spin

avi,

As you are still on the the oddity of the preservation of the "diatessaron" fragment, have you looked at the other Greek papyrus fragments found at Dura? If you have access to Hopkins, look up "parchments" in the index.

Also note the location of the find: at the bottom of the debris fill of the street along the wall, a street filled not long before the destruction of the site, and a fragment that was found in a shovelful of debris dug by a Syrian worker, one of those used to excavate the whole street. The rain issue is irrelevant, as the fragment was never close to the surface.

I've seen absolutely and utterly nothing to justify your claim that the "evidence of the archaeological excavation at Dura Europos, is suspicious, and of dubious quality." You've produced nothing to suggest anything of the sort. It is purely a figment of your desires. The excavations were carried out without anything indicating activity out of the norm. It was an international effort. The excavation reports are available in respected scholarly journals if you care to make the effort of reading them to find anything to aid your conjecturing.

[As to sun cycles and global warming, those solar cycles are every eleven years. Global warming has slowly but consistently risen despite the sun cycles. Last year was generally the second hottest year on record despite the fact that we are in the trough of a solar cycle.]


spin

mountainman

Whether or not he invented Christianity the historical facts indicate that Constantine did imposed it --- and in a fascist manner --- on a happy pagan population. The dominant pagan population were not happy about that decision but they had no choice in the matter.

Russellonius

You got that right, gurugeorge. Things change.

avi, you are seething with theological doctrine! Could you please explain how ‘christians’ could NOT have lived intermingled with ‘jews’ in the first few centuries? How could a religion experience a schism with members of one group NOT having demographic similarities to the group that experienced the schism?

Conversion by doctrinal appeal accounts for less than a statistically significant proportion of the growth of a religious institution. Conversion must have taken place predominantly through close social contact such as marriage and friendship in the first century because that’s the way it happens now. Some people claim that the first centuries of Christianity were a magical time and that social phenomena did not obey normal market forces then. Do you subscribe to this thinking, avi? Were all the early converts to the Christian faith pagans?

That’s the Christian doctrine of supersessionism!

But late in the fourth century John Chrysostom was trying to persuade Christians, especially females, not to attend synagogue. And the emperors issued decrees prohibiting Jews from converting Christians to Judaism. Later on Christians completely forgot about Plato, Aristotle and Socrates, Zeus, Hercules and Apollo. (Muslims preserved those records for Christians to rediscover later.)

Where did paganism go? Why did Europeans by the eighth century preserve traditions about Rahab the prostitute but not Plato the philosopher?

Part of the legal deviance of the non-law biding Jews called ‘Christians’ was that they were marrying pagans. The pagans married to Christians converted more often than not due to normal market forces, then Constantine realized that he could not buck the demographic trend, and eventually everybody in Europe completely forgot about Greco/Roman culture except to the extent that it was embedded in the variation of ‘Judaism’ known as ‘Christianity’.

The cross was not an appropriate symbol for the group prior to Constantine because it was ‘us’ whom the cross killed. After the centuries-in-the-making schism was completed (by the official imperial status Christianity attained) it was ‘them’ who were killed by the cross.

It’s OK ideologically to hang enemies, but not people like oneself, on the cross. That was when the Christian doctrine of supersessionism became inter-group and Jews became ‘other’ to the Christians. Prior to then conflict between Christians and Jews had been intra-group, reflecting factions of a schism: Paul’s letters, for example - the seed of this theological doctrine.

I wish atheists and Christian detractors would stop promoting the Christian doctrine of supersessionism, but I think that they think that the Christian product line can be devalued by claiming that its cultural heritage was stolen by foreigners who did not deserve or even want it.

