The Vacuum of Evidence For Pre-4th Century Christianity History Hunters International PDF

19/03/2012
The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity
History Hunters International
S
F
T
C
:I
L
R
C
-4
By John, on March 6th, 2011

4
In the year since we began publishing our studies on divine men in Classical Antiquity, there have been developments in both our thinking and in
both public and scholarly responses. New terms such as panhellenism and chrestic have appeared in order to describe the archaeology being
examined. Numerous entries in Wikipedia have been revised (by others, always) to account for these developments and discussions initiated in
other forums.
Perhaps the most surprising discovery is somewhat akin to the famous Holmesian episode in which the dog didnt bark in the night.
Not a single artefact of any medium including textual and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian.
This is the most notable result of our archaeological survey of sites, inscriptions, libraries, collections and so on from the Indus River to the Nile and
north to Britain.
Taking into account the vast volume of scholarly works claiming expert opinion for the exact opposite point of view, let me clarify terms.
historyhuntersinternational.org/2011/03/06/the-vacuum-of-evidence-for-pre-4th-century-christianity/
1/20
19/03/2012
There is, of course, much archaeology interpreted commonly as Christian. This does not contradict the bald statement above. The difference lies
between data that spells out Christian clearly and unambiguously, and that which expert opinion claims to look as though it is Christian.
There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are not dated to that
early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term Christian.
The earliest fragments and codex of the New Testament pre-date the fourth century, though nowhere in them have we found the key word Christ.
Many biblical scholars claim that they do, but our visual inspection of them fails to find a single such usage of this term. We have been unable to
find a single text transliterated correctly in this regard.
The codex was written in the 4th century. Between the 4th and 12th centurie
seven or more editors worked on this codex, making it one of the most alter
manuscripts in existence, with as many as 20,000 alterations.
As there are gospels and other texts of a religious character, so there is archaeology for places of worship and many artefacts: none spell Christian.
Claims that any are Christian are, in fact, a matter of opinion only and we disagree with all such opinions.
Six months ago, this was a tentative view and during this time, many scholars have been asked challenged even to provide evidence of a
contradictory nature and other than largely silence, the response has been supportive of this view. We did receive a list of (well-known) sites and
events purported as Christian, though not a single artefact.
This should not be understood as a claim that nothing was happening in these three centuries that can be related to the appearance of Christianity
in the fourth century. The archaeology that can be associated most-closely with Christianity is for the name Chrest, a magical Jesus Chrest and for
Servants of Jesus. We have termed these chrestic. In ancient Greek, the pronunciation of both terms Christ and Chrest is identical as far as is
known today and this acutely interesting and fortuitous linguistic circumstance facilitated the re-working of textual artefacts as well as recasting the
entire context of the original theurgy related to the cult.
2/20
19/03/2012
Order to arrest a Chrestian: 28 February, 256 CE

