Archaeological Evidence of pre-Constantinian Christianity

[stephan happy huller]

But this is why you are a scumbug internet troll - excuse my language. You pretend like misrepresenting Momigliano is no big deal. Reading your quote it would seem as if Momigliano supports your claim that Origen, Celsus and Celsus's Jew were fictitious individuals. This is not what Momigliano or any source says because its fucking stupid opinion. You should be thrashed for continuing to perpetrate this nonsense.

But as I said you're a scumbag internet troll so I guess it goes with the territory.

(turning to the moderators) I just wonder what value there can possibly be in having a compulsive liar who continually rips sentences out of context from sources so as to make it seem as if respected scholars support an idiotic position. How much longer is this going to be tolerated?

[stephan happy huller]

And if anyone wants or needs to see Pete's practice of ripping statements out of context from this author just go here:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... STIANS.htm

Notice of course that Pete always stops at:

it is indeed impossible to be certain that Celsus is fairly represented by the texts Origen quotes to refute him

So he quotes here and countless times elsewhere Momigliano in a misleading way stopping at a particular sentence in order to make it seem as if the author is questioning the existence of Celsus:

It is therefore significant that the first time we come across some serious concern with the relation between Roman polytheism and the Roman Empire is in that man Celsus, who in about 180 polemized against the Christians and whom eighty years later Origen chose as his adversary in his devastating Contra Celsum. Celsus was mainly aiming at a double target. He wanted to prove that the Christians were rebels: first, rebels against the Jews; and second and worse, rebels against the emperor. The Christians, according to Celsus, abandoned the laws of the Jews in order to disobey the emperor and refuse military service. In pursuing this double argument, Celsus came to maintain (as far as we can see from the quotations in Origen Book 7) that the gods ruled the world under a supreme god more or less as the satraps governed the Persian Empire under a king of kings. Origen could make short shrift of all this by answering that Christians had been told to worship the creator and not his creatures (8. 65). Moreover, he could turn to the prophet Zephaniah 3:7-13, a locus classicus for the unity of mankind (at least in the Christian interpretation). Celsus' argument was obviously becoming more danger- ous when he invited the Christians to serve the country in which they lived. The reply, to which we shall soon have to return from another point of view, was that the Christians served the Church as the alternative to serving the State. Celsus' objections to Christianity being known to us only from Origen's replies to them, it is impossible to isolate Celsus' arguments from Origen's replies: it is indeed impossible to be certain that Celsus is fairly represented by the texts Origen quotes to refute him.

But the reality is that the thought continues:

But the impression remains that, though he had gone farther than his pagan predecessors in presenting a theological parallelism between Olympus and Roman Empire, Celsus had not relied on this argument and had not developed it. But the impression remains that, though he had gone farther than his pagan predecessors in presenting a theological parallelism between Olympus and Roman Empire, Celsus had not relied on this argument and had not developed it.

So for the hundred time in the short span I've known him, Pete has misrepresented Momigliano. In this case, it wasn't just once. Rey called him out on it. Then Pete did it again with a longer quote. Now I am citing what follows.

I ask the moderators of this forum - what value can there possibily be in having a liar who systematically rapes evidence, misrepresents sources all for a specific polemic purpose? Please get rid of him. Please ban him from this forum.

Why do I and others have to waste our times correctly Pete's lies? This is a new forum. There has to be some sort of a penalty for misleading use of sources.

[Leucius Charinus]

And if anyone wants or needs to see Pete's practice of ripping statements out of context from this author just go here:

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/a ... STIANS.htm

Notice of course that Pete always stops at:

it is indeed impossible to be certain that Celsus is fairly represented by the texts Origen quotes to refute him

So he quotes here and countless times elsewhere Momigliano in a misleading way stopping at a particular sentence in order to make it seem as if the author is questioning the existence of Celsus

Momigliano does not question the existence of Celsus and I have never made this claim. Momigliano questions whether we can ever be certain about what Celsus may have written, and answers that we cannot. And I agree with this assessment. End of story.

The facts are that Celsus is a witness as his 'Jew' and Origen too for that matter for the existence of Christianity before Nicaea. This has nothing to do with Eusebius. The evidence comes down to us outside of Eusebius.

Absolute bullshit. Are you a faith-based apologist or an evidenced-based historian?

