Freethought & Rationalism Archive

yummyfur · 06-15-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by post tenebras lux

Regarding this 'dura church':

Here's the reconstructed interior:

And here's the only 'christian' bit I've found so far: A picture of Adam and Eve

That picture on the side of the room is usually interpreted as the woman at the tomb, not Adam and Eve, not sure where you got that designation. Is this a good interpretation? I don't know, I would probably have to do a very indepth study of 3rd century iconography before I said anything. But I can assure you it is not Adam and Eve, even with my somewhat limited knowledge of Roman frescos, as these are two women.

rlogan · 06-15-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The hypothesis being explored is that there was nothing whatsoever
related to "the tribe of christians" in Josephus, or indeed on the planet
Earth, prior to the fourth century.

Does not define Christian. Please address the question.

Quote:

For example, the Dura-Europa house
church has been put forward as evidence of the existence of "something"
christian prior to Nicaea, as is the paleographic dating of P52.

Does not define Christian. Please address the question.

Quote:

The hypothesis is that the literature of christianity first appeared only
in the fourth century under Constantine, and that the mass of literature
quoted by Eusebius as having existed prior to his research of the scanty
records of the past, is simply a chaotic fiction.

Does not define Christian. Please address the question.

Quote:

Since the Nag Hammadi finds are carbon dated c.360 CE,

Not true. In the first place, radio carbon dating gives ranges, not exact years.

The Gospel of Judas in the Nag Hammadi find, for example:

Quote:

The manuscript was radiocarbon dated to between 220 and 340 by Timothy Jull, a carbon-dating expert at the University of Arizona's physics centre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas

Quote:

and this date is after Nicaea

Most of the range given above for Gospel of Judas predates Nicea.

Quote:

while we may infer such texts are earlier according to themainstream theory of history, we may also not make this inference.

What inference? The majority of the radio carbon range for the one document above predates Nicea. That is data, not inference.

Regardless, there are precursors to final canon. Because you are evading any definition of "Christian", radio carbon dating is irrelevant.

It is mere tautology. No post-Nicean documents are pre-Nicean. Duh.

Quote:

Our position at the moment, while contemplating the merit (or otherwise)
of this hypothesis, is such attribution might be expected to cease in any
fragments of literature carbon dated sufficiently before Nicaea.

Does not define Christian. Please address the question.

Quote:

Our position is that Hierocles first drew the comparison between Apollonius
and Jesus in the fourth century because Jesus only appeared in a new and
strange religion sponsored by Constantine in the fourth century.

Does not define Christian. Please address the question.

Quote:

Should a manuscript or fragment of the NT receive a carbon dating
result sufficiently before Nicaea, or any other christian archeological
relic or tomb or inscription be otherwise somehow dated prior to the
fourth century, then the hypothesis and such evidence is inconsistent.

Does not define Christian. Please address the question.

Please.

Thank you.

yummyfur · 06-15-2006, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Not true. In the first place, radio carbon dating gives ranges, not exact years.

The Gospel of Judas in the Nag Hammadi find, for example:

Small correction rlogan, Gospel of Judas, in Codex Tchacos is not from Nag Hammadi but near El Minya. I was under the impression that there was some carbon dating on Nag Hammadi codexs, but on searching have been unable to find anything definitive that states they were. Considering they were analyzed and translated in the 70's, I would say they probably were not. Anyone know or have better information.

rlogan · 06-15-2006, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

Small correction rlogan, Gospel of Judas, in Codex Tchacos is not from Nag Hammadi but near El Minya. I was under the impression that there was some carbon dating on Nag Hammadi codexs, but on searching have been unable to find anything definitive that states they were. Considering they were analyzed and translated in the 70's, I would say they probably were not. Anyone know or have better information.

Thanks yummyfur. My bad. I just did that from memory, and the article itself indicates so.

I think the carbon dating of "Christian" texts is a red herring. In the first place we have ample evidence of fights among creeds (e.g. "Against Heresies", etc.)

The main issue for me is getting mountainman to clearly define what he means by Christianity and establish, as I believe, that he has simply excluded all precursors to post-nicean canon as "non-christian".

Gamera · 06-15-2006, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The dating of P52 is not via carbon dating but paleography.
Thus reliability can be improved considerably ...

See all that real-estate on the image of P52? Carbon date it.
Our prediction is that P52 will yield a post Nicaean C14 date.

Pete Brown

Yeah, the Nicean counsel had a real motive to forge a mss to look like a second century work on the off chance that scholars 2000 years later might examine the handwriting style and be fooled.