An order from the head of the council of Oxyrhynchus to the police officers in a country village to arrest a man described as a Chrestian (lines 4-5).
No reason for the arrest is given.
As Chrest was expunged from the New Testament and replaced with Christ, so the possibility arises that following
the prosecution of chrestic followers by Diocletian mis-termed commonly The Great Persecution of Christians
the chrestic archaeology record was wiped clean generally as far as possible.
Left: Arycanda (Lycia). In 311-312 delegates from one province asked the emperor to make those atheists, the _ _ _
_ _tians, stop violating the rules of piety. To that end, they were to be forbidden from engaging in their execrable
practices and ordered to worship the gods. (Museum of Istanbul) Note that the letters along the left edge which
would have spelt either Chres or Chris have been destroyed.
What about outside the Roman empire: Persia for example?
That there was a substantial Christian population in Persia at the time Shapur II reigned in the 4th century is widely accepted as fact, though it is
based on a later claim (Salminius Hermias Sozomenus fl. c. 400 c. 450). Eusebius of Caesarea in his Life of Constantine:
Life of Constantine (Book III)
Chapter 7. Of the General Council, at which Bishops from all Nations were Present.
In effect, the most distinguished of Gods ministers from all the churches which abounded in Europe, Lybia, and Asia were here assembled.
And a single house of prayer, as though divinely enlarged, sufficed to contain at once Syrians and Cilicians, Phnicians and Arabians,
delegates from Palestine, and others from Egypt; Thebans and Libyans, with those who came from the region of Mesopotamia. A Persian
bishop too was present at this conference, nor was even a Scythian found wanting to the number.
Life of Constantine (Book IV)
Chapter 8. That he wrote also to the King of Persia, who had sent him an Embassy, on Behalf of the Christians in his Realm.
The king of the Persians also having testified a desire to form an alliance with Constantine, by sending an embassy and presents as
assurances of peace and friendship, the emperor, in negotiating this treaty, far surpassed the monarch who had first done him honor, in the
magnificence with which he acknowledged his gifts. Having heard, too, that there were many churches of God in Persia, and that large
numbers there were gathered into the fold of Christ, full of joy at this intelligence, he resolved to extend his anxiety for the general welfare to
that country also, as one whose aim it was to care for all alike in every nation.
Chapter 9. Letter of Constantine Augustus to Sapor, King of the Persians, containing a truly Pious Confession of God and Christ.
Copy of his Letter to the King of Persia.
By keeping the Divine faith, I am made a partaker of the light of truth: guided by the light of truth, I advance in the knowledge of the Divine faith.
Hence it is that, as my actions themselves evince, I profess the most holy religion; and this worship I declare to be that which teaches me
deeper acquaintance with the most holy God; aided by whose Divine power, beginning from the very borders of the ocean, I have aroused each
nation of the world in succession to a well-grounded hope of security; so that those which, groaning in servitude to the most cruel tyrants and
yielding to the pressure of their daily sufferings, had well near been utterly destroyed, have been restored through my agency to a far happier
state. This God I confess that I hold in unceasing honor and remembrance; this God I delight to contemplate with pure and guileless thoughts
in the height of his glory.
The letter - even if genuine - fails to support the claims made of it, not mentioning either Christ, or Christian. The challenge is to find archaeological
evidence in Persia for these Christians.
3/20
19/03/2012
Left: Fragment of decorated plaster from the church excavated on Sir Bani Yas island, Abu Dhabi in the Persian Gulf.
Dated to ca 6th century.
Christians reached the ancient Perat dMaishan (now Basra), near the shores of the Persian Gulf by the beginning of the
fourth century and around 325, Bishop David of Perat dMaishan, according to the Chronicle of Seert, was present at the
Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon. A Nestorian bishopric was established in 424 at Rev-ardashir, nearly opposite the island
of Kharg.
Nestorianism is a Christological doctrine advanced by Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople from 428431, condemned
as heretical at the First Council of Ephesus in 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in 451, leading to the Nestorian Schism
in which churches supporting Nestorius broke with the rest of the Christian Church. Afterward many of Nestorius
supporters relocated to Sassanid Persia.
There is much Christian archaeology in the Persian Gulf, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but not for the first
three centuries of this era.
Although Christians may have been among the deportees from Roman Syria who worked on the monuments of apur I (240-70 c.e.) at
Bisaput (q.v.) and the dam at Sustar, nothing identifiably Christian has been excavated in Persia itself. (CHRISTIANITY, . I P I
P
:M
R
, by Judith Lerner)
That is the crux of the matter, right across Christendom.
Right: Cast of the inscription of Abercius, episkopos of Hierapolis in Phrygia.
The original stands in the Vatican Museums and is dated ca. 200 CE.
(Picture by Giovanni DallOrto, April 12 2008)
Translation: The citizen of a chosen city, this [monument] I made [while]
living, that there I might have in time a resting-place of my body, [I] being by
name Abercius, the disciple of a holy shepherd who feeds flock s of sheep
[both] on mountains and on plains, who has great eyes that see everywhere.
For this [shepherd] taught me [that the] book [of life] is worthy of belief. And
to Rome he sent me to contemplate majesty, and to see a queen goldenrobed and golden-sandalled; there also I saw a people bearing a shining
mark . And I saw the land of Syria and all [its] cities; Nisibis [I saw] when I
passed over Euphrates. But everywhere I had brethren. I had Paul
Faith
everywhere led me forward, and everywhere provided as my food a fish of
exceeding great size, and perfect, which a holy virgin drew with her hands
from a fountain and this it [faith] ever gives to its friends to eat, it having wine
of great virtue, and giving it mingled with bread. These things I, Abercius,
having been a witness [of them] told to be written here. Verily I was passing
through my seventy-second year. He that discerneth these things, every
fellow-believer [namely], let him pray for Abercius. And no one shall put
another grave over my grave; but if he do, then shall he pay to the treasury of
[the] Romans two thousand pieces of gold and to my good native city of
Hieropolis one thousand pieces of gold.
Though regarded commonly as the earliest Christian inscription, the lack of
clear identification has suggested numerous alternatives. In our opinion, the
Good Shepherd motif therein, based probably on imagery used in Psalm 23,
then the allegorical story of the Good Shepherd (John 9:35-41 and John
10:22-30) and the Shepherd of Hermas, indicates a chrestic faith.
Left: The Good Shepherd. Painting on the
ceiling of S. Callisto catacomb. Mid 3rd century
CE.
The Shepherd of Hermas, a strange allegory written sometime in the second century, had a great vogue in orthodox circles and was
even included in some copies of the New Testament (it is found in the Sinaitic Codex). The theology of the Church must have been
very elastic at a time when such a book could enjoy popularity and implicit, if not explicit, ecclesiastical sanction, for its Christology
does not seem to square with any of the Christologies of the New Testament, or with those of contemporary theologians whose
occasional documents have reached us. The Shepherd speaks of a Son of God; but this Son of God is distinguished from Jesus.
(Jesus Not a Myth, pp. 120-121, by A. D. Howell-Smith)
The site of Dura Europos, a former city and walled fortification in Syria on what was then the Roman-Persian frontier and sacked by Shapur I of
Persia in 256/7 C.E, was excavated largely in the 1920s and 1930s by French and American teams. Within the archaeological site and located by
the 17th tower, preserved by the same defensive fill that saved the nearby Dura Europos synagogue, is what is claimed to be the earliest identified
Christian church house. The surviving frescoes of the baptistry room are claimed by most experts to be probably the most ancient Christian
4/20
19/03/2012
paintings, though more crudely executed than the paintings of the nearby synagogue.
The Good Shepherd, Adam and Eve. Wall painting in the baptistry of the domus ecclesiae in Dura Europos.
Fragments of parchment scrolls with Hebrew texts of Eucharistic prayers have also been unearthed. In 1933, among fragments of text recovered
from the town dump outside the Palmyrene Gate, a fragmentary text (Dura Parchment 24) was unearthed from an unknown Greek harmony of the
gospel accounts, comparable to Tatians Diatessaron, though independent of it. The fragment was found in an earth embankment believed to have
been built for the final defense of the town. It was fairly close to the domus ecclesiae, though far enough away that it may have come from some
other source.
The fragment contains phrases also found in Matt. 27:56-57, Mark 15:40, 42, Luke 23:49, 50, 51, John 19:38. The reconstruction of Parker, Taylor,
and Goodacre differs in only a few particulars, though some of the differences are significant. The manuscript has some unusual orthographic
features, including a Nominum Sacrum found nowhere else, with uncertain meaning. Tatian does not mention either Jesus, or Christ.
Archaeologists determined three stages for this site: an earlier dwelling; a private house nearly 18 m square and 5.2 m high, with eight rooms and a
courtyard; then adaptation probably between 232/233 and 236 as the domus ecclesiae. To achieve this third stage, an interior wall had been
demolished to make a hall capable of accommodating some 65-75 persons. The hall is decorated with a Bacchic plaster freize.
A trading post of the Silk Road, with Roman garrison, is an unlikely hideaway for the poor and oppressed, and the status of the house is not one
would associate with slaves and the underclass. Rather, it is at one with the elite Romans, Greeks and provincial royalty populating the Pauline
canon, the Neopythagorean basilica in Rome, and other individuals we identify as chrestic. The site contains no reference to a Jesus Christ, or to
Christians.
Scholars are assuming that because there must be Christianity in the first three centuries, they have a divine right to interpret Chrest as Christ and
Christian-like symbols as Christian, and so appear to prove their own false-assumption. It is very poor thinking and near-universal for centuries.
The term Christ is English for the Greek Khrists meaning the anointed one. Chrest does not interpret in this manner, but as Good and is not
interchangeable with Messiah.
Our search for Christian archaeology in the first three centuries has instead revealed an increasing quantity of chrestic.
The immediate challenge is therefore to understand in what manner the pre-fourth century Jesus is Good. The starting point is the context in which
this Greek Jesus is termed Good in Greek texts and Greek magic.
That this context is not Jewish must be both noted and important, for it may lead to a better understanding of much archaeology which has
the superficial appearance of being Jewish, through for example the appearance of Hebraic symbols and names in Greek magic of the
period.
That the central story and heroes of the New Testament have a Judaean setting and character is not coincidental, but central.
5/20
19/03/2012
Left: CIRB 70 (=CIJ 1.683). Date: 81 CE. The requirement that the released slaves
show devotion and diligence toward the synagogue suggests the sacrality of the
edifice. This inscription also demonstrates the participation of a woman (Chreste)
within synagogue ritual. Translation:
In the reign of King Tiberius Julius Rescuporis, friend of Caesar and friend of the
Romans, pious, in the year 377, the twelfth of the month of Pereitios, I Chreste,
former wife of Drusus, release in the synagogue, my home-bred slave Heraclas,
free, once and for all, according to my vow, who is to be undisturbed and unharmed
by all of my heirs, and who may go wherever he desires, unhindered, as I have
vowed, except that he show devotion and diligence toward the synagogue with the
agreement both of my heirs Heraclides and Heliconias and also under the joint
guardianship of the congregation of the Jews. (The Jewish manumission
inscriptions of the Bosporus Kingdom by Elizabeth Leigh Gibson)
Such archaeology, which includes that for the earliest synagogues, challenges our
present understanding of Jewish identity.
The spiritual home of chrestic archaeology the chrestic movement is clearly
Alexandria and most likely the Royal Library there. Yet it is found across the
Hellenistic world, most particularly within the Persian orbit, from those small
kingdoms contested with Rome, to Parthia and Greco-India.
This is no longer a complete surprise, at least to us and our readers, as we have
traced the activities of those Ptolemies whom we label Lysimachi, Greeks claiming
Jewish affiliation in one generation and none as they butcher Jews in the next.
Their primary interest is dynastic power, to reclaim the inheritance of the Diadochi
Lysimachus, and their means is to leverage Roman power and income from trade
to reshape Judaism and when that fails in the chrestic period, to make anew.
The term used commonly for Greek faith in their divinities is pagan and we find
this inadequate, an inadequacy which becomes increasingly apparent in
considering chrestic archaeology, as Helios transmutes into divine men such as
Buddha and Christ, hence our usage of the term panhellenism.
The greatest challenge faced by scholarship in this field is to escape the glittering
web of false assumptions and rather, to ground thinking within a secure framework of reliable archaeology. This will lead to profound change. The
history of the Roman Empire how it came into being, how it related to both Judaism and the panhellenic world, and how it moved into the
Byzantine period begs revision. The history of divine men has yet to be written.
If these
are any indication, that time would be a long way off:
anyone who thinks that Christianity did not exist prior to nicea is a moron who cant conduct good historical practice and sullies the graves of
martyrs.
No Im not interested in debating with him, just general pointers to early Christianity.
In this line of thinking it was probably his mother.
Sorry, but the guy is a maggot, engaged in deliberate falsification.
I will give this the time of day as soon as you convince a serious academic journal with expert peer review to publish it. Until then I cant
justify the time investment to consider this rather unlikely proposal, and neither should anyone else.
nearly all the IIDB regulars think hes off his rocker.
Textually speaking, we have NTs that predate Constantine.
Within the skeptical community, those who agree with him are probably about as numerous, relatively speaking, as snake-handlers are
within the Christian community.
doesnt have a friggin idea about christology.
What I think he doesnt have a friggin idea about is historiography.
The difficulties in approaching this subject have long been recognised:
It has always been an unfailing source of astonishment to the historical investigator of Christian beginnings, that there is not one
single word from the pen of any Pagan writer of the first century of our era, which can in any fashion be referred to the marvellous story
recounted by the Gospel writers. The very existence of Jesus seems unknown. Mead, G.R.S., Did Jesus Live 100 Years BC?, 1903,
pp.324, 48
The subject has not become any easier:
The material culture of ritual activities, iconography, holy places, much less belief itself have a far more contested discourse both within the
specific field of Early Christian archaeology (how can you be sure that the people were Christian?) and within the field of archaeology more
broadly. One of the key powers of an Early Christian archaeology is its ability to force archaeologists to problematize religion (and its myriad
manifestations) as a category of archaeological analysis in general. Bowes touches upon some of these things in her article noting the
difficulty in identifying monastic establishments (598-602), the archaeological ephemeral nature of of house churches (579-582), and the
religious ambiguity of the catacombs (582-586) but does not really engage the significance of this debate. If Christianity (and religion more
generally) ends up being a relatively unimportant (or invisible) component in the material assemblage marking individual identity in Late
Antiquity, where does that leave the discipline of Early Christian archaeology? Considering Early Christian Archaeology by Bill Caraher, a
review of Early Christian Archaeology: A State of the Field by Kim Bowes, Cornell University (July 2008)
Where, indeed?
S
Share
E
6/20
19/03/2012
Related posts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
A
T
A
R
M
B
A
A
P
P
(12.4)
(11.4)
(10.1)
M
A
R
C
(9.4)
G
L
A
P
B
:
R
O
(8.5)
T
:C
T
C
S
:I R
C
(9.3)
(9.2)
C
C
F
? (8.3)
L
(9)
(8.2)
March 6th, 2011 Tags: Archaeology, Christianity, gospels, New Testament, persia, religion Category: Archaeology, chrestology, Roman Empire, The
History of Antiquity, The Ptolemies and Lysimachi Edit this post
Like
29
H
Sort by oldest first
Dear Readers,
This post is being discussed by others, across the web, more than all our other posts combined and not a single example of the term Christ
or Christian from before the 4th century has been offered in refutation.
There is some continued confusion, however, between fact and opinion, which should not surprise, as we see examples of such confusion
every day in news reporting.
It is a fact that many hold the opinion that there is christian archaeology in the 3rd century; it is not a fact - as far as I am aware - that there
is such archaeology.
To be more definitive: we have not found a single usage of the term 'Christ' in any text, sacred or otherwise, which can be dated directly to
any time before the 4th century.
This, despite an enormous number of claims to the contrary, including authoritative, letter-by-letter transliterations - all of which are factually
wrong.
How can centuries of scholarship be wrong on a matter of fact?
Because they assume that an abbreviation can be a 'nomina sacra' - a sacred name - and, believing in either Christ, or the judgment of
others who believe in Christ - understand such an abbreviation to translate to 'Christ'. Also, because monks falsified scared texts on a
massive scale, vast amounts of archaeological evidence have been destroyed, and even when Chrest is written clearly, it has been
'translated' as Christ.
If we assume this was not all fraud, then these false translations are based on assumptions - the presumed scholarship for Christianity is no
more than a house of cards.
Archaeologists work within the historical framework given to them, so all the archaeology is interpreted on these assumptions. The
archaeology must also be no more reliable than the proverbial.
That's 1,700 years of scholarship blown away.
The notion that christianity has a solid basis in history and archaeology is demonstrably false, as we show here. That is but one conclusion,
for there are many more to be drawn on this. There are many other divine men in Classical Antiquity, produced by the same chrestic
process and scholars have largely failed to treat them with any more intellectual integrity than they have the Greek magical Jesus.
Best regards,
John
1 ear ago 5 Likes
Like
Repl
E
VERY interesting article! A while back I came across some photos of the Street of Tombs in the basement of St Peter's Basilia in Rome
and it turns out that the word that's supposed to be "Christians" is spelt "Chrestians!" Now I wish I bookmarked the link.
And the P66 payrus from 200 CE, as I remember, substituted Chi-Rho grams for "Christos" (that's the popular assumption) or "Chrestos,"
7/20
19/03/2012
Chi-Iota grams for "Iesous Christos" or "Iesous Chrestos" and Tau-Rho grams for "Stauros," the last an inadvertent representation of the wax
image of Julius Caesar on his funerary tropaeum, 3-18-44 BCE.
Third thing, the word Christian en franais is... "chrtien."
Yes, 1,700 years of scholarship all for nought. Looks like Constantine DID invent Christianity at Nicaea in 325 CE... either that or he totally
re-invented it.
And another thing that people have all wrong is the Roman practice of crucfixion, but I won't go into that now except to say that it was...
nasty.
11 months ago 1 Like
Like
Repl
Thank you for your observations and comments on this subject, Edward; I've been wondering about the French term.
In the last few days, I've added two sections to our Catalogue of Chrest: Marcion and Manichaeism, for both used the term Chrestos. The
two may be further related, for both had a presence in the same general area, which included Mesopotamia. Is this how Thomas appears in
India?
On the other hand, where are the pre-4th century 'churches' in the West? The archaeology of the very few sites thought to be 'Christian' (i.e.
Chrestian) is not as clear as has been claimed. The Megiddo 'church' for example, is for Chrest, not Christ - it is spelled out in a mosaic and I suspect that interpretations of the data are superficial, based as they are on the assumption it must all be Christian.
Right now, the earliest 'churches' seem to me to be chrestic synagogues and maybe all are Marcionite. The earliest in Rome is a
Mithraeum in the 2nd century and the Basilica di San Clemente atop is 4th century.
The appearance of chrestic synagogues (with the lack of contemporaneous churches) in the first centuries is likely associated with Marcion
regarding Paul as the chief apostle of his Isu Chrestos. I hope that if we can understand Saul/Paul and why they made and used chrestic
synagogues, we may better understand how Greeks made a new faith with many Judiac and Hebraic elements.
I am also coming to the view that the "domus ecclesiae" at Dura Europos is a chrestic synagogue, but more on that at another time.
11 months ago 2 Likes
Like
Repl
E
Actually the mosaic shown does not spell it out, it abbreviates it! Is there another mosaic that spells it out completely? Either way, your
hypothesis that XW is Chrestos from what I've seen is more solidly based on fact. Christos? That hyposthesis has 1,700 years of tradition
behind it.
11 months ago
Like
Repl
Like
Repl
Quite right, Edward and thanks, again.

