Facts, Fiction, and Wishful thinking....

[PhilosopherJay]

Hi Stephan,

Interesting statement by Epiphanius about the Diatessaron being the the Gospel of the Hebrews.
I have thought of the diatessaron being a combining of the four gospels, but this might have been a text from which the four gospels themselves are derived.
The evolution of the gospels is an thorny problem. What came first and who copied/stole/borrowed from whom seems to have no simple or clear solutions.
We often find classic movies in the same situation where multiple versions have been produced for various reasons. For example "Lost Horizon" (Capra, 1937) started with a 6 hour "director's cut and the studio considered releasing it in two parts. Capra cut it to 3 hours for a preview screening on November 22nd 1936. It premiered in San Francisco at 2 hours and 12 minutes on Jan 12, 1937. When it went into general release the studio trimmed another 14 minutes to bring it down to one hour and 58 minutes so the theaters could have more showings per day. In 1942, during World War 2, the film was re-released with 12 minutes of "pacifist propaganda" removed, bringing it down to one hour and 46 minutes. In 1952, more of the communist themes was taken out and the movie was released in a one hour and 32 minute version. In 1972, The American Film Institute restored it to a version which had 2 hours and 15 minutes of soundtrack, but only 2 hours and 5 minutes of film. Stills were inserted in the missing 10 minutes of moving images. Thus we have at least six different versions of the film.
"Metropolis" (Lang, 1927) is another famous film which had at least five different original versions in its first couple of years and four different restoration versions in the past 30 years.
Samuel Richardson rewrote his hit novel "Pamela" at least 13 times between 1740 and 1750. Most notably the language of the lead character Pamela changed from lower-class to middle-class.
It is now fairly easy to gather up the various editions of fictional works of literature and cinema and to figure out which came first and how they changed. This is much more difficult with the gospels.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

[Leucius Charinus]

I have thought of the diatessaron being a combining of the four gospels, but this might have been a text from which the four gospels themselves are derived. The evolution of the gospels is a thorny problem. What came first and who copied/stole/borrowed from whom seems to have no simple or clear solutions.

An excellent point (with valid modern examples) Philosopher Jay. It might in fact explain why there are so many contradictions if a four-fold explosion was conducted on a singular ancient source.

The fact that the early (mid 3rd century) dating of Dura Parchment 24 may not implicitly rely on palaeographic assessment alone (as does all other manuscript evidence) mitigates towards a possibility that if we are dealing with a single-story source, it's origins may have been in the east. As such the figure of Bardaisan (154–222 CE), might be worth a second and third look. He seems to have lived an interesting life ...

Porphyry states that on one occasion at Edessa, Bardaisan interviewed an Indian deputation of holy men (designated as Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas) who had been sent to the Roman emperor Elagabalus or another Severan dynasty Roman Emperor, and questioned them as to the nature of Indian religion. The encounter is described in Porphyry De abstin., iv, 17 [7] and Stobaeus (Eccles., iii, 56, 141):

For the polity of the Indians being distributed into many parts, there is one tribe among them of men divinely wise, whom the Greeks are accustomed to call Gymnosophists. But of these there are two sects, one of which the Bramins preside over, the Samanaeans the other. The race of the Bramins, however, receive divine wisdom of this kind by succession, in the same manner as the priesthood. But the Samanaeans are elected, and consist of those who wish to possess divine knowledge. And the particulars respecting them are the following, as the Babylonian Bardaisan narrates, who lived in the times of our fathers, and was familiar with those Indians who, together with Damadamis, were sent to Caesar. All the Bramins originate from one stock; for all of them are derived from one father and one mother. But the Samanaeans are not the offspring of one family, being, as we have said, collected from every nation of Indians.

—Porphyry De abstin., iv,

What is certain is that Bardaisan apparently was a voluminous author, although nearly all his works have perished. He was certainly attacked repeatedly by various orthodox heresiologists (such as Ephrem, Epiphanius, etc) who, as in their contempt for Mani and other deemed "heretics", appear to have written masses of pseudo-historical polemic against the history of his life, his opinions and writings.

Many scholars suspect the The Hymn of the Pearl, which some Gnostic heretic placed into the mouth of Thomas in an Indian jail (Acts of Thomas), was originally authored by this writer.

[avi]

The fact that the early (mid 3rd century) dating of Dura Parchment 24 may not implicitly rely on palaeographic assessment alone (as does all other manuscript evidence) mitigates towards a possibility that if we are dealing with a single-story source, it's origins may have been in the east.

The origin of parchment 24 is unknown, and unknowable. I regard it as a piece of detritus, discarded by someone, who recognized that this was not "holy scripture".
With respect to the question of whether or not Parchment 24 is "proto-Matthew", or not, I think it is a fascinating possibility. "origins may have been in the east", seems to me improbable. To the east lies Persia, not Rome.

