Chili

Hi Mountainman, if he was a historical we would have called him Saint Jesus but instead we had him crucified and raised him as in 'poof' to disappear from the face of the earth while it was Christ who stayed but 'moved' to Rome where he is the end of faith in Christendom. You should see religion like a wheel barrow and to push that thing back and forth you need roads and places etc. and so they use different of names, but since this is an improved vehicle they 'travel the road the ancients walked' and show their superior ways to get where we all want to go and there find rest in the end.

If you want to read about history you should look for history books but it is because the ancients were ancient that they could be better. That is just how civilizations rise and fall, which at home is more like buying a new broom to get a cleaner sweep and so renew the face of the earth.But a smart ruler knows that the mythology is for the survival and prosperity of the tribe and if you can set some of them on fire they'll do your dirty work for you. That is just good business in a competitive world where losers must make winners known and let me add here that a wolf is only a wolf in sheeps clothing among the flock and that should tell you that they knew what 'wolving' was all about.

Let me be the first one to wish you all the best in 2010 including health wealth and happiness. Happy New Year to you and yours.

Toto

Any instance of IESOUS could be a reference to Joshua, since the names are the same - except that the Joshua of Exodus was never, as far as I know, referred to as Christos. These amulets don't testify to any particular theology of early Christianity or to a historical Jesus, but they seem to indicate that there was some group of persons in the second century who ascribed supernatural powers to a Jesus Christ. That is incompatible with your theory that Eusebius and Constantine invented Christianity out of whole cloth in the 4th century, as are the remains of Dura Europa.

As I said in the earlier thread, it is radical enough to theorize that Christianity arose in the second century. I don't know why you think you need to pose a 4th century conspiracy.

Happy New Year.

avi

Ok, I can't resist it....I should know better, but, well, happy new year anyway....

So, here it is, amulet dated oops, almost gave it away. Ok, so your job is to identify the date of the amulet.


ΣΥΜΑ ΙΣΤΡΑΗΛ ΑΔΩNΕ ΕΛΩΗ ΑΔΩN Α

And here's the text, from which this inscription is taken:

καὶ ταῦτα τὰ δικαιώματα καὶ τὰ κρίματα ὅσα ἐνετείλατο κύριος τοῖς υἱοῖς Iσραηλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἐξελθόντων αὐτῶν ἐκ γῆς Aἰγύπτου ἄκουε Iσραηλ κύριος ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν κύριος εἷς ἐστιν

I am so inept, I am unable to locate the same words from the biblical passage upon which, the inscription on the amulet is based. Well, not completely, I guess, I recognize a couple of the words: maybe I can sort of imagine these two words:
ΣΥΜΑ ΙΣΤΡΑΗΛ

but, I definitely do not observe θεὸς on the amulet.
Well, I am obviously incompetent, but, forum members are not so mentally impoverished, and I suspect many folks can understand how the two quotes relate.

That's not my question, however. I want to learn from those bright folks who understand this amulet inscription business, just how it is possible to date this text to within a century or two or three or five from before or after the start of the common era.... To me, it resembles ancient Greek text, written well before Koine Greek. But, then, what would I know....?

Point here, if I am not mistaken, (as is not infrequently the case,) is that it is damn difficult for anyone to accurately date an inscription on an amulet, by virtue of handwriting analysis....

avi

Toto

Your amulet is here and is clearly Hellenistic Jewish. It was discovered in a grave, and the grave or the skeleton could be dated by various means.

Interesting - the amulet appears to be Hebrew words written in Greek characters, not the Koine Greek translation. That's why you don't see θεὸς on the amulet, but you do see "ΑΔΩNΕ ΕΛΩΗ" which looks like it could be adon[ai] elo[h]e[nu].

mountainman

There are a collection of amulets some from the 3rd and some from the 4th century. I have no problem with Jesus the State Christ amulets being manufactured after 325 CE. The question is whether the NT corroborations are explicitly dated before this year. The LXX corroborations do not service this question at all.


Dura Europa is literally a third-rate citation. Find me a christian church building before Constantine moved into town and you'll have the hypothesis beat.

