Freethought & Rationalism Archive

youngalexander · 11-13-2007, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Example One: Sum of many very small probabilities

The sum of a large number of small probabilities will of course increase and the case that you cite re birthdays is a well known example. The essence of the problem is that; this match or this match or this match or ... will suffice. Thus the probs are summed.

Quote:

Example Two: Sum of many very zero probabilities

Well I sort of get what you mean, however, the situation that you face with numerous independent sources is that the probabilities need to be multiplied! That is; this and this and this and ... all need to be pagan.

If there are n sources (Si, i = 1, ..., n) which are claimed to be pre-313CE Christian and the probability of them in fact being non-Christian is Pi, then the probability that all of them are pagan is the product of the individual probabilities.

P(all pagan) = P1 x P2 x ......... x Pn

which, given that n = 100s and Pi < 0.5 means that the probability of your thesis being correct is - minute!

Note that the reverse is not the case. Only one of the sources need in fact be Christian and your thesis is a dead duck.

mountainman · 11-14-2007, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Example Two: Sum of many very zero probabilities

Well I sort of get what you mean, however, the situation that you face with numerous independent sources is that the probabilities need to be multiplied! That is; this and this and this and ... all need to be pagan.

That's correct. The final index of all prospective
archaeological citations from all "academic sources"
need to be perceived as non-christian.

Quote:

If there are n sources (Si, i = 1, ..., n) which are claimed to be pre-313CE Christian and the probability of them in fact being non-Christian is Pi, then the probability that all of them are pagan is the product of the individual probabilities.

P(all pagan) = P1 x P2 x ......... x Pn

That is correct. And thus the purpose of this thread.
P1 = Probability that the Prosenes Inscription is non-christian
P2 = Probability that P.Oxy. 3035 is non-christian.
P3 = etc

My contention is that the value for P1 of 1.0 is reasonable.
That there is nothing christian about it. Ditto for P2.

And thus P(all non-christian) = 1 x 1 x ... x 1 = 1

Quote:

which, given that n = 100s and Pi < 0.5 means that the probability of your thesis being correct is - minute!

Just a minute YA, where did you pluck Pi < 0.5 from?
How does this statement enter the arena of discussion.
Is this representative of Snyder's position on P1? (See below)
Over.

Quote:

Note that the reverse is not the case. Only one of the sources need in fact be Christian and your thesis is a dead duck.

That's correct, and we have known this all along.
I did not avoid this probabilistic probability from the
beginning of this specific research project, and have
consistently called for refutation by evidence.

Books have been thrown at me, and I have gleaned
the evidence and even set up a shooting gallery,
in the form of a register P1, P2, P3, .... so that it makes
it easier for people to take their shots, and throw in their
penny's worth to the overall assessment.

Many times I have wished that someone will provide the
silver bullet citation. Perhaps Snyder's Ante Pacem
will provide something irrefutably christian, but perhaps
it wont. I guess I'll have to find out when I read it and
go through his sources and references.

To return to topic then, I am arguing that P1 = 1
(P1 = Probability that the Prosenes Inscription is non-christian)
Snyder wants to argue that P1 <> 1, but in fact P1 < 0.5.
OK - let him, but this does not make my argument invalid.

Snyder does not appear to me to discount entirely the
possibility that the Prosenes inscription is perfectly
non-christian. His conjectures are bound in disclaimers.

Is this a fair assessment?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Toto · 11-14-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

...

You'll find that the dominant grouping of citations involves iconography from the "Hebrew Bible", for example see "Jonas Marbles" -- for this period.

IMO these are Jewish, but presumed "christian". Here are my notes:

The following is quoted from the The Cleveland Museum in reference to a series of statuettes known as the Jonah Marbles. They are believed to be sourced from Asia Minor, probably Phrygia (Central Turkey), 3rd century c. 270-280, and are described by the museum - for some unknown reason - as early christian.Here is what the Museum writes ...
The Symbolism of the Jonah Marbles
The sculptures conform to a language of symbols developed by early Christians. The Good Shepherd represents Christ as the savior of his Christian flock. The four figures of Jonah depict incidents from the biblical story. Swallowed by a "great fish" for his disobedience to God, Jonah spent three days within the beast's stomach. After repenting, he was disgorged unharmed. Jonah Swallowed and Jonah Cast Up were understood by early Christians to represent the death and resurrection of Christ. The gourd vine under which Jonah rests was another symbol of the resurrection. The image of Jonah resting developed from pagan mythological figures who, after sleeping, arose to everlasting life in paradise. The figure of Jonah Praying with arms extended in the "orant" position may represent either his repentance within the whale's belly or his thankfulness after his deliverance.
The christian presumption enters without being summoned. Jonah is a figure in the pre-christian Hebrew bible. Examine the figurines carefully.
There is no "christian copyright symbol".

