Dura Europos

[Leucius Charinus]

Hi Pete.
You have offered alternate interpretations, piecemeal. Do they cohere into a whole, integrated interpretation that better accounts for the archaeological evidence than the Christian-place interpretation?

Hi Stephen,

I have offered an interpretation that we are looking at a "Jewish house church" rather than a "Christian house church". There is an external coherence in that we know for sure that there were enough Jewish people in Dura for them to have consecrated a synagogue. I have offered an internal coherence that the King David story and not the Jesus story was the main inspiration of the mural wall art. I have also offered an alternative translation of the graffiti which does not require a reading in which Christ is mentioned.

I am not the pope. I don't claim infallibility. I simply provide an alternative interpretation of the house church evidence as a whole, and consistent with Dura Europos c.260 CE.

[Leucius Charinus]

I looked on your website on your page on Duras Europos here: http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_072.htm

You wrote:

It is not unreasonable to consider that both the manuscript and the graffiti (if indeed they are christian) could have been introduced to the city at a much later date, by unknown fringe desert dwellers, seeking shelter in a desolation. Another possibility is outlined below...

We are told by the historians Ammianus (23.5.1-15) and Zosimus (3.14.2) that the Roman army lead by Julian (the Apostate) travelled to the region called Zaitha (or Zautha [Zosimus]) near the abandoned town of Dura where they visted the tomb of the emperor Gordian. This was Julian's final campaign, and he was accompanied by the entire army.

Therefore it is entirely possible that post Nicaean literature was deposited in the wall at Dura, and that christian graffiti was scrawled on the walls, during this very brief Roman occupation of the town, for possibly only a few days, in early April of the year 363 CE.

That reads like the explanation of the lawyer: "My client didn't fire the shot because he wasn't there. And if he was there, he didn't have a gun to fire the shot. And if he was there and had a gun, it didn't work."

That page hasn't been revised since 2014. Since then I have sought out the Preliminary and Final Reports for the Dura Expedition. As a result I am informed that the house church itself was probably undisturbed between c.256 CE. It contains murals and graffiti from the earlier 3rd century. But I question whether the "religious room" is Christian and have offered an alternative interpretation that all the elements therein could be Jewish.

LC, in your view: were Christian manuscript fragments and Christian grafitti found there? Or at least, in your view what is the likelihood that the writings there were Christian (whether pre- or post-Nicene)?

At the moment my view is that the graffiti are not necessarily Christian, for the reasons outlined above. Ditto for the house church. This leaves DP24.


Dura Parchment 24

The manuscript Dura Parchment 24 is a separate and independent bit of evidence. It was discovered during excavations and is presumed to be dated securely because of it being found under the rampart.

BYT, B.A.R. Aug. 16, 2021:
"THIS FRAGMENTED PARCHMENT was found in an undisturbed context at Dura-Europos, in present-day Syria. It contains Greek gospel text which does not correspond to any one canonical gospel. Rather, it mixes elements of all four. Because we know that Dura-Europos was sacked in A.D. 256, the manuscript must date to that year or earlier."

On another thread I wrote this:

(2) Dura Parchment 24:

In the case of DP24 the assumption (held to be true by most scholarship), is that the manuscript was buried c.265 CE under a rampart constructed by the Roman garrision in a last ditch attempt to defend Dura from the Persian forces. And it was buried by the sands which covered Dura until its discovery in the 20th century "in a workman's bucket". If you are deducing a "latest possible date" then you are obliged to make this assumption explicit. It follows that you must also reject the possibility that DP24 was otherwise introduced to the site anytime later - between the 3rd century and the 20th century. If you subscribe to the Apollonian aphorism "Certainty brings insanity" (as I do) then you could deduce a probability to your proposition.

I previous discussions I have placed a notional percentage / probability as high as 90%. I refuse to subscribe to the notion that anyone is 100% certain there is no other explanation for the provenance of DP 24. My earlier article cited above explored some of these alternate scenarios.


DP24 as a 3rd century manuscript

OK so we have a fragment of a harmony gospel containing a nomina sacra from the 3rd century (90%). 90% chance DP24 is 3rd century. 10% chance its later. Let's get the chalk board out and chalk up almost one point.

Is this an outlier? Are there any other chalk marks to mark up for any other Christian evidence which is "likely" to be from the 3rd century or earlier? We should ask about that first in case DP24 is all by itself. It was discovered in 1932. What physical evidence existed prior to then and dated "early". Aside from the Oxyrhychus fragments dated by paelography-in-isolation? I haven't been able to find anything much at all. To be honest.

If DP24 is early then we have evidence for a harmony narrative using a nomina sacra in the 3rd century. No direct evidence of the four gospels. Although many would claim that we should infer the existence of the 4 gospels from the existence of a harmony gospel. That's an extra assumption. It could be right. It might not be.

[StephenGoranson]

LC/Pete wrote (above, separately, in time sequence):
"I interpret the church house to be Jewish and that the murals probably relate to the life of King David not to the life of Jesus."
and
"5) Peter and Christ a-walking on the water? This could be anything. The water upon which the ship is floating could well have been the Euphrates River immediately below the city of Dura. The figures could be anyone involved with the river transport trade welcoming a newly arrived trader. Another option is a depiction of when David greets Hiram: Brothers in Trade [from Samuel] - the synogogue depicts scenes from Samuel"

The above, taken together with your writing about the inscriptions and the gospel harmony ms, all dated earlier than 256, demonstrates that, in terms of the Dura-Europos Christian building, despite your efforts, you have presented no alternate case that is even remotely plausible.

