tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post5815830228484116798..comments2024-03-29T00:57:56.876+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Papyrus Artemidorus in the News AgainP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-70833967166430879712018-12-12T10:13:35.101+00:002018-12-12T10:13:35.101+00:00I can confirm that the facsimile is *not* exactly ...I can confirm that the facsimile is *not* exactly the same as the actual manuscript ... but nearly (as good as the reproduction could be done with the technique of the time).Tommynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-33512736354355881062018-12-12T08:35:13.772+00:002018-12-12T08:35:13.772+00:00Can somebody - I assume Tommy - who has seen both ...Can somebody - I assume Tommy - who has seen both a Simonides forgery and the matching facsimile of that forgery confirm that the facsimile is an accurate representation of Simonides' hand and not in any way modified by whoever prepared the facsimile?<br />Can anybody who has seen Simonides' hand - again Tommy I assume - advise if there is any significant variation within the hand?<br /><br /><br /><br /> <br />Matthew Hamiltonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02382402785261355659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-48342381860599287862018-12-12T01:04:40.153+00:002018-12-12T01:04:40.153+00:00And if the writng on this papyrus bears no resembl...And if the writng on this papyrus bears no resemblance to Simonides' known forgeries (which are readily observable in facsimile), much the same can be said for the peculiar allegations claiming Simonides' involvement with Sinaiticus. Of course, some people still won't be happy without C-14 dating and ink analysis, but that is just par for the course. Maurice A. Robinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05685965674144539571noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-22781882778040544722018-12-11T17:19:57.544+00:002018-12-11T17:19:57.544+00:00Thank you for these clarifications! I will update ...Thank you for these clarifications! I will update the blogpost later tonight.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-53955446064021359262018-12-11T16:42:47.345+00:002018-12-11T16:42:47.345+00:00The Italian article does say zinc rather than zinc...The Italian article does say zinc rather than zinc oxide - it suggests that the fragments were placed on a metallic net that contained zinc, and then treated with acids, that transferred the zinc from the net to the fragments.<br /><br />It also says that there is not a "smoking gun" (ie decisive evidence), but rather preliminary evidence that supports more the case for a forgery than being authentic. Actually, it is probably not the article that said this, but the President of the Foundation that bought the papyrus just before he resigned. "Probably", because there an inverted commas at the start of his comment, but no inverted commas at the end, so it is not clear when his quote ends and the article's explanation restarts.<br /><br />The case was a personal investigation by a judge - the facts occurred far too long ago for anybody to be charged, even when the investigation was started soon after he was appointed as a judge. So it was only for personal interest. Since the judge is about to retire, he had to publish his findings now or never. For this reason the case is closed - without that judge following his personal interest and no possibility of charging anybody, no one in the legal system will not continue with the investigation.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01411388616738292703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69937847118269276782018-12-11T15:36:24.095+00:002018-12-11T15:36:24.095+00:00I may have made a mistake with zinc oxide, it may ...I may have made a mistake with zinc oxide, it may just have been zinc. I will wait for Italian reader(s) to correct me.Tommy Wassermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10674769923361035721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-69846391482731302712018-12-11T14:49:01.427+00:002018-12-11T14:49:01.427+00:00Interesting. Pure zinc (or zink) was indeed rare i...Interesting. Pure zinc (or zink) was indeed rare in ancient times. (And the once-claimed "zinc coffin" from the Qumran cemetery turned out to be modern, not ancient, zinc pieces.)<br />Zinc oxide, though, may be less rare. For example, Paul T. Craddock of the British Museum, "Zinc in Classical Antiquity" (2000 Years of Zinc and Brass, 1998 p.1): "Zinc is one of the more abundant metallic elements in the earth's crust, but is very reactive and thus never occurs as a native metal." Stephen Goransonhttp://people.duke.edu/~goranson/noreply@blogger.com