Metacrock

good job Bede!

Peter Kirby

What evidence fixes a date?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

Peter,

No idea. F&G do not provide much in the way of evidence and I (perhaps foolishly) assume they have some authority for the claim. Still, it is consistent with similar magical amulets of the 3rd/4th century of which the British Museum has loads.

B

Clarice O'C

Timothy Freke wrote to me on 3/6/03:

"The irony - of course- is that we are not making any spectacular claims about the amulet at all. Only that it exists - which we have taken on trust from coming across it a couple of times in our research - and that the JesusMysteries thesis explains it very neatly.

"Our thesis certainly doesn't rest on it in any way. (It is after all from the 3rd century CE if the dating is right, which we have not challenged). Our thesis is an attempt to explain a vast body of otherwise puzzling information. The amulet did play a psychological role for us - however -when it unexpectedly turned up late in our research. And of course it makes a very striking cover."

A depiction of the amulet can be found here:
http://www.jesusmysteries.demon.co.uk/home.html

Hope this helps.

Best,
Clarice

GarColga

Take a pill, dude! The inference was that Freke & Gandy were claiming that the amulet was Pre-Christian, when the book doesn't make such a claim. They may very well be wrong about it, but they never claimed it was anything other than from the 3rd century.

Metacrock

I know. It's just the cover. Can't judge their arguments by their cover. But after all these posts and these threads, it's hard to get out of this little prissy mode. Believe it or not, I do go out and talk to people without bitting them. Although my friends always go "O He's been on the net again, look what a pissy mood he's in!"


sorry

Ted Hoffman

cognitive dissonance - thats what we give you sir.

Bede

Clarice's note suggests that F&G have retreated from making much use of the picture which they put on their cover and website. This is well and good. It is still interesting to know what the object really is even though, as they partly acknowledge, it does not help their case at all. The JM thesis is not required to explain the amulet (or anything else, for that matter).

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Here is what Bede said originally:

The amulet on the cover of the Jesus Mysteries is an interesting example of this rather than the earth shattering piece of evidence the authors take it for

Freke and Gandy say:

• "Our thesis certainly doesn't rest on it in any way."

This discrepancy in agreement can easily be cleared up by Bede supplying us with the section of F&G where they clearly indicate that the amulet is earthshattering and revolutionary.

Vorkosigan

joedad

Can anyone recommend a few books or links – with illustrations – that discuss the evolution of christian art, and specifically their christ? There is, after all, no "official christianity" anymore than there's "official democracy," so I'd think a magical amulet of the crucified christ which includes magical incantations on the reverse is certainly a part of that development.

I'm especially interested in the early centuries.

For example, the christian Jesus went from being clean shaven to having a beard when it entered Europe at about the fifth century (if my memory is working).

Suggestions?

joe