Archaeological Evidence of pre-Constantinian Christianity

[ficino]

The Flavia Sophe inscription has been dated by various scholars between the late second and the fourth centuries. Snyder argues for a date in the mid- to later second century. One of his arguments is that Flavian nomina are twice as common in the two generations after that dynasty as they are later. He says the "Christians feared persecution in the early period" argument lacks sufficient evidence, and the abbreviation ΧΥ for "of Christ" in any case is not attention-getting. The letter forms are consistent with second as well as third century dates, and the Valentinian themes suggest a time when that movement was strong in Rome.

Hi LC, in response to your suggestion that the Flavia Sophe inscription may be fourth century, I can only paste what I wrote earlier.

At this point I don't think I'm going to investigate other purportedly early inscriptions. My interest was different from the interest that prompted you to start this thread. I'm not pursuing the hypothesis that Eusebius in the service of Constantine was instrumental in creating what I called the Gospel Jesus cult. Rather, I wanted to try to test the assertion that I think Kapyong alluded to, sc. that "archaeology proves the NT is accurate."

It most certainly does not. It at most proves that certain individuals named in Acts or elsewhere existed. It does not prove that there was a Gospel Jesus cult within the years c. 30-130. But the absence of confirmatory evidence doesn't authorize strong skepticism about the existence of that movement within that range of years.

Thanks BTW for repeating what I'm sure you've said elsewhere, that the earliest clear mention of Jesus on an inscription (I don't mention portrayal in a wall painting) is early 4th century.

[DCHindley]

ficino,

I don't know just how "clear" these references are. After all, we "know" that Islamists all marry children and want to establish a worldwide caliphate, outlaw Christianity and kill your mother.

These things are bull, of course, but one might deduce these "facts" if we listen to commonplace rants by folks who just don't like them. It is the opposite case to finding what one likes in everything.

There are three primary colors, which is nature's way of glorifying the Trinity. Of course, Poison Ivy also has three leaves. The number three can have many meanings when used in communication, but it is just a number. Stephan will undoubtedly now bring up Pythagorean number symbolism ...

FWIW, I was not aware of the inscription being in Lreek, not Latin, as well as the employment of Nomina Sacra. CHRESTON is a Latin term (although probably a Greek loan word). But the text of inscriptions in all languages were commonly abbreviated, were they not? If we were to take all the non-Christian inscriptions that mention "XRISTOS/OU" (perhaps they can be counted on one thumb), how many might be abbreviated? In general, how many nouns are abbreviated? Are there general rules? Even in Greek, the phrase could still mean "bath of anointing."

DCH (Off sick, boss)

[ficino]

I was not aware of the inscription being in Lreek, not Latin, as well as the employment of Nomina Sacra. CHRESTON is a Latin term (although probably a Greek loan word). But the text of inscriptions in all languages were commonly abbreviated, were they not? If we were to take all the non-Christian inscriptions that mention "XRISTOS/OU" (perhaps they can be counted on one thumb), how many might be abbreviated? In general, how many nouns are abbreviated? Are there general rules? Even in Greek, the phrase could still mean "bath of anointing."

Hi David,

"Chreston" in Pliny the Elder just is a Greek word, as is "pankration," two alternative names he says people give to the plant called cichorium in Latin. Lots of Roman authors insert Greek words into their writing.

There was very heavy abbreviation in inscriptions, so as to save space and, therefore, money. But the words that are abbreviated occur in formulae. An example is from the Erastus inscription mentioned earlier in the thread. The words sua pecunia, "at his own expense" (literally: "with his own money"), appear simply as s.p. But that's no problem for the person reading the inscription, who would understand this standard abbreviation from context and from familiarity with similar inscriptions.

Nomina sacra can be used precisely because they constitute formulaic notations.

On the other hand, one does not abbreviate rare words in inscriptions as though they are elements of common formulae. Chreston as a plant name in Latin appears, as far as two big databases show, only in the Pliny passage. It doesn't appear as a plant name in Greek in LSJ at all. Its rarity precludes the possibility that XY can be an abbreviation of that plant name, UNLESS --- we imagine it as a code word, and thus, as a candidate for formulaic abbreviation, among a group of initiates.

But this is just to bring in assumptions for which there is no positive evidence and use them to undergird further conclusions, for which again there is no positive evidence.

