Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 10-29-2007, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

See also Tertullian On Baptism http://www.tertullian.org/articles/e...text_trans.htm

Quote:

But we,
being little fishes, as Jesus Christ is our great Fish, begin our
life in the water, and only while we abide in the water are we safe
and sound

Quote:

sed nos
pisciculi secundum IChThUS nostrum Iesum Christum in aqua
nascimur, nec aliter quam in aqua permanendo salvi sumus

Andrew Criddle

Is that a correct translation? Does it not read as our saviour messiah is a great fish?

A literal translation IIUC would be something like according to our IChThUS Jesus Christ. In the light of the passage as a whole "Jesus Christ" is a personal name not a title. eg

Quote:

Wherever Christ is, there is
water: he himself is baptized in water: when called to a marriage
he inaugurates with water the first rudiments of his power:
when engaged in conversation he invites those who are athirst
to come to his everlasting water: when teaching of charity he
approves of a cup of water offered to a little one as one of the
works of affection: at a well-side he recruits his strength: he
walks upon the water, by his own choice he crosses over the
water, with water he makes himself a servant to his disciples.1
He continues his witness to baptism right on to his passion: when
he is given up to the cross water is in evidence, as Pilate's hands
are aware: when he receives a wound water bursts forth from
his side, as the soldier's spear can tell.

Quote:

nunquam sine aqua
Christus : siquidem et ipse aqua tinguitur, prima rudimenta
potestatis suae vocatus ad nuptias aqua auspicatur, cum sermonem
facit sitientes ad aquam suam invitat sempiternam, cum de agape
docet aquae calicem parvo oblatum inter opera dilectionis
probat: ad puteum vires resumit, super aquam incedit, libenter
transfretat, aquam discentibus ministrat. perseverat testimonium
baptismi usque ad passionem: cum deditur in crucem aqua inter-
venit - sciunt Pilati manus : cum vulneratur aqua de latere
prorumpit - scit lancea militis.

Christ here is the person described in the Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 10-29-2007, 02:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

What is the earliest version we have of the 153 mentioned in John? And is not the fish symbol common in the Catacombs and early xian burial sites? What date are these?

Xian burials are very different to true gods burials.

I am not aware of any mention of 153 fish other than in John's Gospel and works referring to it.

We have the use of fish (or dolphins) in decoration in early Christian catacomb burials. These decorative motifs are probably irrelevant.

IIUC we do not have examples of a single fish used as a symbol in a Christian artefact until well into the 3rd century CE.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 10-29-2007, 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

On looking into this further, this portion of the Sibylline Oracles probably dates from the early 3rd century CE.

However, you'll find that the earliest source for this
is Constantine's "Oration at Antioch" 325 CE. It is
discussed by Robin Lane Fox (P&C) extensively.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Probably the author of the Hortatory Address to the Greeks http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P5246_1207437wrongly attributed to Justin Martyr knew this passage

Quote:

If therefore, ye men of Greece, ye do not esteem the false fancy concerning those that are no gods at a higher rate than your own salvation, believe, as I said, the most ancient and time-honoured Sibyl, whose books are preserved in all the world, and who by some kind of potent inspiration both teaches us in her oracular utterances concerning those that are called gods, that have no existence; and also clearly and manifestly prophesies concerning the predicted advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and concerning all those things which were to be done by Him.

This work is generally dated in the second half of the 3rd century hence this Sibylline Oracle is probably to be dated in the first half of the 3rd century or earlier. However it is probably not known to early Christian writers who mention the Sibylline Oracles eg Clement and Theophilus. Hence a date in the first half of the 3rd century seems likely.

(I quite agree this is not certain. I even agree that an early 4th century date for this particular oracle is possible. I'm just saying what I think likely and why.)

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 10-30-2007, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

However, you'll find that the earliest source for this
is Constantine's "Oration at Antioch" 325 CE. It is
discussed by Robin Lane Fox (P&C) extensively.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Probably the author of the Hortatory Address to the Greeks http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P5246_1207437wrongly attributed to Justin Martyr knew this passage

Quote:

If therefore, ye men of Greece, ye do not esteem the false fancy concerning those that are no gods at a higher rate than your own salvation, believe, as I said, the most ancient and time-honoured Sibyl, whose books are preserved in all the world, and who by some kind of potent inspiration both teaches us in her oracular utterances concerning those that are called gods, that have no existence; and also clearly and manifestly prophesies concerning the predicted advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and concerning all those things which were to be done by Him.

This work is generally dated in the second half of the 3rd century hence this Sibylline Oracle is probably to be dated in the first half of the 3rd century or earlier. However it is probably not known to early Christian writers who mention the Sibylline Oracles eg Clement and Theophilus. Hence a date in the first half of the 3rd century seems likely.

(I quite agree this is not certain. I even agree that an early 4th century date for this particular oracle is possible. I'm just saying what I think likely and why.)

Andrew Criddle

Thanks Andrew,

(I appreciate your taking the time, and your articulation of "likelihoods" and "certainties").

I found one of Joe Atwill's "fish symbols" on the Flavian coinage:

It is a dolphin.

Are there any others? I know of late (Meggido perhaps) mosaics
of fish which look like the standard Pisces Fish symbol (if there
is indeed a standard -- I have not studied this -- in the use of
this Astronomical/Astrological proto-science "pisces fish".

What actual "FISH SYMBOLS" exist in a monumental sense?
What are their dates and purposes? Joe Atwill has here
presented on of the earliest citations (I have seen to-date).

Can it be improved upon?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.