mountainman

He needed alot of priority dates in his pseudo-history
in order to represent "the new and strange religion" of
Constantine as something that was not "new".

So he invented an ecclesiastical history during the period
312-324 CE so that it would be ready and useful at that
(carefully planned) time when Constantine would become
supreme military commander of the entire Roman empire.

Note that he either made up the heretics and their writings
such as Celsus (in the 2nd century), or he forged heretical
writings as if they were written by recent academic authors,
such as the neo-pythagorean Porphyry.

In the first instance, he was seeking priority dates, but with
Porphyry, IMO, Constantine was seeking a justification for
the destruction of the writings of (many) neopythagroean
academics, so he had Eusebius forge both Porphyry's (and
Hierocles') anti-christian polemic, which he then denounced,
attacked, and edicted for destruction by fire, as per his
letter below:

Constantine the King to the Bishops and nations everywhere.

Inasmuch as Arius imitates the evil and the wicked,
it is right that, like them, he should be rebuked and rejected.

As therefore Porphyry,
who was an enemy of the fear of God,
and wrote wicked and unlawful writings
against the religion of Christians,
found the reward which befitted him,
that he might be a reproach to all generations after,
because he fully and insatiably used base fame;
so that on this account his writings
were righteously destroyed;

thus also now it seems good that Arius
and the holders of his opinion
should all be called Porphyrians,
that he may be named by the name
of those whose evil ways he imitates:

And not only this, but also
that all the writings of Arius,
wherever they be found,
shall be delivered to be burned with fire,
in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may be destroyed,
but also that the memory of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out,
that there may not by any means
remain to him remembrance in the world.

Now this also I ordain,
that if any one shall be found secreting
any writing composed by Arius,
and shall not forthwith deliver up
and burn it with fire,
his punishment shall be death;
for as soon as he is caught in this
he shall suffer capital punishment
by beheading without delay.


(Preserved in Socrates Scholasticus’ Ecclesiastical History 1:9.
A translation of a Syriac translation of this, written in 501,
is in B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies,
Extracts From The Syriac Ms. No. 14528
In The British Museum, Lond. 1861, p. 6–7)

Fortuna

Hi Pete.

Couple of thing. First I mispelled the name of that catacomb, it should be the "Catacombs of Callixtus". It seems just by doing a few google searches that there is a general concensus that these catacombs were in use in the third century. Check here. According ti this info (and I've read this before also), Jerome speaks of his knowedge of the catacombs as a child in the 4th century and that they were out of use by then. From that site.

From when I saw them years ago, there is little doubt from the artwork and artifacts that these were Christian burial places.(I remember that there were very few of the "t" cross icons there. I remember depictions of the pisces fish, chi-rhos and depictions of a guy on a cross. but no "t" cross iconography. The guide told us that early Christians did not use the "t" cross iconography, that was a later development in Xtian artwork/iconography.

I would ask about the other pieces of pre-nicean Christian archeology, specifically the Alexandros (or variant spelling) fresco (the depiction of the guy on the cross with a mule's head with the inscription (paraphrased) "Alexandros worships his god". Also, the church of Dura-Europa.

I have to admit that from a certain POV it does seem strange that there is so little archeolgical (non-epigraphic) evidence of pre-nicean Christians outside of the catacombs.(while comparatively 3rd and 4th century Mithraeums are so common across France and Britian).

But Pete consider all the textual evidence. Consider the anti-heretical owrks of Iraneous and Hippolytus. Even more astonishing are the gnostic christian texts. Consider that (according to conventional dating) Iraeous, writing in the later 2nd century, rails against gnostic christian texts, specifically mentioning one called the "Testimony of Truth" (more info, see Elaine Pagel's "The Gnostic gospels"). This text was unknown except for Iraneous's railing against it, but then it was found in the Nag Hammandi texts. And written in coptic no less ! Consdier, Iraneous knows of it in the second century (which he attributes to Valentinius of Alexandria), and that we have a 4th-5th century coptic copy of it.

