find good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century. I can not find that it ever was in circulation at all before the Fourteenth Century. That's why I am asking a large audience that in hopes maybe someone out of these thousands should be able to show me of this supposed evidence this to be true. Its not in any of these Wikipedia articles. If you know, please show me. I would really appreciate it. Maybe others can also show me. Should be several places for excellent evidence of this. Could you show me a few? I'm asking for help. Thanks! --Doug 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The suppression of the New Testament wouldn't surprise me, as many of it's teachings were at odds with those of the Catholic Church of the time. For example, the New Testament emphasized that everyone should have a personal relationship with God, while the Church claimed that only the Pope and saints had a personal relationship with God.  The Church was also far more into "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" than they were into "turn the other cheek". StuRat 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right another conspiracy, well perhaps it has more to do with the fact that the overwhelming majority of the ppl (perhaps 99%) during the Middle Ages was simply iliterate and that the bible was written in Latin. Doug asked for "good evidence that the New Testament was actually in wide spread circulation in Europe before the Fourteenth Century". I have found the Book of Kells which has the 4 gospels of the New Testament. Written around 800 AD. Flamarande 18:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Book printing in Europe become possible only when paper became relatively easily available, around 1400. It took till around 1450 before so-called block-books, woodcut books with both text and images, appeared, at about the same time as Gutenberg's invention of moveable type. Before that, a copy of the New Testament would typically be a lavishly illustrated manuscript, painstakingly calligraphed by monks on fine vellum. In terms of current value, such a book might easily be worth more than $100,000, more than most people could scrape together in a lifetime. You bet they were not in "widespread circulation", at least not how I would understand and use that term. And, as pointed out by Flamarande, the overwhelming majority of people could not read and did not understand the language this was written in. --Lambiam Talk  19:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Copies of the Bible in Latin would have been in every monastery and major church even if every parish church or minor shrine/chapel didn't.have one. Recopying was a major effort of monks and wasn't confined to Biblical texts - some classical texts exist only because of monastic copying. Latin copies were so common, unknown priests could go mark up their copies in local dialects as shown in the interlineal glosses mentioned, for instance, in Old English Bible translations. Rmhermen 20:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Latin Vulgate Bible was translated by Jerome in the 5th century. Accordinging to this section of the article, it was copied so much that variants arose and attempts were made to re-standardise it in the 6th, 8th 9th, 11th, 12th and 13th centuries by named individuals, which should give you some avenues for research. --Nicknack009 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on the Carolingian Renaissance may also be of interest. Apparently in the 8th century there were plenty of Bibles, but not enough priests capable of reading them. --Nicknack009 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for the many answers. I have read them over and I am going to read them again to make sure I got all the information from all these great Wikipedia articles.

Nicknack: know you left multiple answers, got them all. Thanks. --Doug 00:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ciphers and Codes
In Cryptography ("study of secrets") I would like to know what below each would be called, a Cipher or Code?

1. When a set of words uses identically the same vowels and has the same number of letters total, i.e.:

"The Da Vinci Code" -vs- "I’m a movie critic"

Each of these both use only the vowels a, e, i, and o. They both have 14 letters.

2. These words start and end using the same letter.

"Universal Studios" -vs- "unilateral studies"


 * I don't think either of these would be considered a cipher or code. These terms are used for secret methods to hide messages, but in such a way that people who know those secret methods can reconstruct the original message from the coded form. Your Da Vinci Code examples leaves too many possibilities, like "I love pineapple", "You will eat meat", "Submarines come", etc. Same for number 2. --Lambiam Talk  20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can just about see these methods being used to select code words, which are then shared with everyone who needs to know them. However, this would make a more easily broken code than just selecting words than sound innocent ("The bananas are in the bowl"), and, given the possible solutions (as per Lambian), wouldn't be a lot of help to someone you want to know the code who has forgotten. If I said to you "Cabbages are green", using your second method, do I mean "Catch a goblin", "Creep away, gambling", "Catherine ate goose"...? Skittle 22:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent points. Let me see if I could refine further on "the Code" and answer these very good points. First, these two would be entirely two different examples, not to be mixed into each other. Now for Example 1 more refined: Lets now say that from "The Da Vinci Code" there are a finite number of word possibilities to selsect from so that it is not infinite. This finite group then being a set of preselected words (known only to both parties involved as a set of "keys) so that it turns out there can only be a possible few word group set that it could then be (i.e. 6 or less sets). One of these sets then making perfect sense between the two and the hidden message intended. This then I believe would make it more plausable.

