stephan huller

Did you read Tselikas report? He just went up to two stilts that support the Casino Chatby. One had pottery fragments. The others didn't. More work has been done this month. But none of this affects the question of what period the Martyrium is dated to. A lady found a pile of gold coins lying on the ground outside of Jerusalem from the 10th century the other day. Jerusalem is now dated to the tenth century?

stephan huller

Why should it be left to the side? There are witnesses to the existence of this building from pre-Nicene times:

1) the Letter to Theodore
2) the Passio Petri Sancti

The earliest reference to the Passio Petri Sancti is found in the writings of Peter of Iberia. The earliest reference to the martyrium is the Letter to Theodore. The next reference is Epiphanius's statement that Arius was its presbyter. The next reference comes from Gregory of Nazianzus's Oration for Athanasius. The next reference comes from the writings of Paulinus of Nola and then the Martyrium Marci at the end of the fourth century.

Is your suggestion that the building was established by Constantine and then the legend of Peter of Alexandria's death in 311 CE there was 'faked' thereafter? If it means anything I have argued in my paper that things were the other way around - that Peter's death was real and that later Church figures at the end of the fourth century invented St. Mark's death happening in the same place out of the circumstances of Peter of Alexandria's death. But the two are definitively related. Why could two parallel death narratives have emerged at the same time from the same Nicene myth factory? Was someone asleep on the job?

Sheshbazzar

Oh I have little doubt that ancient ruins can be found in Alexandria, that is not in question.
What is being questioned is where is any verifiable archaeological evidence that these famous buildings and temples were ever actually employed as Christian 'church' buildings any time before the 3rd century CE.
The books make a lot of claims, many of them of very questionable authenticity or value. And at present, archaeology has found almost nil evidence supporting those paper religious claims.
If Christianity was a major religion and driving force, as represented in these writings, able to secure some of the most famous and prominent buildings in these ancient cities as early as say 250 CE, there ought to be at least hundreds of easily provable Christian sites dating to that time, and thousands of unquestionably Christian archaeological artifacts.
Instead, every prominent 'Christian' site searched has turned up virtually nothing dating to before the 3rd century CE.

What is developing is a situation similar to the missing archaeological evidence for the Exodus and Forty Years of Wandering.
Christian books and myths alone, are not proofs of a real history.
One gets so tired of 'scholars' who think historical truth can be established by throwing some moldy old book on the table, saying; 'It says so right here'... especially when said book also contains myriad ludicrous and outlandish religious claims.
For once bring something tangible to the table to be examined.

Sheshbazzar

Mind you I am not saying that there was no Christian religion or 'churches' in the second or third centuries CE (mountainmans controversial position) I believe the developing religion of 'Christianity' existed and was evolving from the 1st century forward.
Where we differ is on the meaning of 'church' and 'churches'. When ancient 'church' writers wrote of a 'church' in Alexandria or in Corinth, they were not writing of any physical brick or stone structure, but of the individuals that comprised that 'church'.
Usually actually a quite small number of 'converts' in any given location, with very little if any prominence or political clout. If the accounts seem to reflect otherwise, one needs keep in view that these early writers had a tendency and motive to inflate the power and authority of the 'church', with much of their writings intended to promote certain dogmas, and gain further converts to their factions views. What better way than to 'remember' a Peter or Clemet a little bigger in stature and in influence in these far away locations than he actually was? Writing so long after the fact who would or could know the difference?
And if others were willing to inflate these claims even a little more....well then, so much the better, as long as the little lie brought in more members, and the 'church' increased its influence. But tall tales have a tendency to grow, and grow, and grow...
And so they slowly diddled along for the first 3 centuries until they encountered a megalomaniac Roman Emperor....
and -then- Christian 'history' really began to be made.



Sheshbazzar

avi

Thanks, Shesh, well written, as always.

avi

stephan huller

No, I don't agree with that. I see no evidence for a primitive Church outside of the claims of the Catholic tradition. I think Christianity started at Alexandria. The Alexandrian's themselves believed it began at the Martyrium of St. Mark and that at one time we may infer that this place was actually referenced in Mark's gospel. I see no reason to doubt their claims. As I said I don't believe in the existence of a primitive Church.

stephan huller

Avi

Why do you keep saying we have no evidence when I keep referencing textual traditions some from the late second century, which says that the Martyrium of St. Mark was already in operation long before Constantine. I can understand having doubts about a Catholic Church in Rome. There are surprisingly few references to a building where the bishop(s) sat. But in Alexandria that is certainly not the case. We have references to one Church for all of Egypt with one central authority (the Papa) from at least the beginning of the third century (I think it goes back even earlier). What do you have against literary testimonies?

avi

Thank you Stephan, I think you pose a useful, and important question, which, however, at least in my opinion, quite possibly in no one else's, belongs on a separate thread.....

