Help on crucifixion of Dyonisis [Archive I]

joedad

August 22, 2003, 12:33 PM

Bede,

From my humble perspective your asserting a disconnect between magic and religion, especially in the case of Roman Catholicism, is just not there. My personal experience with Roman Catholicism seventeen or so centuries after Constantine was still filled with charms and incantations and "magical amulets" and relics, all used to achieve an end, to have some effect. Do you disagree? The only difference between magic and religion, between a magic wand or amulet and a rosary or rosary card, is that religion asserts that its own magic is real, but that other, perhaps secular magic, is not.

The ancients possessed their magical amulets that supposedly contained and conveyed certain powers. But how is this any different than walking into a catholic church today and seeing where a relic, perhaps a piece of bone, a remnant of clothing or a personal possession from a long dead saint or martyr, is stored. And when you get right down to it, the front wall of every catholic church where the crucifixion is depicted, is nothing less than an object of veneration and power. It is a giant amulet in a very real sense. It makes a connection for the believer and that connection gives power.

I don't know how it is in the UK, but here in the colonies the use of "holy cards" is still alive and well. I've never been to a catholic funeral where they were not readily available. In use, how are they substantially any different than magical amulets used by the ancients? They contain writing and prayers, images, and are certainly used in the same sense. People are possessing and exchanging them for a reason. Is not this reason the same reason the ancients possessed amulets?Bede:
Crucifixion was the lowest form of death reserved as a public chastisement of slaves, rebels and the lower classes. Consequently, it was not an image that early Christians wanted to have in their worship.Do you have a source for your conclusion that early christians avoided crucifixion iconography as a matter of personal choice? I can see how you would come to that conclusion today, but is there anything in the historical record that would bolster this position?Bede:
It was banned by Constantine who took the view that as Jesus died that way, it was too good for slaves (he preferred burning them).I did not know this about Constantine. Again, do you have a source?

As far as burning goes, I always attributed this to Augustine, but thought that the burning of heretics and dissidents and other enemies of state didn't begin until the eleventh century. Were executions by burning carried out earlier?

Burning is also interesting because burning a witch supposedly destroyed her powers by having her blood consumed by fire. If the church favored burning, it seems like the church was fighting magic with magic, and we're left with the conclusion that crucifixion was simply a form of torture and execution that went out of style because something more powerful came along, something that destroyed the magic as well as the magician.

Also, as torture, and depending upon the type of crucifixion, the victim could be kept in agony for minutes, hours, or days. Culturally, torture continued to be used by Constantine's successors in the church for centuries. So when you say,Bede:
Once the cultural memory of the practice had faded it spread into iconography as it was no longer associated with the lower orders but with Jesus. Also, when it wasn't actually happening for real it was easier to stomach the images.I think you're making a stretch about crucifixion. But I'll reserve final judgement on that one and await your source concerning Constantine's banning crucifixion.

Rick Sumner

August 22, 2003, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by joedad
So when you say,I think you're making a stretch about crucifixion. But I'll reserve final judgement on that one and await your source concerning Constantine's banning crucifixion.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Crucifixion: important method of capital punishment, particularly among the Persians, Seleucids, Jews, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, abolished it in the Roman Empire in AD 337, out of veneration for Jesus Christ, the most famous victim of crucifixion.

Regards,
Rick

joedad

August 23, 2003, 12:20 AM

Thanks Rick.

I'm looking for something with more information ... what edict?... the wording ...etc. Do you have a link for that? I keep coming up empty. I continually find it mentioned but I just want to see for myself exactly what Constantine decreed and when.

Peter Kirby

August 23, 2003, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Bede
No joedad, there are other Christian amulets showing Jesus on the cross from the same period. They are still magical but do not feature the syncretism with paganism Toto mentioned. Where can I find photos of the Christian amulets featuring Jesus on the cross?

best,
Peter Kirby

ex-xian

August 23, 2003, 04:08 AM

The thread seems to have veered a little. I would be interested in hearing someone else's opinion regarding the crucifiction of Dyonisis. Or does everyone agree that it's a myth about a myth?

Bede

August 25, 2003, 04:48 PM

Peter, page 23, Richard Kieckhefer "Magic in the Middle Ages"

Joedad,

Your reply disappointed me as it shows little effort to understand the subject at hand.

On Constantine - check out the Theodosian Code and you will find that crucifixion is not featured as a punishment. As I understand it, we can see that where crucifixion was previously stipulated, it is replaced in Constantine's reign by other penalties. Burning was the punishment for heresy as it was the punishment for treason under Roman law. See p48 Edward Peters "Inquisition".

Augustine never suggested heretics should be executed. He went no further than allowing some form of corporal punishment and even then, his opinions are debatable. Constantine was the secular Roman Emperor. He had no successors in the church. The Roman Catholic Church allowed torture in the thirteenth century after it had banned trial by ordeal in Lateran IV.

As for magic, I explained that a magician will say that their techniques will work if they are properly carried out. A religious prayer has no guarantee of success in God isn't willing. This distinctio is discussed at length by Keith Thomas in 'Religion and the Decline of Magic'. While you may not be able to tell the difference, that is simply your anachronistic judgement. At the time, people knew perfectly well which was which. Notice the highly defensive tone of such maguses as Marsilio Ficino and Pico della Mirandolla in the fifteenth century and the dire warnings by theologians like Martin del Rio. We see this right the way through the Middle Ages with spells attributed to Pelagius and Solomon dressed up precisely because their users knew exactly what canon law had to say about them. Kieckhefer (see above) has a lot more on this as does the first half of Frances Yates - Giodarno Bruno. While the sources for late antiquity are scarcer, Augustine's City of God is quite clear about the matter as it Aqunias in Summa contra Gentiles. Bk 10, ch 11 of the former tells us that figures and models are forbidden deom ic magic.

Even if religion is simplt licit magic that does not make the distinction any less clear cut from a cultural point of view. If people knew the difference they were different and no amount of rational retrospective analysis can change that.

On early Christians finding the crucifixion adhorrent we need look no further than St Paul describing it as stumbling block.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

joedad

August 26, 2003, 01:06 PM

Bede,

I've got that book coming through the local library.

On another note, and if I can accurately summarize your position, you are stating that within christianity there are no religious amulets, no objects worn, carried or used as charms and/or protection against harm, injury or just plain old bad luck?

