figuer

I don't understand what you mean.

I particularly don't understand what you mean.

joedad

I figured I’d come home tonite, open my Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity and check out Dura Europos. But it isn’t even mentioned.

But I did find this link with some pics and some frescoes.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/s...ures/index.htm

ETA

Here's one of Jesus discussed.

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/i...ra_europos.htm

I do know that christian crucifixion iconography came a bit later. There's an old thread in the archives but I'm too lazy to search for it.

spin

figuer: I suppose someone will say that "Imperial Thug" Constantine ordered Tacitus' book edited to include refferences to Christianity.

spin: Eusebius knows nothing about it, does he?

figuer: I don't understand what you mean.

spin: Had Eusebius invented it, it should have appeared in his time and probably through his works. However, the first writer to acknowledge the Tacitus piece is Suplicius Severus, who didn't write for another 80 years after Eusebius. Clearly it wasn'ty a product of Eusebius. But does that make the text original to Tacitus? We must work on the fear that he who controls the present controls the past. Making it a good chance that a christian nugget such as that found in Tacitus is highly suspect in itself.

Then there are numerous reasons for questioning its authenticity, such as the fact that Tacitus supposedly calls Pilate (who was a prefect) a procurator, a gross error that he wouldn't have made seeing as he was well aware of when procurators took control of Judea. Procurators didn't govern provinces until Claudius gave them the power to do so. I've dealt with other issues regarding this passage in Tacitus in the archives, but I'll mention some here...

The fact that this nice concentrated testimony about Jesus and christians was not mentioned by anyone before Sulpicius Severus should set alarms bells ringing. It doesn't match the style of someone renowned even in his own time as being an excellent orator. It changes the focus from suspicions about Nero to the nasty things done to christians. It uses the term "christian" as meaningful to ordinary people in Rome in 60CE, ie christians had come to Rome, had grown to be numerous, and become so notorious that people could pick them out (including Nero's "henchmen") from the backdrop of Jewish thought which was also in the city.

The more credible references to the christians start with Pliny who apparently had problems with christians in his province and provides very little information about the christians that were causing him trouble. There's a brief reference given by Marcus Aurelius who saw no need to give a pithy explanation as to who the christians were. Then we get Lucian of Samosata, who knew christians but felt no need to give details of their beliefs. These are examples of how people responded to christians in literary works. This makes the Tacitus testimony again suspect.


spin

mountainman

The only problem with this reference to the existence of anything
"chrestian" in the prenicene epoch is that it was first cited 1400
years after it was purportedly written.

That is, it was first cited in the 15th century. Noone familiar
with Tacitus cites this passage before that century. Surely
posters on this BC&H forum can do better than this?

It was more than likely a 15th century pope.

BTW, Constantine was a "supreme imperial mafia thug" and
"malevolent dictator" and "eminent christian theologian and
proselyter", who IMO invented the literature tradition that
has been since his "supremacy party" at Nicaea, studied by
converts to his "new and strange" Roman religious order,
and now sits at the foundation of BC&H studies.

mountainman

My arguments against Dura Europos as representing a pre-Nicene citation to the
existence of that fourth century literary tribe of christians.

spin

When are you going to get serious and deal with this issue rather than trump up rubbish that doesn't make any sense. The first fact you have stuck your head in the sand about was that the area in which both the synagogue and the church were found was buried to strengthen the nearby outer wall of the city. That was prior to the Parthian attack of 256CE. You know, it was covered in so that there was no more access to the area. Hello, the place was fixed up after having been buried? Get real. The church has a latest possible date of prior to the 256CE siege.


spin

mountainman

When are you going to acknowledge that none of the art work
associated with this purported "house church" can be deemed
unambiguously "christian"? However if I misunderstand your
position, in that you are claiming that one or more of the
images available on the internet unambiguously discloses
the hand of a "christian artist", please post a pic.

The grand and f**king holy "literature tradition" boasts citations
back through the prenice epoch. The history of the literary
tradition was tendered to "bullneck", and we are quite entitled
to test the possibility that the gospels and NT were also
similarly tendered in the fourth century.

As an historian, I would expect there to be external historical
evidence to the literary tradition. Somewhere, perhaps there
is a "christian gravestone" evidencing, from the archeological
tradition the existence of something christian external to the
literature tradition, but as you can see from our discussions
over the last orbit or so, these citations are as rare as hens
teeth and, as I have hoped to demonstrate, quite amenable
to an alternative explantion that does not require "christianity".

I do not like the idea that "christianity"first appeared in the
historical record only in the fourth century. But if this is
what the historical data (outside the literature) says, then
perhaps there is a reason for this. Namely that "christianity"
was essentially created at the Council of Nicaea, as an act
of (malevolent and dictatorial) supremacy, that had been
planned for the preceding 12 years.

See the thread Porphyry's death and Constantine's "Porphyry found the reward which befitted him".

spin

When you deal with Rostovtseff's data and show that it is ambiguous in context.


spin

mountainman

When I see an abstract, a summary and some relevant
detail extracts somewhere, in the year 2007, on the net
it would be interesting to review his claims and data.

I notice that noone wishes to deal with Momigliano's insights
into the rise of a malevolent despot with effect from 312 CE,
or do you think this assessment of Constantine is harsh?

spin

Well, get off your A and go to a university library. That's what I did.

Who cares?


spin