aa5874

It should be obvious that there is NO known Diatessaron composed by Tatian with the same words found on the Dura Europa Fragment 24.

If there were matching words in the so-called Tatian Diatessaron then Carl H. Kraeling, C. Bradford Welles, Plooij, Parker, Taylor, and Goodacre would be in agreement.


Scholars are merely speculating.

But what is most fascinating and rather strange is that although Justin Martyr wrote about the Gospel called the Memoirs of the Apostles BEFORE Tatian and it is shown that the Memoirs of the Apostles is similar to a Diatessaron or may have been an early version yet NO credit is given to Justin for exposing the diversity of the Gospel story since the mid 2nd century.

Justin writings PREDATE Tatian and Irenaeus and is the FIRST known writings to mention a Gospel that contains stories and chronology of events NOT found in the Canonised Gospels.


Justin's Dialogue with Trypho LXVIII Origen corroborates that there was a Gospel of the Disciples with a story of a Cave birth of Jesus.

Origen's Against Celsus 1 We have writings attributed directly to Justin Martyr where he is identified as the author and where it is shown that his Gospel, the Memoirs of the Apostles, is SIMILAR to a Diatessaron and NOTHING directly from Tatian that even mentions Jesus, the Jesus story, the Gospels or the Diatessaron.

It is clear that Justin Martyr had a Gospel that was different to those in the Canon.

It is clear that Justin was BEFORE Tatian.

It is clear that Justin wrote BEFORE there were Gospels called gMatthew, gMark, gLuke and gJohn.

Justin Martyr's Gospel, the Memoirs of the Apostles, is most likely the earliest form of what was LATER called the Diatessaron since most of the stories in the Memoirs are also found in the Four Canonised Gospels.

spin

Let me say this once again.

Reading from Ammianus Marcellinus, Julian marched along the north bank of the Euphrates from Callinicum (23.3.7) to Cercusium (23.5.1) at the junction of the Khabur ("Abora") and the Euphrates (still north of the river) across the Abora (23.5.4) on to Zaitha (again north bank) where Philip murdered Gordian III, headed further down the river toward Dura (on the south side). The next indicator of movement has Nevitta on the right with legions skirting the banks of the Euphrates (24.1.2), ie the army was still on the north bank. After two days they reached Dura "situated on the river bank" (24.1.5) (on the south side), then four days later they crossed the river to capture Anatha which lay on the south bank (24.1.6). This is the first time Ammianus Marcellinus indicates that they crossed the river. He does not indicate that anyone crossed the river at Dura and went into the deserted city, let alone that anyone excavated the fill that occupied the site under which both the frescoes and the fragment of diatessaron were found.

Pissing on about Julian and Dura is an utter waste of time. It has no substance to it, other than some forlorn hope of claiming that someone kinda mighta been responsible for sticking the stuff under the fill over a century after it was placed there.

Duvduv

I think it is pure exaggeration to claim that a discovered single scrap demolishes anything. Spare us.....

mountainman

The narrative does not preclude the possibility. The city was once Roman and Julian was at war, attempting to take back the territory that had fallen to the Persians. The alternative is to assume Julian and the army took pains to create another temporary (defensible) camp over the river, and looked at the abandoned city for a few days which does not make sense since the city was still an eminently defensible site.

The alternative possibility stated above does not relate to any excavation. It relates to the fragment being thrown away near the city gate, and being a copy of Christian texts available in the 50 Constantine Bibles (eg Vaticanus, hence the correspondence of readings: [The text twice agrees with Codex Vaticanus and Bohairic against everything else (in line 1. added αι before γυναικης; in line 9. και between αγαθος and δικαιος is omitted).])

The forlorn claim is that "there is no reasonable doubt that the fragment is really Tatian".

There is in fact great doubt that this fragment is a copy of Tatian (c. 120–180 CE).

spin

It is extremely probable, but you've staked your recent years on such meagre hopes to the contrary. To cross the river there had to be orders to permit it, as the river is sufficiently wide to need the army boats.

Your omission of the bolded section though merely points to your desire to quibble, as you'd be pushing shit uphill hoping that the diatessaron fragment could have been deposited under the rubble fill of the street. What you might like to posit is that someone in Julian's army just happened to have a fragment of Greek diatessaron, who just happened to go over the river in a possible crossing unhinted at in the sources, to climb to the top of the rubble fill in the vicinity of tower 18 and somehow deposit the fragment sufficiently down into the fill such that it could be found by workers in 1933 at the end of their diggings for the season at the bottom of a trench.

Here is a section from Kraeling's write up of the find:

[T2]it fell, or was dumped afterwards, into a great embankment of earth, ashes and rubbish constructed along the inner face of the western city wall by the Roman garrison, in preparation for a siege. Here it was protected from the elements by the material heaped over and around it, by the layer of mud bricks with which the embankment was covered, and by the desert sand which eventually covered the whole city. Kraeling's monograph, p.3.[/T2]

In the unlikely event that a soldier did get across the river, there is no way that he could have deposited the fragment where it was found.

