Dura Europos

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dura Europos

Post by Secret Alias »

Reckless?!!! How so?
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Dura Europos

Post by Leucius Charinus »

StephenGoranson wrote: Sun Sep 25, 2022 5:16 am I (still) say that that place in Dura Europos was certainly a house-church. I briefly summarized the evidence above. The attempted walking on water scene, for instance, is from the New Testament; also the mentions of Christ. It was not a Jewish synagogue, one of which was already available just down the street.
I agree that this place was certainly a house church. A house church is basically defined as a private house which has a dedicated "Religious Room". I appreciate your summary of the evidence: a number of murals inspired by the Jesus story in the New Testament and the two mentions of Christ. I can also agree it was not a Jewish synagogue, and that a Jewish synagogue was just down the road. However the synagogue was not discovered until November 1932.

At the time the house church was discovered (16 Jan 1932) the existence of Jewish wall paintings on planet Earth was completely unknown.
Using 100% is odd for history. Was Queen Elizabeth II regarded by many as Queen? Yes, certainly. Did you Peter (a Jewish name?) claim that Constantine invented Christianity--100%? Seems like it. Though Constantine, and/or Flavians, did not.
I agree that using 100% is odd for history. It's not just odd. IMO it's diametrically opposed to the historical method. I am not the one advocating for 100% certainty in anything. That's SA.
Is my 1996 Bible Review publication 100% up-to-date? I have not claimed that. Could one sentence in it have been more clearly written? Probably. Mea culpa.
I found your article to be very informative. I can recall reading it a number of times in years back (maybe even a decade back) when researching the earliest known "house church" and the earliest known depictions of Jesus.
In context of page 25, though, it has partly to do with the contrast of Greek with Aramaic and Hebrew, the latter of which are attested in the real synagogue. Also my one sentence on page 25 is relevant in the context of note 7 on page 44, which discussed Jewish-Christianity as well as the name Sisa or Siseos--with bibliography.
Thanks for highlighting your footnote 7. This makes reference to an article of 1963 by R. de Buisson - "L'inscriptions de la niche centrale de la synagogue de Doura-Europos" (Syria 40) which argues that one artist worked at both the church house and the synagogue. The footnote says: "He claims that two inscriptions in the two buildings refer to the same man (supposedly named Sisa or Siseos)"

Do you still happen to have access to that article? I can't find it.

{Next sentence was edited:]
The Dura Europos house-church graffito #17 (and compare #18) that includes the name, Siseon, names Christ!
Well that's the $64,000 question as far as I am concerned. Does this (and/or the second inscription) actually name Christ? Are we 100% sure that this is the case?

QUESTION: Weighing the Christian evidence

Supposedly we have two forms of evidence:

1) Trademark Christian "nomina sacra" in two inscriptions.
2) A series of murals which may reflect the New Testament.

My question is which of these two forms of evidence are more objectively valuable in relation to identifying a Christian presence in the house church? And by how much.

My answer would be that type 1) is far more valuable and perhaps upwards of ten times more valuable than 2) because the murals have to be interpreted and other interpretations for the murals may be just as viable that the NT interpretation. OTOH if the existence of Trademark Christian "nomina sacra" can be established this alone would indicate the house church is Christian and would then imply that the murals in turn can then be interpreted as Christian and NT related with a much greater confidence.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dura Europos

Post by Secret Alias »

Sure.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Dura Europos

Post by Leucius Charinus »

OTOH if the existence of Trademark Christian "nomina sacra" can NOT be satisfactorily established this would then imply that any confidence in a Christian interpretation of the murals is greatly diminished.