11 months ago
E
You're welcome!
By the way, have you been keeping up with the recent Lead Codices controversy out of Israel, Jordan, Great Britain and France? That
they're evidence for Christianity as early as 33 CE, or have ties into the "Jesus Legacy" like the discredited "James Ossuary" and "Jesus
Family Tomb?" If they're genuine, they could be evidence of first-century Chrestianity, for it was common for lead to be used in curse tablets
back then.
://
...
Unfortunately for the Codices, it appears that they are utter fakes.
://
...
Like
Repl
8/20
19/03/2012
B
This is interesting if you also add to this the Jewish view of "Jesus". The Talmud speaks (very very little) of a "Yeshu" who holds some
ressemblance to Jesus. But it appears that "Yeshu" here is at least 2 different people, one living in the 2nd century and one living in the 1st
century BCE. Regarding the latter, the Talmud notes that he created a sort of hellenistic cult that still existed dozen of years later. Some
rabbis thought in the Middle-Ages that he was the historical Jesus.
10 months ago
Like
Repl
Benben: Thank you for that informative comment and I would appreciate learning the exact reference for the latter (BCE) "Yeshu".
A subject we have yet to explore here is the term 'Servant of Jesus' used as the name of a Thracian priest of Dionysus in the late 1st
century BCE, and as a Parthian royal title in the 1st century of this era. I suspect that both usages are connected in some manner to both
Krestonia (western Thrace, between the Strymon and the Axios) and to the Gondophares dynasty (
10 months ago
://
/G....
Like
Repl
Like
Repl
B
This is site is very good source for the Yeshu story:
://
/ ...
://
/ ...
I'm not sure why you expect there to be any such unambiguous artefact from this period? Christains were being widely persecuted by the
Roman (and Jewish) authorities, so the Christians would want to disguise and hide their artefacts and the authorities would want to destroy
anything they found. It is likely that few early items would have survived the period intact, and the chances of any surviving another 1600
years must be slim.
10 months ago
Like
Repl
Rob: What I expect is unambiguous evidence for unambiguous claims. For example, you claim here "Christains were being widely
persecuted by the Roman (and Jewish) authorities, so the Christians would want to disguise and hide their artefacts and the
authorities would want to destroy anything they found."
I therefore expect you to support your unambiguous claims - for Christians, their "persecutions" (as opposed to mere prosecution
under Roman law), and that Romans needed to try and hide the evidences of their legal processes - with unambiguous evidence.
Where is it?
10 months ago in repl to RobM
Like
Repl
CR
So, RobM, you know of these 'persecutions' because the evidence was hidden? I don't follow your logic. For you to claim there were
persecutions, you need reliable evidence - as the author of this piece is saying.
We have records for Diocletian prosecuting Manicheans and the contemporaneous written records of this Faith mention a 'Jesus Chrest':
://
...
"The form 'Chrestos', that is "Jesus the Good," is found throughout the text. (Emerging from darkness: studies in the recovery of
Manichaean sources By Paul Allan Mirecki, Jason BeDuhn, Volume 43 of Nag Hammadi and Manichaean studies, BRILL, 1997)"
It is possible that the prosecution of Manichaeans was conflated in the 4th century with the Chrestians of the 3rd century, called Christian in
the 4th. This would explain how we have legal records for Manichaeans and Chrestians being prosecuted, but none for Christians.
Either way, as every town in the empire had to declare its loyalty - we see an image of one such declaration, in the article above - where are
they? There ought to be many remains of these. Imperial Rome wouldn't have destroyed them - Rome demanded them displayed - so they
have gone somewhere. What do you think happened to them?
Like
Repl
9/20
19/03/2012
E
Interesting anecdote in Ammian s Marcellin s 21.16.18 about Constantius Augustus: "The plain and simple religion of the Christians he
obscured by a dotard's superstition, and by subtle and involved discussions about dogma, rather than by seriously trying to make them
agree, he aroused many controversies; and and as these spread more and more, he fed them with contentious words. And since throngs of
bishops hastened hither and thither on the public post-horses to the various synods, as they call them, while he sought to make the whole
ritual conform to his own will, he cut the sinews of the courier-service."
9 months ago
Like
Repl
E
You might be interested in this:
://
2009/I..., scroll down to the bottom and click on the photo. The inscription reads:
crux In n(omine) D(omi)ni