I'm not going to argue that point, as I think it's obvious that christians do indeed engage in the above practice. Maybe someone else cares to share a perspective, but imho you're taking an extreme position, even an apologetic position.Bede:
On Constantine - check out the Theodosian Code and you will find that crucifixion is not featured as a punishment. As I understand it, we can see that where crucifixion was previously stipulated, it is replaced in Constantine's reign by other penalties.The Theodosian Code (http://www.bartleby.com/65/th/TheodosC.html) dates to 100 years after Constantine's death and codifies all his changes and introductions. Latin Codex Theodosianus, Roman legal code, issued in 438 by Theodosius II, emperor of the East. It was at once adopted by Valentinian III, emperor of the West. The code was intended to reduce and systematize the complex mass of law that had been issued since the reign of Constantine I. To a large extent it was based upon two private compilations, the Gregorian (Codex Gregorianus) and the Hermogenian (Codex Hermogenianus). The Theodosian Code was used in shaping the Corpus Juris Civilis.Okay, crucifixion is not listed in the Theodosian Code.

But I cannot locate a source that spells out Constantine's edict, though it seems to be attributed to the writings of Eusebius. So, do you have a source that spells out Constantine's abolishing crucifixion in deference to his christian leanings, or as you sayBede:
It was banned by Constantine who took the view that as Jesus died that way, it was too good for slaves...I'm very curious because Constantine enacted a lot of change that was favorable to both christian and pagan. Perhaps you are stating that Constantine was no more pagan than christian, or vice versa, but simply extending religious tolerance to christianity. In any case, if you have a primary source I would sincerely appreciate it, as I keep coming up empty.

Bede

August 26, 2003, 05:58 PM

joedad,

Really research will have to take place off the net but some sources are available on line. The Theodosian Code is on the net in Latin. Each edict it contains is dated so we know which ones come from the reign of Constantine. I'm not about to read through it to pick out those that stipulate the punishment for a rebel or slave, but if you did so you'd find, I expect, that some date from the reign of Constantine.

Constantine was a Christian through and through. He held paganism in contempt but allowed it to continue as he did not believe in forced conversion. His edicts are quoted in full by Eusebius in HE 10:5 (on the net). A highly detailed and up to date analysis of his religious beliefs is in the chapter Constantine and the Church in Robin Lane Foxe's Pagans and Christians.

On magic, you have misunderstood me. Very many Christians do use magic and the amulet I mentioned was certainly manufactured and utilised by them. However, this does not make that magic either licit or part of religious observance. The church turned a blind eye to a good deal of stuff but the lines were always clear - if you thought that the important thing was the ritual/amulet itself rather than God's grace, then you were off piste. The area is complicated and has been further clouded by modern anthropologists who like to tar all religion with the same magical brush however anachronistic this is.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

joedad

August 27, 2003, 01:09 PM

Bede,

So then as far as Constantine's abolishing crucifixion, what I'm going to find is that this was recorded by Eusebius and then later incorporated into the Theodosian Code?

Well, as a skeptic, and knowing, as we all do, that a biased Eusebius freely engaged in forgery, I could never accept that Constantine abolished crucifixion if Eusebius is the source. I suppose we'll have to leave it at that.

Should have Kieckhefer's book in a couple days. And thanks for the help.

Bede

August 27, 2003, 02:27 PM

Well joedad, you might be a sceptic but you are a very gullable one. That Eusebius was a forger is a sceptic myth that has been thrashed out on these boards. And he was not the source for the edicts, he merely quotes them. And he doesn't quote one on crucifixion as far as I recall (nor did I say he did). I suppose you got the Eusebius was a forger from the same source that misled you on Augustine starting burning. Why not read some history instead of anti-Christian propaganda?

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

Toto

August 27, 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Bede
Well joedad, you might be a sceptic but you are a very gullable one. That Eusebius was a forger is a sceptic myth that has been thrashed out on these boards. And he was not the source for the edicts, he merely quotes them. And he doesn't quote one on crucifixion as far as I recall (nor did I say he did). I suppose you got the Eusebius was a forger from the same source that misled you on Augustine starting burning. Why not read some history instead of anti-Christian propaganda?

Yours

Bede

Yes, Eusebius the Liar has been thrashed out on these boards, and you and Roger Pearse have failed to make a convincing case for Eusebius the poor misunderstood champion of truth.

Bede

August 27, 2003, 03:06 PM

Toto, your memory deceives you. We found that Eusebius quoted Plato saying parables were OK for teaching. That was the end of the Eusebius is a liar case and it failed.

Sorry to have to remind you.

B

Toto

August 27, 2003, 04:52 PM

Hi Bede - who is this "we" you refer to (paleface?)

I think the thread you are talking about is here:

Josephus passage (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=33640)

I posted this:

As for Eusebius, considered by most historians an unreliable source, see Richard Carrier's assessment here. (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html#6)

Eusebius is also infamous for saying that it was necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity. In his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, listing the ideas Plato supposedly got from Moses, he includes the idea:

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.

. . .

Regarding Eusebius' use of this and other passages in book 12, Edwin Hamilton Gifford says "In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses." (Introduction, Preparation for the Gospel, 1903). So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing.

This summary by Richard Carrier was never refuted.

On page 3 of that thread, "Alexis Comnenus" (remember him?) says

It seems that I made a mistake and accept what Mr Carrier says about the chapter headings forming part of the original text. This is highly unusual (I know of no other document where it is the case and an ancient table of contents is also exceptional) but I am sure Mr Carrier has checked.

The entire thread says everything, so I will not repeat it. Eusebius did much more than approve of parables - he endorsed outright fiction.

Bede

August 27, 2003, 05:31 PM

Wrong again Toto. As Alexis (;)) and others pointed out, Carrier mistranslated falsehood for parable as is evidenced by the standard translations of Plato. Hence he was wrong to cite this as evidence of Eusebius saying lying was OK. Eusebius did not say this and the idea he was a great forger is an anti-Christian myth that really should be put to bed now so as not to confuse folk like joedad.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

Toto

August 27, 2003, 05:47 PM

Wrong yet again, Alexis, er Bede - "parable" was Pearse's weasel word for what is usually translated as "fiction."

Bill Snedden

August 27, 2003, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by Bede
joedad,

On magic, you have misunderstood me. Very many Christians do use magic and the amulet I mentioned was certainly manufactured and utilised by them. However, this does not make that magic either licit or part of religious observance. The church turned a blind eye to a good deal of stuff but the lines were always clear - if you thought that the important thing was the ritual/amulet itself rather than God's grace, then you were off piste.

Hehehe...reminds me of my Catholic school days.

