Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 11-04-2007, 01:20 PM

The question here is whether or not
the Prosenes Inscription, which is very
often cited in popular "christian literature"
published by "christian academic journals"
as being christian, is in fact,
necessarily christian.

Here is some background ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Thanks YA, I have trimmed a little to concentrate
first of all on this example of the Prosenes inscription.
Take a look at this review of the Prosenes inscription:

Background

The grave of Marcus Aurelius Prosenes--set up by several
of his own freedpersons (liberti)--reveals that this
imperial freedman had moved his way through the hierarchy
of imperial service, even holding several procuratorships
(senior positions of considerable influence) under Commodus.

Though nothing in the original inscription
suggests Christian identity,
one freedman named Ampelius
later inscribed on the stone
the fact that Prosenes was

"welcomed before God"

(receptus ad deum) on March 3, 217,
an expression which may best
be explained in terms of Christianity.

(ICUR VI 17246; cf. Mazzoleni 1999: 153).

Summary

The phrase: "welcomed before God",
clearly, need not have been added
by a christian later hand.

What is "christian" about it?
Answer = "Nothing".

Well, not quite.

Paraphrasing Lampe p331

1. 'Receptus ad deum' was never used by pagans.
2. Similar expressions are found in Christian inscriptions of a later period (fourth and fifth centuries) (3)

Quote:

Granted the latter comparison is anachronistic, ...

(3) is a note on p331., you don't want to know (or at least I prefer to write this than cite it).

Thanks for this from Lampe but I find none of these
arguments 1, 2 or 3 compelling in the least.

Firstly, if my question to you were:
"Is this inscription necessarily "christian"?
how are you able to argue in the affirmative?

Nothing about the original inscription is christian.
A phrase is added (I wont say interpolated

)
by a later epigraphist's hand which says:

"Welcomed before God"

That this god is "christian" is IMO a huge presumption.

The evidence speaks of "god".
Were there no other "gods" in the empire
alongside the (hypothetical) christian god?

What argument exists that it is christian?
Textual critics -- have your say ....

Quote:

I must say MM, and I definitely do not wish to encourage you, but of all the nutty guys I have encountered, and that is quite a number - you certainly have the most difficult case to debunk. Bunk tho it is.:grin:

One stone at a time YA.

I only appear to be nutty because I am asking
this question: Is the Prosenes inscription
necessarily "christian"?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-04-2007, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The question here is whether or not
the Prosenes Inscription, which is very
often cited in popular "christian literature"
published by "christian academic journals"

Some questions, Pete.

Would you please name the academic journals you allude to here i.e., the "Christian" ones you say that have published the inscription.

What is a "Christian", as opposed to a "non Christian", academic journal?

On what basis do you call "Christian" the journals that you deem to be so.

Are the particular persons who cited the inscription in these reputedly "Christians" academic journals themselves Christians?

Has the inscription been cited in "non Christian" academic journals?

Are you familiar with the fallacy known as "poisoning the well"?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 11-04-2007, 07:06 PM

Jeffrey,

The Prosenes Inscription has been cited for at least
a century by all manner of scholars in many different
fields. It would be a research project in itself to
track citations and analyse these over the last 100 yrs.
since Giovanni Battista de Rossi (1822-1894) - loyal member of the Catholic Church, he was asked by Pope Pius IX to publish his works under the Vatican imprint. In 1857 the Vatican press printed his Inscriptiones christianae Urbis Romae. The work contained 1126 inscriptions dating from the year AD 71 to 589. The Prosenes inscription was listed here.

Since then, it is cited numerously. Did you check the link provided with the word Prosenes to GOOGLE.

It is better to answer you question by its converse.

Any book or journal or article published in recent
times, which concerns the subject matter of "Early
Christian Inscriptions" will invariably cite the
Prosenes inscription.

It is being presumed to be "christian".

Clearly, it isn't "christian" at all.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The question here is whether or not
the Prosenes Inscription, which is very
often cited in popular "christian literature"
published by "christian academic journals"

Some questions, Pete.

Would you please name the academic journals you allude to here i.e., the "Christian" ones you say that have published the inscription.

What is a "Christian", as opposed to a "non Christian", academic journal?

