Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zeichman · 11-01-2007, 04:41 PM

Just drawing attention to this again, since it's but a few hours away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Claremont is a bit far from me.

Thursday, 1 November, 7:30 p.m.; ALBRECHT AUDITORIUM, Claremont Graduate University

Jonathan L. Reed, University of La Verne

What Archaeology Reveals about the First Christians: The Case of Jesus and Marble

http://iac.cgu.edu/deslecfall07.html

Quote:

. . . JONATHAN L. REED earned his PhD in New Testament under Burton Mack ... Currently, he directs the IAC project, Galilean Archaeology and the Historical Jesus. He is a leading authority on 1st-century Palestine archaeology, has been involved in several major digs, and is now the lead archaeologist at Sepphoris. His publications include Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2000) and two books co-authored with John Dominic Crossan — Excavating Jesus: Beneath the Stones, Behind the Texts (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2001) and In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom (or via: amazon.co.uk) (2004).

Reed’s November lecture coincides with the release of his fourth book, The HarperCollins Visual Guide to the New Testament (or via: amazon.co.uk) (HarperOne: 2007). His slide-illustrated lecture will show how the lack of marble in Galilee helps assess the extent of its Romanization in the first century. Too often in the past, biblical archaeologists focused only on places mentioned in the gospels or looked for artifacts associated with Jesus. This outdated approach neglects much of what archaeology has to offer, since sometimes what is not found in Galilee is just as important for understanding Jesus’ first followers as what is found.

Antipope Innocent II · 11-01-2007, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

And seriously, there is a far more nuanced interactive picture now, not this baddy Romans goody Asterix picture.

The end of the Roman Empire is something I've studied in detail for about 20 years now, so I'm well aware of the more nuanced picture thanks. The fact remains that people like Boudicca did rather resent the Romans and did regard them as conquerors. The fact that her descendants eventually got used to the idea and eventually regarded themselves (in some sense) as "Romans" doesn't change the fact that Britian was well and truly conquered.

Ditto for Judea and Galilee, Spain, Illyria, Germania and various other places that saw uprisings against the Romans.

Clivedurdle · 11-02-2007, 02:09 AM

Here in Britain this is currently a live debate, Boris Johnson, candidate to be London Mayor, shadow cabinet member, classics degree, has written The Dream of Rome. Barbarians and Rubicon are also recent.

It was recently noted that the very large Roman forts around Britain in fact did not have much of a defensive role - as confirmed by the minimal defences at the site I reference above, but were in fact secure port storage sites!

Well before the Roman invasion, there were very strong trading links with the republic.

The Druids and Boadacea did not do well against the Romans, but it must not be seen in the negative terms that occupation and invasion give. Is it reasonable to talk of the Norman conquest two hundred and fifty years later as if it is the key factor?

But back to the OP, Johnson is very interesting about this.

Antipope Innocent II · 11-02-2007, 02:18 AM

Okay, this is off topic but ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Here in Britain this is currently a live debate, Boris Johnson, candidate to be London Mayor, shadow cabinet member, classics degree, has written The Dream of Rome. Barbarians and Rubicon are also recent.

It was recently noted that the very large Roman forts around Britain in fact did not have much of a defensive role - as confirmed by the minimal defences at the site I reference above, but were in fact secure port storage sites!

Quite. So?

Quote:

Well before the Roman invasion, there were very strong trading links with the republic.

Yes. And?

Quote:

The Druids and Boadacea did not do well against the Romans, but it must not be seen in the negative terms that occupation and invasion give.

So who were they revolting against? Martians?

Quote:

Is it reasonable to talk of the Norman conquest two hundred and fifty years later as if it is the key factor?

Pardon? Who the hell mentioned the Norman conquest?

DCHindley · 11-02-2007, 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Many contributors came directly from their excavations in places like Bethsaida, Capernaum, Nazareth, and Jerusalem to share their discoveries and insights.

Obviously noone has found any unambiguous evidence
in the field of archeology for an historical Jesus, or it
would have been mentioned somewhere.

Perhaps the search should be widened?

Find me unambiguous evidence for the existance of Julius Caesar, or Augustus, or Tiberius, etc. Oh, they get mentioned in inscriptions and all - mere hearsay - I want their cell phone or PDA wih the owners name still resident in the chips, OR I SHALL NOT BELIEVE and call it all a hoax by later generations anxious to validate their monopolies on power -OR- the product of an alien conspiracy. No not illegal Mexican workers, but extraterrestrial aliens from, um, say, Lanulos. Yeah ... that's the ticket ...

