Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvduv · 06-12-2012, 05:52 AM

So what evidence is there that Arian Visigoths conquering Rome prevented any other Christians from burying in catacombs with sarcophagi in the 4th or 5th centuries??

Huon · 06-12-2012, 07:09 AM

Alaric I (370 - 410) was the King of the Visigoths from 395–410. Alaric is most famous for his sack of Rome in 410.

Attila (+453), was the ruler of the Huns from 434 until his death in 453. Italy had suffered from a terrible famine in 451 and her crops were faring little better in 452. Attila invaded Italy in 452, devastating the northern provinces, but was unable to take Rome.

Genseric (c. 389 – January 25, 477), was the King of the Vandals and Alans (428–477).
His most famous exploit, however, was the capture and plundering of Rome in June 455.

Odoacer (433 - 493), became in 476 the first barbarian King of Italy. He belonged to the clan of the Skiri, who were enemies to the clan of Orestes, the father of the emperor Romulus Augustulus, who was deposed in 476.

Theoderic the Great (454 – August 30, 526) was king of the Ostrogoths (471–526), ruler of Italy (493–526), regent of the Visigoths (511–526), and a viceroy of the Eastern Roman Empire. Theoderic came with his army to Italy in 488, where he won the battles of Isonzo and Verona in 489 and at the Adda in 490. In 493 he took Ravenna. On February 2, 493, Theoderic and Odoacer signed a treaty that assured both parties would rule over Italy. A banquet was organised in order to celebrate this treaty. It was at this banquet that Theoderic, after making a toast, killed Odoacer with his own hands.

The Arian kings did not prevent anybody from burying in catacombs. Simply, the epoch was not very favourable to the enrichment of the Roman citizens.

Duvduv · 06-12-2012, 08:19 AM

Enrichment or not, that doesn't seem to be what the Catholic Encyclopedia is suggesting:

"....since, after the invasion of the Goths (410), burial in the catacombs occurred only in isolated incidences and soon ceased altogether."

Huon · 06-13-2012, 01:48 AM

Hook, line and sinker ?

The Catho Encyclopedia is suggesting a relation between two sorts of events, but they are not able to produce a decree by which a king of the Goths would have forbidden the burying in the catacombs, especially of good catholics.

I would name that "jesuitry".

The religious difference between Arian Goths and Catholic Romans was only one aspect of what was principally a political competition. Who should reign, get the power and the money ?

Duvduv · 06-13-2012, 08:13 AM

So who's to say that the catacombs/sarcophagi were not produced while the Arian Christian Goths were in power after the conquest of Rome?

Sheshbazzar · 06-13-2012, 11:23 AM

Interesting how the males even if their identity is uncertain are all quite realistically portrayed. (excepting 'Lazurus' who always looks like a small idol statue )
While in most of these images 'Martha?' is proportionately portrayed as a tiny and crudely misshapen midget.
'Martha?' (or women) are of lesser 'stature' and so don't 'measure up'? Male chauvinism at work?

I can't help but note that even in the detailed and anatomically correct carvings, the 'wand' is most often curved, and proportionate to the scale of the figures, too short to have been a walking stick. I wonder what the sculptor thought it was that he was portraying?

In the first photo it looks like 'Lazarus' is getting whacked, not with a wand but with a dildo.
The shape in most of the others subliminally suggest a curved and out-sized schlong. The 'life-giving' staff.
And of course there is also often 'Peter' with his infamous cock.

.

mountainman · 06-15-2012, 08:48 PM

Hi Philosopher Jay,

I agree that we are looking at 4th/5th century relics, which have quite possibly been in various ways corrupted. This provision is made quite clear in the original article. The major summary statement of chronology about these often corrupted relics is as follows:

Quote:

Originally Posted by William Storage and Laura Maish

No Christian sarcophagi can be firmly dated to earlier than the third century, and even these are rare and disputed[1].

Footnote [1]: [1] Graydon Snyder, in Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine, lists several dozen pre-Nicene funerary artworks, the vast majority of which are in catacombs. There is some debate about the accuracy of their dating.

Given that we are dealing with 4th/5th century relics (some of which have been corrupted) the negative evidence of the dominance of the canonical books in this evidence. There is also positive evidence that the non canonical books were being used as sources for this artwork. Why was this so? It seems to indicate that there was a great controversy going on about which books should be the source of funerary art, and that at the time many of these relics were fashioned, the non canonical new testament books - the gnostic gospels and acts of the heretics - were more than well represented. How do we explain this?

