If Jesus is to Make Appearance

Mar 2012
2,663
No women's images in temptations? Very strange. From history of Christian asceticims one can assume that women are tool of Satan ( one influential early church writer called women 'devil's gateway' ). BTW, is Satan that stupid? How you can tempt God of the Universe with earthy kingdoms.

View attachment 19399
I realize this is completely off topic, but that image doesn't match up to date science. The Milky Way is actually way bigger than we thought, about 2X the size of Andromeda. The reason for our miscalculation is because it is more difficult to gauge the size of the galaxy we reside in compared to other galaxies where we can see the whole thing from a third point.
 
Nov 2016
550
Germany
Arius of Alexandria, who was subject to damnatio memoriae by Constantine for writing anti-Christian books has had his books destroyed.
But how does this reconcile with the circumstance that Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop (Euseb of Nicomedia, one of the Arian masterminds) and that Constantine's son Constantius II openly represented an Arian faith and on the advice of Euseb endeavoured to make Arianism the state religion of the Roman Empire?

While some people, such as the German Wikipedia, claim that Euseb was not really an Arian, but an Origenist, others, such as the English Wikipedia and most sources on the Internet, still assume that the bishop was convinced by Arianism.

(For the information of all readers: Arianism denies the divinity of Jesus.)
 
May 2011
2,845
Rural Australia
But how does this reconcile with the circumstance that Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop (Euseb of Nicomedia, one of the Arian masterminds) and that Constantine's son Constantius II openly represented an Arian faith and on the advice of Euseb endeavoured to make Arianism the state religion of the Roman Empire?
I am presenting Arius as a Platonic dissident to the authority of the Emperor's New Book - a dissident to the historicity of Jesus. As such Arianism was a grass roots empire-wide resistance to Constantine's "fake news". Like Ardashir, Constantine wanted to "de-Hellenise" his empire. Eusebius was commissioned to write a National History for Constantine's New Nation of Chrestians or Christians, and Eusebius was very good at performing this literary task. IN -EUSEBIUS-WE-TRUST.

(For the information of all readers: Arianism denies the divinity of Jesus.)
This is what the church historians of the 5th century claimed when they wrote the history of the 4th century. On the contrary, I think that there is sufficient reason to believe that Arianism denied the historicity of Jesus who "Was made out of Nothing Existing". The church buried the bad press in order to try and preserve some integrity.
 
Dec 2011
2,062
(1) DP 24 is actually provenanced from c.256 CE (85% probability?)
Given the archeological evidence, RE: Kraeling, I think most academics, as has been the case, will assign a much higher rate. I am unaware of any academics viewing DP24 as being dated less than secure.

Just from a rudimentary analysis I think it would be hard to argue against a 99.00% to 99.99% rating based on the inclusion of standard hypotheticals (speculation), based on what we know.

IOW, the artifact, DP24, was encapsulated in a [1]securely datable debris field under a [2]securely datable layer of bricks. By applying hypotheticals at the standard rates of 1/100,000 or more generously at 1/10,000 it is difficult to imagine anything less than near certainty in regard to the artifact.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
2,062
I hope that addresses some of your questions Cepheus.
Actually, I was trying to figure out how you were using the word promulgate.

If I am correct, you are saying that you used the word promulgate in its standard sense in your post #248, "irrespective" of your thoughts on Constantine's involvement. If so then that is a fair assertion. I can see where some might think it arguable given the sources or the degree of involvement of Constantine here. Ambiguous but still fairly arguable.

Since Muhammad is the founder of Islam and was entirely responsible for advancing Islam and Constantine is not the founder of Christianity and his degree of advancing Christianity is debated, there is a bit of ambiguity in the assertion from your post #248. IOW, arguably, equivalency distortion or an overgeneralization / too broad of an assertion.

Of course, advancing the notion that Constantine created Christianity as Muhammad created Islam would be false. But, in this case, you are saying this was not your intention, at least in respect to post #248.

Please let me know if I have misinterpreted you on this.
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
2,062
The converse is that DP24 is actually dated later, and was somehow introduced into the site at Dura Europos by some means or another, either in ancient times or modern. In this case the thesis does not require modification.
Speculative material (hypotheticals), in regard to statistical inferencing, is not in the same sphere as hard evidence. Hypotheticals can be factored into the equation but generally their effect is negligible.
 
