Dura-Europos domus ecclesiae? Archaeology, Iconography & MSS

Sep 2015
315
ireland
That's false. Read the earlier discussions. I don't see Jesus and Peter walking on the waves. Out of the entire collection of murals the only unambiguous figures are the legendary Jewish King David and the figure of Goliath. They are unambiguous because both these two figures have been captioned in Greek.

You're misunderstanding of the function of "Where's Wally" has induced you to think I am using sarcasm when in fact the reference is quite instructive to my case.

Where's Wally? - Wikipedia

Where's Wally? is a British series of children's puzzle books created by English illustrator Martin Handford. The books consist of a series of detailed double-page spread illustrations depicting dozens or more people doing a variety of amusing things at a given location. Readers are challenged to find a character named Wally hidden in the group.​
Wally is identified by his red-and-white-striped shirt, bobble hat, and glasses, but many illustrations contain red herrings involving deceptive use of red-and-white striped objects.​

If you dont have children you may not get the point of what I am trying to say, because its a popular childrens' book. However Wally can be uniquely identified in this book because he always wears a red-and-white-striped shirt, bobble hat, and glasses. The challenge is to find him. On the other hand how do we unambiguously identify the figure of Jesus or Peter in the two murals in which the paradigm claims they appear?
We identify them from passages in the NT and we can be relatively certain the local Christians knew their scripture because of DP24. This of course is why you seek to exclude DP24 from your conclusions.
 
May 2011
2,790
Rural Australia
RE: Unambiguously identifying Jesus and Peter in the Dura "Religious Room" in the house adjacent to the Secondary Gate ... ...

We identify them from passages in the NT and we can be relatively certain the local Christians knew their scripture because of DP24.
In a relative probabalistic world we can be just as certain the local Jews knew their scripture at Dura.

The OP seeks an estimate of the relative probability that the religious room is either Jewish or Christian.
At the moment the paradigm says the religious room is almost certainly Christian.
The OP suggests the estimate is at best 50:50.

This of course is why you seek
to exclude DP24 from your conclusions.
You seek to exclude from your conclusions the possibility that the religious room is not Christian but Jewish.
This is the entire point of the OP.

DP24 is not part of the primary evidence derived from the archaeology of the "religious room".
DP24 is not being excluded from the secondary evidence.
DP24 is being adduced as secondary evidence in support of the primary evidence in the mural category
Specifically Y6 and Y7 (see below).

DP24 is also being adduced as secondary evidence in support of the primary evidence.in the inscription category.
Specifically that DP24 uses Christian "nomina sacra".
However without the overbars on the inscriptions in the religious room we may not be looking at Christian nomina sacra.

See this summary: The Runes of Christ at Dura Europos


The primary evidence consists of the "water basin", the murals and the inscriptions.
The murals can be listed as follows:

Y1 OT: Jewish King David and Goliath (explicit labels)
Y2 OT: Adam and Eve
Y3 OT: Shepherd watering a flock
Y4 OT: Woman fetching water from a well
Y5 NT: Procession of women
Y6 NT: Jesus "Healing the Paralytic"
Y7 NT: Jesus and Peter "Walking on water"



Are there any alternative possibilities for Y5, Y6 and Y7? (question asked by Bart Dale recently)

Earlier a number of alternative possibilities for Y5, Y6 and Y7 were proposed and outlined (post #256)

Y5 is not a NT: Procession of women
but OT: Procession of women

Y6 not NT: Jesus "Healing the Paralytic" but ...

1) OT: Bedridden David bows to new King Solomon [Kings] in the presence of the high priest, (NB: mural panel leads to Y7)
2) Also see Dura banquet murals in Block M7 .... the "paralytic" is carrying King David's banquet table (not a bed)

Y7 not NT: Jesus and Peter "Walking on water" but ...

1) OT: (With King David overlooking in Y6) King Solomon greets Hiram: Brothers in Trade
2) OT: King David greets Hiram: Brothers in Trade
3) Local Dura Europos shipping delivery
 
Last edited:
Sep 2015
315
ireland
I`ve read The Runes of Christ, unless you`ve edited it since I read it, you didn`t mention DP24.

