Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-01-2013, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by watersbeak

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin, in post 118

Various odd fragments are on record some of which indicate that soldiers functioned as a species of police in the region. There were also a number of inscriptions of religious and military significance.

Thanks, spin.

Any dates on those documents?

I can envision at least five large scale military campaigns undertaken in Eastern Syria, after Julian, and before Timur the lame.

Any one of those could have involved encampment at the former Roman Fortress, with rapid erection of a protective wall, using the rubble from the previous wall. Why would an army of a few hundred seek to construct a wall to protect themselves from the Western border? I suspect you know the answer.

I don't deny that it is possible that the wall was left undisturbed for 15 centuries, I just don't find it plausible, given the ferocity of attack by Mongols, Turks, Egyptians, and Romans, among others, invading Eastern Syria, seeking control of the Euphrates, during those fifteen centuries.

Any geological evidence found in those "mud bricks" at the top of the wall? I would have thought, probably incorrectly, that the Roman Legionaires defending Dura Europos, would have ordered the townspeople to create a supply of bricks to be used on constructing a proper defensive fortification, long before the ultimate attack. Such bricks would have been properly BAKED, not mud. Mud bricks sounds to me, like a hasty afterthought, as would have been appropriate for an invading army, seeking refuge from arrows directed toward the men, gathered around the campfires.

I think it highly improbable that Dura Europos' strategic location on the bluff above the river, would have gone unnoticed by fifteen centuries of invading armies.

Sam

As you've done not a scrap of research in the field and refuse to be counseled on the subject, your fact-free assessments of the evidence are of as much significance as sticking your hand into a bucket of water and pulling it out to have a noticeable effect. Go and read something substantial on the subject of Dura, please, and stop wasting people's time. For example, there is a reasonable overview in Peter M. Edwell, Between Rome and Persia (or via: amazon.co.uk), Routledge 2008, chapter 4.

spin · 10-01-2013, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The story about the destruction of the city is based on archaeology, not hearsay.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos

Quote:

There is no written record of the siege of Dura.

Stories about what happened are based on presumptions and guessing using artifacts and other articles found by archaeologists.

You can happily say this in all your anti-scholarly naivete. The rest of us try to get the facts.

You don't know what you are talking about. You are not credible. You promote fallacies.

It was absurd to claim 100% probabilty that the Dura fragment was not composed after c 256-257 CE

Now, you claim that 14000 coins were found at Dura. You forgot to mention the actual condition of the coins.

You very well know that it is NOT the quantity of coins that are found but the quality--it is the condition of the coins that really matters.

See http://ddc.aub.edu.lb/projects/archa...ytus08/17.html

Michael I. Rostovtzeff: Res Gestae Divi Saporis and Dura

Quote:

..Finally the coins, though abundant, are difficult to date precisely and to assign to corresponding mints.

No wonder that the reconstruction of this period by modern historians, based as it is on such evidence, varies greatly and is far from satisfactory....

In effect, it cannot be proven that none of the coins could not have been minted after c 256-257 CE when all identification of some coins were completely eroded.

It's good that you have found the Rostovtzeff Berytus article. You're a step along from Watersbeak, who won't read anything, preferring to waffle. If you read the following article by Bellinger you'd know that a coin from 256 was found in "hasty burials .. of soldiers killed in the defense of the town".

Given the good distribution of coins across the site, a number of hoards found, and from all locations the end of date range prior to 257, the possession of coins dating 255 & 256 by people who died with them in the defense of the city, we have a strong date indication. History likes strong dating indications.

But your need for things to be proven to a perfect degree will lead you to abandon all reasonable analysis and lose touch with the real world.

spin · 10-01-2013, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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 ....

A C14 test on the Dura Parchment 24 would not be hard to perform and obviously represents an INDEPENDENT controlled experiment related to the dating of DF24. But I cant see this happening. The problem appears to be one of overcoming the resistance of those who think that such an independent test is not required, since they already ascribe a 100% certitude to the terminus ad quem of DF24 via the archaeological report.

The closed archaeological context renders the less accurate C14 testing of little value.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

.... 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.

Carl Herman Kraeling (1897–1966), theologian, historian, and an American archaeologist, earned his B.D. from the Lutheran Theological Seminary in Philadelphia in 1926 and taught New Testament Studies at the Yale University.

I don't think Kraeling is going to pass any "overriding bias test".

The problem is that Kraeling's analysis comes in 80 years prior to your need for him to be biased to your analysis. Your complaint is nonsense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Which of the following is hearsay?