We used to receive sacramentals (religious objects) quite regularly as part of our catechism and religious instruction. One day it would be Miraculous Medals, another day Green or Brown Scapulars. Anyway, the nuns thought it was important for us to understand the proper use of such objects and one day we had a filmstrip (always popular in Catholic school) to assist in the lesson.

I'll never forget when, in the filmstrip, a young lad was driving pell mell down the highway and one of his friends objects that he's driving too fast. The driver rejoins, "Don't worry, my St. Christopher medal will protect us!"

Needless to say, that was an improper use of the sacramental, as Sister felt obliged to inform us after we stopped laughing. :D

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bede

August 27, 2003, 06:15 PM

Toto<edit>. Eusebius is refering to the Bible. He is a Christian and it is inconcievable that he would consider the Bible contained lies or falsehoods therefore he cannot mean lie or falsehood in this context.

End of discussion <edit>.

B

Toto

August 27, 2003, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by Bede
Toto<edit>. Eusebius is refering to the Bible. He is a Christian and it is inconcievable that he would consider the Bible contained lies or falsehoods therefore he cannot mean lie or falsehood in this context.

End of discussion<edit>.

B

You have stooped to the level of personal abuse and name calling. And you misspelled "inconceivable". I win. :p

I invite the readers of this thread to read the prior thread and decide. There are in fact Christians who are not fundamentalists, who think that the Bible contains fiction ("falsehoods") in the service of a higher good.

Bede

August 29, 2003, 04:48 AM

Toto,

You can't claim victory in an argument you've lost.

Neither can you claim that Eusebius thinks the bible contains fictions mean that he is a forger and liar. That is how this started with joedad resurrecting this legend. There is no evidence that Eusebius was a forger or liar and you should now admit this. While it was impolite to use nasty words about you, you are bloody infuriating at times with your refusal to admit defeat when the argument has completely gone against you.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

Vorkosigan

August 29, 2003, 05:21 AM

What was the exact word/term Carrier allegedly mistranslated here?

Vorkosigan

Bede

August 29, 2003, 05:54 AM

Carrier translated a word as "falsehood" when the standard Greek translations of the same passage of Plato are "fiction".

Toto accepts this and is now claiming that anyone who claims that fictional stories can be used in teaching is a forger or liar. Or else he has forgotten to withdraw this allegation against Eusebius.

B

Roger Pearse

August 29, 2003, 11:14 AM

>As for Eusebius, considered by most historians an unreliable
>source,

Perhaps this assertion could be documented? I know of no such consensus.

>see Richard Carrier's assessment here.

This has surely been discussed several times already?

>quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eusebius is also infamous for saying that it was necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity. In his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, listing the ideas Plato supposedly got from Moses, he includes the idea:

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.
<

So are we supposed to infer from this that:

1. Eusebius says the bible is telling lies
2. That means anyone can legitimately tell lies
3. Which means Eusebius is telling lies
4. And advocating anyone may do so?

Why? It's a whole lot more likely that he's talking about parables, and educational uses of fiction.

> Regarding Eusebius' use of this and other passages in book 12, Edwin Hamilton Gifford says "In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses." (Introduction, Preparation for the Gospel, 1903). So in a book where Eusebius is proving that the pagans got all their good ideas from the Jews, he lists as one of those good ideas Plato's argument that lying, indeed telling completely false tales, for the benefit of the state is good and even necessary. Eusebius then notes quite casually how the Hebrews did this, telling lies about their God, and he even compares such lies with medicine, a healthy and even necessary thing.
<

It is remarkable, however, that even Edward Gibbon didn't try this one on. Eusebius quotes a whole lot more of Plato than just that. Plato is discussing educational fiction. Eusebius points out the parallel. With Plato's immoral precepts, Eusebius has nothing to do. Indeed he omits the next portion where Plato indicates that lying is easy: rather indicative, surely.

>This summary by Richard Carrier was never refuted.

I really think this has been done to death!

>On page 3 of that thread, "Alexis Comnenus" (remember him?) >says

quote:
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that I made a mistake and accept what Mr Carrier says about the chapter headings forming part of the original text. This is highly unusual (I know of no other document where it is the case and an ancient table of contents is also exceptional) but I am sure Mr Carrier has checked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<

I think otherwise, although I am always willing to be corrected if someone has some hard evidence I do not. (My knowledge of this is based on R. Friderici's book on the topic, plus the colloquium at Chantilly, Titres et Articulations..., and the articles of Michael M. Gorman discussing the subject, with special reference to the works of St. Augustine.)

The chapter divisions and titles are not authorial: no such divisions are known for any work prior to the 6th century, with the possible exception of Aulus Gellius. Technical works often had summaries at the front, and sometimes (not always) these were numbered, and sometimes (not always) had marginal numbers indicating where the topic began, but this does not seem to be the rule in literature.

The summaries of content at the front of each book, on the other hand, may indeed be authorial (it is very hard indeed to be sure), but a comparison of the numbering of the chapters of book 1 with the numbering in the summaries indicates that the chapter divisions were not made by the same person as the author of the summary, for they do not match up.

That the summaries contain the snippet of text in question, and so say that fiction may be used as a teaching method I am quite prepared to believe. That, after all, is what is under discussion in the Republic -- the poetry taught to children. But to mistranslate as 'falsehood' -- as Gibbon did, as Gifford was misled to do, and Carrier does -- rather than 'fiction' -- as the Loeb translators of Plato do -- makes the book into nonsense.

While I am moving to the view that the summaries *are* authorial (the consensus on summaries in general in 1900 was that these were later additions too, and the subject has never been properly investigated), it needs to be considered that this is only a supposition; and even modern books tend to have such apparatus compiled by some underpaid minion, rather than the great man himself...

> The entire thread says everything, so I will not repeat it.
> Eusebius did much more than approve of parables - he
> endorsed outright fiction.

Why is it so important to anyone to ignore his testimony?

But might I say, without offence to anyone in particular, that trying to prove that people one dislikes advocate lying, as an excuse to ignore their testimony, is quite distasteful. People rarely profess deceit. Liars in particularly do not. When I see the attempt made, I find that the main impression given is of malice.

For those interested, the entire Praeparatio Evangelica in English is now online, at Additional Fathers (http://www.tertullian.org/fathers), and probably at CCEL also by now.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

August 29, 2003, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
What was the exact word/term Carrier allegedly mistranslated here?

'Pseudos.'

