stephan huller

So much more interesting than the original drivel. Thanks DCH

mountainman

You (and others) are confounding critical questioning with denialism which, given the disclaimers that I clearly make, is itself an attempt to appear politically correct by silencing any criticism of the accepted mainstream hypotheses (e.g. the OP re security of dating DF24, etc). Setting aside for the moment the separate hypotheses of dating DF24, the hypothesis that DF24 is a "Christian related" text is almost certain. The question is essentially how is the text of DF24 related to the canonical gospels, and the generally accepted hypothesis is that it represents a "harmony" of these.

Is Dura Fragment 24 a literary "cento" of the Gospels?

Another undiscussed (AFAIK) possibility is that we are looking at a "harmony" which might be better understood as a literary form of cento. In the Greek World, centos are mainly composed by verses taken from Homer. When the bible replaced Homer it would be entirely natural to find Greeks composing centos that were then mainly composed by verses taken from the gospels. Anyone?


Security of Dating: 100%, 90%, 80% ....?




Which of course brings us back to the entirely separate hypotheses about the dating of the fragment. The question is .... "what is the probability that the fragment dates from before the defence wall was constructed?" Now I can definitely sense that many people out there would assess this to be a probability of 100%. I don't. A figure of 100% is out of the question in this case. See post #13.

Clark Hopkins states that the fragment was found "in one of the baskets of finds from the embankment, behind (west of) Block L8 and not far from Tower 18" and that "How it got into the debris at that point remains a mystery". Hello? "How it got into the debris at that point remains a mystery". Someone has been using "Chinese whispers" to claim "How it got into the debris at that point remains a certainty". This 100% assessment is therefore totally illogical.

There are plenty of possible scenarios to weigh in the balance, only some of which have been discussed. BTW did they get any windstorms at Dura in the day or night that could move a scrunched up bit of parchment about the excavation site? However "secure" the dating of DF24 to prior to the defence wall it is not 100% "secure", and those people out there who subscribe to a 100% security need to provide the watertight logic in the face of what evidence we have, and that includes the above statements from Clark Hopkins.


C14

In today's world it is fortunate that we (assessments of 100% "security" or otherwise) do have common ground in C14 dating, ink analyses, etc. I trust C14 dating many orders of magnitude greater than "Eusebius on Tatian", for example. The only problem is that the "Biblical History" professionals of the 21st century appear to have either a phobia or a mental block when it comes down to C14 dating the manuscript evidence. This is unprofessional. Just ask Robert Eisenman.

stephan huller

Oh God. Why do you take issue with the author admitting no one knows how it got there. No one knows how it got there. Get over it. The only one making Chinese whispers is you ... again ... and again ... and again ... and again ...

Your theory was DOA. But you won't stop

stephan huller

Here lxsxr. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_0212

"The manuscript has been assigned to the 3rd century, palaeographically, though an earlier date cannot be excluded."

stephan huller

More:

Toto

How it got into the debris remains a mystery. But it was found in debris that had been undisturbed since the 3rd century with 100% probability.

Are there any windstorms that move a piece of parchment into a bucket of debris? You might as well ask if there were any stray Greek gods who planted the fragment there. About as likely as avi's Palestinian extremist day laborers.

With most available technology, too much of the fragment would have to be destroyed. I think this has been the main reluctance to use C-14 dating.

It's not clear why you bring in Eisenman. He rejects the results of the carbon dating of the DSS.

spin

It just so happens that a very long time ago I was working on this material and found myself coming to the conclusion that the 1 Chr 6 list was extremely late. However, you need to include a lot more evidence.

