show_no_mercy

Isn't Jesus [the successor of Moses] the son of Fish?

stephan huller

shownomercy

Sure, any this is possible. There has always been this argument that there was a pre-existent 'Jesus' or 'Joshua' the messiah expectation in ancient Judaism. The Dositheans are said by Eulogius of Alexandria to have been divided into two camps - those who accept Dositheus as the messiah and those who expect a second Joshua. Yet no literary remains related to a Samaritan cult of Joshua survive (nor Dositheus for that matter interestingly enough).

That the letter nun has a value of fifty was certainly part of the messianic equation as the early messianic interest at Qumran was tied to a Jubilee (and a jubille occurs every forty nine plus one year). The word 'gospel' again in Samaritan Aramaic clearly meant 'the announcement of the coming Jubilee' and holds the key to unravel the reason why the Gospel of Christ was so called.

stephan huller

Is that all you can say? Why shouldn't we believe at least SOME of Eusebius's testimony regarding the early Church given that IN AT LEAST this part of his narrative we have documented physical evidence?

I have never understood the claim that EVERYTHING that Eusebius wrote was bullshit. No one, not even Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron hit every pitch. Not even the worst batter in history missed every pitch over the course of a full season. We should always stay away from the extremes in scholarship. No one is always right or completely truthful and no one is always wrong or completely deceptive.

Sheshbazzar

This imagery is identical with that presented in pre-christian Hellenic Orpheus The Shepherd mythology, particularly with the reference to
the 'great eyes that see everywhere'.

A 'holy virgin' using her hands to draw fish from a fountain? What is particularly christian about this?
It reads very much like a composition originally intended to honor the 'virgin' priestess and cult of Orpheus The Fisherman.
Again this does not read like a description drawn from the Gospels or from latter 'Christian' Eucharistic experience, but rather as a pre-christian Orphic cult ritual, combining the elements of Orpheus The Fisher, Orpheus Bacchus (wine) and Orpheus The Farmer (Husbandman)

It appears to me that old Abercius was originally a devotee of the Orphic Mysteries religious cult, and that Eusebius & Co simply forged his 'adoption' papers and 'christianised' him posthumously.

stephan huller

Well - as always - we have to choose between two explanations - one put forward by real scholars who have thought about these matters for most of their lifetimes and that put forward by people with an absurd agenda at a discussion board.

That I end up becoming the defender of the status quo (when I have so many radical ideas of my own) is almost comical. The problem is of course that I actually try to familiarize myself with things written by people who know more than I do before I attack their opinions.

Luckily Tabbernee (whose work I especially adore) points to an Italian scholar Margherita Guarducci as having disproved the pagan hypothesis. I know that many of the brides of mountainman have no interest in actually becoming familiar with her argument ESPECIALLY AS IT APPEARS IN ITALIAN. Nevertheless Google translate helps facilitate much of the difficulty inherent in the text. Of course, one can never overcome an inherent mental laziness in individuals and a willingness to go along with abnegationists like Pete merely because it suddenly 'equalizes' everything and puts those who actually know things on the same footing as ignoramuses because 'everything is bullshit' anyway.

In any event, as I don't see why it is my job to overcome the mental laziness inherent of the mountainman sympathizers so I will concentrate on one part of her section by section analysis of the material (the link is provided below and the rest of you can follow along by entering text in Google translate to see the rest).

She focuses in one part of her essay on the specific reference to the line in the original Greek:

She RIGHTLY sees this as a reference to the Church and develops an argument that this has many parallels with the Shepherd of Hermas where the Church is described as a bride as well as other second century authors (Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria etc):

http://books.google.com/books?id=_NQ...bercio&f=false

There is much more to her argument but - like all good hypotheses - the same result can be achieved through a variety of different methodologies. Not only is the text best understood as reflecting a rich patron conencted to the Roman Church (the 'virgin' 'queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled') in addition to all the other Christian imagery related to 'fish' and the like BUT we also have the preservation of in Eusebius of an early document ADDRESSED to Abercius ALBEIT with his name slightly corrupted BUT RECOGNIZING THAT HE WAS IN A POSITION OF RANK at Hieropolis in Phrygia combatting the heresy of the Montanists.

To argue that Eusebius falsified the text makes no sense because the name is preserved here in such a way that the connection with the Abercius of the inscription isn't obvious enough to facilitate that argument. In order for a conspiracy theory to be seriously considered by any one other than the easily deluded it has to have some rational plausibility. Why would Eusebius DELIBERATELY falsify the cited testimony but preserve the name of Abercius in an unrecognizable form?

The one thing I can be certain of is that Pete will find some ridiculous explanation which I haven't even considered ...

PhilosopherJay

Hi Stephan,

You say no "literary remains related to a Samaritan cult of Joshua survive" outside of Eulogius of Alexandria.

Yet your #2, #3 and #4 archaeological examples reference fish. Can the reference not be to Joshua ben Nun (son of Fish)

Joshua/Jesus Fish is involved in the traditional ordination of a Rabbi: (wikipedia - Semikhah)
It is quite possible that this archaeological evidence is just evidence for a Joshua Nun (Fish) cult associated with Jewish rabbis. It makes sense for them to identify with Joshua/Jesus Nun (Fish) as they would have been part of a laying of hands ceremony. Joshua Nun would have been the first to become a rabbi (a shepherd of his people) through this ceremony.

A Joshua Nun Cult seems a natural and almost necessary step in the development of a Joshua Nazarene/Nazareth cult once we eliminate an historical figure as the basis. The archaeological evidence you are presenting seems to support this hypothesis.


Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

stephan huller

I am just saying as one who is relatively familiar with the surviving Samaritan writings from antiquity that nothing of what Eulogius says he knows of the Alexandrian Samaritan cultus is witnessed by the surviving writings that have come down to us. That doesn't mean it isn't likely that this existed at one time. I am just saying that the Samaritans no longer accept this line of thought nor is it reflected in the writings that they decided (or were allowed) to preserve.

Sheshbazzar

Convenient for the 'status-quo' when an 'inscription' is 'reconstructed' from multiple sources so as to fit it to standard popular preconceptions of Christian versions of 'history'.

stephan huller

But why is the 'standard' necessarily wrong or bad? The missionary position isn't bad even if it is 'standard.' Better than fucking your hand.

Sheshbazzar

I'd much rather fuck my hand than that diseased whore that you are in bed doing your 'missionary position' with.