User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Appian Way 2 Palazzo Vecchio 3 Cyrus Cylinder 4 Palaeography 5 Alpinism 6 The Last Supper

[edit] Appian Way

Since the Appian Way is commonly said to be the queen of the long roads and one of the most important of the Roman roads, being built in a straight line, could it have been nicknamed or called by the name of the "Straight Street"? Doug 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the name Via Recta ("Straight Road") was applied to two roads, neither of them the Via Appia (Appian Way). One is in Damascus, and the other, in the Campus Martius, was originally called the Via Tecta ("Covered Road") but is now commonly known as the Via Recta because of a mistranscription.[1] Of course, some Romans no doubt used the words via recta to refer to the Via Appia, but only to describe it, not as a proper name. —Keenan Pepper 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'd love to read a more thorough answer. —Keenan Pepper 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This of describing the Appian Way of the words via recta (as a description) could then be like a nickname refering to that of a Straight Street or Straight Road? --Doug 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that's exactly my point: via recta isn't a nickname for the via Appia, just ordinary Latin words that mean "straight street" or "straight road". It would be accurate to describe the via Appia as a via recta, because it was indeed straight, but no more so that most other Roman roads. On the other hand, via Recta was used as a nickname, not for the via Appia, but for this street in Damascus, which is even described in the Vulgate (Acts 9:11) as vicum qui vocatur Rectus ("street which is called Straight", using a different Latin word for street). —Keenan Pepper 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Looking up Acts 9:11 I see your point of the street which is called Straight. In these multiple translations most do call it that while one says "Straight Street". I see your point of the ordinary Latin words meaning: "straight street". Latin says this, then why didn't the Greek that this supposedly came from say this? It appears that only the Latin says this. Perhaps it was only written in Latin. It also speaks of Tarsus, which I find interesting because the Appian Way (via Appia or via recta of a vey famous Roman road) goes to Taras. Taras looks a lot like Tarsus to me. That then would be a double coincidence in the same scripture verse. Did this section come straight from Naples, where it previously came straight from Rome? --Doug 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palazzo Vecchio

The Palazzo Vecchio, constructed in 1299 to 1314, was the home of the Florentine guilds. I understand it had 5,000 guild members. Did it always have this number (or most of the time)? Dante was a member. Was Giovanni Boccaccio or Francesco Petrarch a member of this Florentine Guild of 5000? --Doug 00:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Dante was a member of the guild of physicians and pharmacists, whereas both Boccaccio and Petrarch were members of the guild of notaries. I have no idea if guild membership was maintained at a constant rate. Clio the Muse 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrus Cylinder

My understanding of the Cyrus Cylinder is that it was basically the first written down set of Human Rights. If I am correct, isn't this when Cyrus released the Jews to go back to their homeland? Is this then the reference to "Captivity of Babylon"? Also the reference to the "70 years"? Is it correct that there were 40 lines that went around it? --Doug 12:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This site suggests there are either 35 or 45 lines depending on how many parts are counted. The site also says that it does not talk about jewish lands and it also mentions the recent propaganda use it has been put to: as a human rights charter. Ancient people did not generally spend their time writing human rights works but they did often add details that can be interpreted that way to other texts, i.e. Code of Hammurabi and the peace treaty ending the Battle of Kadesh. meltBanana 14:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

(I am trying really hard not to bite the newbie) The article explains that it is not a set of human rights but rather a list of merciful acts done by that king (ever heard of propaganda?). There is something called Google, I humbly suggest you try to use it before you ask questions. In this case try [2]. If you read the text you will see that Cyrus never talks of any rights. Flamarande 14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Human rights is indeed a very modern concept. Throughout history kings were expected to be merciful as part of a general dispensation of justice; but it remained a strictly royal prerogative, dispensed and denied at will. Clio the Muse 14:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it that obvious that I am a newbie? Yiks!!!! I stand corrected: not a set of "Human Rights", however more like a list of merciful acts. Then am I correct in that this is a reference to "Captivity of Babylon" of the 6th Century BCE? Also the reference to the "70 years"? I want to make sure then these are one and the same. --Doug 15:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