You demonstrate a great lack of knowledge on the basics of dependence and independence in historical sources.

There has to be some sort of a penalty for misleading use of sources.

The source called Celsus is not independent of the source called Origen
and the source called Origen is not independent of the source called Eusebius.

"None ventured to go over the same ground again,
but left him sole possessor of the field
which he held by right of discovery and of conquest.
The most bitter of his theological adversaries
were forced to confess their obligations to him,
and to speak of his work with respect.

It is only necessary to reflect for a moment
what a blank would be left in our knowledge
of this most important chapter in all human history,
if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out,
and we shall appreciate the enormous debt
of gratitude which we owe to him.

The little light which glimmered over the earliest
history of Christianity in medieval times
came ultimately from Eusebius alone,
coloured and distorted in its passage
through various media.


-- J.B. Lightfoot, Eusebius of Caesarea, (article. pp. 324-5),
Dictionary of Christian Biography: Literature, Sects and Doctrines,
ed. by William Smith and Henry Wace, Vol II.

"[the fourth century was] the great age of literary forgery,
the extent of which has yet to be exposed"

...[and]...

"not until the mass of inventions
labelled 'Eusebius' shall be exposed,
can the pretended references to Christians
in Pagan writers of the first three centuries
be recognized for the forgeries they are."


--- Edwin Johnson, "Antiqua Mater: A Study of Christian Origins"

[avi]

Thank you Pete, marvelous job, harvesting the wheat, midst a huge collection of locusts.

Momigliano does not question the existence of Celsus and I have never made this claim. Momigliano questions whether we can ever be certain about what Celsus may have written, and answers that we cannot. And I agree with this assessment. End of story.

Thank you for submitting the whole quote, in context, refuting the malignant claim that you quote mine.

There are other authors who cite Celsus, and I, for one, would profit from learning more about what they thought, at the time, when Celsus lived.

Thanks very much for the Lightfoot quote, I did not realize that he had stated, so plainly, so honestly, that it all boils down to what Eusebius has written.

So also does Justin Martyr (Apology 1, ch. 4), Clement (Stromata IV) and Lactantius (Divine Institutes, Book IV Ch. VII).

The above examples are consistent with that fact.


So firstly, considering all of this, supposedly set down before he wrote, why did the scribe of Codex Sinaiticus fuck up so badly?

And secondly, why are all of the early sources in CONSISTENT agreement with χρηστιανος (Chrestian)?

Earlier thread: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=178

From that thread:

That's from Mediaeval Latin "Chrestianus". The Medicee Tacitus was copied in the 11th century when the form was in vogue. This means we have no idea what the earliest form of the word really was. It has certainly been changed from "Chrestianos" to "Christianos". However, we don't know whether it was due a mistake by the scribe inadvertantly using the Mediaeval form or if someone in charge decided to change it to reflect what he thinks it must/should have been originally. We therefore don't know what form the copying scribe found in the source manuscript.

Tertullian wrote in Latin and attests to the pronunciation Chrestianos (thus, he says, witnessing to the goodness of the Christian).

At the moment we have the clearly christian sources, Bezae (G: ei, L: i), Vaticanus (ei) and Alexandrinus (i) that all support the expected original iota, while the Sinaiticus evinces the eta.

"expected" implies a prejudice as to what the "original" text contained.

Mark 1:1 in Codex Sinaiticus failed to include reference to Jesus as son of God. As Andrew has noted, that text had been modified after publication (Andrew suggested that it may have been modified immediately, i.e. in the scriptorium itself), by adding four letters, nomina sacra, to express the equivalent sentiment. How strange then, that presumption of an original text, is contrary to that found in Codex Sinaiticus.

Of course that's what a Christian glossary would say. But is there a single non-Christian Greek document that uses xριστός to mean "that which is anointed" rather than "ointment (the substance used for anointing)"?

It means that outsiders would not understand why the followers of Jesus were calling him the ointment, until they learned differently.

...as I said, "P.45 does not help." It sheds no light into your query.

The nomina sacra occur when we find χριστος, though on a few occasions we find χριστον and χρειστων, when the word cannot be interpreted as messiah. But, again, χρηστος does not appear as a nomen sacrum.
The christian preservers of the LXX tradition seen in Sinaiticus showed no interest in χρηστος, only in χριστος.

