Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 09:42 AM

But the earliest Christians were thinking in terns of Hebrew and Aramaic which in this case leads to the same result. I'm surprised more people didn't find my jokes about the modern Tenth Legion reenactment worth mentioning. I actually think the re-enactment of the assault on Jerusalem using “Jewish looking” extras could be in a movie. But then what do I know about funny

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 11:07 AM

This is decisive. Commenting upon the statement at the end of Galatians that the apostle bears the marks of the Lord Jesus on his body:

* Οὐκ εἴπε δὲ ἔχω ἀλλὰ βαστάζω ὣσπερ τι τρόπαιον ἢ σημεῖον βασιλικὸν καὶ τούτοις ἐναβρύνομαι. “He does not say, I have, but, I bear, as some trophy or royal symbol; and I deck myself with them.” — Theophylact

That's enough to take this idea seriously. I would go one step further still and argue that the original text of Galatians read “sign (sing = semeion) of the Lord” rather than “marks” thus bringing it in line with Clement's gospel. But that's quibbling.

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 11:45 AM

Perhaps the oldest and most important use of the term trophy in Patristic literature

Quote:

And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Saviour, beseeching and failing on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church. Then by supplicating with copious prayers, and striving along with him in continual fastings, and subduing his mind by various utterances of words, did not depart, as they say, till he restored him to the Church, presenting in him a great example of true repentance [διδοὺς μέγα παράδειγμα μετανοίας ἀληθινῆς] and a great token of regeneration [καὶ μέγα γνώρισμα παλιγγενεσίας], a trophy of the resurrection [τρόπαιον ἀναστάσεως] for which we hope; when at the end of the world, the angels, radiant with joy, hymning and opening the heavens, shall receive into the celestial abodes those who truly repent; and before all, the Saviour Himself goes to meet them, welcoming them; holding forth the shadowless, ceaseless light; conducting them,to the Father's bosom, to eternal life, to the kingdom of heaven.

Let one believe these things, and the disciples of God, and God, who is surety, the Prophecies, the Gospels, the Apostolic words; living in accordance with them, and lending his ears, and practising the deeds, he shall at his decease see the end and demonstration of the truths taught. For he who in this world welcomes the angel of penitence will not repent at the time that he leaves the body, nor be ashamed when he sees the Saviour approaching in His glory and with His army. He fears not the fire.

But if one chooses to continue and to sin perpetually in pleasures, and values indulgence here above eternal life, and turns away from the Saviour, who gives forgiveness; let him no more blame either God, or riches, or his having fallen, but his own soul, which voluntarily perishes. But to him who directs his eye to salvation and desires it, and asks with boldness and vehemence for its bestowal, the good Father who is in heaven will give the true purification and the changeless life. To whom, by His Son Jesus Christ, the Lord of the living and dead, and by the Holy Spirit, be glory, honour, power, eternal majesty, both now and ever, from generation to generation, and from eternity to eternity. Amen. [QDS 42]

The way we know for certain the context of this 'trophy of regeneration' wasn't just some poetic concept but a reference to the semeion that was impressed upon the catechumen at baptism is by noting that Clement begins the story with the clear notion that the semeion impressed on baptism left the disciple of John because of his dissolute lifestyle:

Quote:

