Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spin · 10-02-2013, 04:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I still think a 90% security of the terminus ad quem dating of DF24 (via burial mid 3rd century) is quite generous, but that's where I am at.

But this`dig was spectacularly successful because of the well preserved Hellenistic synagogue. The house church was almost a footnote, and the fragment a very minor addition to the significance of the find.

Before the mid twentieth century, as is the case today, the manuscript evidence supporting the generally accepted hypothesis of the first century origins of the new testament did have some valuable exemplars, in the form of papyri fragments (many from Oxyrynchus) which were all dated by means of palaeography. (That is there have been found no NT related papyri which had an explicit date as part of the text).

As a result of this situation, which persists today, the significance of the 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. That Kraeling (or anyone else in the field in 1933 etc) was not aware of this unique significance cannot be maintained.

If you think there is a logical thread running through this relevant to what you are ostensibly responding to, you would be wrong. Perhaps you could do a little more than assert what the Dura fragment offered and show signs of scholars using the text in a way that would give your claim some credibility.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

I don't think anyone could have predicted that this fragment would become a key part of an argument showing that Christianity existed before the fourth century. That was not an issue on anyone's mind at the time.

I suggest you read Grenfell and Hunt on the dates of early Christian codices : setting the record straight by Brent Nongbri.

Quote:

Since the middle of the twentieth century, there has been a tendency among scholars to marginalize the palaeographical opinions of Grenfell and Hunt. Their alleged belief that the codex format was a post-third century development is said to have induced them to date fragments of Chrstian codices much later than they would have on strictly palaeographical grounds. I argue that this is a serious misrepresentation of their views and practices.

The opinions of Grenfell and Hunt, with their assessment of the vast amount of papyri fragments from Oxyrynchus, held a great - almost hegemonic - sway until the mid 20th century. With a few exceptions, Grenfell and Hunt maintained through various arguments that most of these papyri were from the 4th century. These arguments related to:

a) palaeographical assessment
b) the rise of the codex implied a later century
c) the use of parchment mitigated towards a later century.

But don't take my quick summary of this article as representative. Read through the article and you will see that the generally accepted dates for papyri, following the opinions of Grenfell and Hunt (while they lived) were, with few exceptions, quite late (i.e. the 4th century was often cited).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brent Nongbri

The criticism of Grenfell and Hunt’s dating of early Christian papyri on the basis of their supposed theories about the development of the codex seems to originate with Colin H. Roberts ..... In a brief (four-page) article in 1953 ...

I didn't see any mention of the Dura fragment in what you were citing. It seems that this response of yours was an extended exercise in non sequitur.

Duvduv · 10-02-2013, 05:25 AM

Please tell us who ancient apologists identified as the Christian body that established the Christian canon before the 50 bibles of Constantine, and what allegedly happened between the 30 or so year time period between Justin and Iranaeus which established the set of books of the canon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

Heaven forbid he taught "New Testament studies." Next you'll be telling me about a doctor studying at medical school! We don't want that.

I think you have declared all out war on reality.

aa5874 · 10-02-2013, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are only presumption. Every thread you seem to have started presumes your conclusions and never get past the presumption. Go and read the coin information rather than continue to show your ignorance. I've linked to at least once source on the coins (and there are photographs of the coins for you to peruse) and referred you to another, when you provided a link to an article in the same journal.

I am the one who is actively exposing your fallacies about the coins. It is hopelessly absurd to presume that none of the 14000 coins could have been minted after c 257 CE when the conditions of many of the coins have badly eroded or corroded.

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....

stephan huller · 10-02-2013, 11:24 AM

The hilarious part about these ridiculous arguments is that they presuppose a 'conspiracy' among modern scholars against a position that no one fears, that no one takes seriously, that no one even is aware exists because it so stupid. It's like assuming that there is a conspiracy against the understanding the sky is blue.

Duvduv · 10-02-2013, 12:17 PM

I guess you forgot.......WHO were the fellows who established the NT canon for the religion well before the appearance of the Constantine bible?

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The hilarious part about these ridiculous arguments is that they presuppose a 'conspiracy' among modern scholars against a position that no one fears, that no one takes seriously, that no one even is aware exists because it so stupid. It's like assuming that there is a conspiracy against the understanding the sky is blue.

spin · 10-02-2013, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

You are only presumption. Every thread you seem to have started presumes your conclusions and never get past the presumption. Go and read the coin information rather than continue to show your ignorance. I've linked to at least once source on the coins (and there are photographs of the coins for you to peruse) and referred you to another, when you provided a link to an article in the same journal.

I am the one who is actively exposing your fallacies about the coins. It is hopelessly absurd to presume that none of the 14000 coins could have been minted after c 257 CE when the conditions of many of the coins have badly eroded or corroded.

You don't know anything about the coin analysis and haven't read any of the reports. You merely cite a generic comment about coin erosion and presume, yes, presume that we should discount the coin evidence that is clear and that gets support from the inscription of Shapur I which states that he destroyed the site before the final phase of his war with Valerian. The latest datable coins agree with Shapur and are found in contexts that reflect the destruction of the city (soldiers killed in a mining operation and others killed on the embankment defending the city), so you run along and fool yourself that because you can't account for the dates of all the coins there is reasonable doubt as to the date of final destruction. Coins must be read in their context, not live in your abstractions from reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

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....

DCHindley · 10-02-2013, 01:15 PM

Ahh,

But Classical Greek has no term for "sky" blue.

DCH

Quote:

is that they presuppose a 'conspiracy' among modern scholars against a position that no one fears, that no one takes seriously, that no one even is aware exists because it so stupid. It's like assuming that there is a conspiracy against the understanding the sky is blue.

Toto · 10-02-2013, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

As a result of this situation, which persists today, the significance of the 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. That Kraeling (or anyone else in the field in 1933 etc) was not aware of this unique significance cannot be maintained.

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

But my point was that Kraeling would not have thought that establishing that Christianity predated the 4th century was an issue. This implies that there would be no impetus to find evidence for the existence of Christianity.

Forgeries and fraud have a pattern. They tend to have a financial angle, and they tend to relate to current controversies.

Quote:

I suggest you read Grenfell and Hunt on the dates of early Christian codices : setting the record straight by Brent Nongbri.

How does this relate to the issue? This fragment is not being dated by paleography. Here is a more direct link:

http://www.academia.edu/1135088/Gren...ecord_Straight

watersbeak · 10-02-2013, 02:32 PM

Quote:

It's like assuming that there is a conspiracy against the understanding the sky is blue.

Not really. The sky is black, not blue. It only appears blue, to our retina, and visual cortex, because of the atmospheric haze.

Coins: what silliness. The date on many is obscure, but with religious fervor, the declaration is offered that 100% of the coins date from third century.

Ignorance: yup, I have it. uneducated. haven't read any of the tomes mentioned in this thread.

How could Shapur have "leveled the city", and yet, the fortifications remained?

I am still waiting to learn of a second Roman city, besides Dura Europos, destroyed by an opponent, yet, with substantial defensive fortifications remaining intact, untouched, for fifteen centuries.

This story is filled with lacunae. Only the faithful would accept these fanciful conclusions as FACTS.

Sam

watersbeak · 10-02-2013, 02:43 PM

More coin nonsense:

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

Quote:

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

100% indeed.

Sam

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

10-02-2013, 11:24 AM	#224
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The hilarious part about these ridiculous arguments is that they presuppose a 'conspiracy' among modern scholars against a position that no one fears, that no one takes seriously, that no one even is aware exists because it so stupid. It's like assuming that there is a conspiracy against the understanding the sky is blue.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.