It was found under the rubble placed there for defensive purposes before the city was destroyed. There is no wiggle room for your nonsense.

I don't give a shit if it was from a copy of Tatian's efforts. It could have been written by an ancient Willy Wonker for all I care. It is the plain evidence that falsifies the nonsense you have persistently indulged yourself in for too many wasted years, that you have performed a song and dance about here in various guises to skirt around complaints that you have been fruitlessly banging this gong beyond all decorum. You keep posting these clandestine little queries couched in such a way that everyone knows what you are vainly fishing for without actually spelling it out, given the ban. To me you've violated the ban in every one of these fishing expeditions in which you coyly ask leading questions hoping to glean some nugget about that which you can't deal with yourself.

:tombstone:

There are three sets of letters in the fragment with a horizontal line over them in the fragment. What are they and what do you expect about the letter groups thereunder, based on the indications in the new testament manuscript record?

avi

nope.

left it empty.

Desert winds covered everything, during 16 centuries

Duvduv

Comeon, Spin. How woul it be less likely than someone earlier just happening to have one meager page, and that from the entire site only one scrap fragment remained from those Christians?
Anyway, I guess it's better than the wild speculation about a second century Marcion from whom NOTHING remains.

DCHindley

Like this?

[Ζεβεδ]αι̣ο̣υ και Σαλωμη κ[α]ι̣ α̣ι γ̣υ̣ν̣αικες	[Zebed]ee and Salome and the wives
[των συ]ν̣ακολουθησανων α̣[υτ]ω υ απο της	[of those who] had followed him from
[Γαλιλαι]α̣ς ορωσαι τον στ[αυρωθεντ]α. υυυ ην δε	[Galile]e to see the crucified.
[η ημερ]α Παρασκευη. υ Σαββατον επεφω-	[the da]y was Preparation: the Sabbath was daw-
[σκεν. ο]ψ̣ιας δε γενομενης επι τ̣[η Π]α̣ρ[α]σ-	[ning]. And when it was evening, on the Prep-
[κευη], υ ο εστιν Προσαββατον, πρ̣ο̣σ-	[aration], that is, the day before the Sabbath,
[ηλθην] ανθρωπος βουλευτη̣[ς υ]π̣α̣ρ-	[there came] up a man, [be]ing a member of the council,
[χων α]π̣ο Ερινμαθαια[ς] π[ο]λ̣ε̣ω̣ς της	from Arimathea, a c[i]ty of
[Ιουδαι]ας, ονομα Ιω[σεφ], α[γ]αθος̣ δι-	[Jude]a, by name Jo[seph], g[o]od and ri-
[καιος], ων μαθητης τ[ο]υ̣ Ιη(σου), κ̣ε- υυυυ	[ghteous], being a disciple of Jesus,
[κρυμ]μενος δε δια τ̣ο̣ν̣ φ̣ο̣βον των	se[cret]ly, for fear of the
[Ιουδαιω]ν, και αυτος προσεδεχτο	[Jew]s. And he was looking for
[την] υ β̣[ασιλειαν] του̣ Θ(εο)υ ο̣υτος ουκ	[the] k[ingdom] of God. This man [had] not
[ην συνκατατ] ιθεμ̣εν̣[ο]ς̣ τη β̣[ουλη]	[con]sented to [their] p[urpose]...

The secret is composing the table min Excel or similar spreadsheet program. For instance, any comma delimited list will automatically fill out when pasted into Excel. Access also has the ability to auto-format data, sometimes better than Excel. It is amazing what can be cut and pasted into an Access database. Anyhow, when the table is complete, highlight the cells and Control-Copy to put the data in the clip-board, then go to the reply to thread dialogue box, place cursor where you want to place the table, click the table icon, then Control-Paste (Cntl=V) to paste the contents.

This will result in a perfect table almost every time. There are other reasons it may not format, such as paragraph characters (when carried over in the cut & paste process from a word processor to Excel, they are invisible) and some non-English punctuation marks.

DCH

Toto

1. This is not Canada. There are no laws on hate speech here.

2. There are reasons for denialism other than hatred. Sometimes people are just uninformed. Sometimes people form opinions and hold on to them for reasons of ego, even when the evidence becomes overwhelming.

3. I have no clue as to whether Pete hates Christianity or not. If he does, he is in good company.

Given all this, I am taking the liberty of splitting off certain posts and moving them Elsewhere. If you disagree, file a complaint with the management.

If there is nothing more to say on this, the thread will be closed. Moderation is too thin here to keep up with this level of insanity.

Signed
Your jackbooted moderator,
Toto

stephan huller

Do we have to continue with pretending that the gospels were created in the fourth century in light of the evidence? It makes the forum look ridiculous