Dec 2011
2,062
Given the archeological evidence, RE: Kraeling, I think most academics, as has been the case, will assign a much higher rate. I am unaware of any academics viewing DP24 as being dated less than secure.

Just from a rudimentary analysis I think it would be hard to argue against a 99.00% to 99.99% rating based on the inclusion of standard hypotheticals (speculation), based on what we know.

IOW, the artifact, DP24, was encapsulated in a [1]securely datable debris field under a [2]securely datable layer of bricks. By applying hypotheticals at the standard rates of 1/100,000 or more generously at 1/10,000 it is difficult to imagine anything less than near certainty in regard to the artifact.
CLARIFICATION: highlighted part is in regard to the terminus ante quem of 256 CE.

There is some debate as to how early DP24 could have been written.

There is no uncertainty in regard to the terminus ante quem.
 
May 2011
2,845
Rural Australia
Given the archeological evidence, RE: Kraeling, I think most academics, as has been the case, will assign a much higher rate. I am unaware of any academics viewing DP24 as being dated less than secure.

Just from a rudimentary analysis I think it would be hard to argue against a 99.00% to 99.99% rating based on the inclusion of standard hypotheticals (speculation), based on what we know.

IOW, the artifact, DP24, was encapsulated in a [1]securely datable debris field under a [2]securely datable layer of bricks. By applying hypotheticals at the standard rates of 1/100,000 or more generously at 1/10,000 it is difficult to imagine anything less than near certainty in regard to the artifact.
I think 99.99% is going way too far.

Let's start with Hopkins' statement: Here's how Hopkins describes the basis of the discovery "in a basket" March 5, 1933:

"in one of the baskets of finds from the embankment, behind (west of) Block L8 and not far from Tower 18"

What was the state of scientific archaeological practices in 1933?




From the OP Dura-Europos domus ecclesiae? Archaeology, Iconography & MSS

https://www.amazon.com/Discovery-Dura-Europos-Clark-Hopkins/dp/0300022883




[p.106]

...in one of the baskets of finds from the embankment, behind (west of) Block L8 and not far from Tower 18, a piece of parchment scarcely three square appeared. Susan [Hopkins], compiling the catalogue, entered it on the daily register and made the usual attempt to decipher and identify what she could. The little piece, not badly crumpled, was written in clear, legible hand, as far as the complete letters were concerned.

[p.107]

It was one of those chance finds, a fragment of parchment two blocks away and on the other side of the Great Gate from the Christian building. How it got into the debris at that point remains a mystery, and how it happened to be preserved and then discovered is another. Since it was impossible to sift the great mass of the embankment, we depended on the sharp eyes of workmen. A small piece of parchment, dirt brown, appearing in the shovel dirt and dust required good fortune as well as sharp eyes.

The find was made on March 5, 1933, and there was an enthusiastic but unsuccessful searching in the Bible to find the appropriate passage. We found readings close and tantalizing. Clearly we had some sort of gospel text, something indubitably connected with the Christian community. Susan made the transcription, as we took photographs and sent parchment and copies on to Yale, still not recognizing its extraordinary significance.


The Discovery of Dura-Europos,
Clark Hopkins,
Yale University Press
1979​
 
Dec 2011
2,062
I think 99.99% is going way too far.

Let's start with Hopkins' statement: Here's how Hopkins describes the basis of the discovery "in a basket" March 5, 1933:

"in one of the baskets of finds from the embankment, behind (west of) Block L8 and not far from Tower 18"

What was the state of scientific archaeological practices in 1933?




