Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-28-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Late Antique,

Early Christian and Jewish gems: 3rd and 4th centuries - inscriptions

Quote:

Among the earliest Christian gems, datable to the mid 3rd century AD, are a number of small cornelians and jaspers engraved only with inscriptions naming or referring to Jesus Christ. Some read IHCOY XPICTOY, "of Jesus Christ" (in the genitive case, presumably meaning that the wearer was a "servant of Jesus Christ"), others merely IHCOY ("of Jesus") or XPICTOY ("of Christ"). Also used were the chi-rho monogram signifying "Christ" and the word IXQYC, meaning "fish" in Greek but also a frequently used acrostic composed of the first letters of "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Saviour".

This page presents three inscriptions on gems:

1) The chi-rho monogram of Christ. (from Munich, Christian Schmidt collection. Red jasper in silver ring.)

The chi-rho monogram AFAIK appears on the coinage of BCE Egypt and as such pre-dates christianity, so I have not included this image on the basis that I need not explian it. Since it cannot be argued that the image is unambiguously intended to be "christian" on the basis of the chi-rho.

2) IHCOY XPICTOY, "of Jesus Christ". (Private collection. Red jasper, 13 x 10 mm., in silver ring.)

(3) The acrostic IXQYC. (Private collection. Banded agate, 13 x 10 mm.)

and from ....

Quote:

Pagan symbols

transformed into Christian symbols

Quote:

Another popular motif found on Christian gems of the later 3rd century is a pair of

fish flanking an anchor or a cross-like object. Although the symbol is of pagan origin,

attested first in the late Hellenistic period, its sudden appearance on gems in the 3rd

century, as well as its occurrence in the Roman catacombs, demonstrates that Christians

adopted the image, reinterpreting it as an allusion to Jesus (IXQYC). Some examples are

labelled with explicitly Christian phrases.

Also appearing on gems of the later 3rd and 4th centuries is the image of the Good

Shepherd. The shepherd is always shown carrying a sheep on his shoulders (the pose being

that of the classical Greek kriophoros, but also a literal rendering of Luke 15:5),

sometimes in a bucolic setting before a tree and with other sheep at his feet. Many of

these gems have additional, explicitly Christian references, either inscriptions ("Jesus

Christ", the chi-rho monogram, IXQYC, or some variant) or symbols, such as fish or

anchors.

(4) Two fish flank an anchor, CREICTOU, "of Christ". (Berlin, inv. J.9396. Nicolo, 13 x 10 mm.)

(5) The Good Shepherd. An anchor is in the field and a fish in the exergue. (Oxford (Fortnum 89). Red jasper, 17 x 14 mm.)

Similarly, we have been through the "good shepherd" and the argument that the good shepherd was a pagan motif implies this class of image cannot be used to provide an unambiguous citation in express confirmation of the postulate that we have historical prenicene christians - because of this amulet.

This leaves us with the items 2, 3 and 4, and the following questions:

How were these amulets dated?
Who dated these amulets and when and where?
Who were these amulets obtained from?
How much was paid for the amulets?
Who paid the money, and to whom was it paid?
Where were they found?
What is their history of provenance?

A separate thread of questions would relate to the text.

What is the earliest recorded appearance of "Jesus" other than via the nomina sacra?
What is the earliest recorded appearance of "Christ" other than via the nomina sacra?
What is the earliest recorded appearance of "Jesus Christ" other than via the nomina sacra?
How does this fit with the text on these amulets?
What alternative translations exist?

There are probably a whole host of other questions as well.
I would appreciate some sort of acknowledgement that you see
these questions as being valid. I think they are. Do you?

Quote:

At this point, I would like to rescue the forum from this continual discussion of Pete's

proposition, which no one believes in except for Pete.

Belief? Does evidence fit in anywhere to "belief"?
Am I supposed to "believe" in a (pre-certified) HJ?

Quote:

It is radical enough to say that Christianity originated in the second century, as a

reaction to the Jewish War or the Bar Kochba rebellion. It would be even more radical to

date it to the mid-third century, when there is clear archeological evidence of a

Christian church (Dura Europa) and Christian artifacts.