To address your questions:

1. Do you have a manuscript that antedates Eusebius?

2. I have no objection to literary testimonies. I do object to forgery, and falsification. As far as I can determine, the documents purported to have been authored from the second and third centuries have, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, i.e. all of them, been tampered with.

If you should ask me,

a. how do I know that these early manuscripts have been altered;
or
b. where is the evidence that they have been forged or "interpolated";
or
c. by what right do I make this claim;

the answer is the same. I have no right to make this claim. I am ignorant. I have no data to support my position.

I am espousing a BELIEF, not a fact. I do suspect however, that there exist today many folks out there who have a tad more knowledge than I will ever possess, and also with just a tad more experience, who could possibly address these points.....For example, stephan huller, is a guy with a vast store of knowledge, and some experience, surely far greater than I will ever have, he may know of some evidence identifying forgery in 2nd and 3rd century documents.

What I believe is important is to raise questions related to the theme of this thread: implementation of the canon. I hope my own submissions to the forum have not deviated too far from that path.....

avi

stephan huller

I'd prefer to rephrase the question - do we have any manuscripts that predate the fourth century? Yes we do. We have fragments of Irenaeus which have been dated to the third century as well as other textual remains. If you asking whether any manuscripts which reference the Martyrium of St. Mark which predate the fourth century - no certainly not. But most of our manuscripts which preserve ancient writings come from after this period anyway. We have very few contemporary manuscripts of first and second century writings generally. Why should Christianity be any different.

I really don't think you've read the material I am talking about. I don't think you've read the Passio Petri Sancti in its Greek (DeVos) and Latin forms or in their English translations. Yes they are written from after the time of the events described. But it would be impossible to suggest that someone COMPLETELY invented out of thin air the idea that something like Peter's death didn't occur on November 25th, 311 CE. Was there exaggeration in the account? Yes certainly. But was it wholly fictional? No, that's impossible. Something happened at the Martyrium of St. Mark in the years before Nicaea. A Pope from Alexandria went back to the 'Vatican' of the Egyptian Church and was murdered either outside the building or during his sermon. He was stuffed in the throne of St. Mark which he refused to sit in during his reign. There were many hostile parties around him (followers of Meletius, future followers of Arius). Achillas was either set up as Pope immediately thereafter (as some traditions hold) or after some passage of time. Achillas dies suddenly and then we hear that Arius is 'presbyter of the Martyrium' while Alexander is certified as Patriarch of Alexandria likely never setting foot in the Martyrium during his whole reign. As Christopher Haas notes the Martyrium was outside the city walls. The Orthodox controlled Christian life for the Greek population WITHIN the walls. The Martyrium itself was in the exclusive hands of the non-Greek population (the boucoli) for sometime. It seems to have been George's base of operations in the struggle with Athanasius. There is reason to believe that Athanasius never set foot in the Martyrium.

The question is why would the Constantine conspiracy 'set up shop' for the heart of the Egyptian Church in a wild uncontrolled area infested with bandits? In the first century the area was home to the Jewish population. Most people assume that the Jewish population was decimated in Trajanic times. I just don't think you know enough about the period to make these assumptions that everything was made up in the fourth century. There is just too much evidence for this place being a well-established sacred place for the Egyptian Church already in 311 CE.

Sheshbazzar

There is much evidence that this place was a well established sacred place for Egyptian religion___
And not one smidgen of -contemporary- writings, or any tangible archaeological evidence to back up any claims of any Christian involvement.

'Imaginative' 4th century church writings, and 4th century forged '2nd and 3rd century' church writings' are not valid evidence for 2nd century facts.

The Christian Church of the 2nd and 3rd centuries was small, divided into many feuding factions, and lacking both in power and influence.
Church writings that suggest or assert otherwise are fictions, designed to impress the uneducated and gullible, there simply was no strong or united 'catholic church' in those times. That there was any such strong and influential Christian movement during the first 3 centuries CE is a figment of latter church writers wishful thinking and imaginations.



Sheshbazzar