Y1,Y2,Y3 and Y4 are all acceptable in a Christian setting. Y3, Y4, Y5,Y6 and Y7 can all be easily reconciled with parables or passages from the NT. The shepherd is clearly carrying a sheep on his shoulders in the mural ....see Luke 15:5.

With regard to Y6, I suspect you are referring to 1 Kings 2. There is no mention of David being bedridden. In fact there is no mention of a bed at all. If I`ve highlighted the wrong passage could you direct me to the one that you mean?
What is the significance of a servant moving a table? Why would someone depict it in a place of worship?

With regard to Y7, I don`t think either David or Solomon ever met Hiram, but if they did could you direct me to the relevant passage? The two characters in the foreground appear to be standing on the same surface as the ship in the background.
 
May 2011
2,790
Rural Australia
Y1,Y2,Y3 and Y4 are all acceptable in a Christian setting. Y3, Y4, Y5,Y6 and Y7 can all be easily reconciled with parables or passages from the NT.
Hopkins promulgated the Christian setting at International Christian conferences well before he wrote his prliminary report. The discovery was received with wide acclaim in the highest circles of the Christian world. I have read a great deal of papers outlining how many christian biblical scholars think that these murals reflect passages in the NT.

All the Y series of murals may also be acceptable in a Jewish setting which highlights the Jewish King David.

How would you suggest these two competing hypotheses be tested?

The shepherd is clearly carrying a sheep on his shoulders in the mural ....see Luke 15:5.
And King David was a shepherd. How do we weigh the two options?

With regard to Y6, I suspect you are referring to 1 Kings 2. There is no mention of David being bedridden. In fact there is no mention of a bed at all. If I`ve highlighted the wrong passage could you direct me to the one that you mean?
I refer to 1 Kings ..

1 Kings 1: 47-48​
Solomon sits on the royal throne. 47 Moreover, the king's servants came to congratulate our lord King David, saying, ‘May your God make the name of Solomon more famous than yours, and make his throne greater than your throne.’ And the king bowed himself on the bed. 48 And the king also said, ‘Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel, who has granted someone[a] to sit on my throne this day, my own eyes seeing it.’”​

What is the significance of a servant moving a table? Why would someone depict it in a place of worship?
King David who is in bed, has a servant moving a banquet table to his triclinium so he can eat.

With regard to Y7, I don`t think either David or Solomon ever met Hiram, but if they did could you direct me to the relevant passage? The two characters in the foreground appear to be standing on the same surface as the ship in the background.
They may not have met but their envoys certainly did, and this was a very important and lucrative business partnership by David and Solomon.

HIRAM, HURAM - JewishEncyclopedia.com
King of Tyre in the time of David and Solomon.

After David had conquered Jerusalem, Hiram sent him cedar-wood and carpenters and masons so that he might build a house (II Sam. v. 11; I Chron. xiv. 1). Hiram was a friend of David throughout the latter's life (I Kings v. 15); and after David's death he continued on terms of friendship with Solomon (ib. v. 21 et seq.). Hiram supplied Solomon with cedar-trees, fir-trees, and Tyrian constructors for the building of the Temple; and Solomon repaid him with wheat and olive-oil (ib. v. 24, 25, 32; II Chron. ii. 14, 15). Twenty years later Hiram sent to Solomon gold and another large supply of cedar- and fir-trees; and Solomon gave him in return a present of twenty towns in Galilee (I Kings ix. 10, 11). Although Hiram was dissatisfied with the present, his friendship for Solomon did not diminish; and he sent Solomon a hundred and twenty talents of gold (ib. verses 12-14). Hiram permitted Solomon's ships to sail with his own to Ophir; and the Jewish sailors were guided by the Tyrians, who were the better mariners (ib. ix. 27, 28; x. 22).​

The idea is that the series of murals may have been commissioned to depict various events in the life of King David, and as such may not necessarily be related to the NT.
 
Sep 2015
315
ireland
" And King David was a shepherd. How do we weigh up the two options?"

Well I`ve provided a quote from Lukes gospel that describes the Good Shepherd carrying a sheep on his shoulders so perhaps you could guide me to where the OT says David carried a sheep on his shoulders? I`m not trying to be awkward, I`m just not aware of it.