Given this and many other epigraphic information (all the other Christians texts from the second and third centuries, (i.e. The extremely popular "Acts of Paul and Thecla" and others), it seems incredulous that this could all have been fabricated out of thin air by Constantine's staff. So much work and in some cases so very well done (as a late fabrication)

But, consider that while these anti-heresy texts and second century texts are so very well done, I would have to ask how it is that the synoptic gospels are comparitively done so poorly. (the copying of Mark into Matt and Luke. And there is the issue of the empty tomb. Consider that, if these very early Christians really believed that their master was resurrected from the dead (as the story goes) This tomb of Jesus would have been a major site of pilgrimmage (Jospehus tells us of Jewish pilgrims visiting such places, i.e. Noah's Ark, Mt Siinai, etc). But, as the sotries go after this ressurection there is not a word about the place nor of anyone trying to visit or see it.(until Helena 300 years later). Given how good such a conspiracy would had to have been, how could they have missed this ? and it is big ! This, along ith the synoptic problem for me makes your late fabrication conspiracy very unlikely. And while they were at it, why not a single mention of any Christians in Jospehus's War, but they go out of their way to fabricate the TF ?

Pete, for me your late fabrication hypothesis has just too many problems and givne what we have, would have been an elaborate effort on for some parts, and majorly clusterf*** in the case of the synoptic gospels.

The classical alternative makes much more sense. Ther was no tomb visitation because there never was a tomb because no-one knew for sure where Jesus's body was buried (or if it was buried at all). Jospehus makes no mention of them in War because they were an insignificant group at the time. Other contemporaries (Justus, Philo) know nothing of Jesus because he was a minor figure and his followers insignificant. It looks like it was Pauline and initially gnostic Christianity that grew slowly and fractionated into tens or perhaps hundreds of groups and sects by the second century.

Sure, from a vcertain POV, what Constantine did was to establish Orthodox Christianity, which is what has survived to this day thanks to his efforts.

Still, good luck with your efforts.

mountainman

Thanks for the response Fortuna ...

In the end all we have is the post-nicene testimony of Jerome c.350 CE
which is well and truly after the critical date of Nicaea 325 CE, and the
first known publication of "the fabrication of the Galilaeans" by Eusebius
under order of Constantine c.331 CE.

The timeline of christian art, according to the archeological
material available is represented as having commenced in the
time of Constantine, and from then with a very heavy air of
the emperor Jesus, imperial and soldier-like.


There are a series of very large problems with this being
regarded as "exclusively something to do with christianity".

Point 1 - how many people were routinely crucified?

For a start, Trajan is known to have crucified 2,000 Jews
of the town Emmaus, according to the Roman historian
Florus Quintilius Varus (Florus, Epitome of Roman History – II, 88)

TRAJAN’S COLUMN – 101 ? 106 CE depicts Death & Roman
ruthlessness on a grand scale. An inscription in “Temple of
Augustus, Ankara, Turkey” reads:

“Three times I gave gladiatorial shows in my own name,
and five times in the name of my sons or grandsons, in
which shows about 10,000 men fought to the death”

-- These are ROMAN QUALITIES: - Not Barbarian

Do you get the drift, or shall we continue to point 2?

I have separately made an argument against the necessity of accepting
the archeological evidence at Dura Europa as "christian".
See this page.

Well, when you have gathered up what little exists, which I have
done, and then examine it to determine whether another optional
interpretation (other than pre-nicene "christian") is possible, then
then it gets towards an exception register.

Here is my Exception Register, however I have yet to add a few bits and pieces.

I consider all the textual evidence is sourced from the regime of
Constantine, primarily the author Eusebius, is Constantinian heresay.
There is reason to doubt the existence of "anything christian" prior
to the rise of Constantine's regime, and publications of the bible.
We know this regime was a malevolent dictatorship. Writings were
burnt, people were executed, the regime was controlled by a supreme
imperial mafia thug, with total and absolute military power in the empire.