SIGH. I seriously recommend you read the provided text. If I told you: "Yes, Cyrus is the king who liberated the Jews from the 70 years of Babylonian captivity. It is as written in the bible, Old Testament, etc... .It proves (again) that the bible is always right." Would you seriously believe me? Better you analyze the text yourself and reach your own conclusions. Always think for yourself, and analyze the evidence (story) as far you can, and never ever let other ppl think for you (for they might bull*hit you into submission and blessed ignorance). Flamarande 15:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you are right in thinking for yourself. In that process I have concluded that this of the phrase coined by Francesco Petrarch of the Babylonian Captivity is referenced as to that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' of the papacy. It turns out this Captivity also was for "70 years", being from 1308 to 1378. So I have concluded that whereever the phrase of the "Captivity of Babylon" is in the New Testament is really that of the 'Captivity of Avignon' or the Babylonian Captivity; meaning "Avignonian Captivity", same as 'Captivity of Avignon'. Thanks for help. --Doug 22:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The logical error in the above is contained in the word "So". --Wetman 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

DOUBLE SIGH. Doug, AFAIK "Babylonian Captivity" does not appear in the New Testament at all. The Gospels where written down in the 1st century AD (perhaps even 2nd, I am not sure). The Popes liked to compare their "deportation" to Avignon (where they were under the thumb of the French king) with the Captivity of Babylon of the Old Testament. This comparison was done for all kinds of political reasons. 1st)it presents the Pope as a martyr, and as a prisoner of faith. 2nd) it presents the French king as a tyrant who does not even respect the "Holy Mother church". Either way any of this doesn't appear in the New Testament at all. Flamarande 03:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you that the words of "Babylonian Captivity" do not appear in the New Testament; however "Captivity of Babylon" does. I just do not happen to believe in a 'historical Jesus' (a person roaming the earth in the middle East some 2000 years ago), so do not believe the Gospels were written in the first few centuries (since these events didn't actually happen). I believe the Gospels were written in the Fourteenth Century, hence the reference to "Captivity of Babylon" meaning that of the "Captivity of Avignon". This phrase was coined by Petrarch. In historical records scholars agree that this reference by Petrarch has to do with Avignon. So "Babylonian Captivity" and "Captivity of Babylon" and "Captivity of Avignon" are all the same thing. This is referenced in the Gospel of Matthew Chapter 1. This is sometimes refered to as the "genealogy of Jesus". Now since I do not believe in this historical Jesus then of course I do not believe this to be a genealogy (i.e. family history). I believe it relates to Avignon, being of course a self thinker. I have thought it through throughly and have concluded this of Matthew chapter 1 has everthing to do with the Avignon papacy of the Fourteenth Century. Remember you are the one that suggested: Always think for yourself. Now see what happens when one thinks for themselves. They come up with different answers than the typical Christian story line. Why it even says several times in this chapter "fourteen". What an excellent clue this has to do with the Fourteenth Century. I do believe (being a self thinker) that the Babylonian Captivity of Avignon happened in the Fourteenth Century. This is in agreement with your two reasons why the Popes of Avignon liked to compare this Avignon papacy with this of the Jews of Babylon of the 6th Century BCE; however I have thought it through to the next level figuring out that Matthew chapter 1 has to do with this "deportation" to Avignon (a.k.a. "exil to Babylon"). --Doug 12:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palaeography