At Dura there is neither claimed to be a christian church or christian church-house. It is specifically described as a house-church on the basis that it is just a normal run of the mill suburbia box made out of ticky-tacky that is suspected of being representative of "christian occupancy" by an analysis of the art work, and the grafitti associated with this artwork, on the interior walls of the building, under the strict proviso (as claimed) that the interior of the house was inaccessible for the period from 252 CE (wall collapse at Dura) and 1921 CE (discovery).

Quote:

But trying to date Christianity to a 4th century invention by Eusebius under Constantine's

direction is a proposition that has been tried and found wanting. It can't even be

described as a theory - there is no theory of why the forgeries were written in the form

that they were written, just a bald assertion that anything that does not fit must have

been forged.

I have taken care to make finer gradations than that. Interpolations as "mini-forgeries". The case of Origen, and of Porphyry. The argument is that the fabrication was an imperial scale fabrication by a rising super-star emperor who eventually became "the supreme being".

Quote:

There are lots of forged documents floating around, but they can usually be

identified as fitting someone's interest, while not all of the early references to

Christianity fit into anyone's interest.

Think Historical integrity and authenticity. By this I mean a global picture of all the references in the literary and the non-literary remains (of all NT "history"), specifically archaeology and all its associated sciences. We have two options:

1) There is a small amount of discernible historical integrity to "early christianity".

2) There is no amount of discernible historical integrity to "early christianity".

The former option has been argued quite successfully for a long time now, by various historical parties with various agendas. The latter option as far as I know has not been argued in a specific fashion. I see that this second option should be explored.

Quote:

It makes much more sense, based on what we know of how religions develop and evolve, to

see Christianity as a religious movement drawing its doctrine and practices from a variety

of sources, which was adopted and changed by the actions of Constantine.

The sense must stem from the evidence, and the evidence is exceedingly tenuous, and sufficiently so for us to be able to question its entirety of existence before it was polemicised by the Boss.

Quote:

After all, you don't usually find Mafia thugs or warriors who have the sort of intellectual

sophistication to even think about inventing a new religion, complete with heresies.

Successful military commanders often exploit many resources that they themselves personally may have no direct experience in, and know when and how to delegate projects as myriad threads towards a common goal. The Boss will stand up and take credit for the work that his "people" have done, whether this is his army, or his engineers, or his scribes.

The Lane-Fox analysis of Constantine's Oration to the Saints, for example, has the Boss saying the following ....

"Our people have compared the chronologies with great accuracy,
and the 'age' of the Sibyl's verses excludes the view
that they are a post-christian fake."

The Boss was the front man. Eusebius was in the back-office.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 03-28-2008, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...
According to W.J. Durant, in regard to Constantine, "He became the most persistent preacher in his realm, persecuted heretics faithfully, and took God into partnership at every step.", Christ and Caesar: The Story of Civilization (or via: amazon.co.uk), p. 664.

I have found errors in Durant's work before, and I would not take this at face value.

Basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem, Israel
Basilica of the Holy Apostles, Constantinople
Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, Rome
Basilica of St. Peter, Vatican Valley, Rome
Basilica of St. Lorenzo, Rome
Basilica of St. Sebastiano
Basilica of St. Marcellino
Basilica of St. Pietro
Basilica of St. John, Laterano (over barracks of Maxentius' soldiers)
Basilica of St. Maxentius
Basilica of Santa Sophia
Basilica of St. Constantine, Rome

Another consideration is the power and control exerted by the chrysargyron.

Quote:

The chrysargyron

The chrysargyron was calculated to rope into the Imperial Treasury a percentage of the earnings of all who did not live off the land, that is of the inhabitants of the cities who were not touched by the land tax. It naturally fell on those who paid the land tax and were both landed proprietors and merchants, as well as on the poorest who lived from day to day from the produce of their bodily labour. It seems to have been in part a tax on sales and in part a sort of capital levy on property other than landed property. It was originally devised by Alexander Severus(1) but Constantine regularised its collection and enlarged the list of those liable. This seems the most probable explanation although Zosimus says that Constantine first imposed it.(2) He speaks of it as a tax of gold and silver on all merchants and tradesmen even to the lowest classes, not even sparing the poorest prostitute.(3) It is commonly spoken of as a tax on all those who engaged in any industry which required a capital fund and as falling on petty tradesmen and artisans of all kinds save simple day laborers.(4) This seems to be an accurate description of the tax so long as the "capital fund" is strictly defined as implying the means of production i.e. the tools with which the artisan produced his goods for sale, as well as the actual possession of articles for sale. The tax quite certainly touched the very poorest and the inclusion of prostitutes shows that the sale of almost anything was taxed.