From the OP Dura-Europos domus ecclesiae? Archaeology, Iconography & MSS

[p.106]​
...in one of the baskets of finds from the embankment, behind (west of) Block L8 and not far from Tower 18, a piece of parchment scarcely three square appeared. Susan [Hopkins], compiling the catalogue, entered it on the daily register and made the usual attempt to decipher and identify what she could. The little piece, not badly crumpled, was written in clear, legible hand, as far as the complete letters were concerned.​
[p.107]​
It was one of those chance finds, a fragment of parchment two blocks away and on the other side of the Great Gate from the Christian building. How it got into the debris at that point remains a mystery, and how it happened to be preserved and then discovered is another. Since it was impossible to sift the great mass of the embankment, we depended on the sharp eyes of workmen. A small piece of parchment, dirt brown, appearing in the shovel dirt and dust required good fortune as well as sharp eyes.​
The find was made on March 5, 1933, and there was an enthusiastic but unsuccessful searching in the Bible to find the appropriate passage. We found readings close and tantalizing. Clearly we had some sort of gospel text, something indubitably connected with the Christian community. Susan made the transcription, as we took photographs and sent parchment and copies on to Yale, still not recognizing its extraordinary significance.​
The Discovery of Dura-Europos,​
Clark Hopkins,​
Yale University Press​
1979​
I am not sure what you are trying to say. The items that you have quoted support the high confidence level of the dating. Could you be more specific ? What EVIDENCE do you have that would reduce the secure terminus ante quem dating of DP24 ?

Some notes from the official report are found below. Again, the high confidence level seems appropriate based on what we know. To be honest, DP24 dating is so secure that it does not really need statistical inferencing. Unless you have some contradictory evidence a high rating inclusive of all known hypotheticals that I have seen to date would, from a rudimentary analysis, give a very high rating. 99.99% does not appear inappropriate. Anything less than 99% is untenable, this of course, is based on what we know.

Here are some key points (requote with additions from another thread) from Kraeling's report (the full report can be found at the links provided):

A Greek fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron [microform] from Dura;

Page 3 [per book, not ereader], description of artifact location P. Dura 24: Start 4th sentence from bottom: "layer of mud bricks...which embankment was covered..."

Comment: according to this source the frag. was in an embankment, sealed with mud bricks at the 256 CE date: set as terminus ad quem

A Greek fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron [microform] from Dura;

***

Page 6 [per book, not ereader], date confirmation of P. Dura 24:
Start 1st paragraph: "The date which paleography suggests for the fragment is confirmed and rendered more precise by archeology."

Comment: no access to area of find due to mud bricks set at time of embankment build. It would seem that the fragment has a pristine provenance from the terminus ad quem. I would assess this dating as having at a very high confidence level. Further, [bottom of 1st paragraph, continue with 2nd paragraph, it is plausible, due to the location of the find and the construction of the chapel that an earlier dating of "222 and 235 A.D." is reasonable.

A Greek fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron [microform] from Dura;

***
Page 11 [per book, not ereader], id of text, char. diatessaron.

A Greek fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron [microform] from Dura;

***
Page 37 [per book, not ereader], facsimile of P. Dura 24.
Start 2nd paragraph: "Belongs without doubt to a copy of Tatian's diatessaron."

A Greek fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron [microform] from Dura;

***
Book/Source data for the above:

Comment: Carl Herman Kraeling: Author of this source: He also worked on, The Synagogue, The Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report VIII.1 (New Haven, 1956)

A Greek fragment of Tatian's Diatessaron [microform] from Dura;

Also:
Carl Hermann Kraeling - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
Dec 2011
2,062
I think 99.99% is going way too far.
Instinctually, as a falibilist, I initially gave DP24 just a "more than likely as opposed to not" chance rating. But, this was before my studies with Bayes' Theorem and Statistical methods in general.

The use of statistics require an assessment based on what we know. The point is to avoid giving hypotheticals or "what if" scenarios the same weighting as known items. So, it is difficult for me to imagine a scenario where the rating drops below 99%, BASED ON WHAT WE KNOW. It is formulaic, but, that is how the method disciplines our analysis.

I would happily reduce the rating if we had any EVIDENCE of anything that would degrade what appears to be a artifact with pristine archeological characteristics. I can't find anything.

I have both Clark's (the one you are quoting from) and Susan's book on their experience at DE.

In neither book do Clark or Susan intimate anything less than absolute certainty in regard to the provenance of DP24.

Clark was aware of Kraeling's work and at no point contradicts the conclusions that he made.
 
Last edited:
Likes: Edratman

Similar History Discussions