mountainman

The WIKI article on the Dura Parchment 24 commences with the statement that it "is a Greek uncial manuscript of the New Testament" but then later qualifies this statement with "The codex is not, strictly speaking, a manuscript of the New Testament — it contains only phrases from the text of the Gospels." The history of the fragment is given as:


For some further preliminary background (as at 1935) see A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON FROM DURA EDITED WITH FACSIMILE, TRANSCRIPTION, AND INTRODUCTION BY CARL H. KRAELING, PH.D. [1935]

Here is an image of Dura Parchment 24:



Chronology of Dura Fragment 24:
(1.0) Argument via archaeological "in situ"

A more detailed description is provided by Kaeling [1935]:



Chronology of Dura Fragment 24:
(2.0) Argument via palaeography

The 1935 report linked to above discloses that the handwriting is not from a "literary" but a "business" hand.
The following summarises both the chronology arguments (1 & 2):



The idea of this OP is to examine and discuss the evidence that is available to us in regard to the Dura Fragment 24
and to examine and discuss any other possibilities that may reflect upon the question of just how secure is it's terminus ad quem chronology.

I would like to thank avi for reminding me about this fragment and for mentioning some "photographs".

I would like to see the photographic record furnished by Clark Hopkins. Could we get some links?

Finally I would like to contribute two preliminary questions related to the estimation of the chronology of Dura Fragment 24.

Chronology of Dura Fragment 24:
(3.0) Argument via science: C14 and Ink Analysis

Have a good look at the photograph of the fragment above.


(3.1) Why doesn't someone take a fragment of the parchment down to the C14 lab?

(3.2) Why doesn't someone analyse the ink like they did with gJudas?

stephan huller

But doesn't the date of the manuscript depend on the date Dura Europos was destroyed? What date for the destruction of Dura Europos is mm proposing?

spin

...unless the fragment is a modern fake produced by a nefarious Yale academic rather than found in situ under the fill of the outer wall as the archaeological report tries to make us believe. The conspiracy could easily be revealed with a C14 analysis which removed a section of the material.

(In case you need it: )

Sheshbazzar

....or is authentic and was simply waded up and tossed there by those who put up the embankment in the 3rd century.
It's existence or authenticity proves nothing about the state of, or beliefs of 'Christianity' in the 1st or 2nd centuries CE.

That it was waded up first seems to me at least, to indicate whoever disposed of it held a degree of disrespect or contempt for its content,

avi

That's what some snake oil salesmen would have you believe.

The idea that the date depends upon the destruction of Dura Europos, requires belief in the legend that the city was never examined, never excavated, never cleaned, from the third century to the twentieth century.

Please read, as you are fond of instructing others, about Julian's last military battle, his assault on the Mesopotamian capital. He departed from Constantinople, with many "Christian" soldiers. They stopped outside Dura Europos, for one week, to pay homage to the fallen emperor, a teenager, who had rushed headlong into battle against the same foe.

It is inconceivable to me, that at least some of those soldiers did not pay their respects to those fallen heroes, who had defended the single most important military outpost in that region, an outpost which had been crushed, and destroyed, by the very same opponent, that they now sought to punish, one hundred years later.

Emperor Julian's soldiers would have found a dusty, dirty city, buried in a foot of sand, after a century of neglect. It would have taken a whole day, to sweep out the debris, and paint the pictures on the wall. Unlike the soldiers of the third century, most of whom were followers of Mithras, these were Christians, participants in the official state religion. It is perfectly logical for them to have departed, in haste, to continue forward into battle, with their general, the Emperor of the Roman Empire. Thus, the paintings are clumsy, and amateurish, they had no time to revise their artwork, the bugles had sounded.

avi

No such inquiry would lead to that conclusion. Sorry. Wrong answer.

Analysis of the amount of Carbon 14, only shows the age of the plant material, from which the papyrus was made. A person could take a tiny fragment of parchment from the Egyptian dump site, scratch out a few symbols, and voila! an ancient document. The papyrus is old enough all right. But that tells us nothing about the age of the document, i.e. the date when the text was placed upon it.

Had a forger obtained a sliver of papyrus from the Egyptian dump site, it could have been a full two thousand years old, or a mere 1500 years old. What is needed is the date when someone put quill with ink to papyrus. Chemical spectroscopic analysis of the nanoquantities of various rare earths in the ink found on the Dura Europos document, compared with ink from one of the other docs found there, would be more instructive, but even then, how would we know whether or not the document had been written there, or transported there, and if the latter, then, WHEN had it been conveyed?

Try again.

mountainman

...... or is authentic, but was introduced to the top or edges of the fill a century later, and then reburied during the intervening 1500 years.



Other possibilities must also include a "conspiracy of time and a ball of paper" in such a way that no foul play is suggested.

C14 analysis will either confirm or question the current terminus ad quem dating of Dura Fragment 24. If the fragment was deposited at the edges or top of the fill (and became excavated with the fill), or was somehow naturally introduced to fill material a century later, then the C14 date might be later than the destruction of Dura Europos.


To clarify the issue I have been doing a lot of background reading about the discovery of the fragment. Are there any original pictures from 1935?

Here is a diagram so far. I have not included the rampart-fill. Any information would be appreciated.

Thanks

Toto

Or the opposite.

Christians of the time are said to have had the practice of taking a snippet of scripture and wadding it up and placing it in an amulet as a good luck charm - because the written word had magical powers.

stephan huller

.

Cra - zy. All these amazingly complicated explanations. The obvious answers always wrong. Its ancient Colombo episodes back to back, one after another. Dura Europa, Mount Athos, everywhere.

Sheshbazzar

'are said'__ inquiring minds wish to know, Whom was it that said this?
and where is this saying to be found?

Are such pre-257 CE 'Christian amulets' common on the ground?
How many surviving examples of these pre-257 CE 'Christian amulets' can you account for?

Isn't such script, if a 'good luck charm 'amulet', usually found to be encased within some manner of protective container? Why would that container, the 'amulet' proper, be absent from the situ?

Are the dimensions and paleography of this bit of script consistent with those found within the other pre-257 CE 'Christian amulets' that have been located?