And the presbyter taking home the youth committed to him, reared, kept, cherished, and finally baptized him. After this he relaxed his stricter care and guardianship, under the idea that the seal of the Lord he had set on him was a complete protection to him. But on his obtaining premature freedom, some youths of his age, idle, dissolute, and adepts in evil courses, corrupt him ... Time passed, and some necessity having emerged, they send again for John. He, when he had settled the other matters on account of which he came, said, "Come now, O bishop, restore to us the deposit which I and the Saviour committed to thee in the face of the Church over which you preside, as witness." The other was at first confounded, thinking that it was a false charge about money which he did not get; and he could neither believe the allegation regarding what he had not, nor disbelieve John. But when he said "I demand the young man, and the soul of the brother," the old man, groaning deeply, and bursting into tears, said, "He is dead" ... But when he recognized John as he advanced, he turned, ashamed, to flight. The other followed with all his might, forgetting his age, crying, "Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, unarmed, old? Son, pity me. Fear not; thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe; Christ hath sent me." And he, when he heard, first stood, looking down; then threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And on the old man approaching, he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and baptized a second time with tears, concealing only his right hand. The other pledging, and assuring him on oath that he would find forgiveness for himself from the Saviour, beseeching and failing on his knees, and kissing his right hand itself, as now purified by repentance, led him back to the church.

The point is that the 'trophy of resurrection' is certainly the cross. It is the semeion borne about by the followers of Christ. It is sealed upon them at baptism. But notice the strange wording here too - "I demand the young man, and the soul of the brother." The semeion has a life of its own. It is 'the brother' (= Jesus). Here is the beginning of the 'Simon Magus' legend. It wasn't a person but the 'sign' of the Lord.

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 12:52 PM

This reference is particularly useful too developed from the reference in Caius of Rome to the 'trophies' of the apostles in his city (http://books.google.com/books?id=d--...ive%22&f=false)

Quote:

το τρόπαιον - a trophy, a monument, be it in wood, bronze or stone, marking an enemy's defeat40. Indeed as a monument to a military victory it was very often erected on the battlefield itself. In Christian usage, the term was frequently put into a correspondential relationship to the Cross of Christ. The idea of the tropaeum crucis underpinned the conception of the crucified Christ's death as being a victory over the devil and his empire. The word thus contained a strong nuance of triumph. C. Mohrmann notes that along side the tropaeum crucis image was another, yet rarer, and even more remarkable usage: "the Body of Christ Itself, after His resurrection was called a trophy and it was with this trophy that He ascended into heaven." From this type of usage, the word tropaeum came to designate the martyr's victory: the martyr went to Heaven and there received the attributes of his victory, the crown and the palm (tropaea vjctoriae). The term also became a metonymic designation for the martyrs' bodies, the mortal instrument by which they gained the victory (martyrum tropaea). Finally the term could be used to designate the mortal remains or reliquiae of the martyrs.

The tropaea of which Caius spoke were true funerary monuments, and not merely cenotaphs, because the actual mortal remains of the Apostles were deemed as reposing therein43: "When he spoke of the Tponaia, Caius was, of course, thinking of very visible sepulchral monuments which could easily be pointed out and identified. I would even say that he had very much alive before his own eyes the image of the monuments which in his time existed on the true tombs of Peter and Paul"

Of course what scholars are very bad at doing is deconstructing this ideas down to the essential core which is - that the Cross was conceived from the very beginning as a τρόπαιον. This is not an invention of Constantine. It was not an 'adaptation' developed for the Imperial religion of the fourth century. From the very beginning, from the gospel itself, the idea that the Cross somehow resembled a military ensign was present.

I don't know how people get around this. Mark was clearly developing his text to establish the idea that even though Jesus appeared crucified (on the surface an embarrassment) Providence had established circumstances that the means of execution took the shape of a military ensign. Poetry and allegory just don't develop out of thin air. The only way that the cross could be understood to be a military ensign is if it was a saltire cross on a stick and this in turn looked like the ensign of the tenth legion which destroyed Jerusalem. People can twist and turn, I am now certain I am right about this.

This where the idea of the martyr as 'victor' emerged. Jesus was understood to be planting the ensign of the victorious legions in the soil of Jerusalem forty years before the event. Thus, in the later development of the Church, those who died for its eventual triumph were also planting the ensign (even if it wasn't a cross now) of the victory over the Devil and pagan gods.

