Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 09-30-2013, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watersbeak

.... and how curious that similar finds, other "Christian" scraps, were not found anywhere else in Dura Europos, and how amazing that of all the buckets of earth, from this excavation, Mary Hopkins just happened to find the one bucket with a noteworthy discovery. Serendipity indeed. What are the odds of finding, in examining a single bucket of rubble, a document of religious significance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clark Hopkins

The Discovery of Dura-Europos,
Clark Hopkins,
Yale University Press
1979

[106]

...in one of the baskets of finds from the embankment, behind (west of) Block L8 and not far from Tower 18, a piece of parchment scarcely three square appeared. Susan [Hopkins], compiling the catalogue, entered it on the daily register and made the usual attempt to decipher and identify what she could. The little piece, not badly crumpled, was written in clear, legible hand, as far as the complete letters were concerned.

.. [107]

It was one of those chance finds, a fragment of parchment two blocks away and on the other side of the Great Gate from the Christian building. How it got into the debris at that point remains a mystery, and how it happened to be preserved and then discovered is another. Since it was impossible to sift the great mass of the embankment, we depended on the sharp eyes of workmen. A small piece of parchment, dirt brown, appearing in the shovel dirt and dust required good fortune as well as sharp eyes.

The find was made on March 5, 1933, and there was an enthusiastic but unsuccessful searching in the Bible to find the appropriate passage. We found readings close and tantalizing. Clearly we had some sort of gospel text, something indubitably connected with the Christian community. Susan made the transcription, as we took photographs and sent parchment and copies on to Yale, still not recognizing its extraordinary significance.

What I don't understand is that there was not an immediate enthusiastic searching of the location where this was found. Wouldn't one want to cross examine the bearer of the lucky basket prize as to where the material in the basket had come from? Wouldn't one want to immediately go to that location and conduct a personal search of the immediate vicinity?

Were any photographs of the excavation taken that day? Considering the importance of their find, which was not apparently lost to them, why did they not conduct a personal inspection of the locale, and why did they not round all the workmen up and ask them the question? Who in would not have done that immediately? It just does not make sense to NOT make a personal check of the site of such a major find.

Thus I do not assess a 100% security on the terminus ad quem, although, as I have stated above, the hypothesis of a secure date must be earnestly investigated and incorporated into any theoretical conclusion(s).

spin · 09-30-2013, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by watersbeak

.... and how curious that similar finds, other "Christian" scraps, were not found anywhere else in Dura Europos, and how amazing that of all the buckets of earth, from this excavation, Mary Hopkins just happened to find the one bucket with a noteworthy discovery. Serendipity indeed. What are the odds of finding, in examining a single bucket of rubble, a document of religious significance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clark Hopkins

The Discovery of Dura-Europos,
Clark Hopkins,
Yale University Press
1979

[106]

...in one of the baskets of finds from the embankment, behind (west of) Block L8 and not far from Tower 18, a piece of parchment scarcely three square appeared. Susan [Hopkins], compiling the catalogue, entered it on the daily register and made the usual attempt to decipher and identify what she could. The little piece, not badly crumpled, was written in clear, legible hand, as far as the complete letters were concerned.

.. [107]

It was one of those chance finds, a fragment of parchment two blocks away and on the other side of the Great Gate from the Christian building. How it got into the debris at that point remains a mystery, and how it happened to be preserved and then discovered is another. Since it was impossible to sift the great mass of the embankment, we depended on the sharp eyes of workmen. A small piece of parchment, dirt brown, appearing in the shovel dirt and dust required good fortune as well as sharp eyes.

The find was made on March 5, 1933, and there was an enthusiastic but unsuccessful searching in the Bible to find the appropriate passage. We found readings close and tantalizing. Clearly we had some sort of gospel text, something indubitably connected with the Christian community. Susan made the transcription, as we took photographs and sent parchment and copies on to Yale, still not recognizing its extraordinary significance.