Example 2 would also be only a few possible set of words to be able to select from make it also more plausable.

I understand your points and will think more about this. Otherwise then with these refinments would this then be a Code or a "cipher"? Thanks again......... --Doug 00:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Given, as I understand it, a cipher is when you swap symbols for letters, if anything it would be a code. That was roughly, according to my old books. But our article suggests that anything following an algorithm is a cipher, anything simply replacing the words is a code. So I suppose you're sort of setting up a cipher, although with the exchange of codebooks/lists it's also pretty much a flexible code. More than anything, it sounds to me like a word-puzzle that you would create for the fun of solving it more than its use. But I still don't see why you would do this, rather than just have the words/phrases mean set words/phrases, given you're already having to exchange lists of words. Your way still sounds like there could be potential ambiguity for the chosen translator, and it would take much longer for the coder and decoder while lowering the security of the code. Perhaps if your 'list' of possible words was very short, and the list of possible codewords was very long, then I can see it being useful (flexibility of plaintext meaning it could look less suspicious), but only once or twice. More than that and it's easily cracked with the short list of codewords. Skittle 01:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional ideas. Lets say I came across an acient manuscript (i.e. from the Middle Ages) and it used for example the word "Tarsus", which turned out to mean Taras, this then probably would be closer to the term "Code" (replacement of one word for another) than that of a cipher (anything following an algorithm). Now lets say this ancient manuscript was not intended to be for a particular person but for posterity instead. Now the way that one would know then that in this medieval manuscript it meant, by the usage of "the Code", the town of Taras and not actually Tarsus (city) is that there is also a reference to a Straight Street. In Tarsus (city) in Turkey there is no well known Straight Street, however in Taras there is. It is called the Appian Way. Now setting religion aside for the moment, this might be an example then of the usage of a Code (not a cipher), correct? --Doug 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound like a code to me, it sounds like a typo :-) But seriously, I don't see anything in that quote to suggest the street was a well-known street that was straight rather than 'the street called Straight'. Do you have real reason to believe that there was no street in Tarsus that was called 'Straight' (as a name) at the time? Onto this method of communicating: why would you use such a method of communicating with posterity rather than just writing what you meant? Or using a clearer code? If the aim is to disseminate the knowledge, what is gained by writing false things in the hope that people will work out what you mean? It doesn't really feel like a code, because you are not decoding the word 'Tarsus' and finding it to mean 'Taras', rather you are solving the geography puzzle to find a location. But what does my gut count on this? Skittle 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, not a typo! It definitely sounds like a Code to me. It suggests that it is a well known street with the nick name of "Straight Street" called Appian Way because:

1. Appian Way went to Taras. This is modern day Taranto, Italy. The Greek colonists from Sparta called the city Taras.

2. All great Roman roads went as straight as possible, for fast movement of troops. Look at Map of Roman roads here.

3. The Appian Way was called the Queen of the Roman Roads. It could easily have been called a "Straight Straight".

4. There is no road now or in the last 2000 years that had notoriety of being called a Straight Street in or around Tarsus, Turkey.

