mountainman

In statistical, probabalistic and quite reasonable objective and scientific terms it suggests that the archaeological evidence from Dura Europa is no different from everything else which was previously erroneously touted as authentic by christian authorities trying very hard to impress christian authorities for the sake of academic tenure and the advancement of their own theological myopia.

Quite obviously MacMullen is plainly conjecturing.

avi

evidence of fraud at archaeological excavations is not easily procured:
here's an example

here's another.

In the case of Dura Europos, the westerners worked there from mid October to mid March, except when it rained.
No archaeologist was on site from April to September, in the late 1920's and early 1930's. I think there may have been a name for that period of time, let's see, elevation, no, peak, no, ah, yes, the great depression. Gee whiz, do you think that tough economic times could have played any kind of role at this dig? Well, never mind, for Toto seeks evidence of misbehaving, not evidence of potential for misbehaving.

avi

Toto

There are known archaeological frauds, and they follow a pattern. They support someone's nationalist agenda, or they have some profit motive (Christian relics.) The minor Christian chapel at Dura Europa doesn't seem to have made anyone rich or supported any nationalist aims. (There was a Jewish synagogue there that is much more spectacular.)

And who would have done this forgery? It would take some organization, effort, and knowledge to put in exactly the right amount of Christian references without going overboard and including a modern reference that would not fit. (Look at how quickly the recent Basque nationalist incident was repudiated.)

Pete needs some scintilla of evidence that this find is a fraud, beyond his fixed idea that Christianity was invented in the fourth century.

aa5874

But, do you see your error. You seem to be claiming that archaologists have found every single statue or that Justin did not depend upon some source for his information about Simon Magus who was probably already dead by the time he wrote "First Apology".

If I use your argument then Josephus' "tradition" myth exploded when he used Hebrew Scriptue as history. Archaelogist can hardly find anything about the Jews as related in Exodus.

Suetonius' "tradition" myth eploded when he wrote about Vespasin healing the blind with spit.

Unless you can show that Justin Martyr did not use a source to provide his information about Simon Magus, then no "tradition myth" has exploded. Now even according to you a statue was found.

Holly3278

I don't know if this is off topic or not but the earliest Christian church is the Catholic Church. History testifies to this. All other early "Christian churches" were heresies.

gurugeorge

It's not off-topic at all, but you should know that these points (and others you have been making on other threads) have been hotly contested on this board, which has a loooong history of quite deep arguments on all sides, regarding many of these issues.

avi

Hi Holly, not to repeat what GuruGeorge had already advised, but, this thread is focused on a physical structure, the supposed "house-church" at Dura Europos in Syria.

You may wish to review a bit not only this thread, but the earlier one on the same topic.

I frankly disagree with your conclusion, however, since the Christian movement (I am an atheist) began in Jerusalem, not Rome. If there is any other city, apart from Palestine, which is deserving of the honor of serving as "first" church of Jesus, then my vote goes for Alexandria, Egypt, not Rome.

The history of the Catholic church is bloody, be prepared for a discouraging foray into the depths of human depravity, if you should desire to investigate how Rome became the center of "christianity".

The focus of this thread is on Dura Europos.

Do you imagine that the Catholic Church was unaware of Hopkins' group's efforts in the late 20's when it was run by the French, i.e. the Catholics? Of course not.

Do you think the Vatican was unaware of the Christian monk of the ninth century who lived at Dura Europos for an extended period of time?

Maybe I am guilty of giving too much credit to the Vatican. I doubt that they were detached players in this particular episode. Who selected the "foreman"? How many of the workmen were "Christian"? Who gave the money to Yale to finance this excavation?

How much money would have been required to finance an operation at the conclusion of the 1930 season, eighteen months before Clark Hopkins arrived on the scene. The room had already been partially excavated, and was observed to be uneventful, from an archaeological or religious point of view. How difficult would it have been, during the "off season" to hire a hundred laborers to work day and night for two days, clearing the adjacent empty chamber, painting it, allowing the paint to dry in the desert heat, and then refilling this room with the same dirt? I suppose it may have cost $1000.00. Ten dollars per person, for two weeks work. How to silence the workers? Can you say, threaten the relatives with death?