The fault is not with Mr. Carrier, but with Edward Gibbon, who rendered it as 'falsehood', 'lie'. This is a perfectly possible meaning of the word in isolation (look it up in Liddel and Scott), but makes Plato's thought read very strangely if you do this. The other possible meaning is 'fiction', with less pejorative meaning, and this is what Plato is groping towards (or what Eusebius understood him to mean, which of course might not be the same thing!). This is the choice of the Loeb translators of that portion of Plato's Laws.

Even so, uneducated people today often dismiss fiction with words such as 'well it aint true, is it?' This problem was much more acute in antiquity, and accounts for Plato's difficulty at this point. Eusebius follows him no further, and snips the reply to Clinias altogether.

It's relatively easy to see that Eusebius cannot have understood the word as meaning a lie, since he proceeds to use it as a description for bits of the bible. Are we really to suppose that he considers the narrative portions of the OT (to which he refers), not as educational fiction (the topic under discussion) but as lies?

Anyone wanting to show that Eusebius intended the latter description of the OT should surely produce quite a lot more demonstration than just this passage! The idea seems dippy.

In view of the ambiguity, and the partisan nature of Gibbon's translation (it is made in the middle of a vicious attack on his critics), it would seem better to follow the Loeb translators and stick to 'fiction'. It does make better sense, to me anyway, and avoids the commitment to a particular value-label. Parable is I think the idea Eusebius has in mind. But read book 12 and see for yourselves.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

August 29, 2003, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by joedad
So then as far as Constantine's abolishing crucifixion, what I'm going to find is that this was recorded by Eusebius and then later incorporated into the Theodosian Code?

I wouldn't have thought so. The Theodosian code is based on earlier legal codes, not extracts from works of literature.

There are English translations of Justinian's legal codes, out of copyright too, but not online.

I find a discussion of the subject in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on the cross and crucifix in archaeology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04517a.htm)

"The punishment of the cross remained in force throughout the Roman Empire until the first half of the fourth century. In the early part of his reign Constantine continued to inflict the penalty of the cross (affigere patibulo) on slaves guilty of delatio domini, i.e. of denouncing their masters (Cod. Th. ad leg. Jul. magist.). Later on he abolished this infamous punishment, in memory and in honour of the Passion of Jesus Christ (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", I, viii; Schol. Juvenal., XIV, 78; Niceph., VII, 46; Cassiod., "Hist. Trip.", I, 9; Codex Theod., IX, 5, 18). Thereafter, this punishment was very rarely inflicted (Eus., "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xxxv; Pacat., "Paneg.", xliv). Towards the fifth century the furca, or gibbet, was substituted for the cross (Pio Franchi de' Cavalieri, "Della forca sostituita alla croce" in "Nuovo bulletino di archeologia cristiana", 1907, nos. 1-3, 63 sqq.)."

Sources for abolition, then, if I expand those I recognise for the benefit of normal people:

+ Eusebius, Church History book 1 chapter 8 (online)
+ The scholiast on Juvenal, book 14, ch. 78
+ Nicephorus, book 7, ch. 46.
+ Cassiodorus, Historia Tripartita, book 1, ch. 9 (but probably based on Eusebius, I expect)
+ Codex Theodosianus book 9, section 5.18. (However I cannot find any such rescript in that place, so I suspect the ref. in the CE is corrupt). However I see that the edicts are all with the name of the emperor, and the date given.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

August 29, 2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Bede
Toto,

You can't claim victory in an argument you've lost.

Neither can you claim that Eusebius thinks the bible contains fictions mean that he is a forger and liar. That is how this started with joedad resurrecting this legend. There is no evidence that Eusebius was a forger or liar and you should now admit this. While it was impolite to use nasty words about you, you are bloody infuriating at times with your refusal to admit defeat when the argument has completely gone against you.

Yours

Bede

===

Carrier translated a word as "falsehood" when the standard Greek translations of the same passage of Plato are "fiction".

Toto accepts this and is now claiming that anyone who claims that fictional stories can be used in teaching is a forger or liar. Or else he has forgotten to withdraw this allegation against Eusebius.

Bede - talk about bloody infuriating - that's you and your sock puppet.

I refer you and the readers back to the prior thread, where there was an extended discussion of the shades of difference between lies and fiction, and the difference between Aesop's fables and Santa, and why we don't call Santa a lie even though the Santa myth is a lie.

Whether you translate yeudoV as fiction or lie makes little difference to the point - Eusebius thinks of what he writes as a message with a purpose, and the purpose is more important than scientific or historical accuracy. Eusebius quotes Plato in support of this.

The issue of Eusebius as a forger is a completely separate one.

Toto

August 29, 2003, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Roger Pearse

Eusebius is also infamous for saying that it was necessary to lie for the cause of Christianity. In his Praeparatio Evangelica 12.31, listing the ideas Plato supposedly got from Moses, he includes the idea:

That it is necessary sometimes to use falsehood as a medicine for those who need such an approach. [As said in Plato's Laws 663e by the Athenian:] 'And even the lawmaker who is of little use, if even this is not as he considered it, and as just now the application of logic held it, if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice.' [then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.' You would find many things of this sort being used even in the Hebrew scriptures, such as concerning God being jealous or falling asleep or getting angry or being subject to some other human passions, for the benefit of those who need such an approach.

So are we supposed to infer from this that:

1. Eusebius says the bible is telling lies
2. That means anyone can legitimately tell lies
3. Which means Eusebius is telling lies
4. And advocating anyone may do so?

Why? It's a whole lot more likely that he's talking about parables, and educational uses of fiction.

. . .

The only thing I infer from this is that Eusebius thinks that the Bible is not strictly true, and that it is legitimate to propagate untruths in the service of a higher cause. From which we may infer that Eusebius himself may very well have propagated untruths in the service of his religion. Is that so dippy an idea?

I do not think that he is talking about parables or educational use of known fiction because he says (quoting Plato with apparent approval " if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice."

Mageth

August 29, 2003, 01:11 PM

For reference, here's a chapter on Dionysus (http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/history/fraser/golden/chapter44.html) from Fraser's The Golden Bough.

Roger Pearse

August 29, 2003, 05:16 PM

The only thing I infer from this is that Eusebius thinks that the Bible is not strictly true, and that it is legitimate to propagate untruths in the service of a higher cause. From which we may infer that Eusebius himself may very well have propagated untruths in the service of his religion. Is that so dippy an idea?