5. Why not to posterity? Francesco Petrarch (famous scholar), Father of the Renaissance, wrote a Letter to Posterity, here. --Doug 21:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As all great Roman roads were straight, why would a road acquire the nickname 'Straight'? Secondly, notoriety does not seem to be involved anywhere in the quote; all that is required is that the street is called 'Straight'. Many street names have not survived the centuries. Thirdly, I did not suggest you would not want to communicate with posterity, but that if you did there would be no reason to encode your message, making it harder for posterity to understand it! On top of this, it doesn't sound like a code because you are not decoding words. Rather, you are solving a geographical puzzle. Skittle 17:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Babylonian Captivity
Petrarch coined the phrase "Babylonian Captivity" as a reference to the moving of the papacy to Avignon. This expression can be found this way in usage in Wikipedia articles of Pope Clement V (the first Avignon pope), Avignon Papacy, and in Avignon. This I found by typing in "Babylonian Captivity Petrarch" in the search box. In these articles then it appears to be the same thing as "Captivity of Avignon", being a reference by Petrarch of the city's corruption. Under the article Avignon Papacy, in the Contents of "Schism: The War of the Eight Saints" under Criticism it says: ''The period has been called the "Babylonian captivity" of the popes, a term coined by Petrarch[1], an Italian who lamented the absence of the papacy from his native land. This nickname is polemical, in that it refers to the claim by critics that the prosperity of the church at this time was accompanied by a profound compromise of the Papacy's spiritual integrity, especially in the alleged subordination of the powers of the Church to the ambitions of the French kings. Coincidentally, the "captivity" of the popes at Avignon lasted around the same duration as the exile of the Jews in Babylon, making the analogy all the more convenient and rhetorically potent. For this reason, the Avignon papacy has been and is often today depicted as being totally dependent on the French kings, and sometimes as even being treacherous to its spiritual role and its heritage in Rome.'' Was this time period then somewhere around 70 years and when did this take place? The Jews in Babylon? Would this be correct usage then of term "Captivity of Avignon" since it is a reference to the temporary move ("captivity") to Avignon of the papacy? Wouldn't this then be similar to "Captivity of Babylon", being then the "Babylonian Captivity"? Don't 'Avignon' and 'Babylon' sound similar? --Doug 21:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I assume that you have read Babylonian captivity or Avignon papacy. Beyond the information in those articles, can you state more clearly what information you want? If the last question is your main question, I would say that "Avignon" and "Babylon" do not sound similar, although they rhyme in some languages.  Marco polo 02:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The neutral term to use, one should emphasize, is "the Avignon papacy". --Wetman 06:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The Jews in Babylon reference is to the destruction of the first Temple in Jerusalem in 586 BCE and the subsequent forced migration of the bulk of the Jewish people to Babylon. In 516 BCE, (ie 70 years later) an edict by Cyrus allowed Jews to return to their homeland under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah, leading to the construction of the second Temple which was to stand until destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE. --Dweller 09:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You all have answered my questions very good. This is basically what I was looking for. Now I understand that of the Jewish people and Babylon in the time of Cyrus. Now I can see the relationship meaning of the "70 years" connected to both. In the case of Babylon this time then being 586 BCE to 516 BCE ("70 years"). In the case of Avignon this is 1308 to 1378. Didn't Cyrus also make what is called the Cyrus Cylinder concerning this? It has the first set of Human Rights, written down on this clay cyclinder relating to this edict allowing the Jews to return to their homeland. Do I have this correct? Did this cylinder then have 40 lines of writing on it relating to this of allowing the Jews to return to their homeland?