1 Kings 1..47-48.... I just don`t see it at all. Who do suggest is standing above the bed? Shouldn`t we see Solomon sitting on a throne, which would give the drawing some context?

Servant moves table........can you show where this is written and why would it be significant enough to be portrayed in a mural anyway? I don`t see anything in the passage associating the movement of a table and David lying on his bed. In any event the criss-cross design indicates this is a bed and not a table.

David, Solomon and Hiram.
You detract from your position by suggesting that Solomon or David greeted Hiram personally. That was the inference I drew from what you initially said.
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,012
The idea is that the series of murals may have been commissioned to depict various events in the life of King David, and as such may not necessarily be related to the NT.
What cult group are you talking about ? IOW, Sabazious, Cybele, Mithra, etc. ?

What is the statistical "PRIOR" ? RE: Bayes Theorem. IOW, what is the KNOWN cult/religion that we use set up our "expectations" ?
 

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,012
The Runes of Christ at Dura Europos pdf takes the approach that if the overbars were visible then Hopins would have drawn them or photographed them or more importantly, mentioned them in his preliminary report. Instead he says “Very possibly, however, in short inscriptions this line above was not considered necessary.” What are the odds that Hopkins saw the overbars? The article assumes - in the absence of further evidence from Yale - that the overbars did not exist.

However for the sake of the discussion let's assume there are other alternatives such as the overbars were there but Hopkins did not mention them or render them in his preliminary report (except to state they were not perhaps necessary in short inscriptions). How is this a viable alternative?

Are there any other alternatives?
I know what approach you pdf takes. I don't need you to explain it to me. Anybody even remotely familiar with the DE will see its omissions.

We don't have to "assume" there are other alternatives, because there EXIST other alternatives. Hopkins implies this in the prelim.

You can't think of any other alternatives ? This is a subject you have been looking at for years and you are unable to describe any other alternatives ?

Why would you offer a conclusion as to how we should handle the overbars in your pdf. without incorporating all of the available information or alternatives?
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,012
How would you suggest these two competing hypotheses be tested?
We are dealing with unknowns. re: see next post #779

That is why we are employing statistical methods.

Given the cumulative data/artifacts what fits our known hypothesis (aka PRIOR) ?

We can compare our finds (data/artifacts) to what we KNOW from records--our hypothesis/prior-- and to other data/artifacts that we find.

Testing requires controlled data. So the only way we could test any sub Jewish cults would be to other finds or documentation.
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,012
And King David was a shepherd. How do we weigh the two options?
The idea of "two options" is a misdirection for statistical modelling. We can only calculate the percentage statistically for the overall data in the cumulative data per BT (Bayes Theorem). Otherwise we enter the domain of reductionist fallacies.

Without a KNOWN cult to prep a PRIOR for your ideas, they enter into the calculation technically as "hypotheticals" for BT. (Bayes Theorem)

Standard hypotheticals calculated at a 1/10,000 chance. [1]

We have KNOWN documentation to prep a BT equation for a Christian scenario that includes all of the artifacts. To wit: mural program, baptistry, graffiti, layout of the house, comparison to all KNOWN Jewish facilities/artifacts/etc.

I have not seen anything from your hypotheticals of "Solomon on the royal throne" that comes anywhere near the comprehensive set of data that we have now with the DE as Christian.

--------------------------------

[1] Carrier, Proving History, Prometheus Books, 2012
 
Last edited:

Cepheus

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,012
The OP seeks an estimate of the relative probability that the religious room is either Jewish or Christian.
Okay. We are talking statistics then.

Statistically speaking, what other PRIORS (KNOWN narratives) do we have to fit the DE ?

Out of all the KNOWN ancient cults, what cult best fits the Dura-Europos domus ecclesiae ?

To my knowledge the Christian cult fits the cumulative PRIOR (KNOWN cult status/narrative) better than any other cult status/narrative KNOWN.

I am unaware of any BT/statistical modelling that will allow statistical probabilities to hinge on reductionist, "unknowable fact" or omission schemes.
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions