Peter Kirby

Hello ReasonableDoubt,

Does it have to be IHSOU? What about nomina sacra?

Do you know that something is wrong with paleography, either in general or in particular with the alleged pre-Constantine Christian manuscripts? Or are you still looking for information on paleographical dating?

What is the purpose of this exercise?

best,
Peter Kirby

Bede

CX, Kim's dating is highly controversial as of course third quarter of the first century means about 75AD, not 175AD(!).

Your comment on the earliest GJohn manuscripts being evidence that GJohn was written late seems a bit garbled. Could you clarify, please? Surely the existence of early GJohn manuscripts is evidence that GJohn was popular at an earlier stage rather than it was composed late.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Jayhawker Soule

Peter,

Let me address the questions in reverse order.

The thread was initially motivated by a debate with a gentleman claiming that Christianity was a concoction of the Roman State and, specifically, that there was "no mention of Jesus prior to the 4th century". My somewhat stunned responses were met with derisive comments about paleography being little more than informed guesswork.

I felt as if I had run into a flat-earth apologist with too small a hammer.

Be that as it may, the incident caused me to realize that I knew little about the discipline of paleography, its standing in the scientific community, it's accuracy, and the extent to which its accuracy had been challenged and confirmed.

I do not "know that something is wrong with paleography". As I mentioned above: "That paleography is "fairly accurate" is my understanding (and belief) as well." But this belief is entirely an act of deference to expertise. I continue to believe it, but I would be hard-pressed to defend it. I was hoping for inputs/overviews/references that would give me a better appreciation of the discipline - anything short of taking on the task of learning Greek instead of playing with my grandkids.

I know close to nothing about nomina sacra. Certainly, an unambiguous abbreviation would be every bit as relevant.

CX

Yikes. I didn't have my wheaties this morning. It seems to me a 75CE dating for GJn is inconcievable, but I'm certainly no expert. Anyway I should have paid more careful attention.

As far as my meanderings about GJn and the MSS evidence it was just something I've been speculating about for awhile. I think we are fairly safe in concluding that GJn is later than the Pauline epistles and the synoptics because even tradition holds that to be true. Furthermore it would seem that GMt achieved the most popularity early on. I was merely speculating that the state of the early MSS evidence seems to corroborate that GJn came later (not necessarily "late"). I tend to hold a 90-95CE date for GJn. It would make sense though that the earliest fragments we have come from the latest gospel since earlier in the era Xianity was not widespread, was not composed of wealthy individuals who could pay for MSS copies etc. By the turn of the 1st century Xianity seems to have been picking up speed. I'll have to think about it some more to get to a coherent position. Right now I'm still fuzzy on what it is I'm trying to say.

CX

I think, perhaps, I've come up with an analogy that illustrates what I'm trying to say. Consider a popular best-selling author. It is extremely easy to find the first printing said author's current book because it is popular and widespread and was recently printed. It is more difficult to find a 1st edition of something from the authors early career when the author was unknown because not many copies were printed and people didn't save them etc. Does that clarify at all what I'm trying to say here?

Peter Kirby

ReasonableDoubt writes:

Peter,
Let me address the questions in reverse order.

The thread was initially motivated by a debate with a gentleman claiming that Christianity was a concoction of the Roman State and, specifically, that there was "no mention of Jesus prior to the 4th century". My somewhat stunned responses were met with derisive comments about paleography being little more than informed guesswork.

I felt as if I had run into a flat-earth apologist with too small a hammer.

Be that as it may, the incident caused me to realize that I knew little about the discipline of paleography, its standing in the scientific community, it's accuracy, and the extent to which its accuracy had been challenged and confirmed.

I do not "know that something is wrong with paleography". As I mentioned above: "That paleography is "fairly accurate" is my understanding (and belief) as well." But this belief is entirely an act of deference to expertise. I continue to believe it, but I would be hard-pressed to defend it. I was hoping for inputs/overviews/references that would give me a better appreciation of the discipline - anything short of taking on the task of learning Greek instead of playing with my grandkids.

I know close to nothing about nomina sacra. Certainly, an unambiguous abbreviation would be every bit as relevant.

Hello,

I am a bit relieved to know that the idea of Christianity as a fourth century concoction came from somebody else.

Let us ignore biblical manuscripts for the time being, although there are a couple dozen of those supposed to be from the second and third centuries. This is because your correspondent will most likely claim that the biblical manuscripts are a hoax, that Constantine ordered the NT to be written in the fourth century, and that paleography is either augury or mistaken due to deliberate imitation of older writing styles for the purposes of deception. (Let's ignore that paleography is a modern science!)

Now, I do think that the biblical manuscripts afford evidence for the existence of Christianity by 300 CE, and I do think the idea of a fourth century invention of the NT is unlikely, not least because of the ideas that are either contradictory or undeveloped in the NT.

To imagine that the whole of ante-Nicene Christian literature, some ten big thick volumes in translation, was produced at one go in the fourth century, and then accepted as a religion throughout the empire, is a bit like claiming that Shakespeare invented the English language out of bits of French, German, Latin, and his own home brew and then wrote Chaucer just for fun. It collapses when it is attempted to be understood as anything other than a slur against the origins of Christianity or English; or, perhaps, undue praise to the genius of Constantine or Shakespeare. Nicaea and the Bard played a good role in codifying the respective phenomena, but the job could have never been pulled off without some precedent, and there would have been no motivation to do so besides.

But let's ignore that anyway and try to find some extra-biblical stuff.

The first extra-biblical document that came to mind is the Egerton Papyrus, which is dated roughly the same as the smaller and less important but more famous p52 fragment. Here is a picture of one of the eight fragments of the Egerton Gospel.

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/wie/Egerton/eger-2-recto.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/wie/Egerton/eger-2-recto.jpg</a>

Here you can see a couple occurences of IH (iota eta) with a bar line over the two letters, a clear indication of abbreviation of the name IHSOU, or Jesus. The rest of the document confirms that this is something about our Jesus, as can be seen from a cursory glance at any English translation.

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/wie/Egerton/egerton-engl.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/wie/Egerton/egerton-engl.html</a>

The next document that comes to mind is the Gospel of Thomas, which everyone has heard about. The first Greek fragment, P. Oxy. 1, is dated about 200 CE. It mentions Jesus.

<a href="http://www.gospels.net/thomas/thomasimages/interlinearsayings/saying27int.html" target="_blank">See here for Greek/English of a part of POxy 1</a>.

There is also a P. Oxy. 2949 fragment for the Gospel of Peter, and a P. Rylands 463 fragment for the Gospel of Mary, but the Greek is not available on the internet or in my own books. But multiplying these examples won't help much.

There is a fragment of Irenaeus dated to the late second or to the third century. Curiously, Grenfell and Hunt dated this fragment (in volume 3 of The Oxy. Papyri) before its author was known (noted in volume 4). Here is a picture -- I would have to consult Grenfell and Hunt in order to find out if "Jesus" is on this particular scrap.

<a href="http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/POxy405.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/POxy405.htm</a>

The reason is that these documents are dated by paleography, as are most ancient manuscripts (in addition to any note in the ms. or circumstantial evidence). Since these are not biblical manuscripts, the motivation for dating them too early from bias does not apply, or not nearly so much in any case. But, if your interlocutor will not accept secular scholarly authorities for the dating of non-biblical manuscripts, then the only thing that could convince him is to examine ancient Greek paleography itself. This is not something that one is likely to do if one is already convinced that paleography is bunk and would entail painful things like learning Greek. So our friend may remain invincibly ignorant.

Since your question peaked my curiousity, however, I do plan on consulting the classic work on paleography by E. M. Thompson in order to get some feel for the field. For those interested, his works are A handbook of Greek and Latin palaeography and An introduction to Greek and Latin palaeography. But I would say that this is not for the faint of heart!

Pressing onward, there has been some work done on pre-Constantinian Christian archaeology, but for some reason this work has not gotten much attention, and I am for now limited to some rather brief references. Or at least it hasn't gotten much attention from me - I didn't know most of this last week.

Schaff gives some selected epitaphs from the catacombs around Rome. I assume that these are from the second through the fourth century, although for more precise references I would have to dig up some works on the catacombs.

<a href="http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch07.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/2_ch07.htm</a>

Note this one: "Regina, mayest thou live in the Lord Jesus (vivas in Domino Jesu)."

I know of the inscription of Abercius from Quasten's Patrology, volume one. Here is his introductory remark:

"The queen of all ancient Christian inscriptions is the epitaph of Abercius. In 1883 the archeologist W. Ramsay of the University of Aberdeen in Scotland discovered, near Hieropolis in Phrygia Salutaris, two fragments of this inscription, which are now in the Lateran Museum. A year before he had found a Christian epitaph of Alexander, dated 216, which was merely an imitation of the inscription of Abercius. With the help of this epitaph of Alexander and a Greek biography of Abercius from the fourth century published by Boissonade in 1838, it was possible to restore the entire text of the inscription. It consists of 22 verses, a distichon, and 20 hexameters. In content it is a summary of the life and deeds of Abercius. The text was composed at the end of the second century, certainly before the year 216, the date of the epitaph of Alexander. The author of the inscription is Abercius, Bishop of Hieropolis, who composed it at the age of 72 years. The great event of his life was his journey to Rome, of which he gives an account. The inscription is written in a mystical and symbolical style, according to the discipline of the secret, to conceal its Christian character from the uninitiated. The metaphorical phraseology is responsible for the sharp controversy which followed the discovery of this monument. Several scholars, like G. Ficker and A. Dietrich, tried to prove that Abercius was not a Christian, but a venerator of the Phrygian goddess Cybele, while A. Harnack called Abercius a syncretist. However, De Rossi, Duchesne, Cumont, Doelger and Abel have successfully demonstrated that the content as well as the language proves beyond doubt its Christian origin."

