spin

Here is what the Yale site cited above says:

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. 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.

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.

Since the Nag Hammadi finds are carbon dated c.360 CE, and this date
is after Nicaea, while we may infer such texts are earlier according to the
mainstream theory of history, we may also not make this inference.

Perhaps the GoT is worth discussing. Somewhere or other Doherty makes
the mention that all the "Jesus said:" references may not have existed in
the GoT at some earlier stage. This is similar to my position. The sayings
in the GoT are attributed to Jesus in the copy we have carbon dated
c.360 CE, but how far back would this attribution to Jesus remain.

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.

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.

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.



Pete Brown

mountainman

We are talking about a small room with a presumed inset "baptistry"
and a picture on a wal which has presumed to be "christian" and then
there is the evidence of "christian grafitti" someone esle mentioned.

I have read this article and many like it. None of them provide the
account of the original archeologists who perhaps themselves
presumed they were the first to open the room since 256 CE.

But could that site have been entered for example in 363 CE?
I have not yet seen the original articles relating to the find, and
what was found where, and how many exits to the house were
blocked, etc. I doubt we have the information to judge in this
issue in a definitive manner one way or the other.

But if you stumble across a more compelling account of this issue
let me know.


Pete Brown

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 and 'The Good Shepherd'. Well, I can see a guy carrying a sheep, that much is true.

This painting is above 'the baptistry' aka a pool (or so the text claims, but you can see from the other photo that it's actually in an alcove). But even if the room was religious, why could they not have been Mandaeans?

mountainman

Clearly the inference was not made by a mandaean archeologist,
but neither do I find it to represent a serious archeological citation
as evidence of pre-Nicaean christianity.



Pete Brown

post tenebras lux

Oooh Lookie - a man with an ovine on his shoulders! That's soooo unique that it must mean .... <drum roll> .... JESUS!!! [/HJer mode]



PS Anyone with access to Yale et al found a photo of the infamous 'christian graffito' yet? Cos I haven't.

yummyfur

So mountainman thinks all archeology without C-14 is worhtless. Most sites don't have C-14, almost all don't have c-14 for every part or strata or artifact, as it would be impossible. AMS C14 was only developed in 1977 and the technique wasn't perfected with a decent number of labs doing it until the late 80's. AMS allows you to date without destroying huge amounts of the artifacts carbon, so is the only way you could test a manuscripts date, or things with little carbon like wall plaster etc. So you are essentially rejecting most archeology.

By the way your whole hypothesis is inference and hearsay, so are you telling us we should just ignore you? probably a good suggestion.

Sure it's possible, that's why there's paleographical analysis(writing style, ink analysis, paper analysis, was it reused, etc.), which you reject. In fact it seems you reject the very profession of archeology.


Thanks for snipping the part of my argument where I require the same criteria as you, C14 dates for any of these manuscripts that places them before Jerome, also most of these writers, are from the same time period or later than Jerome, so are irrelevant to my hypothesis. I'll save you the time, there are no C14 dates, as most manuscripts aren't C14 dated, because the AMS C14 technique is fairly new, and for most manuscripts determining their date of composition beyond paleographical analysis is a waste, as we have information on when the actual work copied in them was created, and the manuscript are centuries later, so hardly relevant to such dating. I assume you snipped that part of my argument because you knew you could not meet it.

By the way I can use a hypothesis like yours with your "proof" requirements and argue that Stoicism was created out of whole cloth by Christians in the fourth century, or for that matter neo-platonism.

Finally, My stated hypothesis about no Council of Nicaea, directly contradicts your main tenent, that Constantine and Eusebius created Christianity out of whole cloth and foisted it upon the Roman world at the Council of Nicaea. My hypothesis has more explanatory power and massively less assumptions than your hypothesis, therfore it is a better hypothesis than yours by Ockham's razor. Until you diprove my hypothesis, of course using the same insane criteria you require for your hypothesis to be disproved, your hypothesis is essentially dead in the water.

To do otherwise is to show the rank hypocrisy of your position and that your position is totally devoid of any intellectual honesty. Not that someone who rejects almost all archeological analysis has much going for them, this is worse than even most hard core creationists and inerrantists.

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).

post tenebras lux

Hi Yummyfur, could you kindly indicate where this rubbish heap was located on the map of Dura-Europas below:



Also, do you know which room in the house was the 'baptistery' as it's hard to tell from any of the plans I've seen:

yummyfur

There is at least a third fresco in the church besides these two, though I'm not sure it helps the Christian designation for you. If I remeber it correctly, it is a central Orante figure with groups of people sitting off to each side. There are also fresco's at the top of the arch and one to the side blocked in your photo by a vase. Usually one would want to take in the whole archeology of a site, before determining what to designate or not designate something. There actually is a pool in the "alcove", that was added after the building was built, it's not built into the wall, but your picture is poor so it doesn't show up well.

By mountainman's criteria Mandeans don't exist at this time, there are no C14 dated Mandean documents from this time period or before, and there are no archeological evidence of their existance that meets mountainman's criteria.

yummyfur

The rubbish pit was on the western wall, though from memory I can't recall exactly where, though I thought it was near the church. I went through some of the excavation documents last year, mostly out of interest for Roman military information that the site provides, especially many of the papyrus found there.

The baptistry is the room to the far right and top of the central building in your picture, right behind it you see the steps going up the city wall.