[Secret Alias]

To me the problem is - WTF should anyone care about a guy who markets a fourth century conspiracy theory on the internet's intellectually bankrupt denial of what clearly is a third century church having a third century gospel fragment? I am not likening this to holocaust denial because it has a similar moral depravity but rather because it has the same underlying logic. If you think the Nazis weren't that bad or that the Jews aren't that sympathetic you have to deny that 6 million Jews were killed during the war. The same thing holds true from a Trump election loss, the spherical shape of the earth or any number of other conspiracies. That's why I made the case in another thread that impartiality matters. If we deny fairness and impartiality are ideals which we ought to strive for we end up with people like Pete the mountainman. Some say he is harmless. Maybe. But I've always argued that if we allow everyone to give up on impartiality the forum loses its functionality. I'd argue the function of the forum is to test our commitment to impartiality and fairness. And I was like the second person to join the forum after Peter.

I don't understand the point of Pete continuing to argue on behalf of a fourth century conspiracy theory when there is Dura Europos.

[neilgodfrey]

If we deny fairness and impartiality are ideals which we ought to strive for . . .

I for one do not deny fairness or impartiality but you are the one being unfair to me when you continually misrepresent me and refuse to engage with what I actually wrote in the OP on "pure objectivity" as a myth.

I don't understand the point of Pete continuing to argue on behalf of a fourth century conspiracy theory when there is Dura Europos.

Exactly. It is very clear that when you don't understand someone you attack them personally. That's hardly a "fair and impartial" position to take.

[neilgodfrey]

I am not likening this to holocaust denial because it has a similar moral depravity but rather because it has the same underlying logic.

Nice. Very nice. Now if I were to say that your declaration that we must have authority or we have anarchy is the same underlying logic of the Nazis...... !!!!

Your comparison with holocaust denial is noted -- whatever your rationale.

[Leucius Charinus]

The above, taken together with your writing about the inscriptions and the gospel harmony ms, all dated earlier than 256, demonstrates that, in terms of the Dura-Europos Christian building, despite your efforts, you have presented no alternate case that is even remotely plausible.

The case I have presented concerns two separate and independent evidence items.

The first is the "Religious Room" in the house church which I have argued has been identified in error as a Christian religious room by means of confirmation bias. This confirmation bias has resulted in:

1) Clark Hopkins in January 1932 rejecting outright the possibility that the mural of David and Goliath may have been Jewish (because until November 1932 and the discovery of the jewish synagogue at Dura it was believed by scholars that the Jewish people did not indulge in mural wall art)

2) Clark Hopkins and everyone else as a result of 1) coming to the conclusion that because the mural of David and Goliath was not Jewish it had to be Christian. What other alternative was there?

3) Clark Hopkins as a result of 1) and 2) interpreted graffiti inscriptions containing XPIC and XN IN without overbars as Christian nomina sacra which mentioned Christ.

4) And finally as a result of 1), 2) and 3) interpreting some of the murals as portraying images of Jesus Christ doing stuff he did in the NT Jesus Story Book.

Now I don't buy any of the above. It reeks of confirmation bias.


The second and completely independent evidence item is the Dura Parchment 24 which was "discovered in a workman's bucket" not in the house containing the "religious room" but a block away and supposedly recovered from rubble under which it had been since 256 CE. I have acknowledged that there is a high probability that this is a genuine manuscript from the 3rd century. However I have also pointed out that we cannot be absolutely certain of this because conceivably the manuscript could have been introduced to the city of Dura anytime between the 2nd century and the 20th.

So I have rejected the Jesus Room in the house but have accepted a 90% chance that DP24 is a legitimate 3rd century manuscript and a 10% chance that it is not. Where does that leave us?

[StephenGoranson]

NG wrote, in part:
"...when you refuse to continually misrepresent me ..."
I guess he meant to write, more or less:
when you continually misrepresent me
or
when you refuse to accurately represent me

[StephenGoranson]

Pete
will you ever get over repeating (re-Pete-ing?)
Clark Hopkins and his (reported) first impressions, while
ignoring sometimes better-informed scads of other later scholars on the subject?
Not holding breath.

[Leucius Charinus]

I don't understand the point of Pete continuing to argue on behalf of a fourth century conspiracy theory when there is Dura Europos.

My arguments are based on the evidence items which are summarised above. I reject the presence of the NT Jesus Story Book in the mural wall art in the "Religious Room" as confirmation bias. I acknowledge a 90% chance that the DP24 harmony manuscript is from the 3rd century.

I then have asked whether the above two items represent all the physical evidence that mainstream scholarship has got dated prior to the 4th century after almost 1700 years of propaganda. I continue to ask questions and argue because the evidence is so sparse. Find me some evidence and I will stop the search.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=9833&sid=a9f0419a0f ... a6a99b19ee

Better yet find any legitimate reference from a non Christian source which attests to the historical existence of Christians prior to the rise of Bullneck. And explain to me why there are so many forgeries, frauds and interpolations in this class of literature.