I believe my main question would be more along the lines of would the term "Captivity of Babylon" be the same as (from Petrarch's viewpoint, whom coined it) "Babylonian Captivity"? They then would be the same to me, is that correct?--Doug 10:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Given that Petrarch didn't write in English, he would have called it neither the "Babylonian Captivity" nor the "Captivity of Babylon". Please see your talk page for a question about your user page, which is along a similar point. --Dweller 15:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The notion of "the Babylonian Captivity" was generally understood, well before Petrarch's time, to refer to the forced exile of Judah to Babylon. (Italian: Cattività babilonese; Latin: Captivitas Babylonica.) Given the right context you could just use "the Captivity", and people would still have understood you, just like "the Nativity" was the nativity of Christ. You can also say "the Captivity in Babylon" or "the Captivity of Babylon"; they all mean the same thing, just like "the American Senate" and "the Senate of the United States" mean the same thing. Petrarch chose this as a catchy metaphor for the "exile" of the papacy to Avignon. To distinguish this from the original Jewish exile, this became "the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon". People tired of repeating this long phrase shorten(ed) it to "the Captivity of Avignon". That's all. --Lambiam Talk  16:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's great information on that of "the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon". Thanks again.... --Doug 22:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Scientific testing of Codex Vaticanus
Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Or for that matter any other Codex, like Codex Sinaiticus, that is used as a basis that the New Testament text is some 2000 years old. What if scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating, Mass spectrometry), being mathematical and unbiased, proved these to be false and just another in the long line of Archaeological forgery? There are today less intrusive testing methods, like Mass spectrometry, that could prove this without destroying much material in the process. Since there is so much money (and other things) involved, then isn't there a very good chance of Archaeological forgery to gain the upper hand? Otherwise the "dating" of Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus is just some people's opinion; especially those that will greatly benefit personally (i.e. financially, power, prestige, social status, etc). What if this testing proved the Codex Vaticanus to be of a time period around the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Century? I think this is quite possible, especially since it was not discovered until a library was established at the Vatican. According to the Wikipedia article, then it was then put into their first catalogs of 1475 and 1481. So where did it come from? The article even says it is pure speculation of its dating: Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain. It doesn't seem logical to me to be floating around in various people's hands for over a 1000 years, then conveniently shows up in the Vatican Library (just when they could use something of 'authority' to gain some power). They had no idea of its "Dating" and were just guessing at it. Of course, the older it "appears" then the more value ("power") it has.--Doug 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the Vatican did not have a catalogued library before the 15th century, it did possess a collection of manuscripts. As you can read in the article on the Vatican Library, Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions, among them manuscripts from the imperial library of Constantinople. In the 15th century prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise in philology, ancient handwriting, and so on. And what would have been the point? The various extant Greek codices are in good agreement with the Septuagint and each other, so do you think they are all later forgeries? --Lambiam Talk  12:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No one is "just guessing," and the standard view of the date comes from the community of scholars, not from an interested party like the Vatican Library itself. Such scholars are careful to state that their conclusions are "uncertain," but these uncertainties are not as great as you assume, as much is known within a relatively narrow range (better than could be achieved by any presently available "scientific testing") and beyond any reasonable doubt.  I don't think uninformed speculations or the WP Ref. Desk can substitute for a Ph.D. in paleography or papyrology, which would acquaint one with the basic knowledge and skills needed to make any credible criticism of well-accepted scholarly conclusions.  