Ben C Smith

That is it exactly. The evangelists are aware of many Jewish customs and traditions.

Besides, I showed you examples of holy art from the Middle Ages depicting a Roman-style sarcophagus. Did those artists lack canonical gospels??

How do you interpret the confluence in Dura-Europos of the following elements?

The textual fragment.
The three women at a tomb.
The man taking up his pallet.
The two men walking on water near a boat.

Ben.

spamandham

As I stated before, I don't think retrojecting art from the middle ages has any bearing on the earliest stages of Christianity. I won't go as far as to say it's irrelevant, but the relevancy is very minimal at best.

I think it's evidence of early Christianity of course.

But the point of the thread is whether or not this particular evidence disproves MM's hypothesis. Since a proto-Christian Jewish sect using something like the described Gospel of the Hebrews (or the Gospel of the Ebionites) could fit in MM's hypothesis (I think), then this particular evidence does not seel the lid of the sarcophagus of his idea.

The way it would fit, would be for Eusebius to use a Jewish Jesus story as the foundation of his canonical Christian gospels. In his version, the burial is a traditional 1st century Jewish burial, because he wants to make the false history compelling - even though the proto-Christian Jews he folded into his new religion had adopted Roman burial ideas at the time.

That seems to me more plausible than Eusebius inventing the canonicals from whole cloth. But MM's hypothesis is to me much more complex (aka much less likely) than a more traditional view that has Christianity developing in the 1st/2nd centuries.

Ben C Smith

You implied that the presence of the box made a connection with the canonical gospel stories unlikely or less likely; I gave you art dating to a period in which the canonical gospels both existed and were treated as divine authority, and that art also had the box.

You may not see the relevance of the medieval art to the Dura frescoes, but surely you see the relevance of the medieval art to your argument.

Maybe I am completely misunderstanding his hypothesis, then. As I understand it, Eusebius would have been the forger of the gospel of the Hebrews, too.

Ben.

Amaleq13

Me, too. I wouldn't think Pete's theory allows for "a proto-Christian Jewish sect using something like the described Gospel of the Hebrews (or the Gospel of the Ebionites)".

Pete?

spamandham

Somewhere along the line, Roman traditions and art were folded into Christianity. The canonical gospels make no mention of a sarcophagus, but imply instead a traditional Jewish burial. So it's up to us to try to explain this discrepency. We are presently evaluating two options.

1. The canonical gospels were written prior to the time that it became common to fold in Roman ideas. By the time of the Dura frescos, these ideas had been adopted and show up in their artwork, so it's no surprise they also show up in medieval art.

2. The canonical gospels were written by Eusebius, but based at least in part on proto-Christian Jewish writings. The proto-Christian Jews had adopted Roman practices - as would be expected, and so they show up in the Dura frescos. But Eusebius wished to make a compelling forgery, so he did not include such obvious anachronisms in the canonical Gospels. This gives a greater flare of authenticity. But because no-one at the time of the forgery was a 1st century Jew, and because there was already artwork depicting a sarcophagus, that tradition continued on, in spite of it not being consistent with the newly crafted canonical Gospels.

It's just as likely I'm misunderstanding his hypothesis. As I understand it, Constantine had the canon crafted and invented what we call Christianity, but it was a hack job rather than being constructed from whole cloth. Since the Gospel of the Hebrews was not included in the canon, it was not part of the forgery.

I don't know what MM has to say about texts such as Gospel of the Hebrews in regard to preceding or post dating 325.

bacht

I think MM said that the non-canonical material was created at the same time by unemployed scribes from the pagan scriptoria that were closed by Constantine. The apocryphal texts were satires and parodies of the official Nicene canon, a kind of protest I guess.

Ben C Smith

I think my eight-year-old daughter could see that the first option is less complicated than the second.

Hopefully he will chime in.

Ben.

spamandham

Oh come on Ben! All that proves is that you've brainwashed your daughter!

Ben C Smith

Keeps you clean.

Ben.

spin

Oh, Spammers, it's not a sarcophagus! Let me hold your hand on this. Here are a few important Jewish tombs "hewn out of the rock" (as Mk 15:46 says):



The tombs of Zechariah and of Absalom in the Kidron Valley.

So you can stop your quibbling. As I said, the fresco gives you none of the background hints, but the "box" is too big to be a sarcophagus, isn't it!?


spin