I do not see why we should infer any of this. Where does he say this? Does he even discuss these issues? Rather he says that some bits of the bible are in the form of story -- whether or not they are to be understood literally or allegorically is not discussed here, although I think the 'not always literal' motif is there -- and this is for the same reason that Plato outlines, that thick people need difficult concepts in the form of parables.

Or what, do we suppose, is Plato talking about? Lying? Or education? Context, you know.

I do not think that he is talking about parables or educational use of known fiction because he says (quoting Plato with apparent approval " if he dared lie to young men for a good reason, then can't he lie? For falsehood is something even more useful than the above, and sometimes even more able to bring it about that everyone willingly keeps to all justice."

Well, that is because this is a mistranslation. Here's Gifford:

"PLATO �BUT even if the case were not such as our argument has now proved it to be, if a lawgiver, who is to be of ever so little use, could have ventured to tell any falsehood at all to the young for their good, is there any falsehood that he could have told more beneficial than this, and better able to make them all do everything that is just, not by compulsion but willingly?

�Truth, O Stranger, is a noble and an enduring thing; it seems, however, not easy to persuade men of it.�

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction." <end Gifford>

Further, did you notice that to make the point, it was necessary to omit the bit Eusebius responds to? -- the 'Truth, O Stranger...' bit, immediately preceding Eusebius' words?

I ask myself a couple of simple questions. Is the Republic about lying? Is this the theme of the Laws? Or is it about education? Is it talking about textbooks? -- Or about poetic fiction?

You see? It requires deep obtuseness, and a determined refusal to consider the literary topic under discussion to reach the conclusion in question. Its nonsense.

Btw, have some relevant data (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/pe_data.htm) , from various translations. Might be useful, and we at least can all work from the same data.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

August 29, 2003, 06:13 PM

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
I do not see why we should infer any of this. Where does he say this? Does he even discuss these issues? Rather he says that some bits of the bible are in the form of story -- whether or not they are to be understood literally or allegorically is not discussed here, although I think the 'not always literal' motif is there -- and this is for the same reason that Plato outlines, that thick people need difficult concepts in the form of parables.

Or what, do we suppose, is Plato talking about? Lying? Or education? Context, you know.

Plato appears to be talking about education by the "occasional practice of pious and salutary frauds" (to use the words from your cite). You only resist calling this "lying" because that implies something bad, and a lie for a good purpose is not bad, so you find a different word for it.

Well, that is because this is a mistranslation. Here's Gifford:

<snip>

Further, did you notice that to make the point, it was necessary to omit the bit Eusebius responds to? -- the 'Truth, O Stranger...' bit, immediately preceding Eusebius' words?

I don't see this saying anything different. It was not necessary to omit the "Truth. . ." part. The version I quoted says:

[then by Clinias:] 'Truth is beautiful, stranger, and steadfast. But to persuade people of it is not easy.'

which sounds to me like an agreement that truth is good, but so difficult that some people may need something else. How do you interpret that sentence?

I ask myself a couple of simple questions. Is the Republic about lying? Is this the theme of the Laws? Or is it about education? Is it talking about textbooks? -- Or about poetic fiction?

You see? It requires deep obtuseness, and a determined refusal to consider the literary topic under discussion to reach the conclusion in question. Its nonsense.
. . .

We have a disagreement. I think that you are so committed to your religious convictions and so committed to rehabilitating Eusebius' reputation that you are refusing to give the plain meaning to the words on the page.

I also that you are misstating your opponents position to claim that we think Eusebius approves of lying about anything, anywhere, anytime, which is not my position.

Eusebius clearly approves of using stories for good purposes, as to educate the young - the only question is whether feels that it is necessary to tell the students that the stories are not really true. I read his words as approving of 'pious and salutory frauds.' I think he would have approved of telling American school children that George Washington was a pious Christian, and that he told the truth about chopping down a cherry tree - because this would produce better behaviour in children. We don't call this a parable.

You, however, can only assume that I am afflicted with "deep obtuseness." This does nothing to convince me that your position has any merit.

Pr0x1mo

August 29, 2003, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by rickmsumner
Sure. You won't find information on Dionysus being crucified because he wasn't. It's a folklore, repeated in the popular media until it's believed--an example of how retelling a story can make it "true" even today.

Called: Ad Nauseum

Roger Pearse

August 30, 2003, 11:21 AM

Well, Toto, since you do no more than reiterate the same position again, pardon me if I refer you to what has already been written. I'm afraid your post still doesn't explain why we should read this absurd idea into the text, and as such, there seems no more to say.

By the way, while we're on the subject do YOU disapprove of lying? And if so, why? Nothing in the profession of atheism suggests to me that such a taboo is inherent in that position.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

joedad

August 30, 2003, 01:11 PM

Bede,

I think the following best illustrates how high classical western culture viewed magic, at least according to Kieckhefer:

In classical antiquity, the word "magic" applied first of all to the arts of the magi, those Zoroastrian priests of Persia who were known to the Greeks by at least the fifth century B.C. Some of them seem to have migrated to the Mediterranean world. What, precisely, did these magi do? Greeks and Romans generally had imprecise notions of their activities: they practiced astrology, they claimed to cure people by using elaborate but bogus ceremonies, and in general they pursued knowledge of the occult. Whatever they did, however, was by definition "the arts of the magi," or "the magical arts," or simply "magic." From the outset, the term thus had an imprecise meaning.

Now we're getting somewhere as to understanding magic as it was known in these times, at least from Kieckhefer's perspective. He continues:

Because the magi were foreigners with exotic skills that aroused apprehension, the term "magic" was a deeply emotional one, rich with dark connotations. Magic was something sinister, something threatening. When native Greeks and Romans engaged in practices similar to those of the magi, they too were feared for their involvement in magic. The term was extended to cover the sinister activities of occultists whether foreign or domestic.

So this is "magic." Not so terribly difficult to understand, and a great help in comprehending the use of amulets during these times, nicely explaining how the use of amulets was so ubiquitous, yet how some were deemed "magical" and others not.

And that is precisely where things get interesting from the perspective of early christianity. Keickhefer writes:

Early Christian writers who used the term [magic] played on these undertones. If the Greek and Roman pagans could foretell the future, or heal diseases, that was because they had help from their gods. But the gods of the pagans were no real gods; from a Christian viewpoint they were in fact demons. Thus the thaumaturgy of Graeco-Roman paganism was unmasked as demonic magic. Even if the pagans did not realize they were using the aid of evil spirits, indeed even if they were merely using curative herbs and amulets made from precious stones, a Christian writer such as Augustine of Hippo (A.D. 354-430) was quick to see the demonic involvement. ... It was demons who had founded the magical arts and taught them to human practitioners, and it was demons who actually carried out the will of the magicians. Divination (fortune telling) also was possible only with the aid of demons. These are dominant themes in Augustine's classic book On the City of God, and Augustine's authority in medieval culture was so great that on this issue as on so many others his outlook prevailed.

