GakuseiDon wrote: ↑Sun Oct 02, 2022 3:26 pm
I think the way to go is the use of Bayes Theorem and Bayes inference. It's strength isn't that it provides an objective result, but rather that it leads to getting an insight into our own subjective weighting.
Take for example the thread on Dura Europos going on in a current thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9948
The various elements found suggesting the existence of a Christian around 250 CE can be weighed by an individual to come to a conclusion whether it demonstrates the existence of a pre-Fourth C CE Christianity. Take the mural of an apparent Peter walking on water out to Jesus: Person X might see that reading as being the correct interpretation as being 10-1 for. Person Y might see it as 1-1. The conclusion can be adjusted as additional elements are added to it.
It doesn't get to an objective result, but it does force us to confront the subjective nature of our own evaluations. If we assume that nobody is objective, that's about the best we can get to.
FWIW in another discussion I attempted to design such a statistical test as you have proposed above. I referred to it as a Yale Paradigm Simulator. Here is a link:
[Xn] Monumental Architecture
X1 Inset water alcove in the "Religious Room" inferred to be a [Christian] "Babtismal Font"
[Yn]MURAL ART: AMBIGUITY FACTOR 2 (Less reliable that 1)
Y1 David and Goliath - scene from the Bible [Samuel] NOTE: Explicit caption
Y2 Adam and Eve - scene from the Bible [Genesis]
Y3 shepherd watering a flock - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kriophoros
Y4 woman fetching water from a well
Y5 Procession of women - 1) At the Tomb of Jesus?; 2) Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins? 3) Others?
Y6 Jesus "Healing the Paralytic"
Y7 Jesus and Peter "Walking on water"
[Zn]GRAFITTI with "Nomina Sacra?": AMBIGUITY FACTOR 1 (more reliable than 2)
Z1 SISAEUS GRAFITTO (#17) - - ???C (NOT the usual form of abbreviation for Christ)
Z2 PROCLUS GRAFITTO (#18) - XN IN (Christ Jesus)
Z3 GOD GRAFITTO (#15) - "to God in heaven" [in full] - Indicates non Christian
Z4 DAVID GRAFITTO (#19) - "David" [in full] - Indicates non Christian
On #15, Kraeling/Welles page 95:
"This is a [longer] Christian form of the acclamation [first two words], used commonly under the Empire by both pagans and Christians."
[Then examples are given.]
If, Pete, you think "to God in heaven" [in full] "indicates non Christian,"
then do you also claim that
"Our Father who art in heaven...."
is non Christian?
Last edited by StephenGoranson on Wed Oct 05, 2022 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Oct 04, 2022 5:17 am
On #15, Kraeling/Welles page 95:
"This is a [longer] Christian form of the acclamation [first two words], used commonly under the Empire by both pagans and Christians." [Then examples are given.]
If, Pete, you think "to God in heaven" [in full] "indicates non Christian,"
then do you also claim that
"Our Father who art in heaven....'
is non Christian?
This comment relates to the claims made by mainstream scholars in relation to the identification of "Christian nomina sacra" in two following graffiti namely:
* SISAEUS GRAFITTO (#17) - XPIC (NOT the usual form of abbreviation for Christ)
* PROCLUS GRAFITTO (#18) - XN IN (Christ Jesus) or (IN CHRIST)
If these are actually Christian abbreviations for Christ (which is the mainstream view) leading to the claim of a "certainly Christian presence", then why do we not also expect the use of the usual "Christian" abbreviated nomina sacra forms of "God" and "Heaven"?
I have questioned the mainstream Yale paradigm that the "Religious Room" at Dura hosted the trademark Christian "nomina sacra" for Christ. I see King David but I don't see Jesus appearing on the mural wall art. I wrote a small essay on this called "The Runes of Christ at Dura" which you said you would never read. I have presented sections of this essay in this thread. Where is your knowledgeable response?
As far as I am concerned you are the disgrace for not responding to my claims and the reasons supporting those claims. Demonstrating they are in error. Stop trying to impress people by talking from a soap box about how right you are. Deal with the fucking evidence. And stop trying to bully everyone.
They are not my rules. The system was invented by Ludwig Traube and outlined by Metzger
A nomen sacrum consists of two or more letters from the original word spanned by an overline. Biblical scholar and textual critic Bruce M. Metzger lists 15 such words treated as nomina sacra from Greek papyri: the Greek counterparts of God, Lord, Jesus, Christ, Son, Spirit, David, Cross, Mother, Father, Israel, Savior, Man, Jerusalem, and Heaven
I am not understanding. So you're saying that if there's no line it's not Christian? That's patently false. In the course of figuring out the Mar Saba letter I've really researched the limits of abbreviations. (all that follows is for actual researchers not jack offs like Pete the mountainman).
1. there were always abbreviations in antiquity
2. there is overlap between Christian abbreviation habits and 'ordinary' abbreviation habits
3. 'Lord' is abbreviated by Christians and non-Christians alike
4. other words are less likely, less common
The idea that Dura Europos has a Christian church, a Christian gospel and non-Christian graffiti that look like Christian abbreviations is ridiculously unlikely. You're such a piece of shit Pete. Just give up. This was over 10 years ago.
And graffiti writers may not have all known and always followed Ludwig Traube's rules (rules which developed over time; which were not universal; and which varied).
Have you, Pete, never seen other graffiti?
Perfection of grammar, spelling, neat handwriting, and so on may not be their most consistent characteristic.