Has the church ever engaged in such activities? Doesn't that seem awfully odd?

Yup. So does killing 6 million Jews.

Did the church play a role in that misadventure? Would the Catholic Church engage in such nefarious activities?

Antonio Gramsci.

avi

mountainman

The way quite a number of commentators have reported it, either Eusebius posing as Justin Martyr, or the author Justin Martyr as reported by Eusebius falsely related that the following statue was that of Simon Magus:


The statue is CLEARLY NOT the statue -- erected by the Roman senate to Simon Magus. It would appear from all this that either Eusebius or JM were either utterly misinformed, or that they purposely misinformed their readers.

aa5874

Again, you yourself are even now relying on a source to claim Justin Martyr was engaged in a fraud. What if your source is wrong, would you be engaged in a fraud?

Justin Martyr did not write that he personally saw the statue or the inscription. He most probably depended on some external source since Simon Magus lived at about 100 years before Justin.

You must show that Justin Martyr was in the habit of not using sources or can demonstrate that much of the information in his writings about known or accepted historical figures was based solely or primarily on his imagination.

Now, with the writer under the name Eusebius, it can be easily demonstrated that he used his imagination to formulate parts of his "Church History'.

For example, the writer under the name Eusebius claimed it is probably that Philo, the Jew from Alexandria, met the apostle Peter in Rome yet in all the extant writings of Philo, there is not even the word "Peter or "Cephas".

The writer with the name Eusebius claimed some character called Mark, a disciple of Peter, was preaching in Alexandria and that Philo wrote about Mark and his Churches or converts. There is no mention whatsoever of a character called Mark, his teachings or converts in one single extant writing of Philo.

Eusebius most probably was aware of the writings of Philo yet he made claims about Philo that were not even found in his extant writings. The writer called Eusebius appear to be using his imagination.

And there is at least one very good example where this Eusebius blatantly used his imaginative skills.

The writer called Eusebius invited his readers to look in "Antiquities of the Jews" 19 for information about Agrippa in "Church History 2.10.2-6.

Now, the word "angel" is not found in the writings of Josephus "Antiquities of the Jews" 19.8.2 And Josephus wrote about another earlier encounter of an OWL and Agrippa so the writer called Eusebius should have been aware of the passage.

Antiquities of the Jews 18.6.7 See http://wesley.nnu.edu

So, there is clear evidence where the writer called Eusebius has written information not found in his reference source and has a history of making references to sources that do NOTreflect the contents attributed to them by Eusebius..

This writer with the name Eusebius may be deemed a fraudster.

On the other hand, I cannot find where Justin Martyr made references to sources and that when examined the contents of the sources contradicted Justin Martyr's attribution.

I cannot presently consider Justin Martyr a fraudster.

mountainman

The following is an extract ....

JUSTIN MARTYR: (c. 100-165):

Saint, Martyr, a foremost
Christian Apologist. A Gentile ex-Pagan of Samaria, turned
Christian, and supposed to have suffered martyrdom in the reign of
Marcus Aurelius, in whose name he forged a very preposterous
rescript. His principal works, in Greek, are his two Apologies, the
first addressed to the Emperor Antoninus Pius, whose reply he also
forged; the second to "the sacred Senate" of Rome; his Dialogue
with Trypho the Jew, and his Hortatory Address to the Greeks. He
describes himself and fellow Christian Fathers as "we who formerly
used magical arts." (I Apol. ch. xiv.) The burden of his arguments
is Pagan "analogies" of Christianity, the contents of many of his
chapters being indicated by their captions, as "The Demons Imitate
Christian Doctrine," and "Heathen Analogies to Christian Doctrine,"
in chapters xiv and xv of his First Apology, and elsewhere. His
whole faith in Christ and in Christianity, he declares, is
confirmed by these heathen precedents and analogies: "Be well
assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of
and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is
called the Devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just
as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false
prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, son of
Jupiter, was begotten by [Jupiter's) intercourse with Semele, and
that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that
being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended
to heaven; and when they introduce wine into his mysteries, do I
not perceive that [the devil] has imitated the prophecy announced
by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses? ...