In Rome, as at home, Gamaliel often had occasion to defend Judaism in polemical discussions with pagans, and also with professed Christians. In an anecdote regarding a suit which Gamaliel was prosecuting before a Christian judge, a converted Jew, an appeal to the Gospel and to the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:17 is made, with one possible reading of the story indicating that it was Gamaliel making this reference.

Well, it is a bit difficult to imagine that protoMatthew was buried in the glacis facing the Persians in the hours before the attack on Dura Europos, 150 years after Gamliel was buried. If Matthew 5:17 was already extant in 90 CE, then why should a "proto-Matthew" be buried by Roman soldiers seeking to protect themselves from the advancing Persian army, by building a gently sloping entrance to the city, to reduce Persian army fatigue, as they prepared to annihilate the Roman army Legionaires, guarding the town?

hypotheses:

a. The document "excavated" somewhere, precise location unspecified, near the western bank of the Euphrates river, was a piece of scrap paper, discarded by someone visiting Dura Europos, long after the city's destruction in 250CE, by the Sassinids. The papyrus had been discarded because it contained meaningless scribble, written by someone seeking to practice recall of what he had just read, a week earlier. It is impossible to use this scrap of paper to validate any date for the existence of Christianity at Dura Europos, until, or unless, an archaeologist with academic credentials, is willing to explain why only one bucket, among the thousands carried throughout a decade long inquiry, was examined for evidence of ancient papyrus documents. That academician will further elaborate why it is, that the documents recovered inside the "house-church" itself, all disintegrated upon excavation, but, miraculously, this one document, buried in the glacis, survived, intact. Finally, he or she will need to explain how it is, that the 14 lines of Greek text on this scrap of papyrus, specify a particular brand of Christianity, which, according to Clark Hopkins, had been in vogue in mid third century Dura Europos. If Dura Parchment 24 is truly legitimate, then, the information written upon it, ought to be subject to critical appraisal.

b. Gamaliel II did not meet any Christians on his visit to Rome, circa 100 CE. Did he meet Josephus while he was visiting? Does Josephus comment on their encounter? He didn't meet any Christians in Rome in 100CE, because there weren't any available to meet, not for another 1-3 centuries....Gamaliel II could not have written that bit about Matthew, unless the latter had modified/copied some earlier text, conveying a similar thought, perhaps an ancient Greek tragedy, and then, whoever copied the Gamaliel II text, in the ensuing centuries, made reference to Matthew.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him.

c. gMatthew did not exist, in any form, until after the destruction of Jerusalem with accompanying, mandatory eviction of all Jews, from that famous city, in 130-135 CE.

d. any self-respecting Jew, two thousand years ago, would have gagged upon reading: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law..." Abolition of the Law is precisely this guy's ambition. Obviously, by claiming divine stature, this joker is disrespecting the law. This guy is overtly heretical. Naked polytheism could not have been accepted by any Jew for the last two millenia. That is one of the overarching considerations, in discounting the theory that the "house-church", situated only one block away from the Synagogue, was accepted, graciously by the Jewish congregation. At that time, mid third century, the Jews and Christians were openly in hostile confrontations with one another, at least in other urban locales within the diaspora.

[Leucius Charinus]

hypotheses:

a. The document "excavated" somewhere, precise location unspecified, near the western bank of the Euphrates river, was a piece of scrap paper, discarded by someone visiting Dura Europos, long after the city's destruction in 250CE, by the Sassinids. The papyrus had been discarded because it contained meaningless scribble, written by someone seeking to practice recall of what he had just read, a week earlier. It is impossible to use this scrap of paper to validate any date for the existence of Christianity at Dura Europos, until, or unless, an archaeologist with academic credentials, is willing to explain why only one bucket, among the thousands carried throughout a decade long inquiry, was examined for evidence of ancient papyrus documents. That academician will further elaborate why it is, that the documents recovered inside the "house-church" itself, all disintegrated upon excavation, but, miraculously, this one document, buried in the glacis, survived, intact. Finally, he or she will need to explain how it is, that the 14 lines of Greek text on this scrap of papyrus, specify a particular brand of Christianity, which, according to Clark Hopkins, had been in vogue in mid third century Dura Europos. If Dura Parchment 24 is truly legitimate, then, the information written upon it, ought to be subject to critical appraisal.