So, Bede, at least now we have a working definition of magic as it applied in the times of early christianity. Kieckhefer elaborates on this basic definition and traces its evolution, but for purposes of discussing religion vs magic in these times, the only difference from a standpoint of high christian culture is that all non-christian religion was the domain of demons. This renders your earlier definition of the difference between magical iconography and christian religious iconography:

Bede:
Magical amulets include special magic words, incantations and symbols etc intended to produce an automatic effect. Magic is believed to work if you get the spell right rather than if the deity feels like obliging.

Religious iconography is intended to be a focus of worship. While one might ask the deity for something in prayer it is recognized that you might not get it. Hence religious iconography will not feature magical words...

more doublespeak than anything. With Keickhefer's book in hand, I'm left wondering why you could not have been more precise and historically accurate. Keickhefer spells it out quite nicely, don't you think?

Could you (or anyone else) tell me how one writes "Jesus M" in Aramaic? I ask because your crucifixion amulet has no cross, but it does supposedly contain the above inscription. The only thing orienting the image is the identification code for cataloging, and personally, I can no more make this into a crucifixion than I could make von Daniken's Inca/Aztec stone carvings into evidence of rocket travel and extraterrestrial visitations. I sincerely believe the author is seeing this bit of iconography through a christian crucifixion lens.

But if someone will give me the Aramaic for "Jesus M," that might help.

Toto

August 30, 2003, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
Well, Toto, since you do no more than reiterate the same position again, pardon me if I refer you to what has already been written. I'm afraid your post still doesn't explain why we should read this absurd idea into the text, and as such, there seems no more to say.

By the way, while we're on the subject do YOU disapprove of lying? And if so, why? Nothing in the profession of atheism suggests to me that such a taboo is inherent in that position.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

[I've been referring people back to what has already been written. I have nothing new to say. Your position seems to be based on the idea that Eusebius just could not have thought of the Bible as fictional except in the most perfectly benign sense - an argument from personal incredulity.]

So this is what it comes down to - the old atheists are immoral argument?

I disapprove of lying. I hold to metaphysical naturalism, that the real world is all that there is, and dealing with the real world requires accurate information.

Eusebius and most Christians, however, hold that the highest good is saving souls. Scientific accuracy seems to take a back seat to this higher goal at times.

Fenton Mulley

August 30, 2003, 01:26 PM

Nice work joedad.
I've been following this thread and had a feeling that things wouldn't turn out quite like Bede would have us believe.

Would it be possible for you to scan the picture of that amulet so we can all take a look at it?

Roger Pearse

August 30, 2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Toto
Your position seems to be based on the idea that Eusebius just could not have thought of the Bible as fictional except in the most perfectly benign sense -

You're right. You see, the position we're invited to adopt instead is based on the idea that Eusebius, a patristic bishop, could have thought of the bible as fictional in a malign sense.

But for this remarkable idea, no evidence is offered, or indeed available.

Faced with the choice, I think we should go with the general flow of his works and life, and not with a weird idea based on a polemical interpretation of a single passage at the bottom of a page 300 pages into a work about something else.

Isn't that more rational? I.e., let's go with context, not pretext?

So this is what it comes down to - the old atheists are immoral argument?

Um, surely it is young atheists who are immoral? Old atheists just wish they could be? The plumbing gives up at 40, you know.

When the immoral accuse others of immorality, certain questions will always occur to the outsider! Atheist polemicists can assert immorality is fine -- which they do --, or demand morality of others. But surely they cannot do both, without damaging their credibility?

I disapprove of lying. I hold to metaphysical naturalism, that the real world is all that there is, and dealing with the real world requires accurate information.

<smile> It does indeed. For all of us, I think that this starts with looking at what things say, and not what they can be made to mean. No doubt you think that is what I am doing, but I can't help that!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

August 30, 2003, 04:24 PM

So, Bede, at least now we have a working definition of magic as it applied in the times of early christianity. Kieckhefer elaborates on this basic definition and traces its evolution, but for purposes of discussing religion vs magic in these times, the only difference from a standpoint of high christian culture is that all non-christian religion was the domain of demons.

Is this what the bits you quote say? I did not read them so. Why do you suppose that pagan religion is a matter of sorcery? Do the pagan writers think this? I do not think so. This is a third value system, I'd have thought.

This renders your earlier definition of the difference between magical iconography and christian religious iconography:
...more doublespeak than anything. With Keickhefer's book in hand, I'm left wondering why you could not have been more precise and historically accurate.

Sorry, but it looks to me as if you've misunderstood Bede's post. Your source -- who is this person? -- is discussing pagan worries about sorcery, which was a criminal offence in Roman law, I believe. The statements made by K. seem to be correct. However they don't deal with Bede's point.

(Just so you don't end up arguing at cross-purposes)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

August 30, 2003, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
You're right. You see, the position we're invited to adopt instead is based on the idea that Eusebius, a patristic bishop, could have thought of the bible as fictional in a malign sense.

. . .

I never asserted that Eusebius was an evil liar in his own eyes., or that the fictions in the Bible were malign. I'm sure he thought he was doing the Lord's work, and that every word in the Bible had a sacred purpose.

I am only saying that if he asserted that X happened, I would suspect that his motive was to save souls, not to save an accurate record of a real event.

Um, surely it is young atheists who are immoral? Old atheists just wish they could be? The plumbing gives up at 40, you know.

When the immoral accuse others of immorality, certain questions will always occur to the outsider! Atheist polemicists can assert immorality is fine -- which they do --, or demand morality of others. But surely they cannot do both, without damaging their credibility?

This is bizarre.

1. No, it doesn't. But that's all I will say on the matter.

2. Atheist moralists and Christian moralists differ on the morality of what we might call victimless crimes - actions against the word of the Bible, that don't hurt other people.

Atheist polemicists may assert that what Christians call "immorality" is not in fact immoral, as long as no one is hurt.

I do not know of any atheist moralists or polemicists who think that lying about historical facts is fine (although I'm sure we can all think of some situations where a social lie might be called for, whether you're a good Christian or not.)