On what basis do you call "Christian" the journals that you deem to be so.

Are the particular persons who cited the inscription in these reputedly "Christians" academic journals themselves Christians?

Has the inscription been cited in "non Christian" academic journals?

Are you familiar with the fallacy known as "poisoning the well"?

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-04-2007, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Jeffrey,

The Prosenes Inscription has been cited for at least
a century by all manner of scholars in many different
fields.

No doubt. But that's not the issue. The issue is where it's been cited.

You claim that the inscription has been cited/published in "Christian" academic journals (and imply that Christian academic journals are automatically and invariably going to see the inscription as Christian). What are the names of the citing journals that you label as "Christian"?

And please tell us whether or not the authors of the articles on the inscription that have appeared in "Christian" academic journals are themselves Christians.

Quote:

It is better to answer you question by its converse.

I asked several questions. You've answered none of them even by way of outlining a converse. Nor is what you call the converse of "my question" really what you say it is to any of them.

Jeffrey

mountainman · 11-04-2007, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Jeffrey,

The Prosenes Inscription has been cited for at least
a century by all manner of scholars in many different
fields.

No doubt. But that's not the issue. The issue is where it's been cited.

No, my issue is the purpose of its citation.

I dont care less where it has been cited
because the purpose of the citation is singular.

In fact, although I do not have any of the
great classic Ancient Histories of Cambridge,
or ETC, ETC handy right now Jeffrey, but I
could almost guarantee you'll find reference
to it in such as well.

The inscription has been "presumed christian"
for a long long time, and for good reason.
Noone has argued that it is not (as far as
I am aware).

It is only cited as in terms of "christian archaeology"
for the purpose of providing a citation to some
monumental evidence external to the literature
tradition.

However the question remains whether it is necessarily "christian".

What's your opinion?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

youngalexander · 11-04-2007, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The inscription has been "presumed christian"
for a long long time, and for good reason.
Noone has argued that it is not (as far as
I am aware).

It is only cited as in terms of "christian archaeology"
for the purpose of providing a citation to some
monumental evidence external to the literature
tradition.

However the question remains whether it is necessarily "christian".

What's your opinion?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Lampe cites four pieces of evidence for Christian provenance and two against.
For:
1. The second inscription added by his freedman Ampelius and containing "receptus ad deum". It is not just the inscription itself but the fact that it was added at all and "in an unusual place not intended for an inscription". On the top rim of the right small side, ie. not immediately visible.

2. "Prosenes was buried in a sarcophagus and not placed in an urn. Burial, not cremation, was cherished by the Christians (for example, Minucius Felix, Oct. 34.10)"

3. His official titles are "partly imprecise and shortened" in the first inscription. The suspiscion is that his freedmen were avoiding the word "gladiatorium" even tho he was the manager of the imperial gladiator games.

4. There is also the suspiscion that a prohibition against entrance to the Christian catechumenate which was promulgated at this time, and specifically excluded persons engaged in official gladiatorial activities, may have been prompted by the case of Prosenes.

Lampe sums up

"Both indications that speak for a non-Christian interpretation of Prosenes's sarcophagus (the title "divus Commodus" and the past official function in the gladiator games) carry less weight than the fourfold evidence for Christianity. Both "pagan elements" are interpretable on the basis of a Christian provenance of the sarcophagus. The opposite is not the case. In a pagan interpretation of the sarcophagus, the elements that speak for Christianity would be unintelligible exceptions; particularly their accumulation makes a pagan interpretation of the sarcophagus difficult."

Snyder in Ante Pacem p213-5 also makes the point that the first

"inscription also lacks any pro forma or conventional reference to the non-Christian deities, such as D M at the heading, an address to the spirits of the dead (dis manibus)...
The inscription was written at a time when Christian characteristics were just beginning to appear."

In short, there is a good deal more evidence than just the inscription(s) themselves.

mountainman · 11-05-2007, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngalexander

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The inscription has been "presumed christian"
for a long long time, and for good reason.
Noone has argued that it is not (as far as
I am aware).

It is only cited as in terms of "christian archaeology"
for the purpose of providing a citation to some
monumental evidence external to the literature
tradition.