DCH

mountainman · 11-02-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Obviously noone has found any unambiguous evidence
in the field of archeology for an historical Jesus, or it
would have been mentioned somewhere.

Perhaps the search should be widened?

Find me unambiguous evidence for the existance of Julius Caesar, or Augustus, or Tiberius, etc.

These people had their own mints.
Imagine that. Making money.
Business as usual.
Mafia thugs.

Quote:

Oh, they get mentioned in inscriptions and all - mere hearsay - I want their cell phone or PDA wih the owners name still resident in the chips, OR I SHALL NOT BELIEVE and call it all a hoax by later generations anxious to validate their monopolies on power -OR- the product of an alien conspiracy. No not illegal Mexican workers, but extraterrestrial aliens from, um, say, Lanulos. Yeah ... that's the ticket ...

Archaeology and Jesus ?

FIRST PRINCIPLE in ARCHAEOLOGY:
THE REQUIREMENT OF EVIDENCE

Archaeology is the study of the physical remains from the past. Where there are no physical remains, there can be no archaeology. The most basic principle in archaeology, therefore, is that the discipline requires evidence to function. .

It's a pity Biblical History doesn't work
on the same principles

So, let's look for the archaeological entry point of evidence
testifying to Jesus, and/or to "the gospels", and/or to the
very existence of "christianity" before the fourth century.

Well?

What have you got? Have I covered your archaeological
citation in my thesis? If I have not, please give me the
citation from the field of archaeology.

Otherwise cease and desist with the antics.
I find it reasonable to ask for evidence.
Thanks, and best wishes,

Pete Brown

Clivedurdle · 11-03-2007, 03:19 PM

In the British Museum yesterday - couldn't get to see Terracotta Army - and saw this.

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/LOVCHR.html

Author discusses well known British Roman sites and their mosaics, showing the chi ro above what looks like an emperor's head. Is it possible the Romans used these symbols before the xians?

http://www.asprom.org/resources/Lull...toneHenig.html

Quote:

The Lullingstone mosaic presents us with themes as difficult and elusive for our full comprehension today, as those encountered at Frampton and Hinton. They suggest that the owner of the Lullingstone villa in the mid-century was a Christian twenty years or so before the house-church was in use; he was also highly educated in the ancient traditions of grammar and rhetoric, and had by no means turned away from the ancient gods. The mosaic implies that we need to view insular (Romano-British) Christianity as both special and different. It is a further demonstration of culture and education alongside the surviving writings of Patrick and other insular Latin authors, which do show some knowledge of the popular classics. It confirms the suggestion that the great books of Rome (and perhaps even of Greece) continued to be read in Britain and Ireland.[21] It allows us to take ‘Dark Age’ insular traditions of composition at least as far back as the middle of the fourth century, long before Jerome’s Vulgate and thus to show a continuity of culture from Roman times to the Middle Ages, long beyond the period in which mosaics were laid in Britain. The Europa mosaic is thus to be seen not simply as an interesting pavement but as a work of crucial importance in the long — and continuous — story of culture in these lands.

I do not understand how people who worship other gods and the christ are called xians. Hindus and muslims also revere and worship the christ.

youngalexander · 11-03-2007, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Author discusses well known British Roman sites and their mosaics, showing the chi ro above what looks like an emperor's head. Is it possible the Romans used these symbols before the xians?

http://www.asprom.org/resources/Lull...toneHenig.html

In late-antiquity 4th C there was a fair amount of mixed pagan/christian display &/or worship. This occurs in rural Italy and particularly in the outlying regions of empire as a consequence of local sensibilities re deities and customs.

In addition to the Lullingstone mosaics there are;
Projecta casket (for toiletries). Decorated with scenes of the Toilet of Venus etc whilst having an inscription naming her (Projecta) and her husband Secundus as commended to Christ.

Sevso Plate decorated with hunting and food preparation/serving scenes similar to mosaic themes in contemporary villas. The inscription begins with a christogram but otherwise the design is 'typical of late-Roman aristocratic display'.

Prosenes sarcophagus inscription contains "divus Commodus" and other pagan elements.

Christian sarcophagi in general had designs which were adapted from long existing pagan designs which themselves had evolved from yet others. An example is the reclining Jonah adapted from Endymion.

