Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 10-02-2013, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Then surely you can supply a quote from Kraeling that shows this?

Well perhaps I am mistaken and Dura Parchment 24 is not the sole exemplar of an "early Christian related papyri fragment" for which the method of dating includes an archaeologically related terminus ad quem, in which case, by all means, cite a second. ...

Stop changing the subject. You are claiming some motive on Kraeling's part to make this papyrus fragment Christian. I say there is none.

Quote:

The investigative impetus of archaeological and manuscript discoveries is alone sufficient, so I strongly disagree with this implication.

Sufficient for what? Confirmation for your own biases?

Quote:

...

The article helps set the academic environment of 1935 when Kraeling wrote. Grenfell and Hunt had dominated the field for some decades. Kraeling wrote the year after Hunt died. Palaeography (alone) was being used to date the ever increasing "early Christian related papyri" finds.

It is being dated by palaeography IN ADDITION TO the archaeological terminus ad quem. The following from Kraeling (1935)

Quote:

Originally Posted by CARL H. KRAELING

Date.

...

The date which palaeography suggests for the fragment is confirmed and rendered more precise by archaeology. The embankment along the city wall, in which the parchment was found, was constructed after 254 and before 256-257 A.D. Of these dates the first is that of Dura Papyrus 90, which was buried under the glacis? while the second is the presumptive date of the capture and final destruction of the city by Shapur I. This gives a definite upper limit to the date of the fragment.

But in this case the archaeology is sufficient to make your position untenable. Paleography might have dated the fragment to an earlier century, but that would make you even further off the mark.

You've got nothing.

aa5874 · 10-02-2013, 07:15 PM

It was absurd for Toto to claim 100% probability for a 3rd century dating of Dura fragment . There was activity in Dura up to at least the 5th century.

See https://isaw.nyu.edu/exhibitions/edg...t-dura-europos

Institute for the Study of the Ancient World
New York University
September 23, 2011 – January 8, 2012
Edge of Empires
pagans, jews, and christians
at Roman dura-Europos

Jennifer Y. Chi and Sebastian Heath, Editors

Quote:

Originally Posted by Page 71

A fifth-century Syriac document, the Life of the Martyr Mu’Ain, reports that a Christian hermit lived there during the reign of the Sasanid emperor Shapur II (d. 379). [24]

A single coin of the Roman emperor Constantius II also indicates fourth-century or later activity.

Seven lamps that can be fifth century or later were recorded by the Yale/French excavations. [25]

More definitively, figure 3-20 illustrates a rim fragment of a Phocaean Red-Slip Hayes form 3,26 a very common fifth-century form that appears in the western Mediterranean as well as in the British Isles. [27]

Toto · 10-02-2013, 07:18 PM

OK, OK - how about 99%?

aa5874 · 10-02-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

OK, OK - how about 99%?

You appear to be addicted to speculation, presumptions and guessing. Keep guessing--you may be lucky.

mountainman · 10-02-2013, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Then surely you can supply a quote from Kraeling that shows this?

Well perhaps I am mistaken and Dura Parchment 24 is not the sole exemplar of an "early Christian related papyri fragment" for which the method of dating includes an archaeologically related terminus ad quem, in which case, by all means, cite a second. ...

Stop changing the subject. You are claiming some motive on Kraeling's part to make this papyrus fragment Christian. I say there is none.

I claimed that Kraeling knew that "Dura Parchment 24 was extremely unique, because it offered a method of dating (by means of an archaeological terminus ad quem) which was NOT entirely reliant upon palaeographical assessment". The subject was the method of dating, not whether the fragment was Christian.

///

Quote:

But in this case the archaeology is sufficient to make your position untenable.

I have stated my position to reflect a 90% certainty in the terminus ad quem of DF24. What are you talking about?

mountainman · 10-02-2013, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

OK, OK - how about 99%?

Prepare to be abused by the 100% brigade.

Toto · 10-02-2013, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Stop changing the subject. You are claiming some motive on Kraeling's part to make this papyrus fragment Christian. I say there is none.

I claimed that Kraeling knew that "Dura Parchment 24 was extremely unique, because it offered a method of dating (by means of an archaeological terminus ad quem) which was NOT entirely reliant upon palaeographical assessment". The subject was the method of dating, not whether the fragment was Christian.

But the same objection applies. Kraeling had no motive to make this particular fragment unique. He was not looking for evidence to rebut the idea of a fourth century origin for Christianity.

Quote:

But in this case the archaeology is sufficient to make your position untenable.

I have stated my position to reflect a 90% certainty in the terminus ad quem of DF24. What are you talking about?

The archaeology makes the certainty more than 90%.

mountainman · 10-02-2013, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Stop changing the subject. You are claiming some motive on Kraeling's part to make this papyrus fragment Christian. I say there is none.

I claimed that Kraeling knew that "Dura Parchment 24 was extremely unique, because it offered a method of dating (by means of an archaeological terminus ad quem) which was NOT entirely reliant upon palaeographical assessment". The subject was the method of dating, not whether the fragment was Christian.

But the same objection applies. Kraeling had no motive to make this particular fragment unique.

Motivation aside, the fragment is unique because of the archaeological context. No other "early Christian related fragment" has this context, either before 1933 or after it. My point is that Kraeling as a specialist in the field would have known this. I think Stephan huller would use the term "it's common knowledge".

Quote:

He was not looking for evidence to rebut the idea of a fourth century origin for Christianity.

I said I agree with this. He was just looking for evidence.

Toto · 10-02-2013, 08:24 PM

So are there any more baseless objections you can raise?

Are you prepared to say you have been wrong all this time, that Christianity was not invented by Constantine and the gospels were not composed in Eusebius' scriptorium?

spin · 10-02-2013, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Stop changing the subject. You are claiming some motive on Kraeling's part to make this papyrus fragment Christian. I say there is none.

I claimed that Kraeling knew that "Dura Parchment 24 was extremely unique, because it offered a method of dating (by means of an archaeological terminus ad quem) which was NOT entirely reliant upon palaeographical assessment". The subject was the method of dating, not whether the fragment was Christian.

But the same objection applies. Kraeling had no motive to make this particular fragment unique.

Motivation aside, the fragment is unique because of the archaeological context. No other "early Christian related fragment" has this context, either before 1933 or after it. My point is that Kraeling as a specialist in the field would have known this. I think Stephan huller would use the term "it's common knowledge".

Kraeling was certainly aware of all those documents that had been dated palaeographically to the second and third centuries. You are creating a false situation. What Kraeling showed interest in was placing the document in a literary context with other gospel harmonies. Yet again, you are assuming your conclusion without any evidence to support it. Don't you ever get tired of your own bullshit factor? I know most others do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

He was not looking for evidence to rebut the idea of a fourth century origin for Christianity.

I said I agree with this. He was just looking for evidence.

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

10-02-2013, 07:18 PM	#243
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	OK, OK - how about 99%?

10-02-2013, 08:24 PM	#249
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	So are there any more baseless objections you can raise? Are you prepared to say you have been wrong all this time, that Christianity was not invented by Constantine and the gospels were not composed in Eusebius' scriptorium?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.