(Iesus) (Christ)i memoria Nadese
filia Misekor
bixit ann(os) VII
dies LX [-] req[-- 6--]ie
[---]
What the site considers "crux" has been bashed in so I can't verify for sure and "(Iesus) (Christ)i" I read as the following abbreviation: "Ihc
XPI". Again, no unambiguous evidence for "Christ". Could be "Chrest" instead.
This is from Roman Tripoli in Libya. There are
as well.
8 months ago
Like
Repl
This is another example of circular thinking being used to provide its own proof: start with a tradition, use that to interpret the
archaeology, then use the archaeology to support the claim; repeat.
In the first example here, the findspot is unrecorded, location unknown. The letters used for the title are "XP".
As the oldest texts we have use abbreviations and 'Chrest', we ought properly, I think, to assume that "XP" should read "Chrest".
Here's a challenge: what reliably-dated archaeology do we have for the first clear, unambiguous use of the term "Christ" - when does
it first appear in a "Christian" context?
8 months ago in repl to Edward
Like
Repl
E
First clear, unambiguous use of the term "Christ?" Apart from a magical amulet that has been assessed to date from the
2nd or 3rd Century CE I have not found anything. And even the gem itself is iffy.
The inscription reads, "IE -- AT HPIH COX -- PICTE" which becomes IE ATHP IHCO XPICTE, in
essence "Yie Pater Iesou Christe". But it also mentions Egyptian names Badetophoth and Satraperkmepthe, which are
names of Egyptian occult names. It also portrays "Christe" in a humiliating pose on the cross; it looks like he is hanging
while impaled from underneath. Obviously, this gem is not Chrestian (or Christian for that matter) and therefore XPICTE
could be a misspelling of XRHCTE.
There is also a reference to "Christians" in Pompeii that referred to them as cruel haters. Obviously written by a nonChristian hand. It was scribbled in charcoal just before the volcano blew up, but then again, "Christiani" could have been a
misspelling of "Chrestiani" which may have been derived to mean bankers from the Greek (chrestai) meaning
creditors, duns or usurers and also debtors (LSJ Lexicon).
E
10/20
19/03/2012
5 months ago in repl to Histor Hunters International
Like
Repl
Like
Repl
Screen
clipping taken: 18/10/2011, 02:02 PM
5 months ago
Let me first apologize for the below extract if it appears too long and for the caps on some titles. This is done to capture the conversation
about the above topic in its entirety and to assist the comprehension of the readers responding. These are posted here in the hope that the
authors may respond if their time allows it.
In an attempt to discover responses to the authors of this sites statement that:
"To be more definitive: we have not found a single usage of the term 'Christ' in any text, sacred or otherwise, which can be dated directly to
any time before the 4th century"
The following responses where offered in response [these are full quotes from the conversation]:
Sources:
://
. ...
QUOTE FROM HISTORY HUNTERS