Similarly funerary frescoes usually included flowers, birds, vines, vases etc just as the contemporary pagans did.

4th C Christian burials at Sopianae (Pecs - Hungary) contained grave goods indistinguishable from their pagan neighbours.

There are even earlier 'pagan motifs' in Christian literature, eg. The Shepherd of Hermas and the "divine beloved" Vis. 1.1.7

It only goes to show that Christians did not live in a vacuum nor just suddenly appear - theycame from and continued to live in a pagan milieu.

Quote:

I do not understand how people who worship other gods and the christ are called xians. Hindus and muslims also revere and worship the christ.

It is no doubt a moot point as to where a line is drawn. There is the splendid Christ-Helios under the Vatican, as well as Orpheus (or Bacchus) as Christ and these are supported by various Christian literary sources. The emperor Alexander Sevrus (222-35) is reported to have worshiped deified emperors, ancestors, and images from divers religious cults – Orpheus, Jesus, …
I doubt that you could call him a Christian.

Clivedurdle · 11-04-2007, 02:35 AM

But this is a very important point about the line between worshipping the true gods and the christ!

Xians became martyrs because they denied the true gods! Many deliberately can be seen as committing suicide (psychological suicide bombing of an ancient culture?) because of their refusal to do a little sacrifice to the gods - for example the martyrs at the ampitheatre in Lyons 170 CE, and the correspondence of Pliny the younger.

How is it that Bacchus is interpreted as a xian symbol? Is the chi ro actually xian?

I thought there were major differences - like the way the graves and religious places face.

youngalexander · 11-04-2007, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

But this is a very important point about the line between worshipping the true gods and the christ!

Xians became martyrs because they denied the true gods! Many deliberately can be seen as committing suicide (psychological suicide bombing of an ancient culture?) because of their refusal to do a little sacrifice to the gods - for example the martyrs at the ampitheatre in Lyons 170 CE, and the correspondence of Pliny the younger.

How is it that Bacchus is interpreted as a xian symbol? Is the chi ro actually xian?

I thought there were major differences - like the way the graves and religious places face.

You are thinking of monotheistic Christians. Late antiquity in particular was populated with pagans who saw Christianity as just another religion.

Take Prosenes for instance - was he a christian? Probably, but he was also an imperial freedman, supervisor of wine transport to the emperor, director of the imperial gladiator games, steward of the imperial assets, ...etc and rises even higher under Caracella. A heavy dude.

Does he have to make compromises - you bet. So, what sort of a Christian was he?
Then he dies 217 CE. His familia with his own freedpersons (Christians) must make the necessary arrangements. What they do (see above & link) is probably Christian.

This is Stark's thesis: social contracts, competing religious enterprises.
Christ-Helios is a direct challenge to Sol Invictus. Steals his image and impact. Enables Christ to be presented in a manner which meshes with the prevailing culture. Various apologists link Christ with the Sun, NT Mat 4.16, 5.45, etc. may be invoked in support.
Similarly Orpheus. There are also links between David and Orpheus.

Some rich guy commissioned Christ-Helios. Was he a died in the wool, one god or I'm for the lions type? Who knows!
No set guidlines. No orthodoxy to sort them out.

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

11-02-2007, 02:09 AM	#23
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Here in Britain this is currently a live debate, Boris Johnson, candidate to be London Mayor, shadow cabinet member, classics degree, has written The Dream of Rome. Barbarians and Rubicon are also recent. It was recently noted that the very large Roman forts around Britain in fact did not have much of a defensive role - as confirmed by the minimal defences at the site I reference above, but were in fact secure port storage sites! Well before the Roman invasion, there were very strong trading links with the republic. The Druids and Boadacea did not do well against the Romans, but it must not be seen in the negative terms that occupation and invasion give. Is it reasonable to talk of the Norman conquest two hundred and fifty years later as if it is the key factor? But back to the OP, Johnson is very interesting about this.

11-04-2007, 02:35 AM	#29
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	But this is a very important point about the line between worshipping the true gods and the christ! Xians became martyrs because they denied the true gods! Many deliberately can be seen as committing suicide (psychological suicide bombing of an ancient culture?) because of their refusal to do a little sacrifice to the gods - for example the martyrs at the ampitheatre in Lyons 170 CE, and the correspondence of Pliny the younger. How is it that Bacchus is interpreted as a xian symbol? Is the chi ro actually xian? I thought there were major differences - like the way the graves and religious places face.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.