Those with knowledge of these fields are not retailing "just some people's opinion" and are scholars who have not done anything to deserve your slur ("especially those that will greatly benefit personally").  Likewise, nothing about the state of papyrological studies or the evidence of the oldest witnesses to the text of the New Testament lends support to these conspiracy theories. Wareh 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's an online popular introduction to get you started (with some further bibliography): Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts. Wareh 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming it came from the imperial library of Constantinople. I tend to think it came from Avignon when that library was moved to Rome around 1400 +/- 20 years. What if instead it was written up in the Fourteenth Century in Greek as a method to hide from the powers to be in Avignon (not designed intentionally a fake manuscript, as you are saying in the second part of your argument). Totally agree with you that Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions. His predecessors being the Popes in Avignon. I tend to think that it is an Archaeological forgery from the viewpoint that perhaps the Vatican would rather authenticate it themselves to be able to keep its value up; therefore "power" over the people. It has nothing to do with 15th century prospective forgerers of any forger person, but more of a political move on the part of the Vatican. So to settle the argument: Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Otherwise we are still back to the fact "the dating" has been established by the powers that be since they (Vatican) are establishing where it came from. Scientific testing is mathematical and unbaised, where perhaps the Vatican could be biased (don't you think). --Doug 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a bit too much "what if". What if the popes are actually robots operated by the Illuminati, assisted by scientific knowledge provided by Greys, while Wikipedia was set up by them as a tool to deceive those who are about to find out the truth? If it was a forgery, that would have been discovered by now. As I wrote, prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise. Also, several early codices, for example the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and the Codex Bezae, do not come from the Vatican collection. Others, like the Codex Amiatinus, ended up in the Vatican only centuries later. By the way, it may interest you that there is a 4th century translation of the Bible into the Gothic language; see Codex Argenteus. --Lambiam Talk  17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Very good points, especially of the additional Codexes. However these are based on the field of paleography. Perhaps I just view the Vatican as having a motive for establishing the date as being from the first few centuries. If anything this would possibly be a remark against the Vatican. However I am sure they have had such remarks like this before (probably even worse). Let me say I really do appreciate the information and the websites you noted. It so happens that I am in communication with the Vatican Library, the British Library, the British Museum, and Chester Beatty Library. So I didn't just make these comments off the spur of the moment without thinking first. I didn' just come up with "what if's", but have been working on this problem for some 2 years now. Let me point out in this website that towards the bottom it says in reference to Codex Sinaiticus: ''In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. '' That was a very large sum of money in the Great Depression. Now as far as I can see in the field of paleography one still has to establish some reference points to establish this "dating" of these manuscripts. In all my communications with these many large Libraries and Museums, so far nobody has been able to show me how they reference these manuscripts to some well known standard. Then how was this standard verified as to its date? Perhaps you have much better knowledge on this? Bottomline what is needed is a standard to reference the dating. Show me this standard that I have not been able to find. I really do appreciate your answers. I think this is a great argument, don't you think? --Doug 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I am glad you've glanced at the article I linked, but please read it with more care. You may disagree with the balanced presentation of established facts there, but the rest of us, faced with believing either that Peter van Minnen is misinformed or corrupt, or that your views are totally uninformed conspiracy theory, have a very easy choice indeed.  Also, you are totally mistaken about the Vatican's involvement, for the simple reason that virtually all of the important work in this field has been done by scholars from outside the Vatican.