However the question remains whether it is necessarily "christian".

What's your opinion?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Lampe cites four pieces of evidence for Christian provenance and two against.

For:
1. The second inscription added by his freedman Ampelius and containing "receptus ad deum". It is not just the inscription itself but the fact that it was added at all and "in an unusual place not intended for an inscription". On the top rim of the right small side, ie. not immediately visible.

So a because the second inscription added by a later hand
was inscribed, not on the front of the existent inscription
to Prosenes, the deceased Imperial Gladiatorial Games
manager, but on the side, this is seen as contributory
to the "suspicion of christian-related-origins" of the
deceased Imperial Gladiatorial Games manager, Prosenes.

OK.

Quote:

2. "Prosenes was buried in a sarcophagus and not placed in an urn. Burial, not cremation, was cherished by the Christians (for example, Minucius Felix, Oct. 34.10)"

Sarcophagi were used by many traditions.
And why an appeal to Eusebius so early?

Quote:

3. His official titles are "partly imprecise and shortened" in the first inscription. The suspiscion is that his freedmen were avoiding the word "gladiatorium" even tho he was the manager of the imperial gladiator games.

Well we know tens of thousands of men died in
gladitorial games sponsored by the emperor for
the public. And so another "suspicion" is used
to add to the contributory "suspician of christian"
origin for the manager of the imperial gladiator games
Prosenes.

Quote:

4. There is also the suspiscion that a prohibition against entrance to the Christian catechumenate which was promulgated at this time, and specifically excluded persons engaged in official gladiatorial activities, may have been prompted by the case of Prosenes.

More flaming conjectural suspicions are trotted out.
Conjecture, conjecture and ...

The points AGAINST the conjecture that the manager
of the imperial gladiator games Prosenes was "C" ...

Quote:

Lampe sums up

"Both indications that speak for a non-Christian interpretation of Prosenes's sarcophagus (the title "divus Commodus" and the past official function in the gladiator games) carry less weight than the fourfold evidence for Christianity.

When faced with lack of real archaeological evidence
maybe things that mention "God" have at least a small
chance of being "really christian"? God only knows why
the human mind works like this

It's total conjecture Young Alexander.

Quote:

Both "pagan elements" are interpretable on the basis of a Christian provenance of the sarcophagus. The opposite is not the case. In a pagan interpretation of the sarcophagus, the elements that speak for Christianity would be unintelligible exceptions; particularly their accumulation makes a pagan interpretation of the sarcophagus difficult."

Quote:

Snyder in Ante Pacem p213-5 also makes the point that the first

"inscription also lacks any pro forma or conventional reference to the non-Christian deities, such as D M at the heading, an address to the spirits of the dead (dis manibus)...
The inscription was written at a time when Christian characteristics were just beginning to appear."

In short, there is a good deal more evidence than just the inscription(s) themselves.

You'll first of all note, that this is disputed.

That Prosenes, the manager of the imperial gladiator games
is to be presumed "christian" on the basis of the above is
in the end simple and plain conjecture.

The problem is that the conjecture is old and has been
quoted and passed down for a long long time without
anyone questioning it. It did not need to be questioned.
Until now.

To conclude for the moment, here is an interesting article
which cites "Early Christian Sarcophagi" and Art, and even
links to "Early Christian Writings".

Christ the Magician

This article examines how Jesus was depicted
in ancient Christian sarcophagi. Here is part of
the article related to sarcophagi. As an aside,
the authors mention that an unusually high percentage
of depictions show Jesus carrying a "magical wand".

Quote:

Carved in Stone

One tool for investigating early Christianity, it seems to us, has been grossly overlooked. Christian sarcophagi, by their nature, are much less vulnerable to being revised to change their details or meaning than are written materials. We say this despite the merciless "restoration" work visible on many of the sarcophagi, performed by antique dealers seeking to increase an item's value or by apologists overcome by anxiety about the lack of crosses in early Christian art. These restorations are usually very apparent, and rarely obscure the original composition (occasionally providing humor, when the deceased woman's portrait is recarved as Jesus, or when a soldier is recarved as Peter). Furthermore, extant sarcophagi have come down to us through a much more random (less biased) process than have Christian texts, which, independent of any rewriting, have been selected for their suitability to ecclesiastic agendas while others were either banned or simply abandoned and forgotten. Where we have only tiny scraps of the earliest Christian manuscripts, there is a wealth of ancient information written in stone that can be inspected first-hand by anyone with access to the world's great museums and churches. To be sure, some sarcophagi have been reworked to make their imagery conform to current theology, and others are modern forgeries. But a large number exist, particularly in Rome, whose imagery can be solidly identified as 4th and 5th century work. Surprisingly, this imagery tells stories somewhat different from those of the Gospels.