I haven't searched for "non-Christian inscriptions that mention "XRISTOS/OU" ", as you suggest someone might do. Off the top of my head, I would think such a search would be a non-starter, because any inscription with such wording would be classified as a Christian inscription unless there were indubitable markers to the contrary.

The upshot is that I cannot buy your "chreston-sniffers" hypothesis, enticing as it is.

-----------------

adding:

David, it seems to me that instances of the nomen sacrum ΧΣ in the nominative masculine are disconfirming evidence against the thesis that Χριστός | Χρηστός is/are code for the plant chreston. To hold that the formula in the masculine is code of that sort, you need two assumptions, at the least: 1. that there was a "chreston-sniffer" cult (or whatever we want to call it); 2. that "Christ" is code for that plant and not a designation of a person. As far as I know, we have no evidence for either assumption. So the whole theory seems to lack credibility. Secondly, it is not a parsimonious hypothesis, because you have to posit these unevidenced entities. The chreston hypothesis, as I read it, should be given up.

I may be derailing LC's thread here, but I add the above paragraph because the topic of chreston came up.

Cheers, f

[Leucius Charinus]

The Flavia Sophe inscription has been dated by various scholars between the late second and the fourth centuries. Snyder argues for a date in the mid- to later second century. One of his arguments is that Flavian nomina are twice as common in the two generations after that dynasty as they are later. He says the "Christians feared persecution in the early period" argument lacks sufficient evidence, and the abbreviation ΧΥ for "of Christ" in any case is not attention-getting. The letter forms are consistent with second as well as third century dates, and the Valentinian themes suggest a time when that movement was strong in Rome.

Hi LC, in response to your suggestion that the Flavia Sophe inscription may be fourth century, I can only paste what I wrote earlier.

At this point I don't think I'm going to investigate other purportedly early inscriptions. My interest was different from the interest that prompted you to start this thread. I'm not pursuing the hypothesis that Eusebius in the service of Constantine was instrumental in creating what I called the Gospel Jesus cult. Rather, I wanted to try to test the assertion that I think Kapyong alluded to, sc. that "archaeology proves the NT is accurate."

Thanks for your openness and honesty ficino. At least we can agree that Gospel Jesus cult is a common focus of many people's earnest research, and that archaeology has an important role to play in what the evidence has to show us external to the literary evidence. I have at least understood that with your own extensive research you appear to be happy to state that the object of it can be summarised (in part) with the term "Gospel Jesus cult". I guess this term implies the "[Canonical] Gospel Jesus Cult". Is this correct? And if so, how do you approach the historical existence of that supposed second "school" in antiquity who authored and preserved the "[Non Canonical] Gospel Jesus Cult". My point is that we are not just missing one school in the archaeology, but (according to current thinking) two schools, one of which was important enough to have excellent literary heresiologists. Were both these cults also "schools"? I think that this seems to follow. IDK.

It most certainly does not. It at most proves that certain individuals named in Acts or elsewhere existed. It does not prove that there was a Gospel Jesus cult within the years c. 30-130.

Likewise, the OP is quite happy to open up the window of chronology well past your cut-off date of c.130 CE. The result of a critical review of the archaeology prior to the rise of Constantine is quite surprising.

But the absence of confirmatory evidence doesn't authorize strong skepticism about the existence of that movement within that range of years.

Well said. And the same applies to the OP.

Thanks BTW for repeating what I'm sure you've said elsewhere, that the earliest clear mention of Jesus on an inscription (I don't mention portrayal in a wall painting) is early 4th century.

You are most welcome ficino. After looking at this "Jesus the Chrestos" business for some time it could be that for the early period after Nicaea, the literate people of the Roman Empire did not appear know how to spell "Christ". I cant think of any better alternative explanation for the statistical dominance of the E over the I. Their may be a technical term for this but it doesn't make sense to me at the moment.


IMO FWIW the most compelling evidence (that I have uncovered so far in this search) for the "[Canonical] Gospel Jesus Cult" prior to Constantine may be found in coffin lids. Again the sarcophagi evidence is often late, or questionably so. However the themes for the most intricate workmanship of the reliefs reveal a number of New Testament motifs. What really surprise me was the fact some of these earlier sarcophagi also depicted motifs from some "[Non Canonical] Gospel Jesus Cults".

I am beginning to think there was at least a massive increase in the numbers of Christs and Christianities after Nicaea.