The position here being tested is this: Eusebius fabricated a story.
The fabrication was a fiction of men composed by wickedness.
The fabrication included a pseud-history for the pre-nicene epoch,
on the basis that Constantine would look after the post-nicene epoch,
which we all know he did.

The entire mass of "christian related literature" and mss logically
could have been generated from as late as 312 CE through to
324 CE, and expansions and fill-ins by later hands (eg: 350-400)
cannot be ruled out.

The archeological citations being returned to not exclude this
possibility. JHowever, they may, in which case I will at least
know there must have been somehting "christian" before
Constantine.


Consider it imperially inspired literature.
Done on a grand scale. Boundless ambition.

Perhaps time was spent on them in other ways, such as the
concordance of agreement between them in the sayings, as
is depicted by the "Eusebian Canon tables". Perhaps they
were fabricated from these concordance sayings, and not
the other way around, on the basis that Constantine wanted
four honest eye-witness accounts that might stand up in a
Roman court of law, but that they had to be different so as
not to be identically the same. An 80% variance is appropriate.


There was a huge controversy when christianity was implemented
out of the whole cloth. It is today known as the Arian controversy,
sourced from the words of Arius against the fabrication. Arius was
the strawman opposition to Constantine's new and strange Roman
religion. Constantien called the Council of Nicaea to deal with this.

On the issue of the empty tomb, until discovered by Helena
and Constantine, and the construction of basilicas by C
in the "Holy Land" on top of all the places, it is a non-issue.

There is no tomb because we are dealing with a pseudo-history
sponsored and published under the regime of a malevolent dictator
who was out to rob the gold and treasures of the eastern indigenous
religious orders and the eastern ROman empire.

Constantine was a brigand, and he tendered the fabrication of
the Galilaeans to the aristocracy as a replacement for their Hellenic
culture, and probably charge for the 50 Constantine bibles to boot.

They only needed/wanted one priority date in the literature.
That someone attested to the existence of "the tribe of christians"
so early in the pre-Nicene epoch was a mountainous citation, and
one which Eusebius leads all his earlier evidence up to.


We have two scenarios:

Scenario One: The was in fact a little known and reclusive religious
order in the prenicene epoch called "christianity". When Constantine
rose to power in Rome, and after finding Maxentius head in the river
Tiber, and parading it around ROme and then Africa on a pike, he
embraced christianity.

At the same time this happened, we know Eusebius began writing his
Ecclesiastic History of the same little known religious order. Happily,
he had it ready for Constantine to use at Nicaea, as a socia reform.

Scenario Two: Constantine fabricated the "christian pseudo-history"
and associated literature out of a number of yards of whole
imperial cloth.

My position is this. I'd like to rule out the second scenario.
It should have been done a long time ago.


Well, this is correct, and I do not in any way shape or form think that
it is impossible that scenario ONE may be valid. However, as I have
stated, I believe that it is important to test out the second scenario.

If indeed Constantine did invent christianity in the fourth century,
then we should be able to perceive all avaliable evidence by the
light of this paradigm, and understand that it remains consistent.

Thank you. And also to you.

mountainman

Minor note re: Vatican Catacombs.
Specifically those at Callixtus ....
(Attention spin).

Major renovation works were known to have
been undertaken by Pope Damasus between
the years 366 and 384 CE.

Thus, it is likely that any scientific and/or
archeological assessment of dating with
respect to any of the vatican catacomb
"christian material" will not yield a date
earlier than Constantine or Damasus.

pkropotkin

The Jewish portions of the Catacombs of Callixtus turned out to be earlier than thought based on radiocarbon dating.

