Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Ken Olson »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:45 pm Also: who was Clement? Why was he so popular in early Roman Christianity, and so closely associated with both Peter and Paul (Philippians)?
The author of 1 Clement (usually dated to 96 CE, but I think maybe a decade or two later) is often called Clement of Rome. He refers to Peter and Paul in the letter, but does not say he knew them personally. There is an entire later mythology about him (the Pseudo-Clementine literature), in which he knew and interacted with many of the important people of the early church, and constitutes a field of study unto itself in the same way that the synoptic problem or Pauline chronology is.

Clement of Alexandria, active c. 200, from whom we have a considerable body of work, was a Christian theologian trained in Greek philosophy and the head of a Christian school in Alexandria, and purportedly (probably?) one of Origen's teachers, though IIRC Origen never mentions him in his work.

Best,

Ken
John2
Posts: 4309
Joined: Fri May 16, 2014 4:42 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by John2 »

I haven't read (or listened to) "V&F" but I gave Atwill a fair shake many years ago and at the end of the day I see Roman influence on the NT as being no more than the way Eisenman puts it in his introduction to JBJ.

There is in this period one central immovable fact, that of Roman power. This was as elemental as a state of nature, and all movements and individual behavior must be seen in relation to it ...

The scenes in the New Testament depicting Roman officials and military officers sometimes as near saints or the members of the Herodian family -their appointed custodians and tax collectors in Palestine- as bumbling but well-meaning dupes also have to be understood in the light of this submissiveness to Roman power ...

Josephus sums up this obsequiousness to Roman power perhaps better than anyone in his preface to his eyewitness account of this period ... In criticizing other historians treating the same events, Josephus notes that all historical works from this period suffer from two main defects, "flattery of the Romans and vilification of the Jews, adulation and abuse being substituted for real historical record." Having said this, he then goes on to indulge in the same conduct himself.


https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ja ... frontcover


Paul too is obsequious to Roman power and boasts of his association with people in the household of Caesar and arguably also his Herodian relatives. Does this mean that Nero played a part in the formation of Christianity? I don't think so. While Christian writings do exhibit "flattery of the Romans and vilification of the Jews," the details of Christianity seem too "Jewish" to me (specifically Fourth Philosophic) for outsiders to have created it.

I think the NT reflects Roman times rather than the designs of Roman emperors, as per Josephus. And according to Hegesippus (EH 3.20.1-6), Domitian needed Christianity explained to him, which seems odd if his father and brother had had a hand in it. Did they not tell him?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Ken Olson »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:35 pm There are many problems with the V&F case but what drew my particular attention was the repeated suggestions in the first half of the book that we have archaeological evidence for Christians embracing an imperial propaganda symbol "at the time of" the Flavian emperors or immediately following their time. The claim is not made unambiguously but it is often repeated. The rhetorical point is clear: Why would Christians "at that time" adopt the symbol of the Flavians? The first two Flavians, it is stressed, presented themselves as divine healers and peacemakers and as the Jewish messiah of prophecy. And here we have, "at this time", the Christians embracing the Flavian symbol of the anchor and dolphin. (The dolphin or fish could be interpreted as either a sign of the healer god Apollo or as Christ or Christians.)
Neil,

Thanks for this. Their approach reminded me of what Samuel Sandmel complained about in Parallelomania, except that they're discussing the visual arts rather than literature. But they begin with a thesis and then go to pointing out a bunch of parallels that supposedly show their thesis. The parallels are not rigorously examined and the causal connection is more assumed than spelled out clearly.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 1057
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Irish1975 »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:01 pm
Irish1975 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:45 pm Also: who was Clement? Why was he so popular in early Roman Christianity, and so closely associated with both Peter and Paul (Philippians)?
The author of 1 Clement (usually dated to 96 CE, but I think maybe a decade or two later) is often called Clement of Rome. He refers to Peter and Paul in the letter, but does not say he knew them personally. There is an entire later mythology about him (the Pseudo-Clementine literature), in which he knew and interacted with many of the important people of the early church, and constitutes a field of study unto itself in the same way that the synoptic problem or Pauline chronology is.
Yes, but who was he, really? Legend is not history, and 1 Clement (the name is only in the title) is obviously not what it purports to me (I agree with Detering on that). Since “Clement” is a Roman name and he has no mention in the sacred history outside of Philippians, I assume he must have been someone. There would be no reason to make him up. I suppose it’s possible that the name was found in Philippians early on, just as the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite seized on that name in Acts 17 and ran with it. But that doesn’t seem likely.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Ken Olson wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:52 am. . . How does the iconography (or the execution of Flavia Domitilla) lead to the conclusion that the Flavian emperors and their circle invented the cult of Christ? . . . .
btw, per Margaret Williams, p. 207:
The Flavia Domitilla there [=Eusebius, HE III.18] who was a martyr to Christianity may well be a different member of the Flavian family altogether from Dio's lady of the same name. She did not enjoy the same relationship with Clemens or the same fate as Dio's Domitilla. The case for two Domitillas is powerfully made by Keresztes op.cit.
V&F's Flavia Domitilla was exiled but not executed.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Ken Olson »

neilgodfrey wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:13 pm
Ken Olson wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:52 am. . . How does the iconography (or the execution of Flavia Domitilla) lead to the conclusion that the Flavian emperors and their circle invented the cult of Christ? . . . .
btw, per Margaret Williams, p. 207:
The Flavia Domitilla there [=Eusebius, HE III.18] who was a martyr to Christianity may well be a different member of the Flavian family altogether from Dio's lady of the same name. She did not enjoy the same relationship with Clemens or the same fate as Dio's Domitilla. The case for two Domitillas is powerfully made by Keresztes op.cit.
V&F's Flavia Domitilla was exiled but not executed.
Right. I see in Irish1975's OP he makes that distinction and (paraphrasing V&F) say her husband was executed and she was exiled to an island. Still, how would that support the thesis that the Flavians invented Christianity?
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1280
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by Ken Olson »