Be well,



LC

[ficino]

When I coined "Gospel Jesus cult" I was intentionally leaving it vague, which gospels. I was trying to come up with a framework for discussing groups that believed there was a real man, as opposed to -- if it existed -- a Carrier/Doherty sort of group. I didn't know where to put groups that later came to be known as gnostics. I was just hoping that GJC was a loose enough concept to accommodate them. If it's not, it certainly deserves tweaking.

I don't know enough about such groups to say whether so-called Docetists would be included or not. They may have accepted certain stories about Jesus' life but denied that he was a real human, I don't know. I think this problem may go beyond the spirit of your OP, in any case, and I'm guessing that others have already worked on it a lot.

As far as a technical term for Χρηστός | Χριστός variation, the terms "itacism" and "iotacism" fit the vocable aspect of the phenomenon. That is, by the first century, a number of Greek vowels and diphthongs had come to be pronounced identically as the English sound "ee." Confusion of vowels of that sound is called variously "itacism" or "iotacism," since two of these vowels were eta and iota. So the two names were pronounced the same.

That's not the case in Latin. I suspect that Roman authors who talk about "Chrestus" as a real person, or about "Chrestiani," are adopting Greek parlance.

[MrMacSon]

I'd say Docetists and other Gnostics initially accepted stories more about a celestial-Christ, and the Paulines arose out of that milieu of similar beliefs.

I also propose a "Gospel Jesus cult" arose out of such a milieu or along side it.

[Leucius Charinus]

David, it seems to me that instances of the nomen sacrum ΧΣ in the nominative masculine are disconfirming evidence against the thesis that Χριστός | Χρηστός is/are code for the plant chreston. To hold that the formula in the masculine is code of that sort, you need two assumptions, at the least: 1. that there was a "chreston-sniffer" cult (or whatever we want to call it); 2. that "Christ" is code for that plant and not a designation of a person. As far as I know, we have no evidence for either assumption. So the whole theory seems to lack credibility. Secondly, it is not a parsimonious hypothesis, because you have to posit these unevidenced entities. The chreston hypothesis, as I read it, should be given up.

I may be derailing LC's thread here, but I add the above paragraph because the topic of chreston came up.

Cheers, f

All good stuff.

I am assuming that the chreston hypothesis, as you read it, is explicit to DCH's comments on the Flavia Sophe inscription?

Be well,


LC

[Leucius Charinus]

When I coined "Gospel Jesus cult" I was intentionally leaving it vague, which gospels. I was trying to come up with a framework for discussing groups that believed there was a real man, as opposed to -- if it existed -- a Carrier/Doherty sort of group. I didn't know where to put groups that later came to be known as gnostics. I was just hoping that GJC was a loose enough concept to accommodate them. If it's not, it certainly deserves tweaking.

Thanks for your thoughts ficino. IMO for the "bigger picture" the term needs to be tweaked. I use the term bigger picture simply to differentiate a theory for the emergence of canonical Christian origins (explicitly tied to the canonical books), and a theory for the emergence of all the very many so-called Christs and Christianities (including all the non canonical books as well). Having said that most people here are quite focussed upon the smaller picture. And there's nothing wrong with that. Focus is required.

How to tweak it? IDK. In the bigger picture we are looking in antiquity for at least two schools who supposedly co-inhabited the Roman Empire between the 1st and the 4th century at which time the canonical school received the attention and favours of the Emperor Constantine. The literary tradition (Eusebius and Serapion on the Gospel of Peter) suggests these two schools even had their own libraries. There is in fact some archaeology for the existence of the non canonical school. I am away from the farm at the moment but will post it in a day or two.

Be well,



LC

[ficino]

There is in fact some archaeology for the existence of the non canonical school. I am away from the farm at the moment but will post it in a day or two.

Yes, I'll be interested to see what archaeological stuff you have on the non-canonical school.

[ficino]

Add to that the name of de Rossi, 19th century papal archaeologist, and you have other very sketchy elements.

Hello LC, I'm reading de Rossi's Roma Sotterranea Cristiana now. I notice above you say that his Cornelius stone was a forgery. Do you recall documentation of any forgeries perpetrated by de Rossi himself - or suspected? This article on Wikipedia cites a piece by de Rossi in which he is said to have proved that another insciption was a forgery:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cath ... ba_Pompeia

cordially, f