"Not a single artefact of any medium including textual and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as
Christian. This is the most notable result of our archaeological survey of sites, inscriptions, libraries, collections and so on from the Indus
River to the Nile and north to Britain.Taking into account the vast volume of scholarly works claiming expert opinion for the exact opposite
point of view, let me clarify terms.There is, of course, much archaeology interpreted commonly as Christian. This does not contradict the
bald statement above. The difference lies between data that spells out Christian clearly and unambiguously, and that which expert opinion
claims to look as though it is Christian.There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though
the documents themselves are not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus
Christ, or the term Christian.""The greatest challenge faced by scholarship in this field is to escape the glittering web of false
assumptions and rather, to ground thinking within a secure framework of reliable archaeology. This will lead to profound change. The history
of the Roman Empire how it came into being, how it related to both Judaism and the panhellenic world, and how it moved into the
Byzantine period begs revision. The history of divine men has yet to be written."
RESPONSE #1
lol @ website. For those interested, the multiple levels of fail begin with appeals to HP Blavatsky, of Theosophist fame. I expect this site to
be seized on with glee by Neil Godfrey and Earl Doherty, who will no doubt praise its scholarly value.
RESPONSE #2
'Including textual'? Seriously? This is so stupid, even stupid people know it's stupid.
RESPONSE #3
G'day documentus, welcome to this forum. Do you intend to hang around? If so, it might be helpful to provide some basis for what you are
saying. For example:"Not a single artefact of any medium including textual and dated reliably before the fourth century can be
unambiguously identified as Christian"From my reading, I cannot think of a single historian who would agree with this. So are you interested
in historical evidence?
MYRESPONSE TO THE ABOVE
11/20
19/03/2012
"There is no appeals to HP Blavatsky, the context of what the author was saying is as follows:
----quote from Blavatsky in context--Further, let everyone read it for themselves and offer any evidence against what the author is saying. It has been said that Newton was very
interested in Alchemy and the Bible yet it was his scientific theories(facts) that are at the foundations of modern science. His musings on
Alchemy and the Bible have no categorically no value!
"
MYRESPONSE#2
It what way is it stupid? Did you see the actual texts the author cited:
Could you please offer textual sources that would correct this 'stupid' as you call it.
RESPONSE #4
"1. The Greek word translated in English as "Christ" is itself a translation of the Hebrew "Messiah", and there are many, many uses of that
word, in both Jewish and Christian writings. For example, Josephus, writing in the late first century says: "so he assembled the sanhedrin of
judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others". Likewise Paul's
letters, most of whom historians accept were written by him in the middle of the first century, obviously mention Jesus and Messiah.2. Your
claim appears to be not only that the word "Christ" doesn't appear, but that "Not a single artefact of any medium including textual and
dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as Christian." What then do you make of the Rylands papyrus P52,
dated to the first half of the second century, and which contains a small section of text from John's Gospel which reads:the Jews, "For us it
is not permitted to killanyone," so that the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he sp-oke signifying what kind of death he was going todie.
Entered therefore again into the Praeto-rium Pilate and summoned Jesusand said to him, "Thou art king of theJews?"This indicates that
John's gospel, one of the most developed pieces of christian theology at the time and surely a christian textual artefact, was around in the
early second century.So what exactly do you mean? Do you not accept that these, and many, many other documents, are christian, or that
they are first and second century, or what?"
RESPONSE #5
Quote:There is no appeals to HP Blavatsky, the context of what the author was saying is as follows:What follows is a large quotation from
Blavatsky in an attempt to support the claims of the website. The quotation from Blavatsky is complete nonsense, not because she was
religious, but because it's factually wrong. The problem here is not only appealing to someone completely unqualified in the relevant fields,
but also to someone who is demonstrably wrong.Quote:Further, let everyone read it for themselves and offer any evidence against what the
author is saying.
Sure; read a standard professional Greek lexicon and see what it says about the words 'Christ' and 'Christian'.Quote:It has been said that
Newton was very interested in Alchemy and the Bible yet it was his scientific theories(facts) that are at the foundations of modern science.
His musings on Alchemy and the Bible have no categorically no value!As I have said, I am not objecting to Blavatsky on the basis that she
was religious.
RESPONSE #6
Sure: every piece of Christian literature written before the 4th Century - and there's a lot of it. Where do you think it all came from? Who
wrote it? For what purpose?Even if it was true that the word 'Christ' and 'Christians' do not appear in any pre-4th Century manuscript, how
does this prove Christianity did not exist? 'Christian' was a rarely used term anyway, and only appears two or three times in the entire NT.
This is a classic case of arbitrarily defining parameters as narrowly as possible in order to exclude evidence that would otherwise disprove
the claim being made.The conspiracy theory touted by 'History Hunters International' is not a new one. Every now and then it is revived by
some crank who believes he knows better than the experts. A recent example is Peter R. F. Brown (
) who
audaciously submitted his work to the Journal of Hellenic Studies.The reply was as follows:Quote:Dear Dr Brown,I have now had the
referee's report on your article, which I attach. As you will see, they are unable to recommend publication in JHS, so I am afraid that we will
not be able to publish the piece. I hope the reports are self-explanatory and helpful.I am sorry the outcome has not been happier, but I am
grateful to you for thinking of JHS as a place to publish.Yours sincerely,Angus Bowie________________________________________Dr
A.M. Bowie,Lobel Praelector in Classics.Editor of the Journal of Hellenic Studies.The Queen's College, Oxford, OX1 4AW.Tel. + 44 (0)1865
279172 (personal)+ 44 (0)1865 279120 (switchboard)+ 44 (0)1865 790819 (fax)REFEREE'S REPORT on THESISBROWN ON
CONSTANTINES INVENTION OF CHRISTIANITYThis is a revival of the theses of Athanasius Kircher and the Abb Hardouin, who (in the
hope of disarming the protestant appeal to primitive Christianity) argued that the whole corpus of ancient literature, including the Fathers, up
to about 900 A.D. is a forgery. The reasoning of Kircher was based on the absence of numismatic corroboration for the written
testimonies.The argument has never been regarded as anything more than a curiosity, since it presupposes a quite stupendous power of
obliteration which the rulers of ancient empires could not have possessed. Furthermore, the argument is based almost entirely on the
absence of substantiating evidence rather than on positive contradiction of the scribal record in the archaeological remains.Even if such
positive contradiction were discovered, it would not of course be decisive, as inscriptions and coins can be at least as duplicitous as books
more so, perhaps, since the very production of them is an indication that the author is in a position of power and means to retain it.The
present work improves on Hardouin and Kircher, of course, in its knowledge of epigraphic sources, and some of these, for all I know, may be
handled here with originality. The paucity of epigraphic evidence for early Christianity is, of course, commonly admitted, but this has not led
most scholars to argue that the entire corpus of Christian literature before 325 is a fabrication.If it were, one would have expected the forgers
12/20
19/03/2012
to carry out the enterprise with some doctrinal consistency: why fabricate heretical writings in the name of Origen, for example, while
continuing to appeal to his authority? Why compose the gospels in a homely and obscure idiom which could not fail to bring the authors
into disrepute among cultivated readers? Why were orthodox writers after Nicaea repeatedly embarrassed by the discovery of tenets
contradictory to their own in venerable predecessors?Archaeological data are never self-interpreting, and since they are generally fortuitous
survivals they are even less likely to be representative than the literary texts that have been handed down to us by a deliberate process of
canonisation. The assumption that they can be used to construct a history independent of literary sources is surely fallacious.The
fundamental fallacies are compounded in this book by wilful embellishment of such textual evidence as the author deigns to adduce in
support of his case. Julian is accusing the evangelists of fiction, rather than imputing a wholesale forgery to Constantine (whom he would
have incriminated if he could); Constantines admission that the Sibylline oracles were accused of forgery is hardly proof that the
authenticity of all other texts had been impugned.The scholarship is certainly superior to that of The Da Vinci Code, and the boldness of the
argument will guarantee it a hearing, but not any distinguished organ of academic research.I see no evidence that 'History Hunters
International' have improved on Mr Brown's amateurish efforts. Incidentally, Brown is not a Dr in any sense of the word (you can check his
CV here:
_ _ ... ) but apparently thought it might help his chances if he told JHS that he was.
RESPONSE # 7
Here are some of the arguments made.1. Pliny's correspondence apparently referring to Christians only survive in one very late medieval
manuscript. Because this manuscript is very late, it is unreliable and does not show us what Pliny originally wrote. The original reading was
actually 'Chrestians', which was changed to 'Christians' by later Christian copyists. No evidence is supplied to prove this claim.2. Most of
the New Testament was written by servants of the Flavian emperors. Vespasian and Titus in particular, employed a large number of men to
write histories which would become used as the basis of the New Testament documents. The New Testament books could not have been
written and distributed without imperial consent and assistance, since 'it was impossible for any philosopher, much less slave, in this period
to write, publish and gain a readership outside the authority of the court'. No evidence is supplied to support this claim.3. The canonical
gospels are 'Roman-inspired black propaganda, belonging to the reign of the emperor Hadrian and published with the approval of the imperial
court'. No evidence is supplied to support this claim.4. The works of Robert Eisenman ('James the brother of Jesus' and 'The New Testament
Code'), and Joseph Atwill ('Caesar's Messiah', referred to as a 'ground-breaking work'), are appealed to as 'modern, scholarly views'. In
reality, Eisenman's works are considered highly eccentric by modern scholarship, and Atwill's work is dismissed completely. Even Robert
Price (to whom this site appeals as an authority), ridiculed Atwill's work in his review of it[link to amazon].* 'Such a statement is only a
damning self-condemnation, revealing the authors own absolute inability to appreciate what he is reading'* 'Of such airy bricks is Atwills
cloudy castle built'* 'No, it is Atwill himself whose creation demonstrates the limitless possibilities of perverse and gratuitous interpretations
of the text'* 'The reading given here is just ludicrous'
RESPONSE #8
Oh good grief, it's the old 'Flavian mafia made it all up' conspiracy theory. Not even unique; not even interesting.
RESPONSE #9
Yes, just another spin on the completely insignificant work of Abelard Reuchlin.
3 months ago
Like
Repl
Many thanks, documentus, for this summary of responses from another place, which illuminate how nobody has yet been able to offer even
the slightest evidence for the appearance of 'Christ' in any form (e.g "Jesus Christ", "Christian" and "Christianity") in any medium dated
reliably before the 4th century. (I venture to suggest that the apologists demonstrate that they cannot, as they squirm to evade the issue.)
I like this response particularly, telling how so much of Faith is based on false assumptions:
"Sure: every piece of Christian literature written before the 4th Century - and there's a lot of it. Where do you think it all came from? Who