Irish1975 wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:59 pm Yes, but who was he, really? Legend is not history, and 1 Clement (the name is only in the title) is obviously not what it purports to me (I agree with Detering on that). Since “Clement” is a Roman name and he has no mention in the sacred history outside of Philippians, I assume he must have been someone. There would be no reason to make him up. I suppose it’s possible that the name was found in Philippians early on, just as the pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite seized on that name in Acts 17 and ran with it. But that doesn’t seem likely.
Sorry, I misunderstood the question because Clement of Alexandria was mentioned earlier in the same post. I take it you were asking about the Clement of Rome who is held to be the first pope and identified with Titus Flavius Clemens by V&H.

I don't know who he was really and I don't think we have enough information to know much about him. There's also a Clement mentioned in Hermas' Shepherd (first half of the second century?) who is portrayed as holding an office in the church in Rome. My best guess (and it's no more than that) is that there really was an official in the Roman church with the not uncommon name Clement and that later Christians associated him with other Clements - like Paul's co-worker in Phillipians. He could have been a member of the Flavius Clemens family or a freedman who took their name. Or not.
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by StephenGoranson »

For extensive discussion on fish in ancient iconography (though it has been years since I had it):
Book The interpretation of religious symbols in the Graeco-Roman world : a case study of early Christian fish symbolism /
Author: Kant, Laurence Harold. Publication: 1993
Dissertation: Ph. D.; Yale University; 1993. 3 volumes in 2 (xxiii, 903 pages)
mbuckley3
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:47 am

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by mbuckley3 »

Some housekeeping about that fish/anchor image from the catacomb of Domitilla.


1) "The earliest Christian images occurred somewhere about the year 200"
-Andre Grabar, 'Christian Iconography' (1968), p.7

"When the nascent [Christian] culture appeared (c.180).."
-Graydon Snyder, 'Ante Pacem' (2003 ed.), p.20

These are not 'revisionist' scholars. Away from NT studies, there is no neurosis about the lack of evidence from the first century. It would be extraordinary to have a demonstrably Christian artifact from the Flavian/post Flavian era. The only way that image could refer to alleged Flavian sponsorship of Christianity would be as a late tradition. For that to be credible, the device of fish/dolphin + anchor/trident would have to be both specifically Flavian and specifically Christian. As several of us have noted, neither is the case.


2) A better-executed version of the two fish + anchor is on the famous stele of Licinia Amias, reproduced by Neil on his Vridar blog (31.7.2016). Her name is in Latin letters; above that is the image, with 'fish of the living' in Greek; above all, in Latin letters, the conventional 'D[is] M[anibus]'. Snyder describes it as undated, ( others guess at 250-350), and very much wants to claim it as Christian, but can't be definitive : the 'DM' (possibly) undercuts the Christian meaning we read in/into the Greek motto.


3) While Snyder does not deal with the specific piece from the catacomb of Domitilla, he does have relevant information about the dating and development of the catacomb :

"There is good reason to believe that the land where the catacomb of Domitilla is located was indeed property belonging to the Flavian family. Consequently the nucleus of the Christian catacomb, a gallery originating about the middle of the third century, has been called the hypogeum of the Flavians. As Testini shows, this area and the area of the Flavi Aureli, which contains inscriptions from the Flavian family, had an earlier pre-Christian history. A third area, around the cubiculum of Ampliato, probably began about the middle of the second century. None of these earlier areas shows any Christian connection, so the earliest Christian materials do actually come from the so-called hypogeum of the Flavians, where frescoes of Daniel in the Lion's Den and Noah in the Ark have been found." ('Ante Pacem', 2003 ed., pp.161-162)
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Archeological evidence for the Flavian Hypothesis?

Post by neilgodfrey »

mbuckley3 wrote: Tue Nov 23, 2021 4:33 pm Some housekeeping about that fish/anchor image from the catacomb of Domitilla.


1) "The earliest Christian images occurred somewhere about the year 200"
-Andre Grabar, 'Christian Iconography' (1968), p.7

"When the nascent [Christian] culture appeared (c.180).."
-Graydon Snyder, 'Ante Pacem' (2003 ed.), p.20

These are not 'revisionist' scholars. Away from NT studies, there is no neurosis about the lack of evidence from the first century.
Just a side-note, FWIW, I don't for a moment doubt the integrity of the scholars like Snyder and others I have been reading re the dating and identification of the different types of evidence we find in the catacombs and elsewhere. At the same time I do want more than assertions from these scholars in order to get to the answers to the particular questions I am asking. Knowledge changes, and Snyder's datings have, I recall, been revised in some subsequent publications. I recall one archaeologist suggesting that Snyder's claims were generally too early. What I am looking for is the setting out of the actual evidence and interpretations of specific bits of data on which their generalized assertions about dating are based.

It is no slight on Snyder or Grabar or anyone else if we get to the original data on which dating conclusions have been based and in the light of more recent insights and knowledge and perspectives come to a different viewpoint -- if that's what we do.

I'm beginning to think the only way I will find out exactly in what part of the catacomb my particular anchor-fish image is located will be to take an expensive holiday and visit the site myself. Or maybe it would be cheaper to apply the six degrees rule and locate someone on the web who actually knows.
Post Reply