The newest portions(called Liberian) of the Christian catacombs of Callixtus have been radiocarbon dated, this section was assumed to be started in about 270 AD based on ideas of usage and inscriptions to 374 AD toward the back of the section, the radiocarbon dating of collagen from one of the bodies in what was considered the earliest part of the Liberian section, backs up this date of late third century as the start of this section. Many other samples were also radiocarbon dated.

Full Report is linked below
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/...-radiodata.pdf

It goes without saying that the Liberian section was always thought to be the newest portions of the catacombs, and were thought used up to the fifth century. If this section dates to what was expected based on inscriptions, then it is quite likely that the older parts, which have not been tested yet, will as well.

Finally what evidence do you have that Pope Damasus did "major" renovations.

mountainman

This is a brilliant paper on the advantages of the methodologies
of dating by means of C14 technologies archeological sites. Thank
you very much for providing reference to this. I found the entire
paper fascinating.

It is clear to me that the traditional methods of archeological
assessment will only benefit from the new technological services
which are becoming available. This paper provides an excellent
citation of the advantages of the availability of C14 dating data.

It also provides a firm caution to those in this forum who would
seek to use 19th and 20th century archeological citations (Dura
Europa springs to mind here) as a firm key to dating ...

From the final paragraph before the conclusion ...

They [the C14 citations] provide catacomb archeologists
with something that, thus far, they had never had firm
evidence regarding termini post quem and termini ante
quem

The following is taken from here:

Damasus restored his own church (now San Lorenzo in Damaso) and provided for the proper housing of the archives of the Roman Church (see VATICAN ARCHIVES). He built in the basilica of St. Sebastian on the Appian Way the (yet visible) marble monument known as the "Platonia" (Platona, marble pavement) in honour of the temporary transfer to that place (258) of the bodies of Sts. Peter and Paul, and decorated it with an important historical inscription (see Northcote and Brownlow, Roma Sotterranea). He also built on the Via Ardeatina, between the cemeteries of Callistus and Domitilla, a basilicula, or small church, the ruins of which were discovered in 1902 and 1903, and in which, according to the "Liber Pontificalis", the pope was buried with his mother and sister. On this occasion the discoverer, Monsignor Wilpert, found also the epitaph of the pope's mother, from which it was learned not only that her name was Laurentia, but also that she had lived the sixty years of her widowhood in the special service of God, and died in her eighty-ninth year, having seen the fourth generation of her descendants. Damasus built at the Vatican a baptistery in honour of St. Peter and set up therein one of his artistic inscriptions (Carmen xxxvi), still preserved in the Vatican crypts. This subterranean region he drained in order that the bodies buried there (juxta sepulcrum beati Petri) might not be affected by stagnant or overflowing water. His extraordinary devotion to the Roman martyrs is now well known, owing particularly to the labours of Giovanni Battista De Rossi. For a good account of his architectural restoration of the catacombs and the unique artistic characters (Damasan Letters) in which his friend Furius Dionysius Filocalus executed the epitaphs composed by Damasus, see Northcote and Brownlow, "Roma Sotterranea" (2nd ed., London, 1878-79). The dogmatic content of the Damasan epitaphs (tituli) is important (Northcote, Epitaphs of the Catacombs, London, 1878). He composed also a number of brief epigrammata on various martyrs and saints and some hymns, or Carmina, likewise brief. St. Jerome says (Ep. xxii, 22) that Damasus wrote on virginity, both in prose and in verse, but no such work has been preserved. For the few letters of Damasus (some of them spurious) that have survived, see P.L., XIII, 347-76, and Jaffé, "Reg. Rom. Pontif." (Leipzig, 1885), nn. 232-254.

Once again, thanks for your reference.

And BTW, do you yourself happen to know of any other carbon
dating citation with respect to anything whatsoever "christian"
in the prenicene epoch (ie: before the rise of Constantine)?

Finally, while we're at it ... why do you suppose none of the
prenicene papyrii fragments have ever seen a published C14
analysis to support their paleographically derived dating?