wrote it? For what purpose?Even if it was true that the word 'Christ' and 'Christians' do not appear in any pre-4th Century manuscript, how
does this prove Christianity did not exist?"If there were to be so much early literature, then referencing it would be easy, would it not? That
nobody can do so is simply because it does not exist and instead, is assumed from the acceptance of the literature by the purported
'Eusebius of Caesarea', a nom de plume with no substance in the early 4th century whatsoever. That's right: there is no historicity for this
character - his existence is also a matter of faith. That's the meaning of the term "glittering web" - a mass of self-supporting crossreferences with no substance.
Since writing the above piece, I would push the boundary a little further, with the suggestion that the earliest biblical texts to use 'Christ' are
from the 5th century:
1. The Arian bible - Codex Argenteus (
2. Codex Alexandrinus (
://
://
.
.
/C
... and
/C....
I would continue to await somebody to present something substantial to refute my observation, but I'm not optimistic and I won't be holding
my breath. Meanwhile, let the apologists continue to squirm.
Best regards,
13/20
19/03/2012
John
3 months ago 1 Like
Like
Repl
HHI,
I note your failure to address any of the points which have been raised thus far. I appreciate there are many of them, and it may take you
some time. But you will need to come up with a substantive reply. What you have posted so far is not a substantive reply. Instead of
addressing the evidence you have merely repeated your argument.
>>
I like this response particularly, telling how so much of Faith is based on false assumptions
>>
Where is the false assumption here? You make the claim but offer no proof.
You are of course aware that there is currently a vast body of evidence universally accepted by academic consensus (both religious and
secular) as clear and unambiguous evidence of Christianity and Christians before the 4th Century. This includes manuscripts, non-Christian
references to Christians and Christianity, and religious artwork. The burden of proof lies upon you to disprove this body of evidence. To date I
have seen no argument on this site that disproves the evidence.
>>
If there were to be so much early literature, then referencing it would be easy, would it not?
>>
Absolutely, and you are doubtless aware of it but I'll indulge you for a moment. Here's a list of early documents providing evidence for pre-4th
Century Christianity:
Please address each one separately and explain why we should reject it.
The
biggest question is one which your site apparently makes no attempt to
answer: what would you accept as evidence of Christianity before the 4th Century? Please define this clearly, as it is critical to your thesis.
3 months ago
Like
Repl
Dear Dave,
Though you have not registered in order to comment, which is remiss of you, I have allowed it to appear.
You have published elsewhere about yourself, your faith, and your long experience in debating issues which interest you.
(
://
/2010/02/0... I have no obligation and feel no compunction in enjoining what tends to be an endless battle of
words and wits. Rather, I will stick to the thrust of this post:
> Not a single artefact of any medium -- including textual -- and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously
identified as Christian. This is the most notable result of our archaeological survey of sites, inscriptions, libraries, collections and so
on from the Indus River to the Nile and north to Britain.
> Taking into account the vast volume of scholarly works claiming expert opinion for the exact opposite point of view, let me clarify
terms.
> There is, of course, much archaeology interpreted commonly as Christian. This does not contradict the bald statement above. The
difference lies between data that spells out Christian clearly and unambiguously, and that which expert opinion claims to look as
though it is Christian.
> There are very many texts claimed to be Christian and composed before the fourth century, though the documents themselves are
not dated to that early period. We have found no text before the fourth century which mentions either Jesus Christ, or the term
Christian.
As I mentioned earlier, I now suggest that this vacuum of evidence extends to the 5th century.
The proper refutation of this would be, of course, to present some evidence and see if I can deny that it mentions "Christ" in some
form and that it is dated reliably. Nothing less will serve.
I will not allow this post and discussion to be diverted much beyond that, your debating tactics not withstanding.
14/20
19/03/2012
Should I, for example, serve the purpose of the apologists by presenting the arguments made in order to interpret archaeology as
Christian? I think not. There is much archaeology dated reasonably reliably to the early centuries and interpreted as Christian - I
have mentioned this already - but as it fails to mention 'Christ' in any form and fails to convince me as being "clearly and
unambiguously" Christian, my observation does not need it.
You (and anyone else) are welcome to present archaeology that may seem to refute my observation and then I may respond to that.
I hope this is clear to you.
All the best,
John
3 months ago in repl to Dave Burke
Like
Repl
Hi John, I did not see registration option. I have signed in with my Google account, which I hope is OK.
You say:
>>
Not a single artefact of any medium -- including textual -- and dated reliably before the fourth century can be unambiguously identified as
Christian. This is the most notable result of our archaeological survey of sites, inscriptions, libraries, collections and so on from the Indus
River to the Nile and north to Britain.
>>
'Unambiguously identified as Christian' sounds like weasel words (
://
. / CB F) to me. What are your criteria for determining if
something is Christian or not? I have not found them listed anywhere on your website (it's possible I've overlooked them somehow). Do you
have a falsifiable position? If so, what would falsify it? Currently your thesis looks like a lengthy rendition of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy
(
://
. / M UF2).
>>
The proper refutation of this would be, of course, to present some evidence and see if I can deny that it mentions "Christ" in some form and
that it is dated reliably. Nothing less will serve.
>>
Why will nothing less serve? Is this your sole criterion for determining whether something is Christian or not? If so, why? If not, what are
your other criteria and why did you choose them? Your reference to evidence being 'dated reliably' begs the question: what dating methods
do you consider reliable? From what I have read so far you appear to dismiss paleography on an ad hoc basis, which does not strike me as
an objective approach.
At the moment your method seems to be:
(a) select a single, extraordinarily narrow criterion and insist this it is only legitimate criterion, thereby excluding a vast swathe of data
contrary to your thesis
(b) dismiss any dating method which risks falsifying your thesis
I am open to correction on these points.
>>
Should I, for example, serve the purpose of the apologists by presenting the arguments made in order to interpret archaeology as Christian?
>>
That is not what I asked. I asked how *you* would determining if something was Christian or not. Do you have a systematic method for this
purpose? You need one, because how else will you assess the data?
May I presume you have submitted your theory to the rigours of peer review? I would be interested to see a list of relevant peer reviewed
journals which have published your work, and any responses from professional academics in an appropriate field.
>>
There is much archaeology dated reasonably reliably to the early centuries and interpreted as Christian - I have mentioned this already - but
as it fails to mention 'Christ' in any form and fails to convince me as being "clearly and unambiguously" Christian
>>
Please prove this assertion. I do not find it substantiated on your website.
3 months ago
Like
Repl
15/20
19/03/2012
Dear Dave,
First, I owe you some thanks, primarily for taking an interest in our studies at HHI (and also for registering). Also, I like your
questioning attitude, for this is surely a good approach to a subject.
I should also admit that I can be wrong - at times in my studies, I have blundered, but more importantly, this study here began as a
blog to record progress and so reflected a slow development of thought. Today, my views have changed substantially from my
starting position here, and that has also changed dramatically over the decades of study, before I wrote anything. My colleague and
I have discussed deleting this whole site and starting afresh and one day, perhaps we shall do this.
This subject - divine men in Classical Antiquity - is not my main field of interest in archaeology. And although it may seem from
some recent articles that I have an interest in Christian origins, that is not really the case - I have little interest in Christianity. 'Jesus
Christ' is just one of very many divine men in this period. I am just as interested in how Buddha, Pythagoras and Alexander (as well
as many others) came into existence as divine men. I should note at this point that some or all of these may have had some sort of
historical existence in earlier times - and this is one of the major complications we face. There are also different classes of divine
men, so that, for example, Roman emperors may be regarded as 'divine men' but of a different type to, say, Buddha and other
religious figures; but then again, maybe not so different and there lies another complexity.
Some of my colleagues publish in peer-reviewed journals, but so far, I have resisted. This is to change in the coming weeks.
Frankly, I do not like peer-review in this field, for I regard it as seriously skewed, to become unreliable. In my view, 'authority' is one
of the ways by which so much is generally regarded as 'fact' when it is scholarly opinion and wrong.
Perhaps I have been wrong to adopt the position of "the emperor has no clothes" and then ask for evidence that he has some. I can
say, however, that I have asked - challenged even - quite a large number of reputable scholars to either provide data to refute my
'vacuity' position, or just to learn their own position. I was aware how dangerous it is to say nothing exists, when even one piece of
reliable data could shatter the position.
It is not difficult to find claims for Christian archaeology in the early centuries, for anyone who is either interested, or desiring to
challenge our position, and I have mentioned it in HHI. We have treated, for example, gospel texts. I have mentioned claims for early
'churches' and showed a mosaic claimed to mention 'Jesus Christ' which actually has 'Krest/Chrest'.
If we had merely found nothing with 'Christ', then the position we adopt would be somewhat different. Instead, we found 'Is/Isu/Isa
Chrest' and the same divine figure in Manicheism of the 3rd century. This is just one small part of a larger history which we study,
for it is becoming apparent to us that this comes from the East, from Mesopotamia and beyond. From our perspective, Christianity
is medieval and derives from something else, with roots going back into the past era. Our interest now is in trying to describe this
and then, and only then, treating properly the development of various religions, including Christianity.
Dates: this is not a simple matter of just choosing a technology, or methodology which we can all agree is accurate. First, there are
the archaeological basics such as provenance and it is a pity that most 'biblical' texts fail to have any. Then there is the question of
security - does it comes from a secure layer and can the layer be dated, perhaps by other aretfacts or means? As for the different
dating technologies, they all come with caveats and limitations. Another factor is the ability of the archaeologist to interpret and I
have seen numerous examples of false assumptions being used. As a result, I try to treat each individually. That said, I have noticed
that with NT texts, there are regular attempts to try and force an ever-earlier date, closer to the time of the setting of the texts.
However, other than dating the canonical gospels, I think dating of artefacts is not the main problem for the historicity question.
More telling, I think, is that these texts do not contain a 'Jesus Christ'; that the history of the Church is based on the assumption
that the authors of them existed, existed in the time claimed, are who they claim to be and read the texts they claimed to have
used. That's a lot of assuming for a reliable history - and too much for me.
Sorry if this is not all you are looking for and I promise to not give up on this thread. Thanks again and
Best regards,
John
3 months ago in repl to Dave Burke
1 Like
Like
Repl
M
But there are lots of early Christian documents:
://
...
The Early New Testament Papyri: A Survey of Their Significance