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 01:01 PM

Now to take matters to the next level. If Mark planted the idea of the cross as military ensign in the gospel narrative, Mark himself must have been familiar with the sacramentum of the Roman army. I don't know anything about this subject other than the fact that in the third century we see that the 'Christian sacraments' appear very much like a Roman military oath. I bet you if we look deeply enough into matters we will see that the military ensign was understood to impress a 'semeion' or image on the souls of those swearing the oath. Now the question of determining where the fook I get information about whether ensigns were used in military mystery rites.

Notice again how Christianity seems to develop like Mithraism for use in the army ...

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 01:09 PM

Dionysius describes the oath as follows -the Roman soldiers took the military oath:

Quote:

to follow the consuls in any wars to which they should be called and to neither desert the standards nor do anything else contrary to law [Dio. Hal. 10.18.2]

This formula emphasizes loyalty to the consuls and indirectly, perhaps, loyalty to the state by requiring that soldiers obey the law. Yet the idea that the standards (ensigns) were the representation of the 'thing' to which the recruits swore loyalty is possible.

Again later in Dionysius (11.43.2) notice the sacred part played by the standards:

Quote:

But most of them were still afraid to remove the sacred standards (ta hiera semeia), and, again, did not think it either right or safe at all to desert their commanders and generals. For not only does the military oath, which the Romans observe most strictly of all oaths, bid the soldiers follow their generals wherever they may lead, but also the law has given the commanders authority to put to death without a trial all who are disobedient or desert their standards (ta semeia).

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 01:24 PM

Here is something very useful:

Quote:

Two excerpts from Dionysius of Halicarnassus, mentioned above, contain references to soldiers' loyalty to the standards.79 Gaius Marius adopted the aquila, the "eagle", as the legionary symbol out of an original set of five animal standards.80 Parker explains that there were thirty signa used to signal maneuvers to small subsections (maniples) of the legion on the battlefield, but one aquila for the entire legion.81 It would probably be inaccurate to attribute a sense of reverence on the part of the soldier for the signum which he was to follow, as important as it may have been tactically. A deserter might be more likely to be said to have deserted the legionary standard rather than his signum. What we know of as the "cult of the standards" was probably more prevalent in the Empire than during the Republic.82 The psychological and traditional importance of the aquila, however, is well-testified. The eagle represented temporal continuity of the legion, and its loss thus reflected a loss of historical legitimacy.83 The standardbearers of the legions, according to Polybius, were the best and bravest men appointed by the centurions.84

The loss of these standards to the enemy, as in the case of Crassus' defeat by the Parthians in 53, was a great humiliation to the army as a whole. There are frequent references to the importance of the standardbearers in our sources. On several occasions Caesar himself turned his standardbearers from their flight to face the enemy, while he specifically mentions the heroics of those men who protected the standards at the risk or expense of their own lives.85 Some of Pompey's soldiers, rather than deserting their standards, merely brought them along when they transferred their allegiance to Caesar's officers: L. Manlius praetor Alba cum cohortibus sex profugit, Rutilius Lupus praetor Tarracina cum tribus; quae procul equitatum Caesaris conspicatae, qui praeerat Vibius Curius, relicto praetore signa ad Curium transeferunt atque ad eum transeunf!!6_"L. Manlius the praetor fled from Alba with six cohorts, Rutilius Lupus the praetor from Tarracina with three; these, catching sight of Caesar's cavalry, whom Vibius Curius led, abandoning their praetor transferred their standards to Curius and went over to him." Some of Lepidus' soldiers in 36 did the same when they deserted him for Octavian: - "They took up their standards and with the rest went over to Octavian." Furthermore, Lepidus refused to let go of the standards until threatened with death by one of the standard-bearers, demonstrating that these soldiers at least felt that the standards belonged to them more than to the l egion' s legitimate commander. Despite their importance as symbols, and as physical and psychological rallying points, the standards could apparently be us ed as tools of rebellion and change at the soldiers' hands. (http://digitalcommons.mcmaster.ca/cg...ndissertations)

Where do we draw the line with respect to parallels between the Christian sacramentum and those of the Roman army? I think that we can use reverse inference to determine that Clement's gospel and its mention of Jesus's command to 'bear about the sign' and the interpretation in the early period that semion = military ensign, are we that far from seeing that the gospel was merely a step away from making individuals swear loyalty to Caesar's legion (= the legio x).

