andrewcriddle

I think there may be two issues. Diocletian's persecution was an attempt throughout the Eastern Empire (the Western half was half-hearted or uninterested) to eliminate Christianity.

It seems to have been very brutal in (at least parts of) Egypt maybe enough so to add a thousand or so to the estimate in Wikipedia.

However in general it was targeted at Christian zealots and Christian leaders and usually far preferred Christians to conform than be killed. There seems to have usually been no difficulty in bribing the officials to say (wrongly) that you had sacrificed. From the point of view of the Church this sort of nominal conformity did more or less amount to apostasy and the very large numbers of Christians who had obtained bogus certificates of having sacrificed caused serious problems (in terms of readmission to fellowship) after the end of the persecution.

Andrew Criddle

storytime

Specifically those of the virgin birth, resurrection, heaven and hell.

Diogenes the Cynic

You were asked if you had read critical commentaries on the Parable of the Tenants in Mark. What critical commentaries have you read specifically on Mark 12:1-12?

mens_sana

Wikipedia is somewhat more than "merely a collection of someone's opinions," especially when the articles contain adequate footnotes. In support of this Wiki article, let me summarize from an article in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, (Vol.5):

Diocletian ruled for eighteen years before initiating any persecution of Christians. During this period, he had openly tolerated the church. Christians had held high positions in his court and a Christian, Lactantius, held a pestigious chair in Latin rhetoric in Diocletian's capital.

Diocletian's first order of persecution is dated Feb 23, 303. It ordered the destruction of Christian churches and houses where Christian scripture was discovered. Christian scripture was to be burned, church property confiscated, worship forbidden. Christians who kept their faith lost access to court action. Christian members of the imperial household were to be enslaved. A second edict in the spring of 303 ordered the arrest of Christian clergy. This filled prisons beyond capacity and in autumn 303, Christian prisoners who sacrificed to the gods were released. In Jan or Feb of 304, an imperial edict ordered all inhabitants of the empire to sacrifice.

It is unclear how these edicts affected the eastern empire where Diocletian, then Galerius ruled. In Caesarea, Pamphilius and the Bishop were martyred, while Eusebius escaped notice. At any rate enforcement depended on the willingness of imperial officers.

In the western empire where Maximian, then Constantius ruled, there appears to have been little, if any, persecution under Maximian, and none at all under Constantius.

On May 1, 305, Diocletian and Maximian abdicated in favor of Galerius and Constantius. Galerius, in the east, continued to enforce Diocletian's edicts until 311, when he issued an edict of toleration. There was a short-lived persecution under Galerius' successor Maximin in 311-312/313, followed by another edict of toleration. In July 313, Licinius defeated Maximin, then restored all Christian property throughout the east, although he restricted Christian worship. This effected ended all imperial efforts to acts against the Christian church until sometime in the reign of Constantine when the imperial government started persecuting heretical Christian sects in defense of “orthodoxy.”

So, basically, there was little or no Diocletian persecution in the western empire, and in the east, it wasn't all it was cracked up to be, although it did happen and people did die as a result.

zonmoy

court records that the romans and other courts would have kept that are conveniently missing. also wasnt there recently the finding of what some think is the family tomb of jesus. the presence of his bones in the bone box would have proven the resurection a lie by itself. also nearly all the claims of miracles would have had many witnesses. particularly with the part of the crucifixion story that involved the resurection of a large number of prophets. there would have been lines of physical evidence to follow to disprove their claims if they knew how to do such an investigation.

Ben C Smith

Part of the problem on this (and the other thread) has been that nobody knows (perhaps until now) what you are really asking for. You finally specified on the other thread that you are talking about actual, epistemological proof, FBI style.

I doubt I would have even bothered trying to respond had I known you were looking for such an anachronism. It seemed to me that we were looking for attempts to disprove certain things in the ancient style, not in a modern (FBI) style.

The search for an FBI approach in antiquity is, I think, somewhat futile, though certain instances may tend in that direction. Then again, it is also, I suspect, a straw man.

Ben.

Jeffrey Gibson

It also seems like the whole argument shifted somewhere along the line. I thought it originally was whether there were any instances in antiquity of someone who was was arguing against the truth of a cult's teaching doing so by pointing out, not proving, that the alleged cult founder never existed.

After all, the point was being made that Celsus and others could have made quick work of Christianity by doing so, and yet they don't -- which was curious if was known or thought by them that Jesus was not historical.

I guess the question to ask now is whether the hidden assumption here -- that ancients would have thought "forensic evidence" was necessary to "prove" the non existence (?) of someone -- was something they ever entertained.

If not, then why the insistence on their having to have employed an anachronistic methodology?

Jeffrey

Toto

I think that the argument Christian apologists sometimes use is that the Jews or the Romans could have shown the non-existence of Jesus, presumably using that sort of forensic methodology, which is why this inquiry is about whether it was ever used.

If you are not able to prove that someone from a century or two ago never existed, it's probably not the best argument to use against their supporters. Especially if the religion is not based on the mere existence of that person.

Jeffrey Gibson

My problem with this is that I've never seen any "apologist" who, when making the point that Celsus and Co. can be used as evidence for the existence of Jesus, use the particular argument that you say they do. To my knowledge, all they do is to ask: if Celsus & Co thought, suspected, or had any reason to believe that Jesus never existed, why didn't they say so?

The issue of how Celsus & Co would have come to think, or suspect, or have reason to believe that Jesus never existed, let alone whether the means by which they came to think, suspect, or believe this were grounded in "forensic methodology" (how does forensic methodology prove the non existence of someone, anyway?) and whether they could [or feel it necessary, given whom they were arguing with, to] "prove" the validity of what they thought or suspected or believed, is not relevant.

In any case, if you have evidence that shows that "apologist" use the particular argument you thingk they sometimes use, I'd be grateful to see it.

Jeffrey

Amaleq13

I suspect the two of you are referring to different sort "apologists". I am not aware of any "apologist" scholars who make such an appeal but we've had plenty of amateur "apologists" offer this argument over the past few years.