Roger Pearse

I'm afraid you will find similar phenomena wherever people focus on their dislikes rather than their enthusiasms. It doesn't seem to matter what the object of dislike is; the psychological effect is the same.

First the critic dislikes something. Then he finds reasons why that something is wrong. But the something keeps on going, because, of course, it doesn't know or care about the critic. The critic tries arguing with people and is brushed aside.

But he keeps on concentrating on why it is wrong. He finds himself "discovering" more and more reasons why the something is wrong. The more he does so, the more obvious it seems. The more obvious it seems, the more obvious it is that there is a lot of rubbish here, and a lot of people not being less than honest with themselves. It's obvious, obvious ... yet nobody pays attention.

Eventually comes the "realisation" that the something isn't just wrong, it's deliberately dishonest as well! The reason why nobody else sees the truth, the obvious truth -- he forgets that it wasn't obvious to him either -- is that they can't cope with the facts, that they know the "facts" and are lying; to themselves, to him, to everyone.

At this point the critic starts looking for evidence of the dishonesty. He is shocked, shocked, to "find" it everywhere! The more he looks, the more that he sees. How could he not have realised this earlier?! But such dishonesty must be exposed ... confronted ...

In fact, now that the critic knows that the something and its followers are dishonest, he asks himself, just how much can he really believe of what they say about themselves? Surely they will have lied about that too? The critic finds that this is so! He explores off-beat theories (which, comfortingly, reinforce his belief that the people who disagree are dishonest), and finds them alluring. And so it goes.

This really happens, and it is a warning to us all. Never spend time on how foolish everyone else is. Even if you happen to be right, it will rot your brain. Spend time with your enthusiasms, not your hatreds.

mountainman

Here are some further questions and comments:

(1) Extent of Embankment: The schematic is 2D but the reality is 3D. AFAIK the embankment covered a number of blocks. Do we know how far (how many city blocks) the embankment was constructed to the north and south of the main Palmyrene Gate? This does not seem to be shown on the diagram.

(2) I take it that the schematic shows a cross section between the main gate and tower 18, looking south, and showing the gate. How far did it extend from this cross section to the north and south. The above map shows shaded areas on the western wall north and south of the gate and I assume these correspond to "excavated areas". These span two blocks either side of the gate (4 blocks in all).

(3) I take it that the main gate was defensible from its towers (shown) and that the rampart did not also fill in the street in front of the main gate. Is this correct?

(4) I take it that because the "house-church" is located a block (or two) south of the gate that therefore the rampart extended at least that far south of the gate. Is this correct?

(5) Was the layer of mud bricks placed over the entire length of this rampart or were the mud bricks only placed in certain sections?

(6) Assuming an elevation view 2D rendition of the embankment can be reconstructed, based on the city map already furnished above, then it would be possible to reconstruct a 3D representation. If the rampart covered 4 blocks, according to the scale, it looks to be approx. 300 meters in length, or alternatively, perhaps it was constructed only at those points at which the Persians had attempted the undermine of the walls. I don't know the answer to these questions.

(7) How thick (approx.) was the city wall between each of the towers?

(8) Are there any photographs of the site prior to the excavation of the Roman constructed embankment that enable us to answer these questions?

What is the orientation of the following photo from the cover of the book? Is it looking at the western wall and if so which part?

stephan huller

"And if you can't answer all these questions, spin, we can begin to have 'serious doubts' about the claims of the discovery ... "

Isn't it apparent that Pete consistently appeals to the concern that 'something isn't being answered' in the 'official account' of something as the gateway through which the most absurd proposition comes marching into the forum. Who the fuck the has the answers to all the questions? The people that did the excavation are long dead. The fact is that they found this fragment under a pile of rocks somewhere under the embankment. Get a life.

spin

At this stage, mountainman, you need to deal with post #111 of this thread. There is an onus on you to stop avoiding your responsibilities now that you have pushed your agenda here for many years without a scrap of evidence to support it and at the cost of most forum members tolerance.

My post #111 requires an analysis from you of the evidence you needed to consider with your two "no" responses to the earlier questions I put to you, given that you provided no reasoning behind them.

The below post shows that you still have not quite understood the logic of the embankment, which was a large scale, but desperate, effort to protect the whole western defensive wall--not just the area around the main gate--from the coming siege, ie it was a prepared defensive construction. However, the questions you ask have little to nothing to do with the topic at hand, which, to remind you, focuses on the Dura Europos fragment of a gospel harmony and its dating as related to the archaeology of the site.

Could you therefore return to post #111 and deal with the analysis of issues directly related to the o.p. topic, which attempt to clarify the context of those questions to which you did not respond to adequately. You can do this without getting further into architectural details of the embankment.

With your co-operation we may be able to resolve the implications of the diatessaron fragment and the christian building from Dura Europos and their falsification of your theory of a Eusebian creation of christianity.

Looking at the photo, there is no Arab building out to the west of the city and the little we see beyond the wall does not reflect the terrain to the west, so it doesn't seem to relate to the area of interest, ie wall street in the vicinity of tower 18.

mountainman

The post below demonstrates very very clearly that I have understood the logic of the archaeological assessment because it seeks to understand the three dimensional reality (4 dimensions if we include time) of the excavation of the hastily constructed embankment, in order to satisfy myself that it is reasonable to subscribe to the hypothesis that the terminus ad quem chronology of the mid 3rd century is 100% on the money for a betting person such as myself.



I have now revised my position, and wish to thank very sincerely every single contribution made to this thread towards this revision.