I think that there were extant compendiums of the "Gnostic New Testament" in circulation and in competition to the "Canonical New Testament". Perhaps the canonical books only came to political prominence at the end of the 4th century after 381 CE by means of imperial intervention, as argued by Charles Freeman? The burning of the Alexandrian library coincides with this epoch.

The prohibition of such compendiums (such as the Nag Hammadi Codices) could not have been successfully enforced by the earlier emperors back to Constantine. They appear to have operated "out of town".

The funerary imagery that is being discussed appears to be provenanced during a massive revolutionary epoch within the Roman empire, that was focussed on the high technology of the epoch - the physical manufacture of codices. Books, originally in Greek, containing stories.

Almost midwinter in the south of the planet, midsummer in the north. Enjoy the apostolic succession of the seasons!

Best wishes

Pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi stephan huller,

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

FWIW I have noticed the parallels with Secret Mark. The sarcophagi seem to often draw from apocryphal material just as the liturgies are rooted in a single, long gospel (= the diatessaron?)

Just from studying the Lazarus imagery, we can see that it is far from the story we now have in John's Gospel. To list a few of the differences: 1) Lazarus is on a stepped Roman Temple instead of in a tomb in a cave, 2) no linen covering Lazarus' face, 3) Jesus touching Lazarus with a wand, 4)only one sister instead of two.

One could expect a few artist to stray from the story in a few details. However, other artists should be following the text and not repeating the huge differences.

Note in the story that Mary drops to Jesus' feet and cries, then Jesus goes to the tomb, and then Martha comes and persuades Jesus to raise Lazarus.

Quote:

30Now Jesus had not yet come into the village, but was still in the place where Martha met Him. 31Then the Jews who were with her in the house, and consoling her, when they saw that Mary got up quickly and went out, they followed her, supposing that she was going to the tomb to weep there. 32Therefore, when Mary came where Jesus was, she saw Him, and fell at His feet, saying to Him, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.” 33When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, He was deeply moved in spirit and was troubled, 34and said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to Him, “Lord, come and see.” 35Jesus wept. 36So the Jews were saying, “See how He loved him!” 37But some of them said, “Could not this man, who opened the eyes of the blind man, have kept this man also from dying?”

Quote:

38So Jesus, again being deeply moved within, came to the tomb. Now it was a cave, and a stone was lying against it. 39Jesus said, “Remove the stone.” Martha, the sister of the deceased, said to Him, “Lord, by this time there will be a stench, for he has been dead four days.” 40Jesus said to her, “Did I not say to you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?” 41So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, “Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42“I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me.” 43When He had said these things, He cried out with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come forth.” 44The man who had died came forth, bound hand and foot with wrappings, and his face was wrapped around with a cloth. Jesus said to them, “Unbind him, and let him go.

I would suggest that an editor of John has added a lot of material to the original story to make Lazarus' resurrection a foreshadow of Jesus' resurrection. These 4th and 5th Century images show that what we read today in John's Gospel was not the popular material on Lazarus that the people were reading. The story that they were reading is a about a man with one sister who begs Jesus to perform magic with his wand and resurrect her brother who is buried in a Roman Temple.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

mountainman · 06-15-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

So who's to say that the catacombs/sarcophagi were not produced while the Arian Christian Goths were in power after the conquest of Rome?

Although these things could be late, there are those claiming earlier dates, such as the Vatican.

Against the claims of the Vatican for earlier dates see two people.

(1) Pope Damasus I

(2) Giovanni de Rossi.

Quote:

"The real founders of the science of early Christian archaeology came in the 19th century:
Giuseppe Marchi (1795-1860) and Giovanni de Rossi (1822-1894)...[the latter] published
between 1857 and 1861 the first volume of "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae". Pope
Pius IX moved beyond collecting by appointing in 1852 a commission - "Commissione de
archaelogia sacra" - that would be responsible for all early Christian remains."

mountainman · 06-15-2012, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

The evidence of these images suggest that belief in the use of a magic wand by Jesus was a very common early Christian belief and theme.

This imagery is not "early" (in the usual sense) but it is from the 4th and 5th centuries.

In TAOPATTA NHC 6.1 Jesus carried a staff of styrax wood in his right hand.

