avi

Thank you very much for both links, Toto. Excellent. I enjoyed reading Carly Silver's synopsis in the first link. I didn't realize that excavations are continuing in Dura Europos to the present time!

Here is a quote from your second link:
Orthodox? Heretics? (aka marcionists?).

Maybe they were not "Christians" at all. Maybe they were Nazarenes or Ebionists!!

Here's another quote from the Hopkins text, cited yesterday, in post 24, this one from page 91:

To paraphrase the grey eminence himself, (s.h.) if one repeats something often enough, eventually that something will be accepted as legitimate.

In this case, how does Clark Hopkins know that those paintings are "Christian"? Since water purification is central to Judaism, (not simply a baptismal vessel to purify newborn babies--did that custom even exist before Constantine?) why not consider the house, adjacent to the synogogue as a home for one of the officials responsible for operations of the Jewish temple?

One more quote, relevant to the question of the unique preservation of the "house chapel" (page 92):

But, as I read the old testament, there is little tolerance for blasphemers in Judaism. Would they have simply "expelled" such people who considered a mere mortal, JC of Capernaum, as a god? Would they have waved merrily, greetings to the neighbor next door, without shedding blood? Somehow it doesn't fit.

Thanks for the question. I believe that security was lax or non-existent at the site, during the most important time of the dig: 1929-1932. I also believe that the Arabic speaking, displaced Palestinians, described and photographed in Clark Hopkins text, would have gladly accepted the task of planting evidence in return for geld. What kind of evidence: Diatessaron for one, painting some "sketchy and amateurish" murals for another.

Absence of a cross: remember, I think last year, we had a discussion on the forum about the σταυρóς? Perhaps I err, but, I thought the general conclusion was that the custom was to save wood and nails, by impaling the victims on a wooden stake, and then calling that process, crucifixion, in distinction to the other common Roman methods of execution: feeding the caged wild animals, or simple beheading. Thus a cross as a symbol of death by stavros, became associated with Christianity after Constantine, whose mother claimed to have found the cross upon which JC himself gave up the ghost, some three hundred years post mortem.

Motives in uncovering a "christian" temple of the second century: I don't have any evidence of any group or individual with a motive for achieving success. I know nothing at all about fund raising at Yale University, and I have no evidence, for example, of whether or not the Skull and Bones society, founded in 1832, and which played a prominent role in creating the CIA, was involved in clandestine fund raising for Yale, or not.

What I am really asking this forum is a simple question: why does everyone accept at face value this "house-church" at Dura Europos as evidence of the practice of Christianity in the third century, without blinking an eye, yet, at the same time, ridicule as preposterous, claims about Hebrews traveling to North America two millenia ago?

avi

Toto

You can't say that no one has blinked an eye. You still haven't given any reason for thinking that the evidence might have been faked.

Dura Europa appears to be an archaeological site, preserved by accident. It didn't fit into any contemporary ideological agenda, and no one profited from it. It doesn't involve postulating improbable journeys to the heartland of America with primitive technology.

Linking it to Yale University and then to the Skull and Bones and the CIA is like pointing to those shiny objects over there to change the subject.

avi

Perhaps so. Yes. However, one ought, I believe, differentiate the findings from the excavation, with an interpretation of those findings. Would you be as accommodating to an interpretation which saw the "church-house" as, rather, a "synagogue-house"?

Given the hostility towards blasphemy committed by ex-Jews, wouldn't it surprise you to learn that such a dwelling was proximate to the synagogue, as though there had been no animosity expressed between the two groups?

What did Irenaeus write about followers of Marcion? Kill them????

What did the Jews do to many, many sects, during and before Roman times, for example, the Samaritans?

And, certainly, you are correct, the evidence gathered by Hopkins and his group, may not have been forged.

All I ask is that this forum subject the method employed by Hopkins et al, in conducting this excavation, to the same scrutiny as we routinely apply to more modern claims. Is it not very peculiar, for example, that the Diatessaron survived intact:

(page 99)
They needed a document. They subsequently found a document....

avi

spin

Rampant denialism strikes again. Without any tangible archaeological reason to question the finds from Dura Europos a whole new field of denialism has been opened up. Let's just stonewall anything we don't like the implications of. Dura Europos shows that there were christians in the city before its destruction in the middle of the third century. Impossible! says the denialist. I repudiate the excavation as a christian hoax. But lots of other things were found at the site, including Jewish and Mithraic decorative art. Well, they weren't christian hoax, just the so-called church-house. But the site was overseen by one of the greatest scholars of the period, Mikhail Rostovtseff, whose work is respected throughout the world. Besides other such great names were involved, Breasted and Cumont. They were asleep at the wheel while christian hoaxists were inventing a christian chapel, painting murals in the relevant ancient style, letting them age, then reburying them under the noses of the sleeping giants and all without the Arab laborers seeing the scam developing.

This is just plain silly. It is not the work of logic and evidence, but of pure denialism, the sort of denial we see regarding AIDS or global warming. Against all odds some people want to discount the evidence and prefer their own desires.