Firstly I reject any 100% security in the terminus ad quem of the Dura fragment 24 on the basis that we can never be absolutely sure about anything. I will not go into specifics however I have advanced a number of scenarios in which alternative explanations may be made for a later dating, no matter how unlikely they may appear to be.

However, having said this, I have decided that such alternative explanations can only contribute towards a very small percentage deviation from the accepted 100% security of dating and that, as a result, I must be prepared to deal with the dating as if it were 100% secure.

Consequently I will now admit that I must factor in to my assessment of Christian origins the data element that the Dura Fragment 24 was authored prior to the mid 3rd century.


Revision of hypotheses ....

It is generally being presumed that the Dura Fragment 24 represents a harmony of the four gospels,
and that this harmony most likely has a Syriac source. For example see:

The Dura Parchment and the Diatessaron
Author(s): Jan Joosten
Source: Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 57, No. 2 (May, 2003), pp. 159-175
Published by: BRILL
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1584632


However there is at least one other logical alternative to be considered, and I'd like to discuss it.

Namely that the four gospels are a four-fold expansion of an earlier and single Syriac source narrative
which appeared sometime before the mid 3rd century and employed nomina sacra and was focussed upon
an (historical?) figure (who was not the Gospel Jesus) and who is represented by the "IH" (IĒ, Iota Eta) code.

This figure behind the "IH" code is of course usually taken to be representing the first two letters of the name ΙΗσους = Jesus. But this may not necessarily be the case. We could be dealing with a single (Syriac) literary tradition which was later USED by those who fabricated the four (Greek) gospels.

What secure evidence (forget the palaeographically dated papyri) exists that refutes this hypothetical alternative proposition?



NB1: And as far as the figure of "Tatian" is concerned, I must confess I still retain little or no faith in "Eusebius".

NB2: The terminus ad quem for DF24 rules out the possibility that Mani was in fact "the crucified one"
being referred to in the fragment, since Mani's death was after c.252 CE.

stephan huller

Many have attempted to understand the gospels in these terms. They typically launch from the statement of Epiphanius that the Gospel of the Hebrews = the Diatessaron. Read Bill Petersen's book on the Diatessaron or the writings of Daniel Plooij. Against this position is Ulrich Schmid who does not believe the variants in the various harmonies go back to a lost source. Nevertheless Baarda does point to the flying Jesus tradition http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.230...21102676847721 ...

Congratulations. We've all had to adapt our positions. My friend who is a doctor notes that 60% of the stuff he learned in med school has been disproved. Modifying a hypothesis is presupposed after any detailed experimentation. Anyone who hasn't changed their position in some way each year is engaging in theology rather than scientific research.

spin

As you were still puzzled as to the extent of the embankment, you are clearly mistaken as to its logic. The Parthians' mining could have happened at any point along the western wall, not just in the vicinity of the Palmyrene Gate.

I would hope that that also means that you will have to factor in the frescoes from the "christian" building as well. They include more recognized christian imagery with the healing of the paralytic and Jesus and Peter out on the sea of Galilee, as well as the tomb and the women. There's an inscription therein reading "X I [chi iota] is yours; remember Proklos" and a graffito, "X I remember the humble Siseos" and in the context of the frescoes it is very hard not to read "X I" as "Christ Jesus". There is no reason to ignore the christian content in the frescoes when there is sufficient indication of christian content in the Dura diatessaron.

The strange thing about this nomen sacrum is that there is no possible Syriac explanation for it. It presupposes a Greek tradition behind it (just as the other two do), but although the Greek form Ιησους provides an obvious candidate to explain the iota-eta, you must provide a functional alternative that explains the iota-eta, which will be extremely hard if you presuppose a Syriac original without a clear Greek explanation. I think you will be pushing shit uphill with a coke spoon to explain this nomen sacrum.

aa5874

] What fallacies you post. Why are trying to cover the absurd claims of Toto?

You have no idea that the dates of the capture and final destruction of the city are PRESUMPTIONS.

You have NO idea that the Provenance was PRESUMED and DATING of the Fragment was IMPOSSIBLE by its script.

The very CARL H. KRAELING admitted the dates he PROVIDED are PRESUMPTIONS.

It is NOT possible to have 100% probability based on PRESUMPTIVE dates.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON FROM DURA EDITED WITH FACSIMILE, TRANSCRIPTION, AND INTRODUCTION[/url] BY CARL H. KRAELING, PH.D Page 6

See http://archive.org/details/MN41439ucmf_4

Page 6 Please also read about the Provenance of Fragment 24.

The very CARL H. KRAELING admitted the Provenance was PRESUMED because he had NO way of telling where the fragment originated.

See http://archive.org/details/MN41439ucmf_4

Page 5 Page 5 It is virtually impossible to produce 100% probability from Presumptions and Guessing.

stephan huller

Incredible to see who's the last guy to keep fighting windmills. I wish we could a section of the forum that's just aa arguing with himself.

aa5874

You come across as one who care nothing about what Carl H. Kraeling actually wrote.

The dating of fragment 24 was a product of presumptions and imagination and was ADMITTED by Carl H. Kraeling.

The very claim that it was part of Tatian's Diatessaron is without a shred of evidence.

The Provenance was admitted to be a Presumption by the very Carl H Kraeling.

There was NO way to tell the origin of the Fragment 24 of Dura except by Guessing, Presumptions and imagination.

Carl H Kraeling will also admit he used his imagination to place the archetype in Edessa without any evidence.

A GREEK FRAGMENT OF TATIAN'S DIATESSARON FROM DURA EDITED WITH FACSIMILE, TRANSCRIPTION, AND INTRODUCTION[/url] BY CARL H. KRAELING

See http://archive.org/details/MN41439ucmf_4

page 7