L. W. Hurtado (University of Edinburgh)
"In this presentation, therefore, I focus on the 49
16/20
19/03/2012
NT papyri and two parchment manuscripts (0189, 0220) palaeographically dated to the
2nd or 3rd century CE, giving some key information about them, and highlighting the
principal historical issues on which they uniquely shed light."
But most of them refer to Christ by the nomina sacra?:
The earliest Christian artifacts: manuscripts and Christian origins
By Larry W. Hurtado
://
...
Your "logic" is:

Early Christian documents should refer to "Christ" in full rather than another form
Supposed early Christian documents do not do this.
These documents are not Christian.
Christ and Christians did not exist.
3 months ago
Like
Repl
Dear Michael,
Perhaps you would be so kind as to select something from that source and present it here. I examined it whilst researching my
article and did not find reliable evidence for 'Christ' etc.
My logic, by the way, is not quite as simple as you present, for having found the "vacuum" I mentioned, I also found much data for
Chrest.
Do you have an explanation for the lack of 'Jesus Christ' in the earliest codices of the New Testament? And the lack of any
contemporaneous evidence for Eusebius of Caesarea, Origen and other "Christians"? I find it odd - to say the least - that anyone
should accept the existence of people who left no 'footprint' in the world and rely, instead on later, unsupported claims.
Best regards,
John
3 months ago in repl to Michael
Like
Repl
Like
Repl
"Do you have an explanation for the lack of 'Jesus Christ' in the earliest codices of the New Testament?"
Yes, as explained in my post, the codices refer to Christ by the nomina sacra.
Do you understand what the nomina sacra are?
3 months ago in repl to Histor Hunters International
Please check the images I posted to avoid such a simple and wrong claim; yes, Codex Vaticanus uses
abbreviations which you term (in Latin) "nomina sacra", though Codex Sinaiticus, which I believe scholarship
generally regards as the version commission for Constantine I, does not, for it spells out both the name and title "Chrest".
As an aside, I think you are wrong to use the term "nomina sacra" here, for this is not a religious site (as you surely
understand). A thing is what it is and in this case, an abbreviation.
I am not sure quite on what basis you might think I would not understand this term. "Chi Rho" has an interesting
archaeology dating well into the past era and is not a Christian symbol in the 4th century, though used famously by
Constantine and by Ptolemy III:
://
://
.
.
/
/
...
/ ...
This symbol will feature in the article my colleague and I are now preparing, in the context of Bactria and
17/20
19/03/2012
Mesopotamia in the early 1st century CE.