FNs:
(1) Lamp.Alex. Sev.24. "Braco-ariorum, linteonum Vitresariarum, pellionum,
plaustrariorum, argentariorum, aurificum et coterarum artium, vectigal
pulcherrimum instituit ex coque jussit tharmas... populi usibus exhiberi".

(2) Zosimus Bk.II.

(3) ibid. 446.

(4) e.g. W. A. Brown State control of industry in 4th cont. A.D. Political Science Quarterly II. 494.

UTLEY

Best wishes

Pete Brown

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-28-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This leaves us with the items 2, 3 and 4, and the following questions:

How were these amulets dated?
Who dated these amulets and when and where?
Who were these amulets obtained from?
How much was paid for the amulets?
Who paid the money, and to whom was it paid?
Where were they found?
What is their history of provenance?

You mean you don't know?

Given the certainty with which your hold your views that these are (or are most like all fakes, or are really to be read/interpreted in ways other than the ways qualified historians read/interpret them, you should have researched these questions -- and have come up with indisputable and evidenced based answers to then already.

Why were you unaware of them prior to this? And why are you asking others to do your homework for you?

Jeffrey

mountainman · 03-28-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeffrey Gibson

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

This leaves us with the items 2, 3 and 4, and the following questions:

How were these amulets dated?
Who dated these amulets and when and where?
Who were these amulets obtained from?
How much was paid for the amulets?
Who paid the money, and to whom was it paid?
Where were they found?
What is their history of provenance?

You mean you don't know?

And the following ....

What is the earliest recorded appearance of "Jesus" other than via the nomina sacra?
What is the earliest recorded appearance of "Christ" other than via the nomina sacra?
What is the earliest recorded appearance of "Jesus Christ" other than via the nomina sacra?
How does this fit with the text on these amulets?
What alternative translations exist?

Jeffrey,

If the name of your man Jesus H is here supposed to be inscribed in full on this holy relic, is this not the oldest exploded form of the nomina sacra Jesus H? Isn't this rather strange?

Quote:

Given the certainty with which your hold your views that these are (or are most like all fakes, or are really to be read/interpreted in ways other than the ways qualified historians read/interpret them, you should have researched these questions -- and have come up with indisputable and evidenced based answers to then already.

I have not bothered to accumulate the hundreds and thousands of pious forgeries of literature and holy relics between the period of the fourth century and the twentyfirst century. There is a thread started on Oded Golan recently (again) --- do you think you should contribute there as well?

A study of the actual cited known forgery of relics in these almost 1700 years would provide an interesting statistic on where to place the onus of proof when discussing citations which are to be presented as authentic. Authenticity has been presumed but not established. There is a difference Jeffrey.

Quote:

Why were you unaware of them prior to this? And why are you asking others to do your homework for you?

Contributory discussion often provides further questions. I make no claim to have a compehensive set of questions to determine the authenticity of "holy relics". I reserve the right to be skeptical about them, especially in the ratio of the numbers of known and established pious forgeries against the numbers of surviving authenticated and oft-cited holy relics.

Do you have a favourite "holy relic"? Is it "Dura-Europa" too?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

andrewcriddle · 03-29-2008, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

This account http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/A...#P6089_1353518 is generally thought authentic.

Tertullian born 160 CE
Justin purportedly executed 165

If scholars consider this account authentic in the sense that it represents reality, I have to question on what basis they do so. It sounds like hero fiction to me. 7 (symbolic) heros face horrific punishment for their faith, and not one shows even the slightest sign of fear. It includes a detailed back and forth exchange that Tertullian was obviously not in position to record, and ends with a dubious body snatching that serves the purpose of relieving the anxiety of the reader regarding the final disposition of their heros (much like what was done with Jesus).

I'm not sure why Tertullian is relevant here. AFAIK the (anonymous) account of the death of Justin has never been attributed to Tertullian.