I have always thought that merely daydreaming about the gospel being a 'myth' is missing the point. There had to be a basis in reality for these beliefs and practices that looked silly on the outside. Was the Christian religion - like Mithraism - a development within military service? Was Christianity originally conceived by Mark as a manual for the establishment of 'the army of Christ' or the 'kingdom of God'? I don't know. More research is necessary

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 01:31 PM

Clement's story about John's disciple has a military backdrop. The disciple deserts the Church for an army of brigands. This can't be accidental.

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 01:37 PM

Another paper, this time by Harald von Petrikovits (http://books.google.com/books?id=LRs...ed=0CDYQ6AEwAQ)

Quote:

(this) show that the sacramentum was connected with the standards in whose presence the oath was sworn. Such a custom is attested by the representation of the coniuratio of the Italians in whose midst a military standard stood and Seneca, Tacitus and Tertullian show the same for the Imperial Roman Army.[12] When Tertullian states religio Romanorum tota castrensis, signa iurat etc. he presumably means that the soldier's oath was sworn in front of the standards or at least in their presence. It is hardly a coincidence that both the rosalia of the standards and the enrolment of the recruits were celebrated on the same day, 10 May, each year.[13] Thus the hand on the standard constantly reminded the soldiers to fulfil their oath conscientiously.

stephan huller · 01-23-2012, 01:43 PM

Swearing allegiance to the Southern Cross

Sorry for referencing these whack job sites but where else are you going to find pictures of masses of people saluting standards!

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

01-23-2012, 09:42 AM	#81
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	But the earliest Christians were thinking in terns of Hebrew and Aramaic which in this case leads to the same result. I'm surprised more people didn't find my jokes about the modern Tenth Legion reenactment worth mentioning. I actually think the re-enactment of the assault on Jerusalem using “Jewish looking” extras could be in a movie. But then what do I know about funny

01-23-2012, 11:07 AM	#82
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	This is decisive. Commenting upon the statement at the end of Galatians that the apostle bears the marks of the Lord Jesus on his body: * Οὐκ εἴπε δὲ ἔχω ἀλλὰ βαστάζω ὣσπερ τι τρόπαιον ἢ σημεῖον βασιλικὸν καὶ τούτοις ἐναβρύνομαι. “He does not say, I have, but, I bear, as some trophy or royal symbol; and I deck myself with them.” — Theophylact That's enough to take this idea seriously. I would go one step further still and argue that the original text of Galatians read “sign (sing = semeion) of the Lord” rather than “marks” thus bringing it in line with Clement's gospel. But that's quibbling.

01-23-2012, 01:01 PM	#85
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Now to take matters to the next level. If Mark planted the idea of the cross as military ensign in the gospel narrative, Mark himself must have been familiar with the sacramentum of the Roman army. I don't know anything about this subject other than the fact that in the third century we see that the 'Christian sacraments' appear very much like a Roman military oath. I bet you if we look deeply enough into matters we will see that the military ensign was understood to impress a 'semeion' or image on the souls of those swearing the oath. Now the question of determining where the fook I get information about whether ensigns were used in military mystery rites. Notice again how Christianity seems to develop like Mithraism for use in the army ...

01-23-2012, 01:31 PM	#88
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Clement's story about John's disciple has a military backdrop. The disciple deserts the Church for an army of brigands. This can't be accidental.

01-23-2012, 01:43 PM	#90
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Swearing allegiance to the Southern Cross Sorry for referencing these whack job sites but where else are you going to find pictures of masses of people saluting standards!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.