The pernicious heretical authors were inventing details that the orthodox heresiological authors of the canon forgot to invent.

One of these details was that Jesus packed a staff or a wand.

The stories of Jesus captivated the attention of the masses.

From the early 4th century imperial decrees assisted the captivation.

Happy mid summer when it arrives.

Best wishes

Pete

mountainman · 06-15-2012, 09:25 PM

Beg the Magic Man and He will Turn the Orante (Mother Goddess) into Jesus.

From the article cited

Quote:

Vatican Inv. 31410.
Multiplication of loaves and fish.
Orant between saints/apostles.
Miracle at Cana.
Unknown scene.

What's the Orante (Mother Goddess) doing between the saints and apostles.

Was the mulitplication of the harvests a job for the Orante?

How did Jesus perform a hostile takeover for this job?

This image is pagan.

The Vatican is commissioning the fabrication of more christian stories.

It does not have much choice.

FWIW see earlier discussion of the Orante in this thread

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-12-2012, 05:52 AM	#11
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	So what evidence is there that Arian Visigoths conquering Rome prevented any other Christians from burying in catacombs with sarcophagi in the 4th or 5th centuries??

06-12-2012, 07:09 AM	#12
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Alaric I (370 - 410) was the King of the Visigoths from 395–410. Alaric is most famous for his sack of Rome in 410. Attila (+453), was the ruler of the Huns from 434 until his death in 453. Italy had suffered from a terrible famine in 451 and her crops were faring little better in 452. Attila invaded Italy in 452, devastating the northern provinces, but was unable to take Rome. Genseric (c. 389 – January 25, 477), was the King of the Vandals and Alans (428–477). His most famous exploit, however, was the capture and plundering of Rome in June 455. Odoacer (433 - 493), became in 476 the first barbarian King of Italy. He belonged to the clan of the Skiri, who were enemies to the clan of Orestes, the father of the emperor Romulus Augustulus, who was deposed in 476. Theoderic the Great (454 – August 30, 526) was king of the Ostrogoths (471–526), ruler of Italy (493–526), regent of the Visigoths (511–526), and a viceroy of the Eastern Roman Empire. Theoderic came with his army to Italy in 488, where he won the battles of Isonzo and Verona in 489 and at the Adda in 490. In 493 he took Ravenna. On February 2, 493, Theoderic and Odoacer signed a treaty that assured both parties would rule over Italy. A banquet was organised in order to celebrate this treaty. It was at this banquet that Theoderic, after making a toast, killed Odoacer with his own hands. The Arian kings did not prevent anybody from burying in catacombs. Simply, the epoch was not very favourable to the enrichment of the Roman citizens.

06-12-2012, 08:19 AM	#13
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Enrichment or not, that doesn't seem to be what the Catholic Encyclopedia is suggesting: "....since, after the invasion of the Goths (410), burial in the catacombs occurred only in isolated incidences and soon ceased altogether."

06-13-2012, 01:48 AM	#14
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	Hook, line and sinker ? The Catho Encyclopedia is suggesting a relation between two sorts of events, but they are not able to produce a decree by which a king of the Goths would have forbidden the burying in the catacombs, especially of good catholics. I would name that "jesuitry". The religious difference between Arian Goths and Catholic Romans was only one aspect of what was principally a political competition. Who should reign, get the power and the money ?

06-13-2012, 08:13 AM	#15
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	So who's to say that the catacombs/sarcophagi were not produced while the Arian Christian Goths were in power after the conquest of Rome?

06-13-2012, 11:23 AM	#16
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	Interesting how the males even if their identity is uncertain are all quite realistically portrayed. (excepting 'Lazurus' who always looks like a small idol statue ) While in most of these images 'Martha?' is proportionately portrayed as a tiny and crudely misshapen midget. 'Martha?' (or women) are of lesser 'stature' and so don't 'measure up'? Male chauvinism at work? I can't help but note that even in the detailed and anatomically correct carvings, the 'wand' is most often curved, and proportionate to the scale of the figures, too short to have been a walking stick. I wonder what the sculptor thought it was that he was portraying? In the first photo it looks like 'Lazarus' is getting whacked, not with a wand but with a dildo. The shape in most of the others subliminally suggest a curved and out-sized schlong. The 'life-giving' staff. And of course there is also often 'Peter' with his infamous cock. .

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.