No Christian sarcophagi can be firmly traced to earlier than the third century, and even these are rare and disputed. Various theories have been proposed for this lack of evidence of early Christianity. Some suggest, on the basis of Exodus 20:4, that the earliest Christians were aniconic (rejected icons) like the Jews of the same period. This thesis is flawed on several fronts. For one, existing evidence refutes the claim that Judaism was iconic from pre-Christian times into the 6th century. 20th century excavations at Dura Europos revealed an early synagogue with rich iconography. More interesting still, the iconography at Dura Europos appears rather unrelated to the Christian iconography of the same period. Furthermore, the earliest Christian writers report that Christian clothing and household objects were richly decorated with biblical illustrations. These early writers, such as Tertullian (On Modesty, 7.1) and Clement of Alexandria (The Instructor, 3.11.59) did not appear to be critical of such usages of Christian art. Charles Murray, in his exhaustive investigation, concluded that there was no real condemnation by early church fathers of non-idolatrous iconography in the early centuries of Christianity.

A more likely reason for the lack of Christian art before the fourth century is that the number of Christians was very small. Written accounts purporting that Christians were an important component of first and second century Rome, are now increasingly thought to be later forgeries. For example, the brief mentions of Christianity in Josephus and Suetonius are sufficiently problematic (e.g., brevity, inconsistent language, lack of citation by subsequent writers whose point would benefit from citing it) to raise questions of their authenticity. Likewise, Tacitus's description of the "vast multitude" of Christians persecuted by Nero is inconsistent with other contemporaneous Roman histories and even the descriptions of Paul's ministry in Rome in the Acts of the Apostles suggest that Christianity was a small club at the time of Nero. This passage of Tacitus may well be an embellishment by a fifth century Christian scribe. Eusebius, church historian of the fourth century, makes no mention of this passage, when it clearly would have been in his interest to do so. Several modern writers have proposed that Christianity was basically a Roman invention - one that occurred in the last decades of the second century. They hold that Acts was written at that late time, in attempt both to meld together the largely unrelated epistles of Paul and certain of the large body of then-circulating Gospels. Perhaps more importantly - at least for Christianity's presence in Rome - Acts introduces - and develops at great length – the idea of apostolic succession, absent from the Gospels, but absolutely essential to a hierarchically organized sect of Christianity that was the ancestor to Catholicism. Acts, not Paul’s own writings, placed Paul in Rome. Christian tradition, not any text of the Bible, placed Peter in Rome.

Whether Christians were present in Rome before the third century - or whether they existed at all before then - scant archaeological evidence exists [1]. The late third century then shows an explosion in popularity of biblical themes, probably the result of the rapid growth of Christian sects at that time. Ancient writings indicate a considerable variation in beliefs between these sects; they show Gnostic and Docetic elements to various degrees. Marcionism and Valentinism, against which the church fathers railed, were quite popular in Rome. Although vicious doctrinal disputes between sects existed, these could be characterized as brutal wars of small differences - fine points that modern Christians might not recognize. These sects were, for the most part, either extinguished or absorbed by what later became orthodoxy. Their writings are commonly referred to by the misleading term, apocrypha. As stressed by David Cartlidge, the term brands these books as clandestine; and they were nothing of the sort. Despite later condemnation by church authorities, and the insinuation that these books all derived from those later judged to be orthodox, there is no basis for the notion that those who used these books saw themselves as being part of splinter groups, or that the distinction of orthodox was in any way meaningful in the third century. Some writings, such as those of Theophilus of Antioch and the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, discuss "Christianity" at length with no mention of a Christ or Jesus, or any earthly figure at the religion's root. Christian tradition and the fourth century church history of Eusebius tell a different story; but tradition can drift over the centuries, and Eusebius's writings show other signs of pious misrepresentations, fabrications, or error. Hence, these sarcophagi are interesting.