 * If you are sincere (which I find difficult to believe) in your desire to learn more about the standards by which scholars know about these things, you will need access to a good research library and can begin with the bibliographies here and here. Obviously, you will eventually need to learn Greek.


 * This is not a great argument, and I am exasperated by your deaf pursuit of fantasy & refusal to see that you are trying to build on no foundation at all. I will try to restrain myself from continuing my fruitless efforts to obtrude upon you a respect for people who have bothered to learn about ancient languages and documents.  The only further question from you I can imagine relishing the chance to answer is "I am in location X, and have some time and money/no money on my hands.  What is the best way to acquire a basic reading knowledge of ancient Greek (or some other branch of historical or linguistic science)?" Wareh 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

But don't give up now; we are getting to the Nity-Gritty. Hear me through and I would like to get an answer from you or anyone that would like to answer this very important question.

1) I am very sincere on this question. It turns out I have already asked this very same thing to the top scholars (over 1000) in these fields and related fields. Their ultimate answer is basicaly the same as your answer (very similar wording). They give up and send me off in different directions (pretty much as you have). If you would like I would be glad to forward a few dozen such e-mails of my communication to you on this (kept them all). FYI I have asked this to 1000's of clergy of the Christian faith as well. They also did not have a good answer.

2) Instead of sending me off in different directions (need to learn Greek) why not furnish this standard you obviously already know about as the reference for establishing the dating of these various Codexes. That would be easier in the long run. So far out of all these scholars and large Libraries and large Museums (i.e. British Museum) nobody has done this yet. You apparently can not also (if you can, just go ahead and put it righ here). I am betting 2 years hard research you can not (zero, nada, zipo) show this standard that is used for dating the supposed ancient Codexes (i.e. Codex Vaticanus). Please prove me wrong. I welcome anybody to answer this point. You will be 1 in a 1000. A very high honor. Go ahead, show me. Otherwise it is a mere opinion of a person (well paid I must say). I have been sent to hundreds of such scholars that have "supposedly" established this dating, so he is not the first (and I suspect not the last). Even the scholar you are pointing out has to have the ultimate standard for establishing these dates. You must agree and can not argue this point whatsoever.

3)Since all these scholars have (as you say) established that of the dating to some standard then there should be hundreds of scholars that have this standard. Could I get the names of just a few of them. Don't say I will have to find on my own. I've already done this research, you have not. So if you know of such, now is the time.... --Doug 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Talk about time, follow this argument. Gather together a dozen or so people that have wrist watches. Ask them what time it is. You will come up with a dozen answers. Now ask them who's is the correct time? Of course there will be a few that will say there's is the absolute correct time. Between them, their times each will be different. Ask them why they feel theirs is the correct time and it will only be a personal opinion (i.e. mine is an expensive Timex watch, all expensive Timex watches are accurate). Now would you say just because it is a Timex watch it is correct? Of course not, because it is just a person's opinion. So bottomline, who's watch has the correct time? Answer: the one that is synced to WWV, a scientific standard. The only other time that would be more accurate (could only be read with a digital clock with many digits) would be the Atomic Clock, another scientific standard. --Doug


 * Doug, remarks like "you must agree with this and can not argue what so ever" is perhaps not a good way to get information from people. Lambiam especially has provided some very specialized responses to many of your questions. A little politeness/calmness wouldn't hurt. It's also not necessary to wikilink words like 'library', 'standard' 'reference' and '14th century'. Excessive blue links are unnecessary, especially on the Ref Desk. BenC7 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you on that. Thanks for the advice. --Doug 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you keep totally agreeing with people, and then ignoring everything they say? --ColinFine 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Partially agree with you. I take the answers they provide and use that information, which is a good chunk. Not at all ignoring what they say. If you follow my remarks, usually I remark on what they have said in that I appreciate their answer and am working with the material; however many of the Nitty Gritty questions I haven't received answers on yet. Some of the really good ones are just dodged. I am trying to get good answers on them. Example: still looking for the "standards" for the reference points as to how it is established in palaeography the dating of ancient Codexes. Nobody knows the answer to this. I have research this for 2 years and asked over 1000 scholars; nobody knows. Then how does one know the dates (even approximately) of the Codex Vaticanus. Many believe it is from the first few centuries, however there is no reference for this. Looking for this standard. It you will notice I asked this very specific question early today, however of as now (being 1800 hours EST) this is the only question not answered. So while I am not at all ignoring what they have to say, in fact really appreciate it and work with it, I am still looking for the real Nitty Gritty answers. I do not believe the Codex Vaticanus is from the first few centuries, however from the Fourteenth Century. I have shown my proof with the chain of custody, still looking for their answer. --Doug 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The standard is very simple. Some manuscripts are dated by their scribes.  Their context & content show that there is nothing controversial or controvertible about their dating, and, when you dig up a papyrus scrap of boring business receipts that happens to be dated by a ruler's year (have a look in Colin H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands, 350 B.C.-400 A.D., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), well, guess what, it was not planted in the ancient rubbish heap buried under the Egyptian desert by the Vatican!  Only such dated manuscripts are used in the standard textbooks of paleography, like Ruth Barbour, Greek Literary Hands, A.D. 400-1600, (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1981).  With many years of study, in careful reliance upon the most securely dated evidence available, you develop an expert understanding of the development of Greek writing, and its characteristics in a given time and place.  From this, you arrive at a date for an undated manuscript.  If you are good enough at this, you can get it down pretty specifically.  The people who are good at this are not Vatican operatives, they are boring scholars with no crazed agenda.  If you want to understand it better, take a course in paleography.  Otherwise, you're like someone who has an English vocabulary of 400 words but claims to detect stylistic aberrations in some of Shakespeare's comedies that prove they're by Queen Elizabeth.  Or, to use a more precise analogy, like someone who can't do long division, but just starts by assuming that the textbooks in the library on differential geometry and abstract algebra may be full of malicious or hoodwinked lies!  It should be obvious why such a person would never arrive at a well-informed understanding of the subject.  The definition of a scholar (say, a Ph.D.) is someone who can create new knowledge (say, date a MS) on a firm methodological foundation that goes all the way back to first principles.  A good grasp of first principles will also allow the community of scholars to weed out any BS, conspiracies, etc.  You are not a scholar (which is 100% of the reason why you do not have access to "the standard," and not because anyone is stonewalling you), but the perplexing thing is that you don't seem to believe that scholars exist and do this kind of work.