Best wishes,
Pete Brown

The Jonah Marbles are part of an exhibition at the Getty here in Los Angeles.

Medieval Treasures from the Cleveland Museum of Art

It is not clear why they were classified as Christian, except that the themes are typically Christian and not Jewish, unless you know of a Jewish Good Shepherd. They can be viewed here on the museum site.

Fromhere

Quote:

"The sculptures are extraordinary works, and are exceedingly rare examples of pre-Constantinian sculpture in the round," says McColl. "Yet lingering doubts as to their authenticity, attributable in large part to their having no verifiable provenance—that is, either a verifiable archaeological context or a long and continuous record of ownership—to say nothing of the sheer exuberance of their forms, which recall pagan, Hellenistic art—have had the effect of excluding the works from important discussions of Early Christian art."

Note: Turkey claims that these figures were looted and sold illegally by Aydin Dikmen.

mountainman · 11-14-2007, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The Jonah Marbles are part of an exhibition at the Getty here in Los Angeles.

Medieval Treasures from the Cleveland Museum of Art

It is not clear why they were classified as Christian, except that the themes are typically Christian and not Jewish, unless you know of a Jewish Good Shepherd. They can be viewed here on the museum site.

They are classified christian not because of any evidence
but because they're more valuable that way.

Since when was The Lord is my Shepherd
not a Jewish theme from Hebrew Bible, and Psalms?

Quote:

Note: Turkey claims that these figures were looted and sold illegally by Aydin Dikmen.

That's a pretty heavy reference Toto. The second last
sentence basically says "95% of all ancient art in
America's museums was smuggled".

Quote:

A collection of early Christian marbles acquired by Cleveland in the 1960s
-- the Jonah Marbles -- believed by Byzantine scholar Donald McColl and
others to be some of the most important early Christian pieces,
pre-Constantinian, to have survived -- have long been claimed by the Turks
as looted from Afyon.

Turkish journalist, Ozgen Acar, agrees that the pieces are genuine (marble
from the Dokimian quarry in Phrygia) and says he's got eight files on the
Jonah marbles sold to Cleveland through Turkish dealer Aydin Dikmen [ See
also. Scoop: Getting To The Bottom Of The Dorak Affair ]. Dikmen spent a
year in jail in Germany in the late 1990s for hoarding looted antiquities
inside the walls of his Munich apartment -- a treasure the likes of which
the Bavarian police said they hadn't seen since the caches of Nazi loot
discovered following WWII.

Dikmen also produced a "menagerie" of miniature animals resembling a
collection Cleveland exhibited in the 1980s from the late Swiss collector
Leo Mildenberg [See also. Scoop: Merrin Gallery in Italy's Antiquities
Dragnet? http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0610/S00114.htm].

Cleveland's longtime curator of ancient art, Arielle Kozloff -- on whose
watch the above South Italian vases were acquired -- described the animal
miniatures in her 1981 book, Animals in Ancient Art from the Leo Mildenberg
Collection, as 4th millennium BC -- made by an unknown culture, ancestors of
the Urartians. However, Met Ancient Near East expert Oscar Muscarella and
other scholars have commented that the Urartians lived in the 8th century BC
(north of Lake Van in present day Turkey).

Cleveland Museum of Art - Nesting Quail Stamp Seal Kozloff left the
Cleveland Museum after 20 years to work with New York art dealer Ed Merrin,
who coincidentally, also had an exhibition of and sold ($1,000@) his
Anatolian "miniature masterpieces" in 1982. [ See also. Scoop: Ancient Art
Italy Wants Back From Boston's MFA]

Kozloff has now also left Merrin's employ and works as an "independent
scholar", although it is unclear just where.