I'm not sure how you got from the ethics of lying about history to sex so quickly and seamlessly. Am I to assume that you are under 40 and still in the grip of those hormones, so you can't think of anything else?

joedad

August 30, 2003, 08:39 PM

Roger Pearse,

According to Kieckhefer, all paganism was magical - period - as far as high christian culture was concerned. I don't know whether the average person on the street agreed with this argument, but certainly Kieckhefer states this much, and Kieckhefer is Bede's introduction.

Therefore, Bede's definition of what differentiates magic from christian religion simply doesn't wash. We could just as easily imagine a high pagan culture making the same claim about christianity, namely that christianity is all the work of demons and therefore "magical," but that would not further our understanding of what constitutes "magic" for this time period and from a high christian perspective.

So when Bede talks about amulets, we must use Keickhefer's definition of magic, and not Bede's. Using Keickhefer's definition of magic, any pagan amulet or amulet with a demonic inference is automatically magical. For the times circa these particular amulets, using Bede's definition of magic and not Keickhefer's really does constitute an anachronism and leaves us without an understanding of what constitutes the difference between any "magical" amulet and any "christian religious" amulet. Okay?

Keickhefer describes Bede's magical amulet...a gem from around the third century that shows Christ crucified, with kneeling figures on either side of him, the inscription "Jesus M[essiah]" written in Aramaic, and magical characters on the reverse side... While it may be that non Christian magicians were drawing on the power of the Christian God, it seems more likely that Christians themselves were dabbling at times in magic.It doesn't show the magical characters on the reverse, but that is in fact what would make the amulet at all magical. And I asked for "Jesus M" in Aramaic because I assume the amulet does not say "_essiah," but that it is only inferred, and to try to orient it properly.

Bede

August 31, 2003, 02:18 PM

Actually, I fully agree with RK's statement of magic as far as Augustine and other fathers viewed pagan religion. However, when Joedad has read the rest of the book he will find that the subject of magic is far wider than he currently imagines and that the view that all magic is demonic by no means applies to all Christians. When joedad has read a little more he will discover about astral magic, herbalism as well as straight forward demonology.

Nice to see he is educating himself. He (and Toto and Sauron) would rather disembowell themselves than admit a theist got something right but they still learn something inspite of themselves.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

Toto

August 31, 2003, 03:55 PM

Originally posted by Bede
. . .Nice to see he is educating himself. He (and Toto and Sauron) would rather disembowell themselves than admit a theist got something right but they still learn something inspite of themselves.

Yours

Bede

This is entirely uncalled for.

Bede

August 31, 2003, 04:42 PM

Toto,

If you will accept you were wrong about Eusebius I will unreservedly apologise. :)

B

Toto

August 31, 2003, 04:57 PM

You have not demonstrated that Richard Carrier was wrong about Eusebius. You have not demonstrated that anything I said was wrong.

I think that people who say that Eusebius was an admitted liar and forger are putting a negative spin on the facts, but not one that cannot be supported. Your effort to stick up for Eusebius is pure spin doctoring that takes you to an unsupportable attempt to rewrite what Eusebius actually said.

I think that Eusebius was, as I said before, more interested in saving souls than preserving a historical record. There is a reasonable case to be made for his forging the passage about Jesus in Josephus.

If you would just argue your case instead of throwing insults at those who disagree with you, this might have been a worthwhile discussion.

Bede

August 31, 2003, 05:33 PM

Toto, we have shown that to use the word 'falsehood' in the context of the bible in translating Eusebius is absurd. That is the end of it and your refusal to admit this shows my comments were justified.

B

copernicus

August 31, 2003, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Bede
Toto, we have shown that to use the word 'falsehood' in the context of the bible in translating Eusebius is absurd. That is the end of it and your refusal to admit this shows my comments were justified.
B
Actually, Bede, you have shown nothing of the sort. Standard dictionaries of Biblical Greek appear to translate the word as English 'lie, lying, falsehood' rather than the less jarring 'fiction' or 'parable'. Can you produce a dictionary source to corroborate your proposed usage?

As Toto has pointed out, it matters very little whether you translate it as "fiction" or "lie". There is really no way to read Eusebius without understanding him to approve accounts that shade the truth in order to promote the interests of the greater good. Perhaps this is what he had in mind when he cited Constantine's preposterous claim that he had seen the sign In hoc signo vinces emblazoned across the sky (Eusebius, Vita Constantinae 1.26-29). Constantine, who remained a pagan until near death, had that slogan inscribed on his soldiers' armor.

Eusebius was among that segment of the Christian community that promoted Irenaeus's "fourfold gospel" and decried all others as heresy. Constantine was able to use Irenaeus's vision of a "catholic" church to unify and energize a political base against internal enemies. Constantine and the "catholics" had much to gain from their alliance. A few falsehoods in the name of the Cross were not the least of their moral transgressions. Constantine had Jews burned alive for attempting prevent conversions from Judaism to Christianity, and he banned them from Jerusalem. The many Christians who did not side with the catholics were deprived of property, fined, and made to suffer other indignities. The non-orthodox Nag Hammadi books were apparently hidden in a buried jar to keep them away from the book-burners who were out to "correct" the historical record.

joedad

August 31, 2003, 08:58 PM

Bede:
However, when Joedad has read the rest of the book he will find that the subject of magic is far wider than he currently imagines and that the view that all magic is demonic by no means applies to all Christians. When joedad has read a little more he will discover about astral magic, herbalism as well as straight forward demonology.Well, you accused me of being anachronistic, and I merely demonstrated that your conclusion was erroneous.

The fact remains that any non christian amulet of this time period is "magical" by definition. There are lots of amulets out there, Bede, and they're either christian or magical. This only makes any argument you make about an amulet being "magical" quite unimportant. No offense intended or taken.

Roger Pearse

September 1, 2003, 05:40 AM

Your position seems to be based on the idea that Eusebius just could not have thought of the Bible as fictional except in the most perfectly benign sense [QUOTE]

[QUOTE]I never asserted that Eusebius was an evil liar in his own eyes., or that the fictions in the Bible were malign.

Hmm.

I am only saying that if he asserted that X happened, I would suspect that his motive was to save souls, not to save an accurate record of a real event.

Isn't this a question of genre? In evangelistic literature, perhaps so. In chronology, I don't see it. In hagiography, the objective would be to edify, not convert. Horses for courses.

This is bizarre.

1. No, it doesn't. But that's all I will say on the matter.

You wait.