It successfully removes Sinaiticus from the evidence pool on the matter and shows that the epsilon-iota variants, as earlier evidence supports, have nothing to do with the use of eta but depend on an underlying iota. The nomina sacra with chi + case ending as one would expect relates to xristos not to xrhstos.

3) א* [Aleph*] and lectionary 81 have Χρηστιανους rather than the usual spelling (whether spelled out fully or as part of a nomina sacra).

[beowulf]

In this forum aa was banned for less than what Avi and mm are doing. It was right to ban aa: he deserved it
Avi and mm murdered the ‘other’ forum and they are doing it again here.

Avi and mm are forum vermin,
Good bye

[stephan happy huller]

I don't have the time to fact check every one of your distorted citation but there has to be a rule with a complete liar and intellectual cheat like you that you have to cite two sentences before and after every quote you bring forward. Your original point was to support your idiotic contention that there were no witnesses to Christianity before Nicaea. None of these sources do that - so shut the fuck up. You're a lying piece of shit and should be thrown out of this forum for consistent abuse of the existing sources

[Peter Kirby]

Your original point was to support your idiotic contention that there were no witnesses to Christianity before Nicaea. None of these sources do that - so shut the fuck up.

Without dumbass quote mining, he'd have nothing to say. And avi should be ashamed for promoting it. I'd like to see the forum move on from proving the obvious as against a couple dishonest twits, so they're banned. Hopefully they also can move on with their lives and find better things to do.

[Leucius Charinus]

[quote="Peter Kirby"][quote="stephan happy huller"]Your original point was to support your idiotic contention that there were no witnesses to Christianity before Nicaea. None of these sources do that - so shut the fuck up.[/quote]
Without dumbass quote mining, he'd have nothing to say.[/quote]

This thread was started to itemise and discuss Archaeological Evidence of pre-Constantinian Christianity --- bit by bit if possible.

The assembly of evidence from Dura Europos has been a bane of contention for some time.
The problem is that I do not see it -- or any evidence -- as 100% certain but rather a percentage.
I don't think that the assembly of evidence from Dura Europos is a 100% bet: I see it more like 60%.

There are reasons both for and against the claim that the evidence from Dura is CERTAINLY (ie: 100% [scientific] certainty ) evidence of 3rd century Christianity.


Finally Are There Any Statues of Jesus In The First Three Centuries?
http://historum.com/ancient-history/697 ... uries.html

What is the date hypothetically allocated of the "Sarcophage de Santa Maria Antiqua" and how is this date derived?

[Leucius Charinus]

What is the date hypothetically allocated of the "Sarcophage de Santa Maria Antiqua" and how is this date derived?

What is the earliest Christian sarcophagus? My research leads me to the one mentioned above: the Sarcophagus of Santa Maria Antiqua. It is variously dated between the beginning and the end of the 3rd century but I have not yet found any discussion of the criteria by which it has been so dated. My suspicion is that the dating of this archaeological relic has rested upon the reliance of the authority of those who have studied it since it was discovered. This is fair enough. However I'd like to understand how this dating was achieved. For example there are no inscriptions or explicit dating on the sarcophagus. How is it being dated? An open question at the moment.

On Peter Kirby's blog entitled Physical Evidence of Early Christianity there is a comment about an earlier (2nd CE) sarcophagi ...
http://peterkirby.com/physical-evidence.html

Speaking of physical evidence, let's also consider the inscriptions recorded in The "Christians for Christians" Inscriptions of Phrygia; not forgetting the earliest art (sarcophage) from the second century.

I have reviewed Elsa Gibson's book on the The "Christians for Christians" Inscriptions of Phrygia. Someone in the old forum suggested I do this in order to at least provide references to contemporary authorship on pre-Constantinian Christian inscriptions. (Perhaps it was DCH?) There a number of inscriptions are discussed and dated. However these assessments do have their problems, which might be discussed. The data from this book has been summarised here:
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_074.htm

Finally Neil, when you write that the earliest sarcophagus is from the 2nd century, which sarcophagus was that? I have recently examined the sarcophagi in the HISTORUM discussion forum, and have linked to the discussion above.

[The Crow]

Impressive. Very Impressive.