Would it be correct to say that in the field of paleography that there ultimately has to be a standard reference material to compare to? Logically wouldn't one compare handwriting from an unknown date manuscript to a known dated document to then determine its age? Then when there is several points of similarity, it could then be given a date. How was this original dated standard document established as being a true date in the first place? What was it compared to? Is this standard reference document then reverified for authenticity? Is the manuscript or document used as the standard reference point ever ultimately subjected to scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating)--Doug 12:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There's not usually a single, generally-agreed-upon standard example, following the analogy of a holotype in biology, but rather a range of dated material (a treaty, a contract, etc.) against which new, undated material is compared. Paleography is also concerned with placing the origin of the writer's hand: writers move from place to place, retaining the hand that they were originally taught. Particular scriptoria developed quirks that identify scribes originally taught in that scriptorium. --Wetman 02:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to provide another answer above, with specific references so you can see the dated examples Wetman mentions (see above, under your previous similar question). Wareh 04:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate both these excellent detailed answers. But being a self thinker I have taken this to the next level. I understand the logic of palaeography, however this still leaves too much to the imagination. For example in your statement: in careful reliance upon the most securely dated evidence available is subjective. In other words, what they think as a correct dated material is being used then as a standard. What scientific evidence is there then to back up this "supposed" date? There is none, only a person's opinion. Another example: new knowledge (say, date a MS) on a firm methodological foundation that goes all the way back to first principles then becomes; what is this first principle? back toBottomline you have not given me a standard, but only a direction of places where books are of the field of palaeography. Don't want to learn this field, however am looking for solid concrete physical manuscripts used as the standard as the reference for dating the Codex Vaticanus. I have already asked over 1000 scholars (in this field and related fields) that should have been easily able to furnish this, however to date none have. I have ever reason to believe the Codex Vaticanus is from the Fourteenth Century, not from any of the first few centuries (i.e. 1st - 6th). So I guess bottomline to solve this issue would be actual scientific testing of Codex Vaticanus (i.e. mass spectrometry) and not just someone's opinion of date. --Doug 12:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If a scientists determines the temperature by reading a thermometer, where is the standard that this thermometer is based on? If that is another thermometer, where is the "standard" IT is based on? And if the "scientist" compares the readings of the two thermometers, what scientific evidence is there to back up his "claim" that they show the "same" reading? It is all one person's opinion of reading. I have asked over 10,000 experts, and they ALL deny this is a problem. This shows conclusively that they are NOT! experts. There is NO "standard" for "scientific" measurements.  --Lambiam^Talk 14:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I like this question. I believe there are definite scientific standards] that references are made to. Here are a few and still some more and still even more. Here is a large category of standards. Mass spectrometry is referenced back to ISO standards. Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring isotope carbon-14. Both these have an accuracy within 1%. An atomic clock is a type of clock that uses an atomic resonance frequency standard to feed its counter. These clocks are accurate to the nanosecond because they have a definite standard as a reference. This also enters into the field of Metrology which is based on the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. The entire scientific community measures temperature using the Celsius scale, and thermodynamic temperature using the Kelvin scale. These are based on definite standards established by the scientific community and international agreement. Based then on one of these standards (i.e. ISO) and a scientific method (i.e. mass spectrometry) the age of Codex Vaticanus could be determined within 1%. I say it will show a date of 1373. Then given a +/- 1% accuracy it will be then some date for sure between 1360 and 1386. This is 1000 years from when it "supposedly" was written up. Why don't we go ahead and test it to find out for sure. Deal? I'll bet the Vatican will object. I wonder why? mmmm --Doug 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alpinism

I understand Francesco Petrarch is the Father of Alpinism. Apparently he did this trip when he was about the age of 30. I am confused on the issue, IF he actually made the trip to the top of Mont Ventoux or if he just wrote about making such a trip? I always thought that in fact (from his letters on this account) that he actually did climb to the top. --Doug 12:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Petrarch, together with his brother and two companions, climbed Mount Ventoux on April 26, 1336. His account of this venture was later described in a letter to his friend, Francesco Dionigi, perhaps with some metaphorical elaborations. In his classic work, The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Jacob Burkhardt, described this as the first time such an activity had been undertaken for its own sake. Clio the Muse 13:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Outstanding. It looks like then I am correct in thinking the climb was an actual event. I will follow up on your great reference you gave me on this. I would be interested in what it says about this. Then Petrarch was 32, if my math is correct. --Doug 13:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Supper

Has it been determined which name belongs to which Apostle in the Last Supper? I understand John the Baptist is on the right of Jesus. --Doug 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The one thing I can say with some certainty is that John the Baptist is not considered as one of the Apostles. He was certainly not at the Last Supper. The John in question is the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. In Leonardo da Vinci's painting the sequence, looking from left to right, is Bartholomew, James the Lesser, Andrew, Judas, Peter, John, Jesus, Thomas, James the Greater, Philip, Matthew, Thaddeus and Simon. Clio the Muse 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See, now you understand why I am asking this question. I didn't know this was John the brother of James, sons of Zebedee. We are talking about two different "Johns". I've been confused on this issue. Thanks for naming them. What reference do you have on this as to these names? --Doug 13:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For Leonardo you will find the sequence here [3] and here [4] Clio the Muse 14:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)