Toto

Could you give some reference for this?

Why do you think that "primitive" Christianity was not relic minded, but underwent such a significant change after Constantine?

Kapyong

Gday,

But WHY?

Why did they change from NO interest in the empty tomb, to MUCH interest in the empty tomb in late 2nd century?

You have not given any reason for that.

My explanation is clear - because the Gospels and their stories only became known around early-mid 2nd century.

Before then, no-one had even HEARD of the empty tomb.


K.

Petergdi

Nope, that's an interesting fallacy you have got there. To see what is wrong with the argument, try replacing the terms.

It is a reasonable expectation that Josephus should mention Hillel the Elder if he had heard of him. Josephus does mention Shammai and some other sages. Josephus does not mention Hillel, but it is not reasonable to doubt on that basis that Josephus probably did know something about Hillel.

The problem with your argument is that you seem to be connecting a "reasonable" expectation that someone should say something, and a "reasonable" doubt that the person knew the fact not mentioned. There is no logical connexion between the two "reasonables."

Peter.

Petergdi

The fact that you mention the change after Constantine (which I did not mention) means that you know full well there was such a change. There was an explosion of interest in relics (and an explosion in the number of supposed relics to find interesting) after Constantine. There was also a comparable explosion in the West during and after the Crusades.

I would put the beginnings of relic-mindedness somewhat before Constantine and may have begun not that long after the time of Justin Martyr. I find it very interesting that for Justin, farming equipment believed to be made by Jesus is kind of interesting to know about, but not in any way treated as especially holy.

As for why, I think that some religious people have the mindset that they are currently in an age of wonders, while others think that the age of wonders is past. For those who think the age of wonders is past, relics may be seen as a way of connecting with the past age and they may suppose that the relics provide an occasion for the intrusion of miracles into an age which otherwise seems miracle-free.

Since i personally believe the age of wonders to be as present now as it ever was, I have no interest in relics except in so far as some of them would be interesting if they were real. But someone who conceives of a time in the past when there was some sort of age of the miraculous is likely to want something to connect with that age.

I think that Montanism was probably the first response to the very beginnings of relic-mindedness. What I find most interesting about Montanism is the belief that one might call "bible times" are not over. I also find it interesting in the gospels that the religious authorities think of the age of prophecy as long over, while the people interested in John the Baptist and Jesus think of the age of prophecy being still present.

Peter.

Toto

Earl Doherty has argued that the absense of interest in relics or the location of the tomb of Jesus is an indication that the Christians of that era believed in a spiritual savior who had not yet been historicized. No one has come up with a good reason for Christians to have no interest in relics in the second and third centuries, and suddenly develop an interest in the fourth century, especially since collecting relics of famous people seems to be a universal human trait.

I am trying to pin down this yoke that Jesus made. There are many references to yokes in Justin Martyr, but they all seem to be metaphorical yokes, of no interest to relic hunters, and there is this from the dialogue with Trypho:

I don't see how you can interpret this as saying that anyone at that time had a farm implement made by Jesus, but treated it of no special importance. It sounds like more metaphorial yoking.

Do you have some reference to Montanists involvement with holy relics before the 4th century?

Petergdi

I find it very hard to take his argument seriously. It is always interesting to note that someone does not say or do something that you would expect them to do. Hanging a definite conclusion on the reasons for this is often unwarranted. Can anyone take the idea seriously that an absence of interest in relics is always or even usually an indication that one believes the events to be ahistorical? I certainly can't.

A confused memory on my part, probably caused by reading the article "Jesus of Nazareth" in the Jewish Encyclopedia. The author of that article seems to have got the idea from the paragraph you quoted, but I would agree that it doesn't seem to be there.

No, I was thinking of the Montanists to be representative of the type who would have no interest in holy relics. If anything, I would expect them to have had little interest in such things even after the fourth century, but I know practically nothing about the post-nicene history of Montanism except that they continued to exist as a sect for some time.

Peter.

Toto

Why not? Look at the modern market for relics of current day celebrities.

Jesus was supposed to have been a charismatic individual, the sort of person who would inspire this sort of memento gathering.

Amaleq13

No, you need to take a class in Logic 101.

Of course it is!! If it is reasonable to expect the mention given knowledge, then its absence creates a reasonable doubt about that knowledge. That is, after all, the whole point of the initial condition.

1. If your mom knew your girlfriend, it is reasonable to think she would have mentioned it when you introduced her.

2. Your mother did not mention knowing your girlfriend while you introduced her.

Therefore:
3. It is reasonable to doubt your mother knew your girlfriend.

According to your "reasoning", you would have no basis for that doubt.

What do you think it means to have a "reasonable expectation"? It means that it is an expectation that one is justified in thinking will be fulfilled. It means one is justified in one's surprise when the expected outcome does not actually occur. And it means one is justified in doubting that the initial conditions of the expectation were ever met (ie "If he knew...").

No, they are clearly and quite logically connected. Logic 101, amigo. :wave:

badger3k

I may be horribly wrong, but I had heard that there was at least one Jewish source that made the claim that a body had been stolen. Was this the later (2nd century?) writing that had Jesus as the bastard son of a centurion? (It's the only one that comes to mind off hand, but I haven't managed to read any of the Jewish sources so my knowledge is very lacking in that regard).

bacht

I think you mean the Pantera story, which may have started with Celsus:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberiu..._Abdes_Pantera

afaik references to Jesus in the Talmuds are all late, like 5th or 6th C