Ironically, it was former Cleveland curator of ancient art, John D. Cooney,
in 1970, around the time of the "Pennyslvania declaration" on museum ethics
and the UNESCO treaty banning the purchase of looted art, who was out in
front announcing that 95% of all ancient art in America's museums was
smuggled. Unfortunately, Cooney was the first and the last so far of
Cleveland's ancient art curators to stand tall.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Toto · 11-14-2007, 08:13 PM

From this, it might be difficult if not impossible to distinguish between Jewish and Christian art. This author would probably argue that a statute would not be Jewish.

Jewish art

Quote:

Jews were forbidden to make images that might be worshiped as idols, but this prohibition against representational art was applied primarily to sculpture in the round in early Judaism. Jewish art during the Roman Empire combined both Near Eastern and classical Greek and Roman elements to depict Jewish subject matter, both symbolic and narrative. Since Christianity arose out of Judaism, its art incorporated many symbols and narrative representations drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures and other Jewish sources. Almost no examples of specifically Christian art exist before the early third century, and even then it continued to draw its styles and imagery from Jewish and classical traditions. This process is known as syncretism. Orant figures - worshipers with arms outstretched - for example, can be pagan, Jewish, or Christian, depending on the contest in which they occur. Perhaps the most important of these syncretic images is the Good Shepherd. In pagan art, he was Hermes the shepherd or Orpheus among the animals, but Jews and Christians saw him as the Good Shepherd of the Twenty-third Psalm: "The Lord is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack".

eta: the Good Shepherd on that site is clearly Christian:

Quote:

Good Shepherd. Orants and Story of Jonah, ceiling painting

Catacomb of Saints Peter and Marcellinus, Rome, 4th C.

mountainman · 11-14-2007, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

From this, it might be difficult if not impossible to distinguish between Jewish and Christian art. This author would probably argue that a statute would not be Jewish.

Jewish art

Quote:

Jews were forbidden to make images that might be worshiped as idols, but this prohibition against representational art was applied primarily to sculpture in the round in early Judaism.

Jewish art during the Roman Empire combined both Near Eastern and classical Greek and Roman elements to depict Jewish subject matter, both symbolic and narrative. Since Christianity arose out of Judaism, its art incorporated many symbols and narrative representations drawn from the Hebrew Scriptures and other Jewish sources.

It seems to me he'd argue that statutes would not
be early Jewish, but may be Jewish during
the Roman empire. The Jonas Marbles series are
approximately dated to the third century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article

Almost no examples of specifically Christian art exist before the early third century, and even then it continued to draw its styles and imagery from Jewish and classical traditions.

eta: the Good Shepherd on that site is clearly Christian:
Good Shepherd. Orants and Story of Jonah, ceiling painting
Catacomb of Saints Peter and Marcellinus, Rome, 4th C.

Are you talking about this image:

What do you mean by "clearly christian"?
Do we have any NT symbology depicted at all?

And do you happen to know when it was painted?
When in the fourth century?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Toto · 11-14-2007, 11:50 PM

Yes, that is the image. It is post-Constantine, so it doesn't affect your theory.

I know that the "Lord is my Shepherd" comes from the Hebrew Scriptures, but I am not aware of Jews using the shepherd as an image, while it is a very common Christian image, based on a specific reference in Luke.

Late Antique, Early Christian and Jewish gems: 3rd and 4th centuries

Quote:

Another popular motif found on Christian gems of the later 3rd century is a pair of fish flanking an anchor or a cross-like object. Although the symbol is of pagan origin, attested first in the late Hellenistic period, its sudden appearance on gems in the 3rd century, as well as its occurrence in the Roman catacombs, demonstrates that Christians adopted the image, reinterpreting it as an allusion to Jesus (IXQYC). Some examples are labelled with explicitly Christian phrases.

Also appearing on gems of the later 3rd and 4th centuries is the image of the Good Shepherd. The shepherd is always shown carrying a sheep on his shoulders (the pose being that of the classical Greek kriophoros, but also a literal rendering of Luke 15:5), sometimes in a bucolic setting before a tree and with other sheep at his feet. Many of these gems have additional, explicitly Christian references, either inscriptions ("Jesus Christ", the chi-rho monogram, IXQYC, or some variant) or symbols, such as fish or anchors.