 * I have now given you the standard. Please read the two books on Greek Literary Hands mentioned above.  They contain some of the standard you seek, and are even in English!  Please do not tell me you are still in the dark about the standard.  You may not understand the standard presented in these manuals (that is why people study with teachers in Ph.D. programs&mdash;it's not child's play), but since pursuing systematic learning is "sending you off in different directions," I will instead just cherish the thought of you poring over Roberts and Barbour at the library.  The bibliographies I linked before have ample further discussion about methods and will give you some idea about the issues involved.  Some of these books have fun titles like The Papyrologist at Work and The New Papyrological Primer.  Wareh 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Where do great "Ideas" come from?
Why is it that some people are very inspired (i.e. Da Vince, Einstein, Edison), while most of the world seems mostly uninspired? A formal education does not seem a basis to get these "inspirations". Many very famous successful people did not have a formal education. Likewise many with Degrees now-a-days have trouble with what I call the "basics" (i.e. using common sense to solve simple problems). Having a 4 year College Degree today doesn't mean all that much. Those with a High School education and those with a College Degree both basically start many jobs at "entry level". The one that can use common sense to come up with great "ideas" then seems to get ahead faster (which could just as easily be the High School "Grad"). So is there some sort of "Universal Source" out there someplace that has a stock pile of Ideas. How does one "connect" to this "Universal Source" of Ideas? It's certainly not via cyberspace (however maybe it helps). Would I need some sort of super Cable Modem or can I just "dial up" Ideas? --Doug 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Creativity involves being able to combine different areas of expertise into a solution. The typical start of an invention is noticing something that doesn't work well.  Next you need to come up with a solution, which may involve various technical fields of expertise, but not always.  One of the simplest recent inventions was a paint filter, used to separate out clumps from paint powder.  The old system used a horizontal filter, which would clogs with clumps of paint powder in short order.  The invention was to put the filter at an angle so the clumps would roll off and the rest would continue to go through the filter.  This didn't require much technical expertise.  The final step is to figure out how to market an idea.  In some cases it's best to patent it then sell it to a company, in others you may try to produce and sell the product yourself.  Here is an observation I've made, which you're welcome to use to improve the product:


