Freethought & Rationalism Archive

05-08-2003, 02:59 PM

It is inscribed with Jesus's name. And yes, this is what I meant.

B

Yellum Notnef · 05-08-2003, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
It is inscribed with Jesus's name. And yes, this is what I meant.

B

Do you find it as curious as I that the Catholic encyclopedia does not mention that particular amulet?
The only amulet it mentions even remotely close to a crucifixion scene is of an unknown martyr on a gridiron.

Quote:

A devotional medal of lead, attributed to the fourth century, represents a martyr extended on a gridiron; one of the fifth or sixth century bears the monogram of Christ and a cross between the letters and ; while a third represents the sacrifice of Abraham, and on the reverse a father offering his son before the confessio of a martyr.

Why would they mention an amulet of an unknown martyr but not the one you describe which depicts what could be considered Christianity's most sacred and popular image?

joedad · 05-08-2003, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Toto:
So no one wants to defend the historicity of the Passion Narrative? (A 3rd c. amulet that seems to confuse Jesus and Bacchus hardly advances the case.)

I'm just floored by the fact that the first legitimate depiction of a crucified Jesus or Christ doesn't occur until the 7th century. One would think that christian iconography would have delivered on this a lot sooner. That fact in itself makes the passion narrative look more like an historical artifact than history itself.

Quote:

Bede
No joedad, the case for borrowing is slightly weakened by showing that the amulet is a magical and not a cult object.

For what its worth, here's at least one take on that.

Quote:

http://www.historyhouse.com/book/0521785766/
What's to be done with such a survey? Magic in the Middle Ages provides an adequate sketch of the different manifestations of "magic" in the period, but has a very hard time making anything out of it. Kieckhefer kicks off the book by acknowledging what he's trying to do is difficult, even from a semantic point of view. Simply defining a term as slippery as magic vexes him: how is it different from religion, or folk science? There are no distinct lines, and while he provides a few examples of what is supposed to be clearly magic and not some other cultural construction, the reader is still left scratching his head. For instance, he suggests that eating leaves to cure a fever is "science", uttering the Lord's Prayer while doing so is "religion", but eating those leaves and uttering the prayer on three consecutive mornings makes the practice "magical", because "there is no scientific reason or religious reason" for doing so.

Quote:

Bede:
...the image is on a magical amulet. This does not mean the image had a non-Christian source but simply that Christians were using their religious images for magic as some of them have always done.

Is the image you refer to the cross? The cross was not a popular christian image until after Constantine. I want to know what came first, a religiously crucified Jesus/Christ, or a magical one? It seems like the magic preceded the religion. Isn't that how you see it, at least from the iconography?

If you're saying the "religion" came first, where is the earlier christian image of a crucified Jesus/Christ that isn't associated with magic?

joe

Vinnie · 05-08-2003, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto
So no one wants to defend the historicity of the Passion Narrative?

Not really, but Raymond Brown has some interesting stuff to say in his his 2 Volume work The Death of the Messiah. Feel free to read that for some balance.

By the way, which Passion Narrative is being defended?

Quote:

Or have all the usual theists been so devastated by Peter Kirby's refutation of Metacrock's 11 points (the Jesus Variants thread) that they are in total retreat?

Personally, I don't subscribe to Meta's argument so I have no interest in it. Though it was quite impressive, there was nothing novel in PK's post.

Vinnie

Vinnie · 05-08-2003, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Given all this, there appears to be absolutely no reason to assume that there is any historical basis to the crucifixion of Jesus. If there did happen to be a historical person behind the gospel stories, the crucifixion cannot be shown to be a historical detail. [/B]

Who ASSUMES Jesus was crucified? Its argued on literary evidence. First stratum, multiply attested and many people use the embarrassment criterion to defend it.

Saying "this can't be shown to be historical" assumes there is a valid way of demonstrating certain material as being historical or not. What method are you referring to?

Vinnie

Peter Kirby · 05-08-2003, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Though it was quite impressive, there was nothing novel in PK's post.

I would hope not! At this stage of the game, anything completely novel about these well-known texts is quite probably wrong. Even the idea of Jesus being in Rome under Claudius has been suggested before.

Well, perhaps one thing: who has suggested the idea of a tradition about seven apostles of Jesus? I would be quite interested to know about any literature touching upon that theory.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 05-08-2003, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Not really, but Raymond Brown has some interesting stuff to say in his his 2 Volume work The Death of the Messiah. Feel free to read that for some balance.

Why is it interesting? He apparently follows the Catholic Church party line. Does he even attempt to justify treating the PN as history?

Quote:

By the way, which Passion Narrative is being defended?

Do you mean attacked? Leidner thinks that each of the gospel writers separately worked themes from Philo into their work.

Quote:

Personally, I don't subscribe to Meta's argument so I have no interest in it. Though it was quite impressive, there was nothing novel in PK's post.

Vinnie

Right.

Toto · 05-09-2003, 12:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
Who ASSUMES Jesus was crucified? Its argued on literary evidence. First stratum, multiply attested and many people use the embarrassment criterion to defend it.

Saying "this can't be shown to be historical" assumes there is a valid way of demonstrating certain material as being historical or not. What method are you referring to?

Vinnie

It's too late to go into detail, and I have not followed all of your "strata" arguments - but Paul only refers to the "rulers of this Age" crucifying Jesus, in terms that are imprecise enough to give rise to controversy. No mention of crucifixion in Q. There is the alternate tradition that Jesus was slain and hung in a tree, which may be older than the crucifixion story.

Leidner's entire argument rebuts the "embarrassment criterion." The crucifixion was lifted from the crucifixions described by Philo.

I don't claim that there is an absolutely certain way of demonstrating that material is historical when it is confined to literary texts, but I think it can be clear that certain material is not historical - when it repeats a mythical theme, when it makes no sense on its own terms, when it is written like a legend.

05-09-2003, 04:41 AM

Fenton,

The Catholic Encyclopedia on the net is about a hundred years out of date.

Joedad,

We have several first century literary references to Jesus on the cross which are as clear as day. That the iconography starts later tells us that such iconography did not become part of Christian worship for a long time. Icons remained controversial for centuries afterwards as the iconoclasm crisis shows us. That you find it hard to believe means you cannot help but be anachronistic and are bad at history.

The authors of the JM made out that the earliest crucifxion pictures were of a pagan God. The British Museum amulet shows they were wrong about this (and almost everything else too, but that is by the by).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Yellum Notnef · 05-09-2003, 08:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Bede
Fenton,

The Catholic Encyclopedia on the net is about a hundred years out of date.

Yeah but whoever typed all that information onto the website did so within the last ten years because the internet itself isn't that old.
Why wouldn't they have copied from a newer edition and not one that was about 100 years out of date.

I know we are dealing with Catholics here,but this seems odd even for them.

But all this really means nothing unless that amulet is mentioned in more recent editions of the encyclopedia. Is it?

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

05-08-2003, 02:59 PM	#21
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	It is inscribed with Jesus's name. And yes, this is what I meant. B

05-09-2003, 04:41 AM	#29
Bede Guest Posts: n/a	Fenton, The Catholic Encyclopedia on the net is about a hundred years out of date. Joedad, We have several first century literary references to Jesus on the cross which are as clear as day. That the iconography starts later tells us that such iconography did not become part of Christian worship for a long time. Icons remained controversial for centuries afterwards as the iconoclasm crisis shows us. That you find it hard to believe means you cannot help but be anachronistic and are bad at history. The authors of the JM made out that the earliest crucifxion pictures were of a pagan God. The British Museum amulet shows they were wrong about this (and almost everything else too, but that is by the by). Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.