And while we're about it:

Late Antique, Early Christian and Jewish gems: 3rd and 4th centuries - inscriptions

Quote:

Among the earliest Christian gems, datable to the mid 3rd century AD, are a number of small cornelians and jaspers engraved only with inscriptions naming or referring to Jesus Christ. Some read IHCOY XPICTOY, "of Jesus Christ" (in the genitive case, presumably meaning that the wearer was a "servant of Jesus Christ"), others merely IHCOY ("of Jesus") or XPICTOY ("of Christ"). Also used were the chi-rho monogram signifying "Christ" and the word IXQYC, meaning "fish" in Greek but also a frequently used acrostic composed of the first letters of "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour".

Late Antique, Early Christian and Jewish gems: Old Testament scenes

Quote:

Some Old Testament figures, notably Jonah and Daniel, enjoyed special popularity with Christians, who viewed them as symbols of salvation, prefiguring or alluding to Jesus. On a number of gems, the Good Shepherd is paired with Daniel, who typically is represented as standing in the pose of an orant (in prayer) between two lions.

But how do you distinguish Christian from Jewish gems?

More

Quote:

Similarly, the small surviving group of Jewish Sasanian seals are in local style but are identifiable by their device, the Jewish symbols of lulav and etrog, or by the inscription in Hebrew, typically a personal name and patronymic. Jewish gems produced within the Roman Empire are very rare. Of the few examples which survive, most are engraved with the seven-branched candlestick (menorah) and uninscribed, while a few others bear magic inscriptions in Hebrew.

Have you dealt with these gems? They seem to indicate the existence of Christianity in the 3rd century.

mountainman · 11-15-2007, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

But how do you distinguish Christian from Jewish gems? ... Have you dealt with these gems? They seem to indicate the existence of Christianity in the 3rd century.

Thanks for the links Toto.

A further page at that site entitled

Late Antique, Early Christian and Jewish gems:
New Testament scenes, says ...

Quote:

Only very few gems from the early Christian period (3rd to 5th centuries) survive that depict episodes from the New Testament. Surviving examples include representations of the Baptism of Jesus, the Raising of Lazarus, Peter and Paul, and three remarkable portrayals of the Crucifixion.

The appearance of the Crucifixion on gems, in an unconventional composition which includes the twelve apostles, is significant for its early date, still in the 4th century if not earlier, for no other depiction of the Crucifixion is known until the 5th century.

Then from their page on the Constantinian revival:

Quote:

A revival of gem cutting occurred early in the 4th century during the reign of Constantine the Great and his sons. A number of very fine gems survive, including some exceptionally large examples cut in rarer materials such as amethyst and sapphire. Most of these stones are engraved with portraits of the emperor, and no Christian narrative scenes are known.

It's good to also check gem-cutting as a mode of
archaeological evidence, and before not I had not,
so many thanks for digging this stuff up.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 11-18-2007, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Why do you keep insisting that it is a TRex?

Graydon Snyder emphatically denied that there was
any evidence of a visual reference to Jesus’ crucifixion
prior to the fourth century, [59] and then claims
there was ...

“no place in the third century [or earlier]
for a crucified Christ, or a symbol of divine death.” [60]

[59] Snyder, Ante Pacem, 26–29

[60] Snyder, Ante Pacem, 29.

PS: The book has not yet arrived.
These quotes were via ...

THE STAUROGRAM IN EARLY CHRISTIAN MANUSCRIPTS:
THE EARLIEST VISUAL REFERENCE TO THE CRUCIFIED JESUS?
Larry W. Hurtado
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/bitstrea...ts+volumea.pdf

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

youngalexander · 11-19-2007, 10:33 PM

Apologies for going missing. Been at the National Skeptics Conference in Hobart.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Why do you keep insisting that it is a TRex?

Graydon Snyder emphatically denied that there was
any evidence of a visual reference to Jesus’ crucifixion
prior to the fourth century, [59] and then claims
there was ...

“no place in the third century [or earlier]
for a crucified Christ, or a symbol of divine death.”
Pete Brown

Indeed, and it does of course require explanation. However, there are numerous other Christian icons pre-313CE. Thus the lack of a Cross is merely an anomaly - albeit an important one.

On the other hand, if there is no iconography of the NT historical Jesus before 250CE, after more than 200 years of oral & literary testament, then that is not an anomaly, but a bloody great gaping hole! Furthermore, it is one which may be capable of being demonstrated. That is the elephant.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.