IOW the proposition that the house church is Christian is highly dependent (if not completely dependent) on the explicit identification of the "nomina sacra". Not the murals.

dig?
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dura Europos

Post by Secret Alias »

The bottom line is that if having an outpost with a Christian church and a gospel fragment destroyed, buried and 'sealed' in 256/7 doesn't prove that Christianity existed before the fourth century there is no point discussing anything. The level of cynicism to ignore evidence like this is a sad statement about the bankrupt integrity of the person doing the arguing against such absolutely persuasive evidence.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Dura Europos

Post by StephenGoranson »

I was mistaken about one name in the 1996 publication. (Name maybe or maybe not related to an Old Greek translation/transliteration of I Kings 4:3.) But the distribution of Greek and Semitic use is still notable. And of course some Christians have Jewish or Biblical or Hebrew names, including David and Jesus.
Both writings and paintings do require some interpretation. Writings 17 and 18 refer to Christ, imo and as far as I know by all scholars of Greek who have addressed these.
And the paintings, at least some of them, as Ken and all art historians I am aware of have recognized, are Christian. Attempting to walk on water and the paralytic picking up his bed are not common ancient motifs, as far as I know, but are characteristically Christian.
Pete, your declaration that graffitti "is far more valuable and perhaps upwards of ten times more valuable than" selected, planned, and probably purchased from the artist, paintings is transparently arbitrary, apparently in service to your unwavering support for an ahistoric role for Constantine.

The April 2 zoom conference from Yale Art Gallery gave additional evidence for the transformation of the building from a residence to a non-residence church, but evidence already available to you suffices--or rather, should do.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Dura Europos

Post by Secret Alias »

I've often asked Pete if this isn't proof of Christianity in the third century what would you need. For me at least having a letter turn up during a dig which read "Hey people of the future. It's 256 CE and we are Christians" would be a lot more suspicious than Dura Europos. So what would he need to give up his folly. Never an answer because Pete's very identity is inseparable from his fourth century conspiracy.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Dura Europos

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Comparative and objective evaluation of historical evidence:
Trademark Christian "nomina sacra" vs Interpretation of Mural Art Scenes

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 8:23 am Both writings and paintings do require some interpretation. Writings 17 and 18 refer to Christ, imo and as far as I know by all scholars of Greek who have addressed these.

And the paintings, at least some of them, as Ken and all art historians I am aware of have recognized, are Christian. Attempting to walk on water and the paralytic picking up his bed are not common ancient motifs, as far as I know, but are characteristically Christian.
OK.

So we agree that the claims about the evidence are twofold:
1) that the writings 17 and 18 refer to Christ, and
2) that two (or more) murals represent (the earliest known depictions of) Christ.
Pete, your declaration that graffitti "is far more valuable and perhaps upwards of ten times more valuable than" selected, planned, and probably purchased from the artist, paintings is transparently arbitrary
Stephen, no. The "declaration" is not arbitrary - it is in service to how we are about to perform an evaluation of these two different forms of evidence using common sense. I summarised this "declaration" as follows:

The proposition is that the house church is Christian is IMHO highly dependent (if not completely dependent) on the explicit identification of the "nomina sacra".

The murals are secondary and may be subject to all sorts of different interpretations. For example Clark Hopkins, who discovered the "house church" described the "Healing of the Paralytic" as "a god on a cloud". He also described "Peter and Christ walking on water" as a "Shipwreck scene". One biblical scholar P. V. C. Baur wanted to identify the "Baptismal Font" as the tomb of a martyr. Where's the objectivity? There is none. Consensus means nothing in situations like this. The interpretation of art works is notoriously subjective.

OTOH the graffiti -- which contain the "nomina sacra" forms of Christ -- are primary because the nomina sacra are universally regarded as the Trademark signature for the objective presence of Christianity. SA has stated this many times in this forum. It may be one of the few things we agree about.

Now I'd like to know whether you have understood (and can agree to) what I have written above.
Last edited by Leucius Charinus on Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Dura Europos

Post by StephenGoranson »

No.
Plus, the plainly Christian gospel, excavated pre 256 manuscript.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2819
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Dura Europos

Post by Leucius Charinus »

StephenGoranson wrote: Mon Sep 26, 2022 4:14 pm No.
Plus, the plainly Christian gospel, excavated pre 256 manuscript.
Dura Parchment 24 was not discovered inside the "house church". It therefore cannot be adduced as evidence in support of the proposition that the church house was Christian.

This is a basic error.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or inference.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Return to what I set out concerning the direct evidence of the two types. The entire edifice of the proposition that the house church is Christian is IMHO directly dependent on the explicit identification of Christian nomina sacra in the two grafitti
Post Reply