7) The Dura diatessaron was found under this defensive embankment according to the editio princeps of the document (Kraeling's monograph).

Kraeling relies on Hopkins.

Yet Kraeling was intimately acquainted with the entire site, having written on numerous aspects including the final report on the synagogue. You want Kraeling to be biased, because you have no case to defend, so you merely ad hominem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

It was found in the embankment according to the archaeologist running the excavation at the time of discovery, Hopkins p.107

Hopkins essentially relies on the hearsay of his workmen.

He did not witness the fragment being unearthed.
His wife (or someone else) "found it in a basket".

Perhaps there was a conspiracy by the Syrian workman on the site in March 1933 to supply a fake fragment of a christian document to the gullible foreigners.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

[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.

No mention is made of any enthusiastic but unsuccessful searching of the excavation site for further fragments.

Why the non sequitur?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hopkins

We found readings close and tantalizing. Clearly we had some sort of gospel text, something indubitably connected with the Christian community.

And yet nobody interrogated the workmen involved to determine a more precise location of the find, or to conduct a personal review of that precise location just in case the fragment was not alone.

These circumstances of the fragment being found "in a basket of finds from the excavation of the embankment" is a type of hearsay , and it must reduce the certainty of any terminus ad quem by some margin from the 100% as ascribed by Kraeling. Would a 90% security for the terminus ad quem date of the Dura Fragment 24 be some form of "middle ground"?

Or are these 100% certainty rednecks unwilling to consider any other alternative possibilities?

Again with this banally mindless 100% nonsense.

spin · 10-01-2013, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I have no problem with the source of this fragment having been a translation from Syriac. The problem arises with the nomina sacra. If you wish to deny the existence of the gospels at this time, how do you justify the iota-eta (and the sigma-tau-alpha)?

the justification is trivial:

Hypothetical Syriac One Gospel Original

1: Someone invents One Gospel in Syriac.
2: Someone invents a Greek translation.
3: Someone invents the Greek nomina sacra.
4: The Dura Parchment 24 is copied from 3
5: Someone invents the Four Gospels

For the record, AFAIK at the moment the process is thought to be as follows:

Hypothetical Greek Four Gospel Original

1: Someone invents Four Gospels in Greek.
2. Someone invents the Greek nomina sacra.
3. Someone harmonizes the Four to One.
4: The Dura Parchment 24 is copied from 3

FWIW my working hypothesis is that we are dealing with a 90% probability
that the Dura Parchment 24 is dated prior to the mid 3rd century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

Probably not. I won't be too interested until you get a lot closer.

90% is my final offer spin. As you know I have moved from somewhere below 50% to this present admission of 90%. That's quite a change of position for me and I have thanked everyone. I think its time for you and a few other people to get down off that 100% pie-in-the-sky ivory tower you're all sitting on. In the business of ancient history NOTHING IS CERTAIN.

In the real world people dismiss the wedge you are trying to employ here as ridiculous.

spin · 10-01-2013, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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".

You have a problem with this?

No I don't.

The earliest extant manuscript evidence is encrypted.

The "sacred names" have been universally suppressed via codification.

Even by the heretics!

You are yet to provide a functional alternative to the obvious relation between the nomen sacrum ΙΗ and Jesus. Try, look for an alternative. Use all the Greek texts you can find. Show the forum that you are not simply being refractory without a tinge of reason to cloak yourself in.

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I have no problem with the source of this fragment having been a translation from Syriac. The problem arises with the nomina sacra. If you wish to deny the existence of the gospels at this time, how do you justify the iota-eta (and the sigma-tau-alpha)?

the justification is trivial:

Hypothetical Syriac One Gospel Original

1: Someone invents One Gospel in Syriac.
2: Someone invents a Greek translation.
3: Someone invents the Greek nomina sacra.
4: The Dura Parchment 24 is copied from 3
5: Someone invents the Four Gospels

For the record, AFAIK at the moment the process is thought to be as follows:

Hypothetical Greek Four Gospel Original

1: Someone invents Four Gospels in Greek.
2. Someone invents the Greek nomina sacra.
3. Someone harmonizes the Four to One.
4: The Dura Parchment 24 is copied from 3

FWIW my working hypothesis is that we are dealing with a 90% probability
that the Dura Parchment 24 is dated prior to the mid 3rd century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

Probably not. I won't be too interested until you get a lot closer.