Quasten gives this translation:

1. The citizens of an eminent city, I made this (tomb)
2. In my lifetime, that I might have here a resting-place for my body.
3. Abercius by name, I am a disciple of the chaste shepherd,
4. Who feedeth His flocks of sheep on mountains and plains,
5. Who hath great eyes that look on all sides.
6. He taught me . . . faithful things.
7. He sent me to Rome, to behold a kingdom
8. And to see a queen with golden robe and golden shoes.
9. There I saw a people bearing the splended seal.
10. And I saw the plain of Syria and all the cities, even Nisibis,
11. Having crossed the Euphrates. And everywhere I had associates
12. Having Paul as a companion, everywhere faith led the way
13. And set before me food the fish from the spring
14. Mighty and pure, whom a spotless Virgin caught,
15. And gave this to friends to eat, always
16. Having sweet wine and giving the mixed cup with bread.
17. These words, I, Abercius, standing by, ordered to be inscribed.
18. In truth, I was in the course of my seventy-second year.
19. Let him who understands and believes this pray for Abercius.
20. But no man shall place another tomb upon mine.
21. If one do so, he shall pay to the treasury of the Romans two thousand pieces of gold,
25. And to my beloved fatherland Hieropolis, one thousand pieces of gold.

Now, there is more that one might want to learn about Abercius, such as his biography, and there is more that one might want in an inscription, such as the name Jesus. But I do not think that it would be apologetics to suggest that ambiguity to some degree would be prudent with the possibility of persecution of one who claimed a greater king than Caesar. This would explain the limited nature of, if not the non-existence of, dedicated public church buildings before Constantine.

I have had an eye out for a while to find out the date, provenance, name, or photograph of the earliest depiction of Christ. If anyone has any information on this, I would be interested.

best,
Peter Kirby

Jayhawker Soule

Kirby, what the hell do you do in your spare time?

BTW: thanks!

Peter Kirby

I pray for the permanent extension of summer break.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Ah, well, school is upon me.

Quickly, I recalled two additional items that should seal the case unimpeachably for the existence of Christianity by the third century.

The Dura-Europos 0212 fragment derives a latest possible dating not from palaeography but rather from the building of the embankment at the site c. 255 CE. See Goodacre et al. for details, mentioned here:

<a href="http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/dura.html" target="_blank">http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/dura.html</a>

Then there is the statue of Hippolytus of Rome, antipope of the early third century.

<a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-04.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-04.htm</a>

[blockquote]
In the year 1551, while some excavations were in progress near the ancient Church of St. Lawrence at Rome, on the Tiburtine Road, there was found an ancient statue, in marble, of a figure seated in a chair, and wearing over the Roman tunic the pallium of Tertullian's eulogy. It was in 1851, just three hundred years after its discovery, and in the year of the publication of the newly discovered Philosophumena at Oxford, that I saw it in the Vatican. As a specimen of early Christian art it is a most interesting work, and possesses a higher merit than almost any similar production of a period subsequent to that of the Antonines.2 It represents a grave personage, of noble features and a high, commanding forehead, slightly bearded, his right hand resting over his heart, while under it his left arm crosses the body to reach a book placed at his side. There is no reason to doubt that this is, indeed, the statue of Hippolytus, as is stated in the inscription of Pius IV., who calls him "Saint Hippolytus, Bishop of Portus," and states that he lived in the reign of the Emperor Alexander; i.e., Severus.

Of this there is evidence on the chair itself, which represents his episcopal cathedra, and has a modest symbol of lions at "the stays," as if borrowed from the throne of Solomon. It is a work of later date than the age of Severus, no doubt; but Wordsworth, who admirably illustrates the means by which such a statue may have been provided, gives us good reasons for supposing that it may have been the grateful tribute of contemporaries, and all the more trustworthy as a portrait of the man himself. The chair has carved upon it, no doubt for use in the Church, a calendar indicating the Paschal full moons for seven cycles of sixteen years each; answering, according to the science of the period, to similar tables in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. It indicates the days on which Easter must fall, from a.d. 222 to a.d. 333. On the back of the chair is a list of the author's works.
[/blockquote]

The Catholic Encyclopedia mentions, "Hippolytus also produced an Easter cycle, as well as a chronicle of the world which was made use of by later chroniclers." Obviously, the inscription of this statue virtually demands a date in the third century in order for the mention of the dates of Easter to be useful. Hippolytus is clearly a Christian figure of the early third century, thus disproving the thesis of the fourth century concoction of the religion.

best,
Peter Kirby

Jayhawker Soule

Thanks for keeping this thread in mind. It's much appreciated.

Bede asserts: "Tests (using palaeography to date documents we know the date of) suggest we can get an accuracy of about +-25 years or so.", but I've yet to find the paleographic equivalent to the <a href="http://www.c14dating.com/int.html" target="_blank">Curve of Knowns</a>.

{ ... edited to add the following ... }

Regarding the statue of Hippolytus, I found the following two references:
[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>