FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Philosophy & Religious Studies > History of Abrahamic Religions & Related Texts
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 01:23 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 09-22-2013, 11:55 AM   #21
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

Au contraire, the whole scenario involving the fragment and the alleged harmony of Tatian shows how confused, confusing and strange are the traditional claims of the emergence of Christianity before the Byzantine Constantine period.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
It proves the fourth century conspiracy theory is bullshit
Duvduv is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 12:45 PM   #22
stephan huller
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

Both are true. The discovery makes a fourth century conspiracy as proposed by Pete absolutely untenable AND it calls into question traditional assumptions about the four gospels
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 12:58 PM   #23
Duvduv
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 4,095
Default

The very idea of a "harmonization" of four divinely inspired gospels of the "truth" of the Christ is itself ludicrous, especially if and when a single copy of such a vital document does not exist and nothing is said about it until the fourth century.

Then along comes all the hoopla about one of those scraps to reinforce the traditional belief of the canon of Christianity allegedly stretching back to the first century.

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
Both are true. The discovery makes a fourth century conspiracy as proposed by Pete absolutely untenable AND it calls into question traditional assumptions about the four gospels
Duvduv is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 01:15 PM   #24
stephan huller
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

*The discovery makes a fourth century conspiracy as proposed by Pete absolutely untenable AND it calls into question traditional assumptions about the four gospels
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 05:47 PM   #25
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephan huller View Post
*The discovery
makes a fourth century conspiracy as proposed by Pete absolutely untenable AND it
calls into question traditional assumptions about the four gospels
Can you please stay on topic. I refuse to be drawn into a discussion about any 4th century conspiracy especially since such a discussion has been specifically precluded by earlier guidelines. In my last post I stated:

Quote:
For the sake of the discussion let's assume that the archaeologically derived terminus ad quem is secure and that the fragment is a genuine relic of the mid 3rd century. The author of the fragment is not a professional scribe so we are not looking at the professional preservation of any "holy writ" rather some kind of personal copy or composition.
So we have the situation where a non professional (private citizen?) annotator is being claimed to have written some sort of "harmony of the canonical gospels". To add to this novel situation we have the claim that the non-professional author is employing the nomina sacra forms of the two words "cross" and "Jesus".

I repeat the question about about the 3rd line containing a translation of "the crucified one":

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraeling's reconstruction

GREEK: [Γαλιλαι]α̣ς ορωσαι τον στ[αυρωθεντ]α. υυυ ην δε

ENGLISH: [Galile]e to see the crucified.

I take it that the translator thinks that "στα" is the nomina sacra for σταυρος (cross/stauros) ΣΤΣ which otherwise first appears c.200 CE.

Would this be correct?
mountainman is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 05:57 PM   #26
mountainman
Contributor
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Falls Creek, Oz.
Posts: 11,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duvduv View Post
Secondly, what does a scrap fragment found in a dump prove? The article itself indicates that dating the alleged destruction of the obscure town of Dura Europos is based on the dating of COINS. And then to go ahead and build an entire theory based on all this makes no sense at all. It elicits more questions than it answers.
A number of other fragments (Hebrew?) were indeed found in the rubbish dump outside the Palmyrene Gate, while a mass of Latin military papyri and documents were found in the Roman fort section of the city of Dura (located elsewhere in the northern segment). The claim relating to this specific "Dura Parchment 24" is outlined in detail above, and relies on the argument that it was found "in situ" under a rampart constructed when the city fell. I have discussed this claim and the evidence for this claim above.


While the dating of the fragment is one issue, another issue is what the fragment represents, how it was written in a non professional hand, how it is claimed to contain the "nomina sacra" codes for "Cross" (being translated as "The Crucified One") and "Jesus".

I am quite happy to assume the fragment is from the mid 3rd century as claimed and then discuss Kraeling's reconstruction of it (which is available in full in the pdf linked to in the OP).

Thanks for your comments.
mountainman is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 06:26 PM   #27
stephan huller
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

*The discovery makes a fourth century conspiracy as proposed by Pete absolutely untenable AND it calls into question traditional assumptions about the four gospels
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 07:34 PM   #28
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

I'm glad that Pete is abandoning his futile theory on the fourth century origins of Christianity.

To help things along, please stop repeating previous posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
I repeat the question about about the 3rd line containing a translation of "the crucified one":

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraeling's reconstruction

GREEK: [Γαλιλαι]α̣ς ορωσαι τον στ[αυρωθεντ]α. υυυ ην δε

ENGLISH: [Galile]e to see the crucified.
I take it that the translator thinks that "στα" is the nomina sacra for σταυρος (cross/stauros) ΣΤΣ which otherwise first appears c.200 CE.

Would this be correct?
But Pete, please learn to ask meaningful questions. Why is this an issue? There is no inconsistency in anything written by a Christian scribe in the third century using an abbreviation first noted around 200 CE. There is no particular issue with an amateur scribe copying a sacred text and using nomina sacra.

Where is this leading?

It would also help if you identified the page number for this particular claim in the link from the OP.
Toto is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 08:03 PM   #29
stephan huller
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

I didn't hear Pete give up on his theory. I heard "I am quite happy to assume the fragment is from the mid 3rd century as claimed" which in Pete-speak means "for the sake of argument."
stephan huller is offline  
Old 09-22-2013, 09:15 PM   #30
Toto
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Let's just assume that Pete has given up. I still don't see the point of the question.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:36 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.