Well stated hypothesis avi. Hypotheses are vitally important to all fields and an open mind will consider and weigh all hypotheses in order to arrive at some form of probabilistic assessment. Previous discussions on this subject have demonstrated clearly that certain people are unwilling to ascribe the grey scale of probabilities. I recall that Toto moved his assessment from a 100% probability of a secure terminus ad quem for the fragment being from the mid 3rd century, to 99%. I myself revised my assessment of this from somewhere less than 50% to 90%, but tend now to ascribe it something like 80%.

However this brings us to an important point. Nobody can be completely certain in these issues. Uncertainty rules the domain of historical research and reconstruction and all people must learn to cope with dealing in probabilistic values. It is possible to explore more than two paths simultaneously. It follows that it is therefore possible to frame any theory of history which deals with this fragment as dependent upon more than one value for the probability.

If the fragment is derived from the mid 3rd century then .....
If the fragment is derived from a later century then ....

Those who cling to the divine right of certitude are not doing themselves or others any favors.
History is composed of a billion shades of grey, not of black and white.

Thanks for taking the time to elucidate this alternative hypothesis.
I found it very worthwhile reading.

[avi]

Nobody can be completely certain in these issues.

Well, I think that is quite right, Pete, for these issues which are so muddled. But, even something like Newton, or Time, or Fourier Transform, one goes along for decades, thinking xyz, and all of a sudden, poof: old theorem/brilliant idea goes out the window, replaced by some new fangled gadget.

What is a bit surprising to me, is the paucity of interest on this forum, in the subject of Dura Europos. I can understand a forum of Christians, accepting uncritically the conclusions of Clark Hopkins, but I am surprised by the quantity of would be scholars/academics/critical thinkers, including some members of this forum, who swallow the whole story, hook, line and sinker.

If you haven't read Hopkins' book, it is a very good investment, in my opinion. He writes candidly, and his photographs, all black and white, convey an impression which transcends the written description of the chaos at the site.

Anyone could have carried that scrap of papyrus, from anyplace, and stuck it in the bucket.

With regard to the purported location, from which the scrap of papyrus had been excavated, the best information I have been able to unearth, myself, is that it was found on the "glacis" in front of the protective wall, not, under the wall, as some have argued, i.e. by definition, the scrap of papyrus had been discovered lying in dirt, prior to excavation, which had accumulated AFTER the sack of the city in 260--obviously the defenders who constructed the wall, to keep the Persians at bay, would not have dumped dirt there, to facilitate crossing the wall.

But, why wouldn't lots of pilgrims drop by for a visit to Dura Europos? Any one of them could have discarded the document which we call today Parchment 24 What about the two Roman emperors who passed by, within just a few kilometers--is it likely, that no delegation from either army stopped by for a snoop around? Ten thousand Roman soldiers come marching through the fields, twice in 50 years, and no one was curious to examine the derelict locus of the heroic Roman legionaires ?

And the document itself, seems to be neither a fragment of our known extant copies of diatessaron, nor any other text we possess. Jay's contribution to this thread, was scintillating in that regard. That piece of papyrus, P24, is in its own category. The orthography is unique, and not readily pigeon holed, vis a vis a time of elaboration. It almost appears to represent an even older version of a gospel harmony, which someone discarded, the way we would jettison an operatic recording from phonograph records, in favor of an mp3 recording on dvd.

Thanks again Pete, for two of the most interesting threads, in the old forum. They were outstanding. You have taught me a lot during the past year. Keep up the great work.

avicenna

[spin]

The fact that the early (mid 3rd century) dating of Dura Parchment 24 may not implicitly rely on palaeographic assessment alone (as does all other manuscript evidence) mitigates towards a possibility that if we are dealing with a single-story source, it's origins may have been in the east. As such the figure of Bardaisan (154–222 CE), might be worth a second and third look. He seems to have lived an interesting life ...

Porphyry states that on one occasion at Edessa, Bardaisan interviewed an Indian deputation of holy men (designated as Σαρμαναίοι, Sramanas) who had been sent to the Roman emperor Elagabalus or another Severan dynasty Roman Emperor, and questioned them as to the nature of Indian religion.

Before you can look anywhere but the obvious, you need to explain the nomen sacrum in line 10, ΙΗ (iota-eta), in the context of "(Joseph) a disciple of ΙΗ", which corresponds to a version of the diatessaron found in later sources (Victor of Capua and Arabic), discipulus [erat] I[h]esu (brackets are in the Victor version). While the Greek name Ιησους easily explains the nomen sacrum, there doesn't seem to be a single other candidate that can justify the ΙΗ. (Nomina sacra are usually of the form first letter + last letter of the declension, as in the case of god, θυ, but not with ΙΗ, which to be consistent with majority usage would be Ιυ to match the article του, but here it is and can only be the first two letters as is sometimes found elsewhere.) As I've already pointed out, coming directly from a Semitic language has no hope of deriving a name beginning with Ιη. So, without a credible alternative candidate that fits ΙΗ, one must confront the rather strong claim of Ιησους. The search in any other direction but there seems unjustifiably wayward.

