spamandham

...as popular as the texts imply, with churches all over the known world (Paul), with widespread summary trials (Tertullian and Justin Martyr), and the attention of the Emperor.

I'm not suggesting that our only options are to take the texts at face value or to label them as Eusebian frauds.

spamandham

...if the 'small persecuted sect' existed as you imply, then they DID leave permanent markers - the texts. Are you suggesting that we should expect texts to survive, but nothing else?

I don't know where you're getting this idea of a small persecuted sect. If we take the texts at face value, Christianity was widespread, popular, and mostly legal from the mid 2nd century on.

Considering that we do have papyrus from the late 3rd/early 4th century, I don't see why this expectation is unreasonable.

I'm not referring to the earliest evidence. I'm referring to everything prior to 325.

Sheshbazzar

So, given this reply, we are to conclude that these early Christian's were so paranoid and secretive that they spent they spent THREE ENTIRE CENTURIES taking all possible measures to keep from being identified as being members of the Christian faith? even in those times and locations where there was no persecution?
You are aware that such an allegation flies directly in the face of such NT commandments and declarations such as;
It certainly dose not appear that "The Gospel" of "Christ", or of his Apostles as it is recorded within The NT, encouraged Christian disciples to be at all pains to keep the fact of their religious conversion and convictions hidden under a bushel, and a big dark secret from the entire world.

Yet you, by the argument you are here tendering, would have them all to be just sneaking around and doing their damnedest to try to conceal their beliefs, and the fact of their very existence, for over THREE HUNDRED YEARS, even in those times and places where there was no persecution.

Sheshbazzar

Why would it not be reasonable, given that thousands of far, far older texts have survived?
Then again it would seem a very minor matter for a religion that was able to heal the lame, restore sight to the blind, restore hearing to the deaf, and even bring dead bodies back from the grave, to see to it that their manuscripts, and the concrete evidences of their existence would survive the ages.
Of course they couldn't, if they and their stories were only figments of latter writers imaginations, a far more likely scenario.
Why would that be? They were dead, and outside of the reach of any repercussions for anything that they had believed while alive.
And those that remained were only responsible for what they themselves were willing to stand up for, or willing to knuckle under to.

Amaleq13

But I'm asking about the "hard archaeological evidence" you expect, not texts.

Of course not.

I specifically referred to the earliest external evidence (eg Tacitus, Pliny). The Gospel depiction simply cannot be sustained by the evidence. Paul gives us "widespread" but not "popular".

That is where we find the earliest evidence external to the Gospels and it suggests a relatively small yet highly disrespected religious sect. I see nothing in that evidence that suggests they would either be capable of or interested in creating the sort of "hard archaeological evidence" you suggest would to be expected.

Amaleq13

Yes and necessarily so given how they were apparently treated when their affiliation became known.

They might not have been as secretive or paranoid but that doesn't mean they automatically had the time, money, and inclination to create lasting evidence of their existence.

Nothing you offered would have prevented a Christian from avoiding becoming known as a Christian to the authorities. More relevant, nothing you offered requires or even suggests that Christians must create the sort of lasting evidence of their existence under discussion.

Preaching leaves no "hard archaeological evidence".

Jeffrey Gibson

The known world? In Gaul? In Hispania? In Britain? In North Africa? In Parthean territory?

And Paul founded churches in maybe half a dozen cities (Thessalonica, Corinth, Galatia, and perhaps Colossae, Lacadonia, and Ephesus -- no luck in Athens) with never more than 50 believers in each (on this see Murphy-O'Connor, Cities of Paul).

Texts, please, that show this.

.

Which emperor?

Jeffrey

Sheshbazzar

And yet "Christian history" as presented by the "Christian Fathers", revels in stories of these believers alleged martyrdom's, boasting of how boldly and faithfully they withstood any punishment or torture inflicted rather than submit even an inch, or renounce their faith.
Your position here is in direct contradiction of that testimony given by the recorders of Christian history.


No great amount of time or money would have been required to scratch down a couple of distinctive words, or a few lines from a Gospel, or even just a few more of their dead fish icons in those archaeological locations where they most certainly ought to be found.


"Christians" that didn't want to be known as Christians? they wouldn't even be "Christians" then, in any meaningful sense of the word, as one who does not stand up for faith, denies the call of that faith.
It might be a believable excuse in some few times, circumstances and places, but hardly serves as a tenable explanation for that almost total lack of evidence for a period stretching over THREE HUNDRED YEARS, and all over the known world.

It does when the converts start scratching their dead fish and crossed sticks graffiti into every available surface, but yeah, that did came along latter, much latter, as did The Story, figures.

Jeffrey Gibson

They do? All of them?

Could you back up your claim with some actual citations please that show how wide spread among the writings of the pre-nicene fathers that have come down to us this "reveling" actually is? Where precisely does it appear?

Jeffrey

Toto

Do you mean Cities of Paul (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Koestler?

or St. Paul's Ephesus: Texts and Archaeology (or via: amazon.co.uk)?

St. Paul's Coninth: Texts and Archaeology (or via: amazon.co.uk)?

Paul and Qumran (or via: amazon.co.uk)?

Who was Paul writing to in Rome, or was he writing to a church in Rome?