mountainman

You are of course free to conjecture all you want J-D
however The word did not exist until the fourth century
if we are to allow the epigraphic and papyri
evidence speak for itself.

This is my point. The word pagan appeared
first on christian epigraphy and papyri in
the mid fourth century and later.

Not earlier.


Its the same as this one J-D.
Deal with the evidence.
Not your hypotheses.

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Hi VoxRat,

Julian wrote three books against christianity c.362 CE.
They do not survive.
They were politically censored in a refutation
by the ignominius bishop Cyril of Alexandria
early in the fifth century. Then burned.

Read all about CYRIL.

Julian was convinced the NT was a fiction of men
composed by wickedness. Cyril called this Julian's
lies, and buried them by polemic.

You may need to do some reading.

Gore Vidal suggests this in his historical novel "Julian".
Ammianus Marcellinus passes up the opportunity.
We may never know this.

But if Constantine invented christianity,
and Julian was convinced that he did,
and Cyril covered up Julian's words,
we may still know this.

Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

I have no reason to doubt it. However, I do have reason to doubt the assumption that anything which was not recorded did not happen, and still more reason to doubt the assumption that anything of which there is no surviving record did not happen.Firstly, that's not an answer to my question, which was, in case you missed it, 'what is the flaw in the argument I made there?'

Secondly, there is no evidence without hypotheses. All observations are theory-laden.

Thirdly, obviously you don't think that your approach is methodologically bankrupt. I am trying to find out whether there is anybody else who thinks so. If not ... well, before I draw my conclusion, is there anybody (apart from Pete) who sees any reason not to accept my argument that Pete's approach is methodologically bankrupt?

mountainman

Greetings Jay!

Christianity may have existed long before it started
using paganus to describe its 'other' but that is not
what the papyri fragments and the epigraphic texts
are saying.

If the stones and the papyri are allowed to speak
for themselves they are all waving little fourth
century flags with the same message.

This is simply the evidence speaking.
It may not be important.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

J-D

Nobody?

Fortuna

Pete,

I present this only as an example of nuetrally (or positively) examining the implications for and contra your Christian origins idea so that you might consider usingf such a framework for any evidence you might find. It occurs to me that the origin of paganus niether proves nor disproves your ideas of Christian origins. It only tells of the origin of the word and nothing more

Let us explore a bit about the word paganus (let's just reference the nominative case for latin nouns), what we know of its usage and how it might fit into your idea of Christian origins and the conventional one.

Your claim concerning this word (within the context of your Constantinian/ post Nicean origin of Christianity) is ;

Note - Formatting changed by me only to be more compact.

You go no to say ;

From what I had always understood

The word paganus / pagani originally was a word that was used to describe people who lived out in the country, who lived apart from the metropolitan life of the Roman cities, implying one who is rustic, unrefined (relative to the then metropoitan norms) and that it had a pejorative meaning.(comparable in meaning/usage to the US english word "bumpkin" or the slang "hick") When Christianity became the dominant religion of the empire, the metropolitan Christians used it as a pejorative to refer for those people in areas where Christianity had not taken hold, or where people preferred the older traditions. More generally, in reference to non-Christians

from Wordorigins.org (http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php...omments/pagan/) ;

To put this within the context of the hypothesis of a first century origin of Christianity, I would speculate that this word in fact predated Constantine but was borrowed by the more metropolitan Christians. (as I have stated above).

So, if we can find anywhere in Roman literature or inscriptions that pre-date Constantine and not used in the Christian pejorative sense, or used in a more general sense, that would provides evidence against your assertion that in this word was coined by the post Nicean Christians.

I already notice that wordorigins.org suggests that the word has meanings outside of the of a Christian perjorative."As an antonym for miles, soldier, civilian"

Really though, if we find it used earlier then Nicea, or not in the Christian to non-Christian pejorative sense, then it indicates only that The post Nicean Christians merely borrowed the word and did not coin/invent it. (which doesn't really prove anything by itself).

Pete, while this could be a very minor bit of evidence for your Nicean Christian origins idea, I think that what some are saying here is that you do not nuetrally (some would say positively) apply it hypothetically think it through for the case contra your origins idea, as I have tried to do for this matter (origin of paganus).


btw, in reality, is there no epigraphic usage or inscriptions that use this word pre-Nicean ?

mountainman

Thanks very much for taking the time to make this clarification
Fortuna. I understand the point you are making. You are saying
that the term may well have been used (with an entirely different
meaning) in the prenicene epoch ... I agree. It may well have had.

In this instance, I am looking at the evidence presented
by Robert Lane Fox. And it is he, not I who writes:

p.31:
"the word "pagani: in everyday use meant "civilian" and/or "rustic".
"pagani: first appears in christian inscriptions from early 4th century.
"pagani: earliest use in the Law Codes in Codex Theodosius 16.2.18 (c.370)
"pagani: is a word coined by christians -- of the towns and cities.

I thought that it was an interesting archaeological observation.
The question that needs to be asked is why we have no such
inscriptions or papyri earlier, especially considering the entire
host of prenicene christian authors were purported to have lived
in the major cities of the empire (Rome, Alexandria, etc)



Well, according to Robert Lane Fox, as expressed above,
I'd say there was not any such usage, otherwise he would
not have made these statements.

There we have it.
Thanks and best wishes,


Pete Brown

J-D

OK, that's two different threads now, and still nobody will defend Pete's methodology.

Conclusion:

Give it up, Pete! You're not fooling anybody!

spamandham

This is a very good point, if accurate. It does indeed support your idea that Christianity, as we know it, was invented in 325, resulting in the need for a new word to distinguish it from everything else.

As far as I can see, it does not support the idea that Christian ideas were invented from whole cloth by Eusebius, but rather, it reflects the establishment of an official religion where one did not previously exist - which is pretty much the standard model.

mountainman

This word of course being the greek word for "christian".
Which is fundamentally very similar to the Greek word for "good".
In the Latin, the same pair exist: "chrestos" and "christos".
Quite convenient to be on the side of the good.

There was also the need for a new word to distinguish the
"religious otherness" from the newly invented "goodness".
That word was "pagan", with hegemony attached.


The evidence which will support the fourth century
invention theory, is an analysis of the appearance of the
word "christian" in the epigraphy and the papyri. I am at
present concluding an exhaustive review of these two fields.

Did you read the Story of the Three Stones?




Best wishes,



Pete Brown
PORPHYRY's AGAINST CHRISTIANS
was FORGED by CONSTANTINE so
that He could justifiably DESTROY
the Greco of the Greco-Roman empire.