Freethought & Rationalism Archive

spamandham · 10-30-2008, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Oh, Spammers, it's not a sarcophagus! Let me hold your hand on this. Here are a few important Jewish tombs "hewn out of the rock" (as Mk 15:46 says):

The tombs of Zechariah and of Absalom in the Kidron Valley.

Hmmm. I wonder where the stone rolled in front of the entrance went on these tombs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So you can stop your quibbling. As I said, the fresco gives you none of the background hints, but the "box" is too big to be a sarcophagus, isn't it!?

spin

It does seem kind of big. It seems too small to be a tomb, and there's certainly no where for a rock to roll in front of the entrance.

...hell, maybe it's the ark of the covenant.

mountainman · 10-30-2008, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Somewhere along the line, Roman traditions and art were folded into Christianity. The canonical gospels make no mention of a sarcophagus, but imply instead a traditional Jewish burial. So it's up to us to try to explain this discrepency. We are presently evaluating two options.

1. The canonical gospels were written prior to the time that it became common to fold in Roman ideas. By the time of the Dura frescos, these ideas had been adopted and show up in their artwork, so it's no surprise they also show up in medieval art.

2. The canonical gospels were written by Eusebius, but based at least in part on proto-Christian Jewish writings. The proto-Christian Jews had adopted Roman practices - as would be expected, and so they show up in the Dura frescos. But Eusebius wished to make a compelling forgery, so he did not include such obvious anachronisms in the canonical Gospels. This gives a greater flare of authenticity. But because no-one at the time of the forgery was a 1st century Jew, and because there was already artwork depicting a sarcophagus, that tradition continued on, in spite of it not being consistent with the newly crafted canonical Gospels.

Dear S&H,

And that the non canonical corpus was then authored, after the canon was first circulated by COnstantine c.324 CE, as a polemic reaction by the greek academics to Constantine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

IMaybe I am completely misunderstanding his hypothesis, then. As I understand it, Eusebius would have been the forger of the gospel of the Hebrews, too.

It's just as likely I'm misunderstanding his hypothesis. As I understand it, Constantine had the canon crafted and invented what we call Christianity, but it was a hack job rather than being constructed from whole cloth. Since the Gospel of the Hebrews was not included in the canon, it was not part of the forgery.

I don't know what MM has to say about texts such as Gospel of the Hebrews in regard to preceding or post dating 325.

Dear Ben and S&H,

My thesis follows the principle that the entir apochryphal NT corpus was authored largely between the years of 324 and 336 CE, perhaps much of it by one single author, perhaps multiple authors, but the greatest of possible suspect authors would be the greek academic logician and ascetic priest (perhaps of Apollo, perhaps of Asclepius), Arius of Alexandria.

From Ben's site:

Quote:

Philip of Side.
Century V.

From Philip Sidetes, writing of the ancients (de Santos 38; Lagrange 24):

Το δε καθ Εβραιους ευαγγελιον και το λεγομενον �*ετρου και Θωμα τελειως απεβαλλον, αιρετικων ταυτα συγγραμματα λεγοντες.

But they completely cast out the gospel according to the Hebrews and that called of Peter and of Thomas, saying that these were the writings of heretics.

It appears to have been regarded as an heretical texts. It is classed alongside the Gospel of Thomas, which survives from the Nag Hammadi codices and hyas been C14 dated to 348 CE (plus or minus 60 years) and in the fragments which remain there is this one:

Quote:

Third Fragment
He who seeks will not stop till he find; and having found, he will wonder; and wondering, he will reign; and reigning, he will rest.[4]

This is very similar to certain lines in GThomas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bacht

I think MM said that the non-canonical material was created at the same time by unemployed scribes from the pagan scriptoria that were closed by Constantine. The apocryphal texts were satires and parodies of the official Nicene canon, a kind of protest I guess.

Thankyou for the paraphrasing bacht. Essentially correct. But let me firmly state that these people who wrote the NT apochrypha as satirical polemical reaction to the canon, were not simply "unemployed scribes from the pagan scriptoria that were closed by Constantine". These same people were the exclusive preservers of Pythagoras, Plato and the knowledge of Euclid, etc, etc, etc which literature Constantine wished to BURN. These same people were highly educated greek speaking priests of the networks of temples to Ascelpius and Apollo (etc) in the eastern empire and particulalry as Alexandria. They are now regared as neopythagoreans and neoplatonist philosophers. Constantine caused the "dark ages".

Best wishes,

Pete

Clivedurdle · 10-30-2008, 04:50 PM

If we track some technologies against alleged religious timelines there are strange anomalies.

Archimedes works out calculus
Ankylethera Mechanism
Birth of Jesus
Parthenon
Constantine
Hispatia

This gives me the impression that the alleged coming of the son of god was not that important, and a belief that it is the central point in history may be a propaganda one.