And when he [the
devil] brings forward AEsculapius as the raiser of the dead and
healer of all diseases, may I not say in this matter likewise he
has imitated the prophecies about Christ? ... And when I hear that
Perseus was begotten of a virgin, I understand that the deceiving
serpent counterfeited this also." (Dial, with Trypho, ch. lxix;
ANF. i, 233.)

Father Justin accepts the heathen gods as genuine divine
beings; but says they are only wicked demons who lead men astray;
and he says that these "evil demons, effecting apparitions of
themselves, both defiled women and corrupted boys." (I Apol. ch. v,
eh. liv, passim.) The devils "having heard it proclaimed through
the prophets that the Christ was to come, ... they put forward many
to be called the sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they
would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were
said in regard to Christ were more marvelous tales, like the things
which were said by the poets. The devils, accordingly, when they
heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of
Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine"; and
so through many twaddling chapters, repeating the argument with
respect to Bellerophon and his horse Pegasus, of Perseus, of
Hercules, of AEsculapius, etc., as "analogies" prophetic of
baptism, sacraments, the eucharist, resurrection, etc., etc. The
Pagan myths and miracles are true; therefore like fables of the
Christ are worthy of belief: "And when we say also that the Word,
who is the first-born of God, was produced without sexual union,
and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified. and rose
again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from
what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter.

... But as we have said above, wicked devils perpetrated these
things. And if we assert that the Word of God was born in a
peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as
said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury
is the angelic word [Logos] of God. ... And if we even affirm that
He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept
of Perseus. And in what we say that he made whole the lame, the
paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very
similar to the deeds said to have been done by AEsculapius." (I
Apol., chs. xxi, xxii; ANF. i, 170; cf. Add. ad Grace. ch. lxix;
Ib. 233.)

Father Justin also retails to the Emperor the old fable of
Simon Magus and his magical miracles at Rome, and attributes it all
to the work of the devils. For

"the evil spirits, not being
satisfied with saying, before Christ's appearance, that those who
were said to be sons of Jupiter were born of him, but after he
appeared, ... and when they learned how He had been foretold by the
prophets, put forward again other men, the Samaritans Simon and
Menander, who did many mighty works by magic; ... and so greatly
astonished the sacred Senate and people of the Romans that he was
considered a god, and honored with a statue; ... which statue was
erected in the river Tiber, between the two bridges, and bore this
inscription in the language of Rome: 'Simoni Deo Sancto -- To Simon
the holy God"
(I Apol. chs. xxvi, lvi; ANF. i, 171, 182; cf. Iren.
Adv. Haer. ch. xxiii; ANF. i, 347-8; Euseb. HE. II, 13.) We have
seen this much embroidered "tradition" myth exploded, and the
statue discovered and deciphered, it being a simple private pious
monument to a Pagan god!

Father Justin in many chapters cites and appeals for Christian
proofs to "The Testimony of the Sibyl," of Homer, of Sophocles, of
Pythagoras, of Plato. (Add. ad Grace. chs. 18-20; ANF. i, 279-280.)

Of the Sibyl, so often quoted: "And you may in part learn the right
religion from the ancient Sibyl, who by some kind of potent
inspiration teaches you, through her oracular predictions, truths
which seem to be much akin to the teachings of the prophets. ... Ye
men of Greece, ... do ye henceforth give heed to the words of the
Sibyl, ... predicting, as she does in a clear and patent manner,
the advent of our Savior Jesus Christ," quoting long verses of
Christian-forged nonsense. (Ib. chs. 37-38; ANF. i, 288-289.)


-- extracted from Joseph Wheless,
"FORGERY IN CHRISTIANITY", 1930