mountainman

Something more substantial than a Dura-Europa controversy and a growing stack of paleographer's certifications. We have hundreds of citations to Asclepius from a huge variety of independent sources for the same period. We should not expect a poverty of evidence --- yet that it precisely what we find. C14 analysis limit on the NT so far is 290 CE (plus or minus 60 years). This does not help the HJ postulate.

You must have looked for the ancient historical citations for "early christianity" at some stage. Do you really think the evidence is clear and sure, and if so, which citations specifically do you think have the greatest authenticity?

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

TedM

So you agree that it defies common sense? Then isn't it a worthless postulate, other than as some kind of academic exercise?


"legions of fictitious authors", whose alleged works were written by one man, right? Can one man produce all those works, and why would he recreate a false orthodox HJ that is so poorly supported by false 1st century evidence? Why wouldn't Eusebious have his made-up disciples write books, or produce the letter from Jesus, or copies of works by contemporaries of Jesus, the Jewish leaders, etc...? Why didn't Constatine make sure the letter from Jesus made it into the canon? Does making the evidence voluminous but unconvincing for skeptics help his case more than making the evidence more coherent and supportive?

One man surely couldn't have done all that work. And, even if he could have, he surely wouldn't have done it in such a patchwork and unsupportive way.

ted

TedM

What should we expect to find, and why?

MarkA

1. I would expect we would find devotional objects that would be used to focus the worship of believers. I am not aware of any religion that had or has no such objects used in this way. It appears to be a fundamental part of the religious impulse.

2. I would expect we would find pictographic evidence like paintings or sculptures depicting the central myths or beliefs of the church.

3. I would expect we would find places used for devotional purposes. They had to worship somewhere and Christianity was a group religion.

1. On another post "Eusebian Hypothesis" -- unsubstantiated claims Toto said, ‘…I found an internet reference to some amulets that could be clearly dated before Constantine that had references to Jesus Christ.’ If this dating is substantiated then clearly this is archaeological evidence of an early Christianity and not a fourth century invention.
2. Although the following example is a hostile attack on the central tenet of Christianity, it nonetheless shows that such beliefs were around. There is, ‘…a graffito found in Rome in 1856, representing a man bearing the head of an ass, and nailed to a cross, before whom another man kneels in the attitude of adoration. Beneath the cross there is a caption written in crude Greek: ΑΛΕΞΑΜΕΝΟΣ ΣΕΒΕΤΕ ΘΕΟΝ - "Alexamenos worships [his] God." Roger Pearse in the same post said it was, ‘…found in the slave barracks on the Palatine, and is apparently in the Palatine museum, on the top floor. I didn't see it when I was there (and I did look), but then I didn't certainly know it was there.’ The post is here, The donkey in Early (Anti?)Xian Symbolism. Peter Brown in ‘The World of Late Antiquity’ shows this in Plate 45 and dates it to the second century. If this dating is correct then clearly christianity has a beginning well before the fourth century.
3. The Dura-Europa house-church or church-house or whatever each side happens to call it is evidence. Of course, to one it is evidence of an early Christianity to the opposition it is questionable archaeology or at least an incorrect interpretation of the evidence.

While this is slim archaeological pickings it may be consistent with what should be left behind by a minority religion and a persecuted sect. Only one of the above needs to be verified as archaeologically in context and dated correctly to prove the pre-fourth century beginnings of Christianity.

mountainman

It is not unreasonable to conjecture, as others have done, that Eusebius had at his disposal many scribes and many scriptoria of scribes. The whole thing is being driven by the sponsorship of Constantine, in or near Rome c.312 CE. The Roman archives and the libraries of Rome belonged to the Boss.

The patchwork notion (of the canon) suggests many scribes were employed.


Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

Does anyone know the prenicene amulet?


Does the book provide any further information on how this dting was derived?


Yes, I agree with this assessment. The postulate is emminently falsifiable and the lack of C14 citations is interesting.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

spamandham

Yes, even if it was illegal. After all, we have alleged texts supposedly from this period of persecution do we not? Why nothing we can carbon date?

That said, are you implying that Christianity was universally illegal for ~200 years?

TedM

I was wondering when the idea that Eusebius alone did it would be replaced. So now you have "many scribes and many scriptoria of scribes", without any evidence that THEY existed and wrote anything original, no?

As for patchwork, would you not really expect a little more consistency in the story. Actually, a LOT more? And, why not alleged contemporary works?

MarkA

1. I suggest Toto should produce the reference he found as this would make it easier to follow the evidence trail.
2. No unfortunately, the date only occurs in the note accompaning the plate. Perhaps the museum has more information on the archaeological context in which it was found.

Is there any other archaeological evidence that can be tested other than the above examples? Has there been no C 14 dating on any of the papyrus fragments discovered in Egypt apart from the Gospel of Judas? I find this astonishing.

Sheshbazzar

It is often stated in various ways that pre-Constantinian Christianity was "a minority religion and a persecuted sect." yet very little actual evidence of any kind exists to support such an assertion, and then, on the other hand, If we are to believe the record of the NT and the early church writers, the religion of Christianity was spread like wild-fire, with literally thousands of converts within "Christ's" lifetime, tens of thousands more within a decade of the resurrection, and through Paul's preaching, in a few years, new "Gentile" Christian "Churches" becoming established in cities throughout the Roman Empire, and far beyond, even into India.

So on one hand, we have this small "minority persecuted sect" boasting of being about the fastest spreading and most convincing religion the world had ever experienced, often persuading thousands to convert in a day, and going on spreading for a period of over three centuries before Constantine.
While on the other hand, all we have as archaeological evidence for all of this claimed explosive growth in "christianity" is just one single disputable "church house" from the third century? and a dozen also disputable inscriptions, that may or may not have been of any christian origin?

Over THREE CENTURIES of this alleged "christian" propagation of its unique set of beliefs, and of the alleged reciting of the NT parables and miracles, with supposedly tens of thousands of converts having heard and believed these stories, but virtually none of them left any evidence that they had ever practiced any such belief, or had even heard of these parables and miracles, and they left virtually nothing behind to indicate that such beliefs had ever even existed, other than those "claims" that are recorded within the writings of the so-called "Church Fathers"?

There is something seriously bad wrong with this scenario.
Even the pagans upon the hearing of such parables, miracles, and wonders would have been inspired to produced art and artifacts illustrative of that knowledge, had it at all existed.

The Christian Church's claimed "history" has FRAUD stamped all over it.