Thus the positioning of that point may also be a propaganda effort.

spin · 10-30-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Oh, Spammers, it's not a sarcophagus! Let me hold your hand on this. Here are a few important Jewish tombs "hewn out of the rock" (as Mk 15:46 says):

The tombs of Zechariah and of Absalom in the Kidron Valley.

Hmmm. I wonder where the stone rolled in front of the entrance went on these tombs.

Over the entrance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

So you can stop your quibbling. As I said, the fresco gives you none of the background hints, but the "box" is too big to be a sarcophagus, isn't it!?

It does seem kind of big. It seems too small to be a tomb, and there's certainly no where for a rock to roll in front of the entrance.

Perspective didn't come into art until the beginning of the renaissance.

spin

mountainman · 10-30-2008, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Maybe I am completely misunderstanding his hypothesis, then.

Me, too. I wouldn't think Pete's theory allows for "a proto-Christian Jewish sect using something like the described Gospel of the Hebrews (or the Gospel of the Ebionites)".

Pete?

Dear Ben and Amaleq13,

Just to repeat this, the theory sees the new testament canonical literature being assembled by Constantine (via Eusebius) in the period 312 to 324 CE, and the new testament non canonical corpus being authored by greek speaking academics, neopythagorean and neoplatonic priests of the temple networks of Apollo and Asclepius, logicians, mathematicians, astronomers/astrologers, etc (eg: who was Sopater) during the period 324 to 336 CE (Possibly to the end of the 4th century).

In particular the gospel of the hebrews is classified as "a heretical text". All the apochrypha were "heretical texts", sicne they we satires against the canon. Constantine was furious, and a a result the christians were incensed! They needed to get hold of these seditious writings! They had to locate these non canonical texts and destroy them. The texts had a price on their head. Constantine explicitly mentions that the texts of Arius of Alexandria are to be consigned to the fire. Anyone caught concealing the texts of Arius would receive the capital punishment (ie: beheading without delay).

Arius of Alexandria is described as a Porphyrian by the Boss.
Arius may have authored "The Gospel of the Hebrews" (for example)
My thesis sees it as a satire, which also preserves unusual pagan wisdom. I hope this clarifies my position.

Best wishes,

Pete

Ben C Smith · 10-30-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As I said, the fresco gives you none of the background hints, but the "box" is too big to be a sarcophagus, isn't it!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

It does seem kind of big. It seems too small to be a tomb....

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Perspective didn't come into art until the beginning of the renaissance.

If the lack of perspective explains why the box is too small to be a rock tomb, why does the lack of perspective not explain why the box is too big to be a sarcophagus?

It certainly looks more like a sarcophagus, does it not?

Ben.

mountainman · 10-30-2008, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Perspective didn't come into art until the beginning of the renaissance.

Dear Spin,

The same may be said for the field of medicine. Notably at the beginning of the renaissance the bogus christian saints (Cosmas et Damian) who had been reverred since the fourth/fifth/sixth century (replacing Asclepius) were kicked out of the prime spot for the symbolism of the medical profession, and the emblem of the staff of Asclepius was reinstated. People in the renaissance woke up to the insubstantial claims of the christian propaganda in respect of medical knowledge. Here we are in 2008 working on the christian propaganda in respect of ancient historical knowledge.

Best wishes,

Pete

spin · 10-30-2008, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

As I said, the fresco gives you none of the background hints, but the "box" is too big to be a sarcophagus, isn't it!?

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Perspective didn't come into art until the beginning of the renaissance.

If the lack of perspective explains why the box is too small to be a rock tomb, why does the lack of perspective not explain why the box is too big to be a sarcophagus?

It certainly looks more like a sarcophagus, does it not?

Put a person along side it and you'll get a better idea. The tomb in the fresco is at least as high as the women.

spin

Ben C Smith · 10-30-2008, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Put a person along side it and you'll get a better idea. The tomb in the fresco is at least as high as the women.

I see that. But I asked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

If the lack of perspective explains why the box is too small to be a rock tomb, why does the lack of perspective not explain why the box is too big to be a sarcophagus?

Ben.

spin · 10-30-2008, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben C Smith

But I asked:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ben

If the lack of perspective explains why the box is too small to be a rock tomb, why does the lack of perspective not explain why the box is too big to be a sarcophagus?

The painter's intention is clear in the size chosen, given the space available. The tomb fills the height of the space.

spin

View Poll Results: Has mountainman's theory been falsified by the Dura evidence?
Yes	34	57.63%
No	9	15.25%
Don't know/don't care/don't understand/want another option	16	27.12%
Voters: 59. You may not vote on this poll

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

10-30-2008, 04:50 PM	#403
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	If we track some technologies against alleged religious timelines there are strange anomalies. Archimedes works out calculus Ankylethera Mechanism Birth of Jesus Parthenon Constantine Hispatia This gives me the impression that the alleged coming of the son of god was not that important, and a belief that it is the central point in history may be a propaganda one. Thus the positioning of that point may also be a propaganda effort.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.