What I don't understand is that there was not an immediate enthusiastic searching of the location where this was found. Wouldn't one want to cross examine the bearer of the lucky basket prize as to where the material in the basket had come from? Wouldn't one want to immediately go to that location and conduct a personal search of the immediate vicinity?

Were any photographs of the excavation taken that day? Considering the importance of their find, which was not apparently lost to them, why did they not conduct a personal inspection of the locale, and why did they not round all the workmen up and ask them the question? Who in would not have done that immediately? It just does not make sense to NOT make a personal check of the site of such a major find.

Thus I do not assess a 100% security on the terminus ad quem, although, as I have stated above, the hypothesis of a secure date must be earnestly investigated and incorporated into any theoretical conclusion(s).

(Click me.)

mountainman · 09-30-2013, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juma

Come on. Without C14 test there is no certain dating of this document.

Precisely.

Ignorance is not a good basis to argue from.

Sorry, I forgot that you were personally there on March 5, 1933, to see the fragment, "not badly crumpled" and "quite legible" being unearthed after almost seventeen centuries of being buried deep under bricks and rubble.

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 12:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

One example from Josephus, that occurs to me off the top of my head, is the lineage of various figures called Izates (or Isates or Izaates and other variants) the King(s) of the Parthian client kingdom of Adiabene, who converted to Judaism.

How the fuck can that provide the eta??? You don't know. But at least it does start with a iota. Well, not good enough, is it. The problem is the combination of iota-eta, which is actually quite rare as I hope to have already demonstrated.

There are three (not one) variant nomina sacra for Big Iēsous:

IH (iota-eta), IC (iota-sigma) such as I_S for Izates , and IHC (iota-eta-sigma)

aa5874 · 10-01-2013, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juma

Come on. Without C14 test there is no certain dating of this document.

Precisely.

C 14 testing does not provide a certain date for a document. C 14 testing gives a time period for the life of the Papyrus plant or the animal skin used to produce the "paper".

You will not find C 14 dates for a range of 2 years but in the region of 50 years

Terminus ad quem for ancients texts can be known or deduced from known documented events such as volcanic eruptions.

For example, the documented volcanic eruption of Mount Vesuvius c 79 CE covered parts of Italy. The terminus ad quem for any manuscripts found buried under the volcanic ash is 79 CE.

stephan huller · 10-01-2013, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Thanks for this fascinating information about the "Flying Jesus".

But you can't just take bits and pieces out of context from sources and put them together willy nilly to suit a hypothesis. The fact that certain traditions - very old traditions - viewed Jesus as a wholly supernatural being does not prove anything with respect to whether they 'believed in him or not.' A Catholic priest can turn to his flock and say 'you are all the living Jesus' and still believe that Jesus was part of a real historical event. You owe to the truth to try and understand sources in their original context rather than raping the material and using it the way you see fit.

stephan huller · 10-01-2013, 12:15 AM

Quote:

IH (iota-eta), IC (iota-sigma), and IHC (iota-eta-sigma)

I don't have a clue what you are going after here. I don't think you know what you are going after. You are just groping in the dark now hoping the assault of truth fades away so you can get back to your habitual nonsense.

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 12:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The fact that certain traditions - very old traditions - viewed Jesus as a wholly supernatural being does not prove anything with respect to whether they 'believed in him or not.'

But let's just be quite clear that Jesus is not explicitly mentioned either in Codex Vaticanus or in Dura Fragment 24. The situation is that a certain code is explicit in both these manuscripts, and this code is being interpreted as standing for the name of "Jesus".

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Confirmation Bias
...

Denialism

Technically there's middle ground somewhere. Where?

We'll let you know when you arrive.

You'll need a telescope.

Toto · 10-01-2013, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Denialism

Technically there's middle ground somewhere. Where?

In most fields of study, you would set up a controlled experiment to test your different hypotheses. It's hard to do that in ancient history, so there is a tendency to rely on a consensus of smart people who have taken the time to study the field intensely, and who have no overriding biases.

You need to take all of their research into account, rather than just wildly speculating about Syriac nomina sacra (try googling that combination of words.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.