My answer is that the evidence supports this hypothesis and that this hypothesis best explains the totality of all the ancient historical evidence for the epoch from Constantine's military supremacy c.324 CE till the mid fifth century censorship of the thug pyromaniac bishop Cyril. The Crusaders did not learn the history of the 4th century Gnostic resistance, because by that time it had been utterly destroyed by the new Guardian Class -- Church.

avi

Wow. Spectacular research, Toto. It took me hours to find it, and I can't even blame my lethargy on either the dementia or the arthritic fingers....

But, apart from your obvious skill in finding this trinket, my question remains, can you offer a suggestion on how we know the date of the inscription--yes, I agree with your idea of dating skeletal remains, but, I am referring in this question to the amulet handwriting, because, if I am not mistaken, that was the evidence you produced, above, to contest Pete's theory that the bulk of the forgeries were authored post Constantine.

Was the amulet you presented associated with skeletal remains, and not dated exclusively based upon the handwriting? To my untrained eye, the handwriting on your amulet, Toto, could have been accomplished anytime in the past 2500 years....What is there, uniquely, about the handwriting of that amulet, which guarantees a date of origin, prior to Constantine?

Happy New Decade;



avi

mountainman

The reference made by Toto to "paleography" somewhere above is a separate to the issue of these possible "amulet" evidence. The paleographical arguments are best represented by papryi citations such as

Beatty papyri: The major papyri in this collection are p45, p46, p47. The first p45 is dated to 150-250 CE; and contains some (or all) of Mt 20, 21, 25, 26; Mr 4-9, 11-12; Lk 6-7, 9-14; Jn 10-11; Acts 4-17. The second p46 is dated to 90-175 CE; contains some (or all) of Rom 5-6, 8-16; all of I & II Cor, Gal, Eph., Philp., Col, I Thess 1,2,5; all of Hebrews. The last, p47, dated to the third century, contains Revelation 9:10-17.2
The Bodmer papyri: The major papyri in this collection are p66, p72, p75.
p66: 150-200 CE, contains almost all of the Gospel of John
p72: 200's, containing all of I & II Peter, Jude
p75: 175-200 CE, contains most of Luke 3-18, 22-24; John 1-15.

The Rylands papyrus: Asserted to be the earliest surviving new testament fragment of a papyrus codex containing John 18:31-33, and 37. It has been dated from 130 CE.

Other papyrii: Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 658 dated to 250 CE, P. Oxy. 1464 dated to 250 CE, P. Oxy. 2990 dated to the third century,

None of these fragments disclose a specific date, rather, on the basis of the scribal handwriting evident on the fragments, assessments made by "paleographers" (handwriting experts) claim that these fragments are dated as above. I reject this as primary evidence of chronology.

My arguments against the paleographic dating are summarised here.

One key argument is the population explosion of Oxyrynchus in the mid 4th century, which is supported by the following graph of coinage found at the many tips of Oxy. This analysis suggests that it is highly unlikely that any fragments found at the OXY TIPS date from the 1st, 2nd or 3rd centuries, since they would have been entirely covered over from mountains and mountains of rubbish thrown on the 4th century OXY TIPS.

No Christian apologist treatment of the Oxyrhynchus papyri mentions this as far as I am aware. These population demographics are being ignored in favor of the transcendental possibility that the theory of the chronology of the gospels as presented by Eusebius between 312 and 324 CE in his "Church History" is ostensibly true and correct.



PS: Reminder for Iskander, Larkin31, Sestertius, tripoli or ayone contemplating voting on option (1) to kindly cite some evidence that the gospels were written in "Good Faith" as claimed. What evidence?

steve_bnk

The gospels were the promotional literature of the day intended for new converts. They were not intended to be journalistic accounts.

mountainman

The same might be said for Eusebius' 4th century "Historia Ecclesiastica". What is left of Christendom?

mountainman

The significance of the leadership of four new gospel authors (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) was not lost at Nicaea and on the Graeco-Roman audience since they had been used to a political environment of a political tetrarchy for three decades at that time.

The question whether the tetrarchy of gospels was published in "good faith" involves an assessment of the publisher. Since Constantine did not write or understand much Greek we are left to assume that he left alot of discretionary powers to Eusebius, who worked in the "back office". As "Editor-In-Chief" of planet Earth's first bound Christian bible Eusebius was handsomely rewarded - perhaps in gold - the argument that he was just another one of Constantine's mercaneries appears quite justified.