[Leucius Charinus]

Note that Bardaisan's (Syriac?) writings were very soon translated into Greek.

There can be little doubt that a compelling argument may be made for the expansion of the "IH" to "Jesus"
if
we go down the probabilistic fork in the road on the dating of this parchment fragment to the mid 3rd century.
Nevertheless, here are a few alternatives to be considered and/or discussed:

1) the name of Joshua
2) another Jesus - any one of the scores of the Jesus characters in Josephus (or indeed elsewhere).
3) finally (for the moment) the number 18. For example, how would one write in Greek .... "(Joseph) a disciple of 18 (years)"?

[spin]

Note that Bardaisan's (Syriac?) writings were very soon translated into Greek.

There can be little doubt that a compelling argument may be made for the expansion of the "IH" to "Jesus"
if
we go down the probabilistic fork in the road on the dating of this parchment fragment to the mid 3rd century.
Nevertheless, here are a few alternatives to be considered and/or discussed:

1) the name of Joshua
2) another Jesus - any one of the scores of the Jesus characters in Josephus (or indeed elsewhere).
3) finally (for the moment) the number 18. For example, how would one write in Greek .... "(Joseph) a disciple of 18 (years)"?

#3 is plain silly. Remember the preceding word? It requires a masculine singular noun.

#1 and #2 are functionally the same. Yehoshua -> Yeshua -> Ιησους as can be seen in the LXX, so both Yehoshua and Yeshua are rendered in Greek as Ιησους.

Now you have a christian-like narrative to which you propose some other Jesus.

[Leucius Charinus]

What do you make of this ....

... with end of the story about the women witnesses we come to the close of one episode in the Passion narrative and begin another.
Incidentally, the division marked in our fragment is also found in the Ammonian Sections.

This "division" I take it is a space in the text. However Ammonius who supposedly authored the "Ammonian Sections" lived in the 3rd century. Isn't this cutting the chronology a bit fine?

Now you have a christian-like narrative to which you propose some other Jesus.

We have a fragment, a very small part of a single story. See Jay's comment.

[Peter Kirby]

I don't understand why this manuscript evidence is discussed as some kind of pièce de résistance for the existence of Christians or Gospels in the third century. As near as I can tell, it has been transformed into this by your own fascination with it, although there may have been some hapless helpful person along the way who tried to mention it in an argument once.

To perform in the role it has been cast, the assumptions need to be ignored:

(1) All the extant manuscripts of Christian texts can be, individually, dismissed as surviving from the third century. Yet this falters. Those who are attempting to perform the feat (a couple of people who hang out on internet forums) do not have the skill set or data with which to deal with these texts individually. They are left with casting aspersions after quoting disagreements among paleographic experts, when not even a single one of these experts can honestly join them out on the limb that would put all the manuscripts later than the third century. If they want to claim simply that paleography does not have a scientific basis, let them say so, but nobody has to believe them.

(2) Then we have to accept a claim as to the idea that, collectively, the manuscripts that appear to be dated paleographically to the 2nd/3rd century do not. It's easy to see how this breaks down very quickly, and all the more quickly when one adopts the "big view" of probabilities that is extolled so poetically. Take just ten manuscripts evaluated by ten experts and assign them each a fair 80% probability of belonging to the 2nd/3rd century, with a 20% chance of error due to the paleographic expert being cited. The chance that all ten are in error independently falls to 1 in 10,000,000. The only real chance of the ten manuscripts all being dated wrong is a shared, non-independent error factor behind them all. In other words, again, they have to claim that paleography does not have a scientific basis.

(3) But that's just the manuscript bit. Manuscripts come from scribes copying manuscripts, which come from scribes copying manuscripts... but like the cosmological argument, there must be an author. Pre-modern history requires textual criticism to be considered, at least, possible, with historical criticism that places the text in its most likely original context following from that. There's just no point in trying if we're going to disregard the phenomenon of authors behind autographs (people like Tacitus, Polybius, etc.) and deal simply in manuscripts. So it's amazing that the same people who are slamming the New Testament autographs into a very narrow and absurd window before the appearance of manuscripts for them, which themselves must also be given revisionist datings, are using any other texts at all. Want to quote Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine, or any of the others that are being used to flesh out the revisionist history? Take a look at their manuscripts! The whole exercise is inconsistent with itself and inconsistent with the aim of discovering pre-modern history.

That's all we really need to say. Sorry, it's not our responsibility to go over every detail of your delusion with you! You got yourself into it; it's your problem!