The archaeology looks to me as though the 'Jesus Christ' of the fifth century emerges from (a) Chi Rho and (b) a
first-century king using various royal titles such as "Saviour" (Soter) and "Good" (Chrest) - and this king may well be
Jewish, but he is clearly not of Judea (for we know the Herodian dynasty quite well).
3 months ago in repl to Michael
Like
Repl
I
Dear History Hunter John,
It should be mentioned that Codex Sinaiticus also used the nomina sacra, referred to as abbreviations to you, when referring to Jesus and it
indeed uses the eta spelling for Christian(s). But the iota spelling is used in Antichrist in the following verses:
1 John 2:18:
://
1 John 2:22:
://
2 John 1:7:
://
/...
/...
/...
Could you explain why the followers of Chrest would fear somebody named the Antichrist instead of the Antichrest if your theory is correct?
Kind regards.
3 months ago
Like
Repl
DP
Nomina Sacra are case sensitive in the hands of some scribes. In this particular case it appears that Sinaiticus scribe A declined the
nomen sacrum for IS XS (nom.) to the accusative masculine singular form IN XN.
So in the case of 2 John 7 we have: ,
. (my color-coding does not appear in this comment option, so to be clear - the N endings terminating the
declension of give us IN and XN - excuse the short hand).
The second element concerning the antichrist is a very perceptive and wonderful question and stands entirely to your credit
Ignorantianescia. John and I appreciate a well-aimed incisive inquiry that moves the discussion forward. I should also take this opportunity to
state categorically that I do not pretend to have all the answers for such a challenging topic of history. The antichrist question raised here
definitely highlights an important topic that I have not exhausted with respect to its relation to the HHI thesis. So again Ignorantianescia, or
perhaps the not-so-Ignorantianescia, on behalf of John and myself, thank you.
To your question:
The Johannine Epistles (1 & 2): first, the traditional scholarly view holds that the Antichrist myth as a literary type in Christianity formed in
the third century CE (between 180-33). For a discussion of what background material aside from textual artifacts informs my view see:
Gregory C. Jenks, The Origins and Early Development of the Antichrist Myth, (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter & Co., 1990).
Within the NT and Sinaiticus, the term antichrist is confined to the Johannine literature that Ignorantianescia cites. On the basis of the
Johannine evidence, traditional NT textual criticism holds that the antichrist figure dates to the NT period and early. Yet close examination
of the MSS transmission allows one to trace original textual artifacts (papyri and parchments) only as far back in time as the late (very late)
antiquity or the early medieval period. Our research indicates that Sinaiticus may well prove to be the earliest textual artifact containing the
term antichrist. That it occurs in a work where the lexeme root chrest- is adjusted to read Christ- is consistent with the redactive intent of
Sinaiticus as a work that focuses Christianity on the figure Jesus Christ. That his additive inverse appears in the form of antichrist is as
symmetrical as it is theoLogical.
HHI takes the rather strict and for many inconvenient approach that a textual artifact (papyrus, parchment, inscription, etc.) be produced and
cited in order to advance a date for the use of a term or existence of a figure. Under these constraints, we have no physical textual artifacts
containing the actual and complete passages in question (1 &2 John) that are dated earlier than the fourth century CE. Relying on the rule
of using only a physical text as a true and proper object of dating, it is not possible to establish an accurate date for these Johannine
Epistles earlier than their presence in perhaps Sinaiticus itself. Unfortunately, we have not yet recovered textual artifacts from the first three
centuries CE for 1 & 2 John. (I will discuss Uncial 0232 below).
18/20
19/03/2012
If you have read through some of the HHI site, you are aware of our view of the very fascinating and valuable artifact P52.
Textual criticism is used to extrapolate assumed earlier versions of these narratives into the first century CE. At this juncture, the existence
of canonical 1 & 2 John, in the first and second century CE is really a question of faith and not science. When some present Early
Christian Writings as evidence for pre-4th century CE source material for Christianity, they often fail to examine the scholarly apparatus
within the links to expert secondary sources wherein a scholar discusses the issues of the manuscript transmission for the documents. In
the majority of cases, the oldest complete or nearly complete physical textual artifact in the form of a MS dates into the early medieval
period and no earlier. In several fortunate and remarkable cases, we have papyri fragments or parchment bits attesting to early Christian
writings; however, none of these artifacts is securely dated to the early centuries of Christianity.
Assuming for the sake of argument that traditional timeline holds there are points to be studied: there is a silence in the traditional record
between the appearance of the term antichrist in Johannine documents and those next occurrences usually cited in Irenaeus traditionally
a century later. The only possible exception to this that comes to mind is Polycarp (Phil. 7:1, but here again it is a Johannine Epistle being
cited). Origen cites the lexeme explicitly in Cels.VI. 45. however, we have a major and familiar problem in that all the physical mss.
artifacts terminate at the transition from late antiquity to that of the early medieval: Harnack debunked some very hopeful-looking Irenaeus
material and most of what we know of this figure is highly dependent on Eusebius. We do have P. Oxyrhynchus 405, identified as fragments
of a letter by Irenaeus and dated paleographically to a range between middle 3rdand very-late 2nd-century CE, and the scholarship seems
to follow Greenfell and Hunt. However, P. Oxyrh. 405 records neither Christ nor Antichrist and the matter rests with respect to the present
discussion. By way of aside, papyri fragments such as these are of the highest importance in resolving the issues HHI presents to the
public: these are artifacts, they hold text related to the problem, and there exists the possibility that they may be recovered from secure
contexts and strata. Unfortunately, because these best potential witnesses are fragments in most cases without clear provenance, we have
no opportunity to weigh the scale of difference between these papyri artifacts and the medieval mss purportedly containing accurate copies
of the earlier material.
We have but two early Eusebius HE mss and they date to the 5th and 6th century CE. Siglum B, Russia: St. Petersburg, Public Library,
appears to have an actual denoted date within the text equating to 462 CE. All other variants of the HE are medieval, profoundly medieval.
What we know of Polycarp derives from Greek mss. sigla b, p, s, and v. These are all of 10th and 11th century CE provenance.
Paleographers and textual critics extrapolate non-existent earlier variants dating to the 4th century CE. This leaves us with Origen. As far
as I am aware, all of the mss. of Contra Celsum derive from a single parent ms: Apostolica. Codex Vaticanus Graecus 386. This ms dates
to the 13th century C.E.
The art of textual criticism, however noble and necessary, is yet an art and not yet a science.
The More or Less Hard Evidence
As far as I am aware, outside of Sinaiticus, the earliest artifact for 1 & 2 John is Uncial 0232. The MSS is dated paleographically to the 5th
or 6th century C.E. This may be dispensed with as suitably late to precede the chrest form. That leaves only Sinaiticus itself as an artifact
attesting the lexeme antichrist. The question then rests on the date of manufacture for the Johannine material in the codex itself. The best
paleographical arguments date the codex between the first quarter of the fourth century CE and about 360 CE (as you already well know). I
do not have an image for uncial 0232 and we are not yet able to see if the ms reads antichrest/christ - but this does not, to my mind,
change our position given the late date of uncial 0232 and the consensus date for Sinaiticus.
Sinaiticus scribes A, B, & D are working late by traditional reckoning on standardizing a biblical text. Dirk Jongkind, who writes on
Sinaiticus fairly recently, gives this summary on the subject of iotacisms or itacisms:
"Our short study has broadly confirmed the remarks of Milne and Skeat on orthographic errors. We have sought to quantify the exact
differences between the three scribes. The characteristic patterns turned out to be less stable than one would have expected [and why is
that?]. In Matthew, scribe A shows a remarkable deterioration over the length of two quires. What exactly caused this change remains
unclear. Scribes A and B make the error of substituting the longer for the shorter form more often than the reverse for the the I EI and E
AI pair. Though scribe D also does this, he does so to a lesser degree. His number of changes of EI for I is higher than for the other
scribes. However, overall, he has the least number of examples of orthographic errors in his work." (Jongkind, Dirk (2007). Scribal Habits of
Codex Sinaiticus, Gorgias Press LLC, p. 94).
Traditional scholarship peddles the thesis very successfully that the hallmark of evolution from written ancient to written Modern Greek is the
convergence of vowels and diphthongs. The circumstances surrounding the copying and compiling of Sinaiticus appears appears to indicate
Scribes A and D were copying MSS wherein there were divergent handling of eta and iota. The mistake is to limit the discussion to
itacisms. I am compelled to remark that the scribe who appears to be the overall adjuster of text, scribe D, executes the least number of
errors and undertakes the highest number eta to iota changes. One may advance the usual itacism theory and rest smug next to the
academic fire. However, itacisms do not explain the adjustment of eta to iota where there is no diphthong within the lexeme as we find in
Chrest-/Christ-. Scribe D (or some other skilled redactor) intentionally substitutes one monothong for another. One may not argue that the
scribe is making room to squeeze text into a quire for in several examples we have put forward no space is saved. We are free advance the
hypothesis that a difference or change in original meaning is to be affected. There are opposing points of view, however, this is our position.
Therefore, since we present evidence of chrestians, we seek to determine who and what this class represents historically and how this
class appears in the archaeological record.
19/20
19/03/2012
1 & 2 John: based on an artifact approach to the NT, the trend is to date these mss late. these are evolving into products of late-antiquity
or the early medieval. I believe uncial 0232 was found at Antinopolis and there is some disagreement concerning dates with the usual
pressure to date early. Whereas earlier paleographers assigned a date of 3rd-4th century CE, the INTF (Institut fr neutestamentliche
Textforschung) now assigns the 5th-6th century CE date. No one yet desires to confront in writing what the revised dates for uncial 0232
may indicate for Sinaiticus composed beyond the reign of Constantine.
The lexeme antichrist is found in Sinaiticus only in 1 & 2 John so far as I am aware. The earliest independent artifact attesting to 1 & 2
John outside of Sinaticus is the 5th-6th century uncial 0232. We assert Christ is a late form and the appearance of Antichrist should
parallel this late appearance. By our method the attested range that results is therefore fourth to sixth century CE.
There is some question regarding the appearance of the lexeme antichrist in Jewish literature (the anti-messiah of Daniel). There is also the
long lexical history of the antibasileus. However, this is beyond the scope of this discussion for the moment.
One point John & I want to make very, very, clear: HHI does not argue that I S never existed. HHI argues that Christianity centered on a
Jesus Christ as described in the canonical NT did not exist in an incontestable form until at least the 4th century CE. HHI asserts that
there is a precursor to this Orthodox Christianity. For the moment, we denote this collection of beliefs and practices as chrestiantiy and its
followers chrestians. There is something within the archaeological textual record that is as beautiful and magnificent as it is tantalizing and
elusive. John and I fully expect that papyri and parchments related to chrestianity, as well as other classes of artifacts, dating to centuries
earlier than the fourth CE, to come to light. However, HHI challenges the archaeological community to put forward hard evidence for a
Christianity centered on Jesus Christ prior to this fourth century divide.
In summary, you asked the question: why would followers of Chrest, let us call them Chrestians for the moment, fear an Antichrist and not
an Antichrest?
I will play along in the spirit of the season and say that I am not sure chrestians would fear an Antichrist any more so than they would love a
Jesus Christ. I say this because at this stage, I am not certain the two groups (4th century Christians and chrestians) are, strictly speaking,
contemporaneous, geographically contiguous with each other, or equal in terms of political power within the Roman Empire during the time
traditionally assigned for the writing of Sinaiticus.
I hope I convey a bit of the sense of wonder and humility with which I approach this complex problem and trust that, while hardly definitive,
this answer will be seen as an honest and serious attempt to treat your interesting question.
Very Kind Regards and Best Wishes this Holiday Season - David
(Edited by a moderator)
3 months ago 2 Likes
M Subscribe by email
Like
Repl
RSS
Trackback URL http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2011/03/06/the-vacuum-of-evidence-for-pre-4th-century-christianity/trackback/
20/20

The Vacuum of Evidence For Pre-4th Century Christianity History Hunters International PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Vacuum of Evidence For Pre-4th Century Christianity History Hunters International PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

19/03/2012

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

By John, on March 6th, 2011

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

Order to arrest a Chrestian: 28 February, 256 CE

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

are any indication, that time would be a long way off:

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

Sort by oldest first

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

11 months ago 2 Likes

Quite right, Edward and thanks, again.

11 months ago 1 Like

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

10 months ago 1 Like

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

crux In n(omine) D(omi)ni

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

5 months ago in repl to Histor Hunters International

QUOTE FROM HISTORY HUNTERS

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

. / CB F) to me. What are your criteria for determining if

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

The Early New Testament Papyri: A Survey of Their Significance

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

Your "logic" is:

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

Mesopotamia in the early 1st century CE.

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

The vacuum of evidence for pre-4th century Christianity

History Hunters International

Trackback URL http://historyhuntersinternational.org/2011/03/06/the-vacuum-of-evidence-for-pre-4th-century-christianity/trackback/

You might also like