 * The window shade mechanism doesn't work very well. They often go flying up when you try to pull them down.  A version with a switch that only allows it to come down in one position and only go up in the other position might sell well.  See if you can design a mechanism to do that. StuRat 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The idea of common sense and informal education being better than all the university degrees in the world is one with great tradition. In reality common-sense has failing just like formalised education, not least because definining what is common-sense is particularly difficult. What makes someone an inventor or entrepreneur? Based on the rapid advancements made in the past 150 years...access to technology, education (though what level i'm not entirely sure), access to financial backing, a culture that promotes innovation would be a few. For all the great ideas in the world without access to the requirements to make it happen (or access to people who can) your creation is worthless. I would be weary of expecting too much of common-sense and too little of formal education. The innovators of history worked remarkably harder on inventions than many think: The light-bulb, the tv, the steam engine, the electronic chip. These things weren't developed at random they came about through use of formal (and i'm sure informal) knowledge. The Eureka moment, as they say, is really quite rare. ny156uk 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * An excellently put point — much of the idea of "genius" is mythmaking, often perpetuated by the people who are themselves called the geniuses (Edison, it can be said, was a genius at self-promotion). The common stereotype of Edison as a lone worker who would hit upon brilliant ideas through sheer thought and elbow-grease alone is nonsense; he established a major research laboratory staffed with excellent scientists, devoted a huge amount of his time to maintaining a library of technical inventions which he might improve upon or combine in unique ways, and spent a lot of his time building upon ideas of others that seemed promising but not quite implemented yet. His genius with the light bulb was not the bulb itself but the creation of an electrification infrastructure — a social-governmental-economic innovation more than a technical one. One of the very difficult things in studying "creativity" and "genius" is that we wrap these terms up in a lot of mythmaking and moralizing; it is very hard to get at the base of it in practical terms, and why so many studies of it are shallow.
 * Einstein, by the way, fits into the above as well. He did not work in a totally isolated world, he was working on problems which were important in physics in his day, he drew heavily on the work of others. Many of the key theoretical "thought problems" he is so famous for (such as how to coordinate clocks using electrical signals) were actually important technical issues at the time he worked in the Swiss patent office (clock coordination was a major early 20th century technical difficulty). This is not to disparage Einstein's intelligence, for he was truly intelligent, but helps to re-frame the question a bit away from "how do these ideas come out of nowhere?", which is in almost all cases the product of a myth. The relation between an innovator, their context, and their work is a very complicated one. --140.247.242.85 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would call Einstein a genius, in that he was able to think about the world in completely novel ways (but only when young, in his later years he couldn't accept new concepts like quantum mechanics). Edison, on the other hand, was not a genius (he couldn't even grasp A/C electricity), but rather a "plugger".  Everyone knew you could make a filament glow for a while by passing electricity through it, but he improved the design through trial and error until eventually it became a usable light bulb. StuRat 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Einstein's ways of thinking about the world were not "completely novel." If you get outside of the hagiography you will have a better idea of appreciating in what ways he was novel and in what ways he was not. Edison also utilized much more theoretical understanding and research than the mythical version of him holds. I hate to say it StuRat but I think you're caught within the myths here! In any case whether one calls someone a "genius" or not again depends on your definition of "genius" — it is a term which needs to be unpacked before it is useful. --24.147.86.187 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If we take the example of his choice of a light bulb filament, a theoretical physicist might have looked at the periodic table and decided that tungsten was likely to be the best choice, while Edison just tried every material he could think of until he found one that worked well. StuRat 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You should definately read Creativity In Science by D K Simonton - it answers all your questions and mentions the individuals above. One point for example is that it has been found that the chance of any scientific paper being a 'hit' is equal for any scientist, but the people regarded as geniuses were actually extremely prolific and hence had more 'hits' than other people.
 * That sounds extremely dubious to me. Robert K. Merton's work on the Matthew effect would seem to go against that sort of explanation. --24.147.86.187 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eistien worked at a patent office, thats where he got his ideas from. --Delma1 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * No. Chickenflicker---♣ 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Many years ago, I was privaleged to study the 'history and philosophy of science' at university. It's a worthy question, regarding inspiration. However, a few observations: We live in the information age. Many people are trained academically than ever before. You might think that with more people better equipped to make discoveries that more people would. They do.

In the US, in 1970, some 1000 (different, distinct) books were published each day. 1970's space technology has been superceded. In 1980, my wife wore the net in her hair.

Worth noting, someone who is inspired may be wrong, too. Also worth noting that many discoveries are made simultaneously and independantly, suggesting a role modern technique has with inspiration, and tradition has in obfuscating and confounding discovery. DDB 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)