Just look at the ink issue just raised. While epigraphy throughout the middle east has emerged from dry climates, such as the DSS, the Oxyrhynchus texts, and from Tebtunis, because one lot of texts when found immediately lost their ink, all ink should have disappeared the same way. Simply brilliant logic. Poof go the Oxyrhynchus texts in a cloud of desire.



avi, your approach with Hopkins has been to read him in distrust from the beginning. He hasn't earned any distrust, except for the fact that he was a christian and for you that rules out his ability to do his job. However, at the time through western culture most people were christians, so you would probably rule out anything that they did related to christianity. But you have great examples of christian scholars who did important work. Think of archaeologists such as Flinders Petrie or Kathleen Kenyon. Roland de Vaux made his mistakes, but they were mainly interpretative. No-one would question the honesty of his archaeology.

However, avi, you have shown no evidence for your denialism. You rule out Hopkins's account as christian hoax without any grounds whatsoever. You imply a widespread conspiracy conducted by one of the most prestigious universities in America. Yale is not a shitbox establishment, yet, because of your beliefs, you are willing to attack anyone and everyone because you don't want to accept the veracity of the archaeological finds that point to earlier christianity. This is a reflection on you, not of the scholars you parody, not the institution you happily repudiate. You want to believe.

What's the difference between your approach and that of any of those more fundamentalist christians who shape the data to fit their beliefs?


spin

mountainman

..... Dear Jesus plays "The Good Shepherd" ("criophorus")

"Andre Parrot has traced the Near Eastern use of the Good Shepherd ("criophorus") as far back as 1000 BCE."

No Pre-Constantinian so-called christian "churches" have been found.
No Pre-Constantinian so-called christian "church - houses" have been found.
No other Pre-Constantinian so-called "house-churches" have been found
This one SUSPECT far out on on the Persian-Roman border is a singular exemplar.

Deal with the evidence Boris.



It is utterly impossible that the Greatest scholars make mistakes.


Is this melodrama? The evidence is represented in the artistic appreciation of murals, the motifs of which are being touted as "Biblical". The Good Shepherd is not Jesus or Christian. Start with the basics.

Here is a description of the evidence out of Graydon Snyder's masterpiece work .....

The mural was packaged up and sent back to Yale.

As an objective Christian who loves the "Good Shepherd"?



What other evidence?


The floors yours Boris.
Has Natasha made the tea?



But you dont have to go back too far to find people like de Rossi ....


De Rossi made his mistakes too.
He was a good Papal archaeologist.

Lord Acton explains the problem at that time as "Power Corrupts,
and Absolute Power corrupts absolutely."

Now I know Yale is not the Vatican, but the securement of
"Early Christian Relics" would be a desirable commission.

Tenured expectations for archaeological relics
seek to emulate the 4th CE expedition of Helena and
so far, alas, have not risen to such heights.

At the end of the day we have the "Good Shepherd" and no other evidence.
The "Good Shepherd" is not the historical Jesus.
The conjecture that the other artistic motifs are derived from
"Biblical Scenes" is wishful thinking bloated with the will to believe anything.


Its just wishful thinking on the part of the intrepid Christian explorers.
They see a "Good Shepherd" and make the necessary adjustments.
After all, such evidence is scarce and might generate tenure.


Its not widespread conspiracy but widespread delusion.
The artistic motifs in the mural evidence are being presumed
to be related to a "Historical Jesus" through "Biblical Stories".
Deal with the "Good Shepherd first please and save everyone's time.



The veracity of any and all archaeological finds are always open to question.
In this instance the finds point to a group of people who had a "Good Shepherd" motif as a mural in their downtown flat. Who was the "Good Shepherd" (see HERMES). Were they thus distinctively "Christian"?



More melodrama over the evidence.


It seems to me that Avi's approach is not bloated with the will to see
the Historical NT Jesus conflated with the Good Shepherd
shining out of a bunch of Yale Credentialled Attestations to the contrary.

Toto

Pete -

The Good Shepherd was a pagan motif borrowed by early Christians, so by itself it would not prove much. But what about "Healer of the Paralytic," "Peter and Jesus walking on water near a boat" or "several women, approaching what appears to be a tomb." These are not pagan themes, and they do not fit any other known religions of the time.

There are archaeologists who have made mistakes, but you have not shown that this is one of them. There are Christian forgeries, but this does not look like one of them.

I mean, can you think of a fake relic that does not claim to go back to either Jesus or the Virgin Mary or some early saint? When Christians bother to fake something, it's the shroud of Jesus, or the bones of St. John, or the bone box of the brother of Jesus, not a little house church at a Roman outpost.

mountainman

Toto -

The evidence has not been forged, but its interpretation is being questioned.
The conjecture that we are dealing with "Christian Art Motifs" is without merit and deluded.



Christianity was fabricated in various phases. The 18th century Papal commissions are foundational. Start the tour with de Rossi's Cornelius Stone

New Testament Archaeology has the proverbial empty set to display as evidence.



