mountainman

Thanks for the tips DCH.


I have highlighted the three sets above in blue.

1) στ[αυρωθεντ]α translated/emended as "the crucified",

2) Ιη(σου) translated/emended as Jesus,

3) Θ(εο)υ translated/emended as God.


The usual expectation is that these letter groups and the associated over-bar are to be read as nomina sacra however my primary question relates to the first instance, where σταυρος translates to either cross or stauros, yet the translator here has given "crucified [one]".

Toto

No one has ever pretended that. Some people may have pretended to treat the question seriously enough to discuss it, but as far as I am concerned, we are going to revert to the rule that says the question is closed and may not be raised again in this forum without substantial new evidence, because the very idea that Constantine forged Christian documents is too flimsy to waste our time with.

That leaves all these threads that Pete has started trying to chip away at the evidence, but so far none of them are getting him anywhere.

Toto

Did you bother to read your own link? At p. 8-9 of Kraeling's article there is a discussion of why he interprets this as the crucified one. If you are going to raise the question, at least tell us why you have an issue with that expert opinion.

mountainman

From p.27-28 (The Greek and Arabic do not paste from the PDF)


Kraeling appears to be dismissing the words τον στα which are written on the fragment, and then assuming his conclusion that Tatian was writing this using a colourful expression. Furthermore, the following sentence of the explanation (highlighted in red above) which also assumes the conclusion, is hardly anything more than apologetics at its best.

FWIW the question concerning the appearance (via the emendation of Kraeling et al) of "the crucified" in Dura Fragment 24 was sent to a professional linguist (who I will not name) and resulted in the following response:

stephan huller

"Professional linguist?" What's that? A step up from a cunning linguist?

Toto

Pete - what is the point? Are you challenging the use nomina sacra? the interpretation of this particular one? Does it matter whether Tatian wrote this?

Did this professional linguist give permission to quote his words but not his name?

aa5874

The question of the OP is "How secure is the terminus ad quem chronology of Dura Fragment 24"?

1. The Dura fragment 24 has no known provenance before it was found.

2. The Dura fragment 24 is not known to be missing from any known manuscript of antiquity.

3. The passage found in the Dura fragment 24 is not mentioned by any existing manuscripts before 256 CE.

4. There is no written record of the siege of Dura.

5. There is nothing in or on the Dura Fragment that shows it could NOT have been composed after 256 CE.

The Terminus ad quem of the Dura Fragment 24 is not secure at all.

stephan huller

Other than the manuscript existed before 256 CE and most probably goes back to an original gospel harmony dated at least to the end of the century.

spin

Whatever your primary interest is, you need to state your view on the significance of the bar in the fragment. Discussing the στα requires you to discuss it in its context, which includes the bar, the article which goes with the στα and its grammatical implications.

Is there a clear indication given the bar's usage with the cases of Ιη and Θυ that we are dealing with an abbreviation of the nomen sacrum variety?

If not, why not?

If so, then do you accept that the στα, whatever its significance is, is a nomen sacrum?

And that this is a christian document?

Under these conditions we can examine your primary interest, the στα.

mountainman

There appears to many creases and miniature crevices in the fragment itself and therefore I think that this question may be answered both ways. The argument against the use of the overbar (but see also below) is that what is being read as an overbar could in fact be a crease (but perhaps not in all cases).

On the basis of the above comment, I think that an argument may be made that these may not necessarily - in all three cases - be [Christian] nomina sacra. I think they need to be looked at on a case by case basis. The argument has already (obviously) been made that we are looking at three instances of Christian nomina sacra, but can it be challenged? I am not sure.

However also, AFAIK the Greeks used an overbar to signify numbers, and that - for example - the over-barred "Ιη" may also represent the number 18. I am not sure of the numerical equivalent of the other two terms. This possibility may also need to be addressed, even if it is dismissed.




Well isn't this the final question to be answered!!

If in fact one, two or three of these terms are Christian nomina sacra then it is therefore likely that the document is Christian. On the other hand ...

Outside the appearance (or otherwise) of these nomina sacra we have the terms:

1) the name "Salome"
2) the "Sabbath"
3) the city "Erinmathea"

These alone do not seem to provide a secure "Christian context", although they may certainly provide a Jewish one. I don't see any of the other terms in the fragment can assist, but I could be mistaken.

Well see the above comments. I have not seen a three-letter nomina sacra term στα being used for "cross" or "stauros" - only the two character term. So this is new to me.

As I have outlined above, the argument that this is a Christian document must be reliant on these over-barred characters being (Christian) nomina sacra because once these are removed I can see nothing overtly Christian staring out of the text, but rather what looks to be Jewish.

I am not making any pronouncements or claims here. I don't know the sure and certain answers to any of these questions above. The primary question related to the appearance of the "crucified [one]" which seems to be a novel interpretation. The secondary question as to whether all these three terms definitely and certainly appear with a scribal over-bar or whether creases and/or crevices are being misattributed (in one or more instances) as over-bars, is also OPEN at the moment.