[t2]
Var.|
AJ|
1 Esdr 8|
Ezra 7|
2 Esdr 1|
1 Chr 6||
-|
-|
Aaron|
Aaron|
Aaron|
Aaron||
-|
5.361-2
Eleazar|
Eleazar|
Eleazar|
Eleazar|
Eleazar||
-|
Phineas|
Phineas|
Phineas|
Phineas|
Phineas||
AJ 8.12
Jeshua|
Abiezer|
Abishua|
Abishua|
Abishua|
Abishua||
Bukki|
Bukki|
Bukki|
Bukki|
(Borith)|
Bukki||
(Jotham)|
Uzzi|
Uzzi|
Uzzi|
Uzzi|
Uzzi||
-|
-|
-|
Zerahiah|
(Arna)|
Zerahiah||
Meraioth|
-|
-|
Meraioth|
Meraioth|
Meraioth||
(Arophaios)|
-|
-|
-|
-|
Amariah||
Ahitub|
-|
-|
-|
-|
Ahitub||
Zadok|
10.152-3
Zadok|
-|
-|
-|
Zadok||
-|
Ahimaaz|
-|
-|
-|
Ahimaaz||
-|
Azariah|
-|
-|
-|
Azariah||
-|
Joram
Ios
Axioram|
-|
-|
-|
-||
-|
-|
-|
-|
-|
Johanan||
-|
(Uriah)|
-|
Azariah|
Azariah|
Azariah||
-|
(Neriah)|
Amariah|
Amariah|
Amariah|
Amariah||
1 Sam 14:3
Eli
Phineas
Ahitub
Ahijah|
-|
-|
-|
Eli
Phineas
Ahijah|
-||
Neh 11:11
Ahitub|
-|
Ahitub|
Ahitub|
Ahitub|
Ahitub||
Meraioth|-|-|-|-|-||
Zadok|
(Odaiah)|
Zadok|
Zadok|
Zadok|
Zadok||
Meshullam|
Shallum|
Shallum|
Shallum|
Shallum|
Shallum||
Hilkiah|
Hilkiah|
Hilkiah|
Hilkiah|
Hilkiah|
Hilkiah||
-|
Azariah|
Azariah|
Azariah|
Azariah|
Azariah||
Seraiah|
-|
Seraiah|
Seraiah|
Seraiah|
Seraiah
[/t2]
It should be clear that there is a relative chronology from 1 Esdras to Ezra to 1 Chronicles and that Ezra and 2 Esdras could be near contemporaries.

1 Esdras seems to depend on a Hebrew text that is earlier than Ezra, based on the above and various other hairy indicators. Its vorlage existed before material was removed from it, some of which ending up in Nehemiah, which was constructed out of the Nehemiah memoir, the 1 Esdras vorlage material and various other diverse sources.

The 1 Chr 6 list (above) contains the Ezra 7 list along with material in circulation at the time of Josephus.

One thing is certain though and that is that there are far too few names in the list, if we are to assume that Uzzi was five generations before Solomon's Zadok served in the temple and Seraiah went into exile. There are only ten generations between Uzzi and the exile with the Ezra 7 list! 1 Chr has added a further six generations. These lists have... just had a person from Porlock moment. Oh, well. It was going to be something about 500 years with only sixteen generations. Hopefully, you get the picture. The lists are plainly artificial.

spin

Rubbish. You've had plenty of time to be critical and you have failed to do so at every point. What you have shown is a persistent lack of critical analysis, a persistent lack of interest to do the work you need to do further your ends. You have been utterly lazy, while being monomanic in your denialism. Your critical questioning has failed you completely, as you are still stuck in the same rut, with no evidence to sustain you despite carrying on for many years with this vain endeavor.

Now please respond clearly to the following questions, so that we all know whether we will have to confront you repeating the same issues once again.

1. Do you accept the fact that there are plainly three nomina sacra in the fragment? If not, what don't you understand in my response to your "critical questioning", that you haven't seen fit to respond to?

2. Do you accept that the fragment was found within the city walls under the fill of the defensive embankment in the vicinity of tower 18 and not in some easily accessible location to some individual after 257 CE?

3. Do you accept that the nonsense about a possible deposit of the fragment at the time of Julian is totally without any basis in evidence or reason? If not, what specifically keeps you hoping that it is reasonable to hold out against what seems obvious to most others that it is ridiculously unlikely that some soldier took time out from a march down the Euphrates in a state of war to cross the river and deposit the fragment at least eight feet below the top of the embankment?

4. Do you accept that there is a lot of material that is overtly christian in appearance, as per my previous response to you? If not, why not?

mountainman

Yes.



No. Ultimately, it was found in a basket during the process of excavation.



No.



Yes.

mountainman

There is a 100% probability that - assuming the fragment was located deep within the debris (and neither on the surface or the many edges) - it is an artefact from the 3rd century.

However if the fragment was located on the surface or at the edges of the debris then this probability diminishes from 100% because of the possibility that it was introduced to the debris after the 3rd century.

Since Clark Hopkins found it "in a basket" he does not know precisely the depth at which the fragment was found, or how close it was to an exposed edge of the embankment, then it follows that we cannot be 100% certain that the fragment was contained from the 3rd century.

On this basis, while I can agree that it is "likely" that it dates from the 3rd century, I cannot agree that it "certainly" dates from the 3rd century.



A windstorm could in theory move a piece of parchment from another area being excavated within the city (see the diagram) adjacent to the excavation of the rampart, and into the excavation site of the rampart, during the course of the excavation in 1935.



They don't need much parchment and there is enough available according to the photo.
This reluctance is totally unprofessional. There is no excuse. It is the 21st century.


Because Eisenman (and Davies) was the prime mover who insisted that C14 dating be conducted on the DSS. I admire his professionalism in using the available technology to assist in the determination of the dating of manuscript fragments.