Possibly you were confused because I cited the ANF from Roger's web site http://www.tertullian.org/ .

Andrew Criddle

spamandham · 03-29-2008, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I'm not sure why Tertullian is relevant here. AFAIK the (anonymous) account of the death of Justin has never been attributed to Tertullian.

Sorry, I confused a couple of different discussions I have going on.

andrewcriddle · 03-29-2008, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

If scholars consider this account authentic in the sense that it represents reality, I have to question on what basis they do so. It sounds like hero fiction to me. 7 (symbolic) heros face horrific punishment for their faith, and not one shows even the slightest sign of fear. It includes a detailed back and forth exchange that Tertullian was obviously not in position to record, and ends with a dubious body snatching that serves the purpose of relieving the anxiety of the reader regarding the final disposition of their heros (much like what was done with Jesus).

You may be right about the inauthenticity of the body snatching.

The Acts of Justin's Martyrdom exists in three forms. The Short Middle and Long versions (See Musurillo The Acts of the Christian Martyrs)

The Long version is pretty obviously a later embellished version but it is disputed whether the Short or Middle Version is the nearest to the original.
The citation I gave was to the Middle version found in most manuscripts including the oldest. The ending here reads

Quote:

The holy martyrs having glorified God, and having gone forth to the accustomed place, were beheaded, and perfected their testimony in the confession of the Saviour. And some of the faithful having secretly removed their bodies, laid them in a suitable place, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ having wrought along with them, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

whereas the Short version ends

Quote:

Then the holy martyrs went out to the customary spot glorifying God, and fulfilled their testimony by their act of faith in our Saviour, to whom is glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit now and for ever. Amen.

Hence the reference to the body snatching is absent in the shortest version of the Martyrdom and may possibly be a later addition.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 03-31-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

...huh!? Didn't you just finish arguing Constantine ended Christian persecution? [/url]

Yes. You need to actually think about what that means with regard to the existence of ongoing persecution. How could he have ended it or changed it if it wasn't going on while he was in power?

He invented it.

Best wishes

Pete Brown

mountainman · 03-31-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

If scholars consider this account authentic in the sense that it represents reality, I have to question on what basis they do so. It sounds like hero fiction to me. 7 (symbolic) heros face horrific punishment for their faith, and not one shows even the slightest sign of fear. It includes a detailed back and forth exchange that Tertullian was obviously not in position to record, and ends with a dubious body snatching that serves the purpose of relieving the anxiety of the reader regarding the final disposition of their heros (much like what was done with Jesus).

You may be right about the inauthenticity of the body snatching.

The Acts of Justin's Martyrdom exists in three forms. The Short Middle and Long versions (See Musurillo The Acts of the Christian Martyrs)

The Long version is pretty obviously a later embellished version but it is disputed whether the Short or Middle Version is the nearest to the original.
The citation I gave was to the Middle version found in most manuscripts including the oldest. The ending here reads whereas the Short version ends

Quote:

Then the holy martyrs went out to the customary spot glorifying God, and fulfilled their testimony by their act of faith in our Saviour, to whom is glory and power with the Father and the Holy Spirit now and for ever. Amen.

Hence the reference to the body snatching is absent in the shortest version of the Martyrdom and may possibly be a later addition.

Andrew Criddle

Using the Greek LXX as the basis for the body of NT literature was body snatching. And dont forget we have no earlier accounts of the early Christian Martyrs independent of Eusebius, with the exception of those added later by his continuators in the fraudulent misrepresentation of ancient history across the boundary event called "The Council" of Nicaea.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

mountainman · 04-01-2008, 09:02 PM

A number of different articles cited the church historian ROGER E. OLSON in a description of the preliminary proceedings of the council of Nicaea:

SAMPLE

Quote:

Early in the council, a reading
of the Arian position was requested.
When Eusebius of Nicomedia
read the Arian statement,

“some of the bishops were holding their hands over their ears
and shouting for someone to stop the blasphemies.
One bishop near Eusebius stepped forward and grabbed
the manuscript out of his hands, threw it to the floor
and stomped on it” (Olson 153).

Can anyone advise what Olson's source is for this?

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.