mountainman

The alternative arguments presented above such as we are looking at a sect of Hellenised Jews or even something related to the influence of Persian Manichaeanism which rose in the mid 3rd century. The arguments that the murals were inspired by the new testament requires a great deal of faith.

Toto

Why is this more likely? And how would you distinguish this lost sect from Christians in any case?

mountainman

It is far more likely because of the relative distribution of all the evidence at hand. On the one hand we have vast amounts of evidence for Judaic sects and the interraction of Judaism with Hellenism (and possibly Manichaeanism if we looked close enough). On the other hand we have not one skerrick of evidence for a sect who professedly followed the texts of the new testament in addition to the LXX which called itself "Christian".


The predominance of themes and motifs from the Hebrew Bible, and none from the New Testament. The images which are claimed by the defenders of the theory that the Dura find is "certainly Christian" to be related to the new testament (listed above) are not captioned. The murals are being held up erroneously as if they are christian, on the basis of some sort of "Artistic Appreciation" that the motifs lend themselves to certain events described within the story of the NT. This is artistic conjecture.

avi

Well, Toto, as you know better than anyone, I am wholly ignorant, so I must rely upon what I read, since I am starting from ground zero (perhaps spin may assign my level at just a tad lower than that.) Can we agree, that those who reject Paul, and claim:
are at least, not mainstream Christians?

If I am not wholly in error, I think that even the anti-trinitarian Arians accepted Paul's epistles. Am I wrong about that? These Ebionites seem to be quite a bit off the traditional Christian path...

Toto, you asked, earlier, if there remained unanswered questions.

Here's one, I had posed to spin, without reply:

Thanks, however, that wasn't my quote, but rather, Nickelsburg's. Again, my same question to you, as to spin:
How do you know that the "healer" standing above the three images is not John the Baptist, or one of the other famous healers of ancient times? In other words, why must this figure represent JC?

I am not arguing for a "separate religion", i.e. distinct from Trinitarianism. I am suggesting that if genuine, i.e. not forgeries, these clumsy frescoes could represent the ideology of people who were not Trinitarians, that is to write, folks who, by the standards of today, would not be regarded as mainstream Christians. As regards the disappearance of the Bathyrans, I am quite sure that a great many of the Babylonian religions have died out, some, even in the current century!!!

Yesterday, while traveling, I heard on the radio, news of the massacre of a sect of former Muslims (well, they still consider themselves Muslim, but the state government in Pakistan has outlawed them, and according to Sharia, if found guilty of blasphemy, they would be ordered killed by the state....) The Jews and Christians behaved similarly, at different times throughout history, so it does not surprise me to learn of the disappearance of the Bathyrans. I cited them, because of their probable passage past Dura Europos, en route to the frontier region East of Lake Galilee, and the "House-church" physical proximity to the synagogue at Dura Europos, an unlikely scenario, during an epoch characterized by bloodshed between Jews and blasphemers, so, I envision a sect of Jews occupying the house. The Bathyrans seem like a good possibility, at least to me...

In my opinion, certainly not any kind of art critic, and having absolutely no knowledge of any religion, let alone Judaism, may I humbly suggest that:

a. you are comparing apples to coconuts. The frescoes in the synagogue were "masterpieces", compared with those in the "house-church". The artistic skill level is sufficiently different between the two structures, that one may imagine any number of possibilities, e.g. funding differences, bureaucratic approval process, and so on, i.e. without any requirement to invoke theological differences between Christianity and Judaism;

b. Why can we not at least consider the prospect that this was a private citizen's home (rather than a meeting hall for celebrating Christian worship ceremonies), and that this person enjoyed painting, and representing various themes; why must David and Goliath, notwithstanding spin's masterful metaphor, represent a topic forbidden to Jews to portray on a wall decoration? Are these several amateur frescoes at Dura Europos unique to Christianity, alien to all other religions, and typical of Christian art in the mid third century? Does one have no illustration of similar topics, in any other religious ideology? How important is a well, to those who live in the desert?

c. I do not currently have access to Hopkins' text, so, I would appreciate someone who knows the answer, explaining why the paintings could not have been accomplished over a several decade duration? In fact, from the perspective of authenticity, rather than forgery, it aides the orthodox view, for these frescoes to have been created over many, many years, rather than all at once, on a single day or two...

avi

spin

I guess context does not mean a thing to you. You don't understand anything from context, so you don't understand very much of the world. Tell me, how many stories do you know of (and so that you're not so restricted to such a tiny scope, search the whole of the internet, do inter-library searches, go as far beyond your limits as all available tools will allow you) that have a story of a healer raising someone from their bed, then the person carrying their bed. List them please. Make sure the are all para-Jewish. I will ask you to come back to this list.

After this non-sequitur, let's move along, shall we?

(I do seem to remember other images on the walls beside David and Goliath. Perhaps they might have something to do with the issue... I forgot, we're supposed to be taking the context-challenged approach.)

Putting aside your expertise in 3rd c. art and your obvious command of the literary possibilities, go back to the list I asked you to make above and answer your own question. How many religions other than christianity did you find with the trope of the healed man carrying his bed after healing?

You've made a list of one of the tropes in the images, can you answer your own question for that one? We have actually been able to narrow the choice down to a para-Jewish religion, if you can stretch your memory that far, so perhaps you might be able to find a non-christian para-Jewish religion in that list, one that also has the trope of the two men walking on water.

How important is a woman at a well in any of those para-Jewish religions you listed above?

This is a nice turn: "I do not currently have access to Hopkins' text", so help me continue to rabbit shamelessly on by supplying me with information. I'd expect you to justify your assumptions by yourself. You dug the hole; you get yourself out of it.

You might find a discussion as to how long the chapel was in existence on p.96, when you get the book... if you decide you need it.

You know that christianity is an offspring of Judaism and that all the images in the room can easily be related to christianity, so asking about the possibility of another healer, such as Aesclepius, shouldn't be too convincing even to you. Aesclepius doesn't suggest a para-Jewish religion now, does it, avi? If you could focus on the notion of context you would save yourself a lot of egg-on-face (damn I wish I had an egg-on-face smiley: an internet search reveals a lot of people saying the same thing, but no smiley).

Context = several frescoes with subjects known from christianity (woman at well, healing the paralytic, walking on water, women at tomb) or Judaism (David and Goliath, Adam and Eve) and christian nomina sacra. Use the context. Taking one out of context is a tactic of someone who isn't doing their job.


spin

mountainman

One cannot be so certain of this at all. According to this article there was a temple to Asclepius, near the Sheep gate in Jerusalem, at the pool of Bethesda, from the 4th century BCE, and which was renovated by Hadrian c.135 CE. Thus there in fact may well have been Jewish followers -- in Jerusalem and thus elsewhere - of the Graeco-Roman healing god Asclepius.

More to the point in terms of the evidence itself, Asclepiius has an abundance of archaeological evidence in addition to the literature tradition while Jesus has none. So if we are entitled to extrapolate from the available evidence we may do so quite comfortably with Jewish followers of Asclepius, but anything to do with Jewish followers of Christianity are as yet highly conjectural, especially in relation to the totality of all the available evidence "outside of Eusebius".

To cite a recent example in the literature, according to Hans-Martin Schenke (1973,1989) the figure of Lithargoel, in the NHC 6,1 story of "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles", may have existed as a Jewish Angel, "something similar to a Jewish Asclepius".

Toto

avi is traveling, he says.

When you come back, note that John the Baptist was not known as a healer. And Ebionites are classfied as Chrisitians, however far from what the mainstream later became.