90% is my final offer spin. As you know I have moved from somewhere below 50% to this present admission of 90%. That's quite a change of position for me and I have thanked everyone. I think its time for you and a few other people to get down off that 100% pie-in-the-sky ivory tower you're all sitting on. In the business of ancient history NOTHING IS CERTAIN.

In the real world people dismiss the wedge you are trying to employ here as ridiculous.

But upon what interpretation of the evidence (and "baskets of hearsay") in the real world would such people rely?

Oh I see. You continue to seek refuge in the 100% certainty of Biblical scholarship to answer the problems of ancient history.

What a perfect demonstration of 100% faith in the interpretations of the available evidence by Biblical scholars you have.

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are yet to provide a functional alternative to the obvious relation between the nomen sacrum ΙΗ and Jesus.

Mainstream has yet to provide a functional theory for the "early" universal use of the nomina sacra by both the orthodox and the heretics. After reading through Larry Hurtado's article, I was amazed to find his alternative summarised as "Christ Worship".

Quote:

Try, look for an alternative. Use all the Greek texts you can find. Show the forum that you are not simply being refractory without a tinge of reason to cloak yourself in.

The answer may be as simple as the preservation of the LXX "Joshua Code" into its new reincarnation under the NT "Jesus Code".

mountainman · 10-01-2013, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

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 ....

A C14 test on the Dura Parchment 24 would not be hard to perform and obviously represents an INDEPENDENT controlled experiment related to the dating of DF24. But I cant see this happening. The problem appears to be one of overcoming the resistance of those who think that such an independent test is not required, since they already ascribe a 100% certitude to the terminus ad quem of DF24 via the archaeological report.

The closed archaeological context renders the less accurate C14 testing of little value.

///

Again with this banally mindless 100% nonsense.

Mr 100% Certainty,

In this case the C14 represents an independent professional check on the date of the fragment. If the C14 result were to be something like 350 CE plus or minus 60 years it would present a paradox that Dura Fragment 24 was buried under the wall a century before its papyrus was harvested.

spin · 10-01-2013, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

I have no problem with the source of this fragment having been a translation from Syriac. The problem arises with the nomina sacra. If you wish to deny the existence of the gospels at this time, how do you justify the iota-eta (and the sigma-tau-alpha)?

the justification is trivial:

Hypothetical Syriac One Gospel Original

1: Someone invents One Gospel in Syriac.
2: Someone invents a Greek translation.
3: Someone invents the Greek nomina sacra.
4: The Dura Parchment 24 is copied from 3
5: Someone invents the Four Gospels

For the record, AFAIK at the moment the process is thought to be as follows:

Hypothetical Greek Four Gospel Original

1: Someone invents Four Gospels in Greek.
2. Someone invents the Greek nomina sacra.
3. Someone harmonizes the Four to One.
4: The Dura Parchment 24 is copied from 3

FWIW my working hypothesis is that we are dealing with a 90% probability
that the Dura Parchment 24 is dated prior to the mid 3rd century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

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.

Probably not. I won't be too interested until you get a lot closer.

90% is my final offer spin. As you know I have moved from somewhere below 50% to this present admission of 90%. That's quite a change of position for me and I have thanked everyone. I think its time for you and a few other people to get down off that 100% pie-in-the-sky ivory tower you're all sitting on. In the business of ancient history NOTHING IS CERTAIN.

In the real world people dismiss the wedge you are trying to employ here as ridiculous.

But upon what interpretation of the evidence (and "baskets of hearsay") in the real world would such people rely?

Oh I see. You continue to seek refuge in the 100% certainty of Biblical scholarship to answer the problems of ancient history.

What a perfect demonstration of 100% faith in the interpretations of the available evidence by Biblical scholars you have.

Waffle.

spin · 10-01-2013, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are yet to provide a functional alternative to the obvious relation between the nomen sacrum ΙΗ and Jesus.

Mainstream has yet to provide a functional theory for the "early" universal use of the nomina sacra by both the orthodox and the heretics. After reading through Larry Hurtado's article, I was amazed to find his alternative summarised as "Christ Worship".

As you can't concentrate. Let me ask you yet again: where did the ΙΗ come from???

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Try, look for an alternative. Use all the Greek texts you can find. Show the forum that you are not simply being refractory without a tinge of reason to cloak yourself in.

The answer may be as simple as the preservation of the LXX "Joshua Code" into its new reincarnation under the NT "Jesus Code".

Waffle.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.