mountainman

Where is the evidence for the inference, bloated with the will to believe
that there existed anything christian in the pre-Nicaean Epoch?

Where are the archeological or scientific citations?

1) I have dealt with the problems of the acceptance of the paleographically
accepted evidence in respect of pre-Nicaean manuscripts and fragments here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_071.htm

2) I have dealt with the apparent exception of the house church and the
associated fragments found at Dura-Europa here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_072.htm

3) I have dealt with the Inscription of Abercius here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_073.htm

If you think I have dealt with these archeological citations in a manner
that is not sensible or reasonable, then please tell me.

What other archeological citations exist which permit any objective
person to make the inference that christianity existed in the Pre-Nicaean
Epoch?

Either line these citations up and prove this inference to be true,
or provide me with a reason why I should treat this inference as
being true without any such evidence being cited.


Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/namaste_2006.htm
NAMASTE: “The spirit in me honours the spirit in you”

dog-on

Hello Mountainman, would you accept a compromise? There is no reason that the the Hellenic Jews and Greeks couldn't have created the Christ figure using the LXX and other material during the first couple centuries AD. Maybe there were a lot of different ideas running around and Eusebius gathered together what he wanted and left the rest to be declared heretical. Constantine would have been much better served using something extant, as opposed to making something up from scratch. Especially if he wanted to quickly secure his empire.

mountainman

Hey dog-on. I am not really interested in compromises
unless I am forced to accept them, at the moment.
I want to be proved wrong, and to do that I need an
archeological citation which is sufficiently pre-Nicaean.


I disagree. He had already secured his empire by his army.
He wanted to establish a low cost maintenance plan for his rule.
He did not want to pay tribute any longer to the Hellenic culture
and its religions, so he had his own religion created out of nothing.
He was then in a position to regulate his newly acquired lands
by the newly formed ROMAN church, and immediately proceeded
to take the treasures, lands, temples, wealth, etc of the old
Hellenic religions as his own, by force.

See http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm



Pete Brown

dog-on

Can't help there.

Constantine legalized Christianity prior to Nicea, and in 324 fought a civil war against Licinius, who ruled the eastern empire. One of the supposed reasons for this war was the fact that Licinius reneged on the Edict of Milan (313) which granted religious freedom and, reportedly, started persecuting Christians. This would seem to imply that there were Christians to persecute prior to Nicea, unless this is, in your mind, historically unsupportable.

I do not disagree with Constantine's motivations, as you presented them, but it still would be much easier realize his plan using an extant religion that had, at least, some popular support.

mountainman

Hey dog-on. Thanks for the comments.

The hypothesis under consideration which I want to exhaust
is that Constantine create christianity in ROme as a beta-site
with effect from 312 CE. From that time, he consolidated his
position in the west, and looked east towards the day when he
would become supreme.

The propaganda and literature relating to christinaity was created
in these intervening years and sent into the east of the empire in
advance of Constantine's military plans. This action resulted in the
stirring up of a huge and chaotic controversy: the Arian controversy.

When Constantine finally took the eastern empire, and Lucinus, he
had him strangled within 6 months. But his primary motivation was
to summon attendees from the entire empire, mainly IMO the recently
taken eastern empire - those who were recently the most vociferous
in their statement of the Arian controversy - so that they could repeat
their opinions and disagreements re: the new and strange religion to
his supreme imperial face at the Council of Nicaea.

Constantine did not require any support other than his mercanery
barbarian army, least of all popular support. He did exactly what he
pleased, and answered to no one person whatsoever. He had the
power of life and death over slaves of the empire, over the plebians,
over his Roman contingent of horsemen and cavalry, and over the
patrician level upper class, whom he coerced to migrate from their
native city of Rome and take up residence in the new city that he
had constructed - Constantinople.

Think of Constantine as a fourth century Hitler who was not brought
to account by existent powers in the empire, and who implemented
a new Roman catholic religion which, from its inception, destroyed
and burnt any competition by means of the power structure which
it had inherited from Constantine at Nicaea.

Having said all of the above, the theory is capable of being refuted
through provision of archeological citations by which the inference
that the tribe of christians existed prior to Constantine is vindicated.

Veteran posters in this forum who have previously indicated that such
evidence exists are invited to cite such evidence.

In the fourth century Constantine and Eusebius provided a map which
purported to chart the topgraphy of the history of the preceeding 300
years (give or take a score or two). There has been seen no need to
question the integrity of the map, because that map is essentially all
that exists.

But what if the map is false? What external evidence exists apart from
this map provided under the reign of Constantine, that it is accurate in
its primary inferred purpose, to chart "things related to the tribe of christians"
into these prior centuries of antiquity.

Archeological and/or carbon dating methodologies which identify that there
were in fact some pre-Nicaean relic of this "tribe of christians" will vindicate
the inference that this map has a minimal integrity.

But where is such objective evidence?



Pete Brown
NAMASTE

dog-on

And therein lies the rub. I, personally, know of no such evidence. Maybe that's the reason Constantine stuck to Sol Invictus for so long! Just seems like a lot of trouble to go through for someone who had all the power you claim he did. If he didn't care about popular support, what would have stopped him from looting the pagan temples anyway?

mountainman

I see the Nicaean creed as evidencing coerced but voluntary conscription
to the new and strange religion of Constantine, Arius et al exceptions.

This creed incorporated 22 catch creeds in the fine print.
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_054.htm

These service regulations define an emperially inspired administrative,
control, regulation, taxation and revenue collection structure for the
entire east-west Roman empire as at 325 CE. Constantine did not have
to pay his mercanery soldiers to loot, when he could permit and encourage
influential citizens of the newly acquired empire to voluntarily conscript
to his automatically-legalised new distribution channel of power.

