yummyfur

The problem is the papyrus fragment was not found in cracks and crevices in the wall, so your claim is false. The fragment was found in excavating through the earthen embankments of the inside portion of the wall, maybe you misread something and thought it was actually inside the wall, instead of on the inside side of the wall. The wall was pretty much covered over with earthen embankments during the seige and so there would be no means for Julian's army to stick stuff in "cracks and crevices", as it was not exposed.

Excavations at Dura Europas, is nine volumes, I think the rubbish pit was excavated in the 1933 excavations, so you probably only need the volume that covers this excavation. There is also the final reports from the excavations done after Rostovtzeff's death, by Idem and Perkins, these are 11 volumes.

A similar problem might occur for the Christian graphitti, depending on where it was found. For example many buildings close to the wall, had many of their rooms completely filled in and covered over by the earthen embankments built. If the Christian graphitti was found in such areas, there is no way it was left later by Julian's Army.

mountainman

Our prediction is that no papyrus containing NT text
will be found to be carbon-dated to the pre-Nicaean.

There would have been some eager paleographical eyes at the council
of Nicaea, attempting to ascertain for themselves whether ......

So the work of forgery was done not for 21st century handwriting experts
but for their fourth century equivalents, who had been summoned by
Constantine, immediately after taking the eastern empire as his own
and becoming the supreme emperor, to this council of Nicaea.

I have no problem with what you say here above.
I agree with the principles of paleography and can
understand it is an extremely valuable tool.

However, our thesis involves fiction composed by wicked men
as the primary reason for the creation of the new testament, in direct
accordance to the opinion of the Emperor Julian in 362 CE. Therefore,
because of this association to such wretched fiction forgery needs
to be allowed for, and thus handwriting analysis must be warned.

I put it to you that our agreement would have been complete,
even if it is for this one issue alone, if fiction and forgery had not
been involved.



Pete Brown

yummyfur

I agree it is a red herring by mountainman, but I want him to realize how very few manuscripts have been carbon dated.

Gamera

Do you have any evidence that anybody at the Nicean counsel had a sophisticated enough knowledge of paleography to even understand that script styles change with time and can be used to date mss, and whom do you think they were trying to fool, since no lay person would know the difference between the writing practices of the 2nd century and those of the 4th century.

I am unaware of any known forgery from the first half millenium using script style as a means to attempt to pass their work. And I am unaware of any person of the time using writing style as a means to debunk or authenticate a work.

I am unaware of the issue ever even being raised at the time.

But if you have an example that would certainly strengthen your case. And if you don't, it suggests your case is weak.

If the Nicean counsel was sophisticated enough to imitate out-of-date scripts, then there were scholars sophisticated enough to use that quality in making an analysis of authenticity.

Gamera

This makes my point. Julian hardly had historical truth as his prime motive.

mountainman

Constantine may have sponsored a number of literacists besides
Eusebius, and some of the results of the (at least 12 year) creation
program may not have been "harmonisable".

Canon was not an issue until subsequent councils.
Nicaea was about the beginnings of the new and strange religion.
It is where the fiction hit the fan.
Chaos ensued.

Constantine speaking through Eusebius speaking through Irenaeus.
The inference that this was actually written in the second century
and not in the fourth century, when reported, is yours.

Our thesis is that christianity is an imperial Roman religion
created out of the whole cloth by Constantine leading up
to the time when he became supreme, and violently thrust
upon the entire east-west Roman empire at Nicaea, by the
supreme emperor, who summoned attendees to Nicaea 325 CE.


Pete Brown

Gamera

Now that's a well planned conspiracy. Create a persona to create a persona to denounce a forged text, that doesn't get discovered for 2000 years, on the off chance that sombody might think the forged text was written before the Nicean counsel and use it to prove Christianity wasn't invented by the counsel. Wasn't there an easier way?

Constantine should have been a white collar criminal.

By the way, what is your actual evidence that Constantine played any role at Nicea? You'll find its a common assumption without any strong evidence behind it.

Gamera

Guys, I think it's time to apply Occham's Razor's to Mountainman's thesis. Using it it's more likely that space aliens created Christianity than that the Nicean counsel did.

mountainman

The rubbish tip backs on to the wall, so there is a mechanism
for the fragment to leave the manuscript in the wall and drop
into the rubbish tip (at some particular time).

Yes, there will be situations where the room may not have been accessible
for the period commencing from 265 CE, when the walls collapsed.

I am happy to explore the archeological possibilities and if such implies
that there does in fact exist reasonable evidence that christianity, or
even a fragment of christianity, existed in the pre-Nicaean epoch, then
my present hypothesis (that christianity is a Constantinian inspired fiction)
will have to be put aside.

I look forward to further information.

Even if it is direct refution by citation of appropriate archeological
procedural evidence. My position is capable or refutation, the
hypothesis can be falsified by such evidence. It is better to be
proved wrong and move on, that be in possession of a false idea
thinking it is perfect and irrefutable.

I am sorry if I did not outline this before, and if my manner of
argument has been too brazen at times, for others here. My
intention is to live and learn, and I have learnt alot in the last
few months discussions.


Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au

yummyfur

What about the fact that the wall is totally covered with earthen embankments during the seige don't you understand??? The rubbish pit is merely a shallow pit dug into the earth and filled with rubbish, then covered over by earthen embankments, there is no way for something to fall into it, it is not some hollow thing, you probably need to understand what a rubbish pit is archeologically speaking. again the wall is not exposed!!!!! there is no way for anyone to later to stick a whole manuscript in it.


I have already given you the citations, why should I do what is basic work for anyone with a hypothesis.