As mentioned above, carvings in marble, unlike tradition and copied texts, do not drift over time. Granted, the fourth century sarcophagi in Rome, due to limitations of their medium, cannot provide the details of Christian belief given by the books of the New Testament or the writings of the early church fathers. But they do tell quite a bit; and of what they do tell we can be certain, since it is carved in stone. Christian sarcophagi have mainly been the focus of the fields of history of art and Christian apologetics and devotion. There has been an astounding lack of interest in Christian art by those involved in the study of Christian origins, an enterprise almost solely devoted to ancient texts. We propose that opportunities abound for synthesis and interdisciplinary study.

[1] Graydon Snyder, in Ante Pacem: Archaeological Evidence of Church Life Before Constantine,
lists several dozen pre-Nicene funerary artworks, the vast majority of which are in catacombs.
There is some debate about the accuracy of their dating.

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-05-2007, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

No doubt. But that's not the issue. The issue is where it's been cited.

No, my issue is the purpose of its citation.

I dont care less where it has been cited
because the purpose of the citation is singular.

How would you know this if, as is now clear, you don't know (contra your previous claim that it has been published in "Christian" academic journals) where and therefore how it was cited?

Quote:

In fact, although I do not have any of the
great classic Ancient Histories of Cambridge,
or ETC, ETC handy right now Jeffrey, but I
could almost guarantee you'll find reference
to it in such as well.

And the point of this wager is ...?

Quote:

The inscription has been "presumed christian"
for a long long time, and for good reason.

What reasons are those?

Quote:

Noone has argued that it is not (as far as
I am aware).

You are showing your lack of research again. Try R. R. R. Smith, "The Statue Monument of Oecumenius: A New Portrait of a Late Antique Governor from Aphrodisias," in Vol 92 of that wonderful "Christian" Academic journal, The Journal of Roman Studies.

Quote:

It is only cited as in terms of "christian archaeology"
for the purpose of providing a citation to some
monumental evidence external to the literature
tradition.

Again, since your acquaintance with where the inscription is cited and discussed is minimal, and since your claims of where it is cited are undemonstrated and apparently untrue, how do you know that it is "only" so cited?

JG

mountainman · 11-05-2007, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

You are showing your lack of research again. Try R. R. R. Smith, "The Statue Monument of Oecumenius: A New Portrait of a Late Antique Governor from Aphrodisias," in Vol 92 of that wonderful "Christian" Academic journal, The Journal of Roman Studies.

My research is necessarily incomplete, as will be
admitted by any honest researcher. Will you admit
here and now that your research is incomplete in
various areas?

Or would you rather instead, here and now, admit
to having all your research completed?

Quote:

It is only cited as in terms of "christian archaeology"
for the purpose of providing a citation to some
monumental evidence external to the literature
tradition.

Again, since your acquaintance with where the inscription is cited and discussed is minimal, and since your claims of where it is cited are undemonstrated and apparently untrue, how do you know that it is "only" so cited?

Quite obviously, as I have explained earlier,
I have not researched all citations to this
inscription. The bulk that I have covered
to-date use the inscription in the discussion
of "Early Christianity".

The article you cite above still presumably
mentions the term "christian" or does the
author somehow skillfully avoid using it?

But what relevance does this inscription actually
have with respect to "early christianity" of it is
not in fact "christian"?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 11-05-2007, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

You are showing your lack of research again. Try R. R. R. Smith, "The Statue Monument of Oecumenius: A New Portrait of a Late Antique Governor from Aphrodisias," in Vol 92 of that wonderful "Christian" Academic journal, The Journal of Roman Studies.

My research is necessarily incomplete, as will be
admitted by any honest researcher. Will you admit
here and now that your research is incomplete in
various areas?

Sure. But that's not the point. The point is your making claims that imply that you have reseached something (i.e., where an inscription has been published) when you haven't.

JG

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.