Toto

You have a problem with this?

spin

If you don't understand--as is evident here--, you should ask for clarification. The issue is that the letter combination of iota-eta, the actual nomen sacrum combination found in the fragment under analysis, cannot be explained by simple translation from Syriac. In fact the combination requires a specific name rendered in Greek with the combination of iota-eta initial letters or a genitive starting with iota and ending in eta, which we can rule out here. We are left with a name starting with iota-eta. That is the combination in the fragment, which we have to deal with. How did the fragment end up with this combination of letters under a bar for someone with a disciple from Arimathaea ("Erinmathaea")?

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)?

spin

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

DCHindley

You do not achieve a "certain date" by means of C-14 either. A C-14 "date" is an approximation which incorporates a "margin of error." If a document's C-14 date is calculated to be 146 CE, no one says "Well, there you have it, a certain date for the production of this organic document." We simply say that we have a date that approximates the actual date of the document material's production. How close was it? Thee is also a margin of error assigned to that date: Maybe, say, 50 years either way (96 CE - 196 CE) for 95% certainty the actual date is within that range. The more certain you want to be of capturing the actual date of production for the organic material, the wider the margin of error. C-14 will only tell you when the organic material that went into the production of the document had "breathed" its last.

Finding a document within the fortifications of a town that was destroyed, plus dated coins found on the bodies of soldiers killed while defending and/or destroying those fortifications, yields a much more certain date for deposit than C-14.

DCH

aa5874

You are wrong. Many "smart" persons have overriding biases. The past is reconstructed by evidence--data--not by smartness.

People who rely on smartness may hardly agree on anything.

A Pope with a PhD will be smarter than Doherty and Ehrman?

History is really no different to science--they both need Data.

In fact, Science have been playing a most significant role in understanding the History of mankind.

One does not need to be a Scientist to understand Philo, Josephus, Plutarch, Tacitus, Suetonius, Lucian, Aristides, Justin Martyr, Cassius Dio, and other ancient writings.

Juma

No. Your story about the destruction of the city is as best hearsay.

Toto

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

aa5874

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

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

spin

Your assertion needs clarification. What exactly are you referring to as "hearsay"?

Which of the following is hearsay?

1) The city of Dura was destroyed in antiquity and never rebuilt, according to the archaeological research.
2) Sassanian Persians attacked Dura which was defended by Romans and their Palmyrene auxiliaries according to archaeology.
3) 14000 coins were found at Dura, the latest of which were coins of the emperor Valerian dated 255 CE. (See here)
4) The Roman soldiers killed in counter-mining tunnels under the embankment were found with coins dating to 255.
5) In an inscription from Naqsh-i-Rustem known as the "Res Gestae Divi Saporis" the Sassanian Persian emperor Shapur I states that he destroyed Dura during his second campaign (circa 253-256). (See Roger Pearse's blog).
6) As part of the enhanced defensive works the internal street along the western city wall was completely filled in prior to the fall of the city and covered with mud bricks, but later than 254 and before Shapur's final destruction (according to the archaeology).
7) The Dura diatessaron was found under this defensive embankment according to the editio princeps of the document (Kraeling's monograph). It was found in the embankment according to the archaeologist running the excavation at the time of discovery, Hopkins p.107.

stephan huller

Again this is so depressing. It makes a mockery of 'higher criticism' as little more than an attempt by morons to shirk responsibility for fairly evaluating evidence. People like Pete and aa provide the best argument possible why scholarship needs to be conducted in a controlled academic environment. Their arguments are wholly unreasonable. They reject reality. To allow them to stay in this forum weakens the credibility of the forum. While I recognize that this is not an academic forum and has never pretended to be by allowing these people to misrepresent reality lowers the credibility of all the discussions here. Once again, this lunacy has to be removed. It's like allowing an uncontrolled schizophrenic to be a school bus driver.