Allegations of forgery -- the last bastions of somebody losing a paleographic argument.

mountainman · 06-15-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Does not define Christian. Please address the question.
Does not define Christian. Please address the question.
Does not define Christian. Please address the question.

Not true. In the first place, radio carbon dating gives ranges, not exact years. The Gospel of Judas in the Nag Hammadi find, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas
Most of the range given above for Gospel of Judas predates Nicea.
What inference? The majority of the radio carbon range for the one document above predates Nicea. That is data, not inference.

The fact remains that Nicaea is within the bounds of possibility.

Quote:

Because you are evading any definition of "Christian", radio carbon dating is irrelevant.
It is mere tautology. No post-Nicean documents are pre-Nicean. Duh.

Does not define Christian. Please address the question.
Does not define Christian. Please address the question.
Does not define Christian. Please address the question.

Please.

Thank you.

CHRISTIAN:
One who seeks philosophical refuge in the New Testament scripture;
a follower of Jesus Christ, who is defined in the NT scripture.

Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

Gamera · 06-15-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The dating of P52 is not via carbon dating but paleography.
Thus reliability can be improved considerably ...

See all that real-estate on the image of P52? Carbon date it.
Our prediction is that P52 will yield a post Nicaean C14 date.

Pete Brown

The problem you have is P52 is simply the earliest papyrus dated earlier than the Counsel. There are a dozen or so more. Are they all forgeries too?

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/t...pyri-list.html

Somebody was very busy in the fourth century trying to pull the wool over the eyes of 21st century paleographers.

By the way, short of a forgery, I believe that paleographic dating is generally considered more reliable than Carbon dating, which usually involves a large window of possible dates.

mountainman · 06-15-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yummyfur

A final point on the papyrus found at Dura-Europas. It was found in a rubbish heap underneath an earthen embankment that was built to shore up the walls during the seige. Therefore if you know anything about archeology, the rubbish pit can't be later than the earthen embankment, also the dating of it is also contingent on all the other stuff found in the rubbish pit. I suggest going to the library and reading, M. I. Rostovtzeff et al., Excavations at Dura-Europos (reports, 1929–59).

My claim is simply this. The original manuscript of which the found
fragment was part, was hidden in cracks and crevices of the wall
during the two occassions the Roman army passed by Dura-Europa
the first with Julian alive, and the second with his corpse, in April
and then a months or so later, in 363 CE.

I will certainly read Rostovtzeff et al if I can get hold of it.
Does anyone have this book and can quote anything of it
relevant to this issue?

Pete Brown

Gamera · 06-15-2006, 04:23 PM

The Gospel of Judas was carbon dated as from 220 CE to 340, with paleographic analysis placing it at about 300.

Now what possible motive did the counsel have in forging a manscript they didn't include in the canon?

Also I recall Irenaeus mentioned a "Gospel of Judas" around 180 CE, and called it heretical. Just a coincidence or part of a larger Nicean conspiracy.

mountainman · 06-15-2006, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Yeah, the Nicean counsel had a real motive to forge a mss to look like a second century work on the off chance that scholars 2000 years later might examine the handwriting style and be fooled.

Nicaea (ie: Constantine) was out to fool the eastern scholars like Arius,
and impress the attendees at Nicaea that there were in actual fact some
old (transmission) documents related to this new and strange religion being
thrust upon the empire by Constantine, at that very council.

See the diagram depicting the confluence of reality and fiction:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_010.htm

Allegations of forgery -- the last bastions of somebody losing a paleographic argument.[/QUOTE]

The following allegations were made within 40 years of the council of Nicaea
by the extremely well educated emperor Julian, in respect of the new
testament (ie: the fabrication of the Galilaeans).

1. It was fabricated
2. It is a fiction
3. It is a fiction composed by wicked men.
4. It is a monstrous tale.
5. Eusebius is referred to as "wretched".

Our claim is that Julian's allegations of forgery were not transmitted
in Cyril's calumny of Julian's 'ATG' because they would "contaminate
the minds of christians".

Pete Brown

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-15-2006, 04:23 PM	#49
Gamera Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Palm Springs, California Posts: 10,955	The Gospel of Judas was carbon dated as from 220 CE to 340, with paleographic analysis placing it at about 300. Now what possible motive did the counsel have in forging a manscript they didn't include in the canon? Also I recall Irenaeus mentioned a "Gospel of Judas" around 180 CE, and called it heretical. Just a coincidence or part of a larger Nicean conspiracy.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.