But early ‘Christians’ were actually ‘Jews’ who figured out a way to retain religious capital without being bound to ancestral law. They kept the prophets, the yahwist mythology and the genealogies. They cared about Rahab, not Plato. And they did not tolerate polytheism any more than their increasingly more distant half-cousins did.

mountainman

From that article:

The Orante and the "Good Shepherd" often appear together.
The "Good Shepherd" is most closely associated with Hermes.
The same Hermes IMO who speaks to us via texts in the Nag Hammadi Codices.
Thrice Bessed Hermes in contradistinction to Eusebius's "Thrice Blessed Constantine". [See "Vita Constantini"]


Its fairly simple and straightforward gurugeorge. The 20th century ancient historian Momigliano, who had seen fascism first hand under Musolini, sums it up in an extremely simple manner as ...

A revolution carrying with it a new historiography!

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians
appreciated and exploited

"the miracle"

that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector,
and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

— Arnaldo Momigliano (1908-1987),
Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D; (1960)

Back to the OP ....

Dura Europos hosts Emperor Julian
and the Roman Army in April 363 CE

We are told by the historians Ammianus (23.5.1-15) and Zosimus (3.14.2) that the Roman army lead by Julian (the Apostate) travelled to the region called Zaitha (or Zautha [Zosimus]) near the abandoned town of Dura where they visted the tomb of the emperor Gordian. This was Julian's final campaign, and he was accompanied by the entire army.
Therefore it is entirely possible that post Nicaean literature was deposited in the wall at Dura, and that christian graffiti was scrawled on the walls, during this very brief Roman occupation of the town, for possibly only a few days, in early April of the year 363 CE.


A further habitation of Dura-Europa is likely in 363 CE. After passing though the vicinity of Dura Europa with the entire Roman army in April 363 CE, Julian's army fell back from the Persian frontier to the Roman empire, without proper order due to the fact that Julian was killed in battle. It would be expected therefore the outward route via Dura Europa may have been used to fall back, and that a further and more extended opportunity would have existed for fragments of manuscripts and/or the graffiti to have been deposited at the deserted town by the christian soldiers in the Roman army. By these years, with the Council of Nicaea almost 40 years in the past, we might have two generations of Christians in the Roman army.

Thus was the Diatesseron fragment introduced to Dura-Europos in these later years via the Roman Army tour to Persia under Julian?

avi

Thank you gurugeorge, Toto, spin, Russellonius, and mountainman. Well written responses, all.

The following bits and pieces from Clark Hopkins book, previously cited, are meant to contribute to the thread, rather than to criticize any individual point of view.


avi

Toto

Why do you keep quoting this as if it supports your position? You keep repeating some quotes out of context as if you are making a point.

Not bloody likely. Dura Europa was buried in rubble a century before Julian's army came through. Are you suggesting that some Christians in the army planted clues for 20th century Christians to find? Did they dig through the rubble and then carefully replace it? Why the Didache instead of part of the canon, if this was post Constantine?

avi

Brilliant question, thanks for posing it.

Got to me thinking.

Umm. Let's suppose that I am wrong, and that the excavation proceeded precisely, 100% as it has been described both in scholarly journals, and in the aforementioned, and cited, Clark Hopkins book.

Those seem like reasonable assumptions, at least in my opinion.

Now, let's ask Toto's brilliant question:

Why wasn't part of the canon (i.e. the four gospels, or epistles of Paul) found in Dura Europos in the year 230 CE?

Of course, the most obvious answer is that it had been present in Dura Europos, in the year 230 CE, but, the ravages of time turned those particular documents to dust, while sparing, fortuitously, the fragment of Diatessaron, which Hopkins "found".

Another response is that this reflects "God's will"....
Well, I mean, why not, we are listing all of the possibilities, right?

Then, there is the mythicist position, to which I fervently adhere:

There was no miracle, there was no manifestation of a supernatural entity sparing the Diatessaron, while destroying the canon, it was simply the case that the canon did not exist yet, in the middle of the third century, at least, not in this fortified Roman fortress town on the front lines of the border with a hostile Persian army close at hand.

Finally, there is the more ominous, and more paranoid version, and I acknowledge finding this solution the most probable of all:

The fragment of Diatessaron, "discovered" by Hopkins, was planted at the site.