The evidence may have been "restored" by Yale when it was shipped back
from Dura-Europos, but the problem is not the motifs of the artwork actually
present on the murals but the captions which the Reporters have attached to
the images in their early presumption that in fact they may be dealing with
something from the epoch of "Early Christianity" --- before the Council of Nicaea.

It's Christian hegemonic art appreciation.
It's putting on the Christian captions and "Glasses".

It's like believing that the small nude child in the figure below
is a faithful preservation of the child Jesus. It's just deluded.




That this above artwork is "christian" is an utter Vatican inspired delusion.
That the Dura-Europa artwork is "Christian" is simply Yale (1920's onward) following suit.
Why do they do this?
Because they are clutching at straws ....
Because there is no other evidence.

avi

Hi spin,
Thanks for your comments, always appreciated.

I acknowledge that my posts regarding Dura Europos have been, both in this thread, and elsewhere on the forum, fraught with substantial invective, philosophy, and malice, and contrarily, provided very little in the way of useful data, or even productive argument.

I am always impressed with the way that you, Toto, aa5874, mountainman, Jay, DC, Roger, Andrew, S&H, SnM, and many, many, others on this forum, are able, very skillfully, to include, with your persuasive arguments, useful, credible, and handy evidence.

I am, as you have correctly identified, simply a naysayer, a "denialist", without much to offer, other than excessive verbosity.

In summary:

I find the excavation of Dura Europos, directed, as you point out, by distinguished, "Christian" scholars, to be substandard, for the decade of the 1920's-30's, lacking even that semblance of security provisions, required to ensure that artifacts had been neither introduced, nor removed, from the site, without having been observed by those ostensibly directing the site's activities.

I do not insist that the evidence gathered was fake, but, I am also unwilling to accept at face value, the documents and art work, ostensibly gathered during the excavation, as genuine. There are too many strange contradictions in the discovery.

To pick a simple example: rain.

The Syrian desert is not without rainfall, but that rainfall is sporadic, and unpredictable. How strange then, that there was so much rain, in one year, I think 1930, but cannot remember now, for sure which year exactly, so that the excavation was essentially ruined for that year, because of such heavy rainfall. Ok, that's believable. Unusual, but believable. What is not believable, at least not by me, is that with that amount of rain, the papyrus documents, found "close to the surface" would have been unaffected by this bountiful downpour. Yes, I can imagine that a MODERN papyrus document could have survived that amount of water, and remained intact, until its ultimate discovery, two years later, but not a 2000 year old piece of botanical material. Such an ancient document, exposed to water, then heat for a couple of years, would have "turned to dust", just as Hopkins describes, as a consequence of microbiological enzymatic activity.

You have suggested that my approach is similar to those professing faith, and I confess, you may be right!!! I have so little knowledge, and so much anger, that my thought processes could well be analogous to those who believe in the divinity of JC.

But, just to clear the air, I do believe that global warming is real, and caused in part, not simply by cyclical sun flares, but also by human activity.

Scientists do not oppose the idea that disease may be caused by transmission of viral vectors, but we do ask for evidence, whatever the claim, and yes, I do believe in the existence of reverse transcriptase.

The evidence of the archaeological excavation at Dura Europos, is suspicious, and of dubious quality. The proximity of the "Christian House Church" to the Jewish Synagogue is disturbing to me, because of my simplistic world view, uncluttered by knowledge, and filled with so much prejudice and anger, that I cannot comprehend how such a political arrangement could have succeeded, in a society where Jews and Christians (and other Jewish sects of that era) were killing each other, as "blasphemers".

I am asking the forum, notwithstanding the academic excellence of the primary leaders of the excavation, to take a fresh look at the modus operandi of this excavation, and, as well, a critical look at the data gathered at Dura Europos, rather than simply focusing on an interpretation of the motif's per se.

Thanks again, spin, for your interpretation, questions, and comments, always appreciated.

avi

gurugeorge

It looks to me like the "Orante" is in the centre.

What were these "Orantes"? Remnants of older, pre-patriarchal folk religion, who for some reason found themselves embedded in early Christian worship, according to this article. Yet this image is "perhaps the most important symbol in early Christian art" (according to a quote in that article).

Whatever the truth of it, going by whatever archaeology exists, this "early Christianity" looks rather strange and unlike what we think of as Christianity nowadays.

No cross, ubiquitous "Orantes", "Christ" as youthful Apollo-like figure?

What the hell was going on?

Toto

The cross did not become the predominant Chrsitian symbol until after Constantine.

Christianity before Constantine was very different. It was not an established religion and had no means of enforcing orthodoxy other than social pressure. It was more focused on living life than the crucifixion. Several books recently have made a point of this, including James Carroll in Constantine's Sword (or via: amazon.co.uk).

But Pete's thesis is that Constantine did more than reshape Christianity - that he invented it out of whole cloth and imposed it on a happy pagan population.