J-D

No. I really haven't.I thought you said before that you accepted that there were Christians before Constantine. I must have misunderstood you. Of course, if you deny that there were Christians before Constantine, you are disagreeing with standard accounts on that point and agreeing with Pete's utter rubbish.

spin

The center of the Paul's and the gospel religion is the drama of the crucifixion, which is there in the fragment, with a religious indication of the importance of the crucifixion and its scribal contraction of nomine sacre. We know from the gospels that Joseph appeared after Jesus was crucified as a means of enabling the burial.

The elements I mentioned in my previous post are all elements from the gospel story. They are all there already in the fragment, suggesting that the gospel that we know as the central literature of christianity was already greatly, if not fully, formed. There don't seem to be any other meaningful suggestions on the table.


spin

J-D

What your citations appear to be intended to show is that Constantine destroyed pagan temples and enforced Christian worship. But this is not the point in dispute. Nobody doubts that Constantine destroyed pagan temples and enforced Christian worship. These facts are just as easily reconciled with the general view that Christianity existed before Constantine as they are with your view that it did not.You are either missing the point or deliberately evading it. The point is this. Ulfilas's doctrine is plainly not that of the Nicene creed, so it must have a non-Nicene source (including in that general description the possibility that he made it all up himself). The accepted view is that his source was the doctrine espoused by Arius, which would explain why the churches of Ulfilas's time and later which followed the same doctrine were described as Arian. According to your view of Arius, an 'Arian' religious organisation could only be a non-Christian one. But the Arian churches of the fifth and sixth centuries were Christian, although the Christianity they espoused was non-Nicene. The Creed of Ulfilas is just one piece of evidence directly confirming the existence of this non-Nicene Christianity, a subject you avoid discussing because it is irreconcilable with your presuppositions.That's a complete non sequitur. Your 'response' was unrelated to my post. You say that 'it' was, according to Momigliano, a series of miracles, but strictly speaking this is meaningless as the pronoun 'it' has no antecedent.

J-D

Are you suggesting that these people should not be called Christians because they did not call themselves Christians? I don't think that's the definitive test. Or are you suggesting that they should not be called Christians because they were Jews? There are people today who insist that they are both Jews and Christians at the same time.

mountainman

Dear Spin,

I think it is only fair to introduce more ancient frescoes so that we may perceive how pervasive these assertions are becoming. Why dont we start with the Fresco from the Temple of Isis, Pompeii, now at the National Museum of Archaelogy in Naples. Are there any symbolic artistic indications here that were are looking at a christian fresco? Lurkers, please feel free to de-lurk.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear J-D,

According to all suppositions, the Creed of Ulfilas postdates the Oath of Nicaea.

Well then you really should do some reading and research on the ground of ancient hiistory in he fourth century, because unless you do it yourself, with the source documents that I have already here and elsewhere provided reference to, then it is unlikely that you will understand the political nature of that epoch.



Best wishes,


Pete

jeffevnz

I went ahead and compared the text of the fragment with that of each of the parallel passages in the 4 canonical Gospels. I colored words or phrases that only appear in one or two of the Gospels. If it appears in one: Mark, Matthew, Luke, John. And if something appears in two Gospels, I use mixtures: Mark and Matthew, etc.

Looks like you're right, Andrew. There are examples of words or phrases unique to each of the four Gospels. It's Mark-heavy, but they're all in there. Certainly if this is a Gospel harmonization, that's another nail in the coffin for pete. It would definitely mean the Gospels existed before 257.

One question, though. Is a Gospel harmonization the only way to account for this pattern? Suppose the story were incorporated into an early version of Mark, and then was used along with the rest of Mark, as a source for the other three Gospels. Later changes in Mark could account for the missing phrases. I realize this is getting far-fetched. Just thinking through possibilities.


Dura fragment:

[...of Zebed]ee and Salome a[nd] the women
[from among] those who followed him from
[Galil]ee to see the cr{....} And it was
[the da]y of preparation [....] Sabbath was dawn-
[ing.] And as it was becoming [l]ate on the prep-
[aration,] which is before the sabbath, there came
[up] a councilman [who]
[came] from Erinmathaia, a city of
[Jude]a, Jo[seph] by name, good, right-
[eous,] who was a disciple of Je(sus), but in
[hid]ing on account of fear of the
[Jew]s, and this man was awaiting
[the] k[ingdom] of G{o}d. This man was
not [consent]ing to the c[ounsel....]



Mark 15:40-43 (New International Version)

40Some women were watching from a distance. Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome. 41In Galilee these women had followed him and cared for his needs. Many other women who had come up with him to Jerusalem were also there.

42 It was Preparation Day (that is, the day before the Sabbath). So as evening approached, 43Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body.


Matthew 27:55-57 (New International Version)

55Many women were there, watching from a distance. They had followed Jesus from Galilee to care for his needs. 56Among them were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's sons.

57As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus.


Luke 23:49-51; Luke 23:54 (New International Version)

49But all those who knew him, including the women who had followed him from Galilee, stood at a distance, watching these things.

50Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, 51who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God.


John 19:25; John 19:38 (New International Version)

25Near the cross of Jesus stood his mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

38Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away.

mountainman

Dear jeffevnz,

Thanks for the coding outline here, but what if the document is meant to be understood as follows:


Best wishes,



Pete

J-D

Of course it does. That makes no difference to the point. The point is that the Creed of Ulfilas is evidence that Arian doctrines were not what you say they were.Sorry, your suggestion is too vague to be useful.

J-D

My living room is a private place. It is not a public place. Things which people are willing to do or to display in a private place they are often unwilling to do or to display in a public place.