Well, if this latter possibility were the case, then one must address Toto's excellent question, why not plant, instead, the canon?

One answer, perhaps silly, even by spin's standards of repudiation, is that the Diatessaron fragment "found" by Hopkins, had been AVAILABLE, for implantation. Third century copies of the canon, perhaps, had not been available to the source responsible for planting the document. With regard to the excellent question of why anyone would bother to plant a document of any kind, I refer back to Hopkins' quote: without that fragment, it would be nearly impossible to interpret the paintings as Christian....

Here's a question to think about. Is the method, described by Hopkins in the quotes from his book, in the previous post, #25, whereby he "discovered", or rather, the (Arabic speaking, Muslim) workman discovered it, (in a haphazard fashion, close to the surface, where rainfall would not be a likely factor in its 1,800 year survival, ???) consistent with the method of archaeology practiced during the past century?

It is possible, I agree, that the fragment of Diatessaron, purportedly authored by Tatian in the second century CE, really had been sitting there for 1700 years, buried under some soil, unaffected by rainfall, and discovered in a thoroughly honest fashion, by hardworking men at Dura Europos.

But, then, if that method of excavation subserves our definition of scholarly activity, how can we repudiate the findings of Mormon artifacts in North America?

avi

mountainman

Gurugeorge had just asked ...... "What the hell was going on? "

My reply was ..... A revolution carrying with it a new historiography!


The entire city was not buried in the mid 4th century.

It is an indisputable historical fact that there were Christians in Julian's army. Therefore it is reasonable to think that if the entire Roman army visted the city at least once (and perhaps some, twice) c.363 CE, then archaeological remnants of their passage may have been left for 20th century archaeologists to ponder over.

One possibility may be that they deposited it into a deep crevice in the wall, out of the elements in order to safeguard the preservation of the documents. Do you happen to know for example how thick the wall was at that place ?


There was no "Official Canon" until the death of Emperor Julian c.363 CE.
The canon seems to have been cemented into place by Athanasius c.367 CE.
Prior to this time, analysis of the utter turbulent controversies which were ensuing all across the empire suggests there was no canon.

Some people prefered the "Gnostic Acts and Gospels" for example.
Some may have preferred to carry a 4th century "Didache".
The Teachings of the Tetrarchy of the Apostles.

Toto

What he said was "Without the Diatessaron one could never be certain at Dura just what Christian tradition the paintings of the Chapel represented"

I read this as saying that it would be impossible to be certain which Christian sect was associated with the paintings, not that it would be impossible to identify the paintings as Christian.

avi

yes, of course, you are correct, and (as usual!!) I am in error.

However, I would add, for the sake of completeness, that we really don't have any idea, or at least, I have no idea, how one can translate the idea of possession of Diatessaron as differentiating Christian sect ABC, from XYZ?

In other words, YES, your implicit criticism of my oversimplified text is PROPER, and I erred in making such a generalization, however, is it not also true, that we cannot, any of us, point to the Diatessaron, and say:

Aha! So, those folks living in Dura Europos believed (for example!) in transubstantiation and infant baptism.....?

I am uncertain, frankly, as to whether or not, one should regard, (if the Diatessaron fragment were proven to have been genuinely authentic, (i.e. not a 20th century implant,) a fact which, at this point, I doubt, very much) Hopkins' comments as representing, as you have properly explained, an answer to the question of membership into which particular Christian sect, the followers at Dura Europos fell, or contrarily, if one should not consider his remarks as consistent with recognition that among the many competing sects in that era, there were some non-Christian sects, which nevertheless claimed as their own, certain Hebreic themes in their wall decorations.

In this minority view, Hopkins' comments are interpreted as suggesting that without the Diatessaron, the identification of the Dura Europos paintings as Christian, rather than representing the artistic merits of some other, competing sect, (Valentinians or Nazarenes, for example), would have been nearly impossible.

avi