History tells us that most looting was decided upon in advance at
the usual council meetings held after Nicaea.
From Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them!
Published in Greek, Athens 1994:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_060.htm


Pete Brown

spin

Earliest church: Dura-Europos c.240 CE.

mountainman

Thanks for the citation.

This is my refutation that the house church and the related
fragments found at Dura-Europa are conclusive evidence of
pre-Nicaean christianity:

This has been taken directly from here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_072.htm


Introduction to Dura Europos

Dura Europos was an ancient town in the antiquity being here studied. It was founded in 303 BCE by the Seleucids on the intersection of trade routes along the Euphrates. It was rebuilt in the 2nd century BCE as a great city, with rectangular blocks defined by cross-streets arranged round a large central agora.
It later became a frontier fortress of the Parthian Empire. It was captured by the Romans in 165 CE and abandoned after a Sassanian siege in 256-257. After it was abandoned, it was covered by sand and mud and effectively disappeared from sight.

The town was rediscovered during WWI, and archeological excavations in the 1920's and 1930's by American and French teams, were continued in the 1980's and to date. In the course of the excavations at Dura Europos over a hundred parchment and papyrus fragments and many inscriptions have revealed texts in Greek and Latin, Palmyrenean, Hebrew, Hatrian, Safaitic, and Pahlavi. The excavations revealed temples to Greek, Roman and Palmyrene gods. There were mithraea, as one would expect in a military city.


Jewish synagogue identified

"The world's oldest preserved Jewish synagogue was dated by an Aramaic inscription to 244. It was preserved, ironically, when it had to be infilled with earth to strengthen the city's fortifications against a Sassanian assault in 256. It was uncovered in 1935 by Clark Hopkins, who found that it contains a forecourt and house of assembly with frescoed walls depicting people and animals, and a Torah shrine in the western wall facing Jerusalem."

Christian house church identified?

It has been claimed also the the earliest identified Christian church, or church house, or house church has been excavated, and that in 1933, among fragments of text, a fragmentary text was unearthed from an unknown Greek harmony of the gospel accounts -- comparable to Tatian's Diatessaron, but independent of it.


The apparent Dura Europos exception

The Dura Europus exception against the Eusebian fiction postulate is twofold. One the one hand, it is claimed that that one of the structures uncovered at the site is a primitive christian church, and on the other hand, fragments of textual finds located at the site, were buried at the time that Dura Eupopa was seiged, in the year of 256, and taken from the Roman empire.
Dura Europus was then effectively abandoned, the population deported, and was gradually buried under sand. A recent archeological report concludes with the following mention:


"It seems now that this fresco, several ostraca in Pahlavi found in the palace of the Dux Ripae (Figure 30/13), and the tombs discovered in the town and along the river resulted from temporary installation of a small Persian detachment in the town after the victory of 256 (MacDonald; Leriche and Al Mahmoud, 1994)"

The Textual Fragment(s)

Uncial 0212 in the Gregory-Aland catalogue or Papyrus Dura 10, are often referred to as a fragment of an unknown Greek harmony of the gospel accounts -- comparable to Tatian's Diatessaron, but independent of it.
It is not disputed that it may be such a fragment, but what is disputed is the dating of the fragment to the time of the seige when one of the walls subsided.

It is also entirely reasonable to consider that the manuscript was brought to the city walls, and stored there out of the elements at any later date than the seige, for example, after 325 CE. Small parties of desert dwellers could have sought out this remote location for hundreds of years after the seige.


The House Church

The structure is described not as a church, neither a church house, but rather as a house church. The house is question is presumed to be a christian church by analysis of the the art work depicted in the alleged baptistry. Additionally there was reported evidence of some written Christian graffiti in this "house church".
However we see depicted in this art work "The Shepherd" and not "The Christian".

The argument that the house in question is not a christian house church perhaps as yet has not been made.

That the town remained totally unoccupied, a permanent ghost town immediately after the departure of the Persian detachment, and for thousands of years, is an unwarranted assumption.

It is not unreasonable to consider that both the manuscript and the graffiti (if indeed they are christian) could have been introduced to the city at a much later date, by unknown fringe desert dwellers, seeking shelter in a desolation. Another possibility is outlined below.

Dura-Europa hosted Julian's Roman army in early April 363 CE

We are told by the historians Ammianus (23.5.1-15) and Zosimus (3.14.2) that the Roman army lead by Julian (the Apostate) travelled to the region called Zaitha (or Zautha [Zosimus]) near the abandoned town of Dura where they visted the tomb of the emperor Gordian. This was Julian's final campaign, and he was accompanied by the entire army.
Therefore it is entirely possible that post Nicaean literature was deposited in the wall at Dura, and that christian graffiti was scrawled on the walls, during this very brief Roman occupation of the town, for possibly only a few days, in early April of the year 363 CE.


A further likely habitation of Dura-Europa in 363 CE

After passing though the vicinity of Dura Europa with the entire Roman army in April 363 CE, Julian's army fell back from the Persian frontier to the Roman empire, without proper order due to the fact that Julian was killed in battle. It would be expected therefore the outward route via Dura Europa may have been used to fall back, and that a further and more extended opportunity would have existed for fragments of manuscripts and/or the graffiti to have been deposited at the deserted town by the christian soldiers in the Roman army.


For the above reasons I consider that it reasonable to believe
that the Dura-Europa evidence may not be pre-Nicaean.



Pete Brown

spin

You haven't dealt with the secure terminus ad quem of 257 CE. You merely tried to deflect the iconography.