I've snipped the curious statements about morality -- not sure why you brought your obsession with sex into it.

I do not know of any atheist moralists or polemicists who think that lying about historical facts is fine

Try Joseph Wheless, who lies by selection and omission. (I don't collect examples of dishonest writers, btw -- just came across that one).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Toto

September 1, 2003, 12:00 PM

Roger - this has wandered a bit from Dionysios, and I am not sure if we are actually arguing about the same thing at times.

I would only point out that Joseph Wheless (http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/index.shtml) never stated that it was okay to feed falsehoods or fiction to people for their own benefit, as far as I know. I know that you have an essay trying to debunk Wheless which was discussed here a while back, and as I recall, you could only find evidence that he was too polemical or may have been mistaken on some details, or possibly used his own translations of the classics, or put a spin on a quote that you felt was unfair. (One prior thread is here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=54011). I thought I remembered another one, but I don't seem to be able to locate it.)

The secularweb contains Wheless's works in its historical section, which has this disclaimer:

This section is provided for those doing research into the history of nontheism. It is not intended to be--and should not be used as--a source of modern, up-to-date information regarding atheistic issues. Those looking for modern critiques of theism should go to the Modern Documents section of the Secular Web Library.

Roger Pearse

September 1, 2003, 04:32 PM

Actually, Bede, you have shown nothing of the sort. Standard dictionaries of Biblical Greek

Um, *biblical Greek*? I don't think that Plato used that, nor Eusebius. Which dictionaries, btw?

appear to translate the word as English 'lie, lying, falsehood' rather than the less jarring 'fiction' or 'parable'. Can you produce a dictionary source to corroborate your proposed usage?

Since the Loeb Greek-English edition of Plato's Laws -- the whole work, not just a quotation -- renders it as 'fiction', can it not mean just that?

Not sure what the point about dictionaries is -- don't words have the meaning they have in texts? If the professionals, with no axe to grind in that context, can so render it, then can it not have that value? The sense somewhat requires it, you see.

As Toto has pointed out, it matters very little whether you translate it as "fiction" or "lie".

If that is so, can I suggest we agree to use 'fiction?' You see, I do think it makes a considerable difference, myself, since 'fiction' does not necessarily have a malign meaning -- allowing room for interpretation --, while 'lie' does have a pejorative meaning and closes off discussion.

'Lie' also makes nonsense of Eusebius' comment, unless we are prepared to believe he thinks some parts of the bible are a lie.

However I do think he considers some parts of the bible written as fiction -- indeed that is his point: and, as I have said several times, what is being discussed by Plato and Eusebius in Book 12 is educational fiction.

There is really no way to read Eusebius without understanding him to approve accounts that shade the truth in order to promote the interests of the greater good.

But as I see it, there is no way to read Eusebius in this way that does not involve attributing to him absurd statements.

I get the impression that the effort to attribute this view to him can only be malicious (I don't mean anyone here, personally). It originates with Gibbon, in a passage designed to deceive, and is retailed only by Christian-haters, with a view to getting rid of inconvenient testimony. Is this the sort of thing we want? This is why I refer to the full translation of the Laws, which was done probably without even being aware of the passage in Eusebius.

Perhaps this is what he had in mind when he cited Constantine's preposterous claim that he had seen the sign In hoc signo vinces emblazoned across the sky (Eusebius, Vita Constantinae 1.26-29).

I wonder whether there is some special evidence that Constantine did not say this? If not, what is the meaning of this comment? Not having been there, I have no idea what the statements mean; but then, not having a closed mind on such things, I don't feel obliged to have views about it!

Note the use of the Vita -- another link with the anti-Hapsburg propaganda of the 1850's, which seems to be the real origin of all this.

Where did you get this bit? <curious>

Constantine, who remained a pagan until near death,

Um, how do we know this?

To me, in view of his legislation, the idea seems ludicrous Measured by his acts, and his legal work (all testable), he was the first Christian emperor. He was of course a ruthless and violent man, but then so were all the late emperors -- it went with the job. His status in the eyes of God, of course, is not your concern or mine. Morally he was infinitely superior to Bill Clinton (not a hard job, admittedly), with far worse conditions to work with. There seems no reason not to suppose him sincere. He used to preach sermons to his court officials, who used to have to think of excuses to get out of it. Boring for Christ... this seems authentically Christian to me!

Christians, of course, do not much favour the impact of his 'benevolent' legislation on the church. But the evil consequences again are not our concern here.

Eusebius was among that segment of the Christian community that promoted Irenaeus's "fourfold gospel" and decried all others as heresy. Constantine was able to use Irenaeus's vision of a "catholic" church to unify and energize a political base against internal enemies. Constantine and the "catholics" had much to gain from their alliance. A few falsehoods in the name of the Cross were not the least of their moral transgressions. Constantine had Jews burned alive for attempting prevent conversions from Judaism to Christianity, and he banned them from Jerusalem. The many Christians who did not side with the catholics were deprived of property, fined, and made to suffer other indignities. The non-orthodox Nag Hammadi books were apparently hidden in a buried jar to keep them away from the book-burners who were out to "correct" the historical record.

This is terribly unhistorical, I'm afraid. Authors who invent stories because they are convenient, and rubbish the Christians, relying on the sketchy public knowledge of our day, are a real peril to the wayfaring atheist. I'd keep clear of this garbage.

I query whether the Nag Hammadi books were even in existence when Constantine came to the throne -- they are 'fourth century', and so I suppose were written most likely in his reign or later. Likewise we have no knowledge of why they came to be hidden where they were, in a jar of 4-5th century ware. They were found in a jar, and that is the extent of our knowledge. As far as I know, the rest is imagination. Some details on the Nag Hammadi finds (http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts)

The remainder of the paragraph is not much better. I could write an essay on it, but I hope you won't mind if I don't! Can you tell us where you got it? (for future reference)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

copernicus

September 2, 2003, 02:51 AM

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
Um, *biblical Greek*? I don't think that Plato used that, nor Eusebius. Which dictionaries, btw?
Perhaps I shouldn't have said "standard", since I am not a Greek scholar. A search of the web turned up only definitions such as this one (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5579) from The New Testament Greek Lexicon. Given that Eusebius was writing at the time that the New Testament was being developed, I thought that it would be appropriate. A check of other lexicons and dictionaries proposes the same definitions, but I am not a Greek scholar. Can you cite any dictionaries or lexicons that back up your interpretation?

Since the Loeb Greek-English edition of Plato's Laws -- the whole work, not just a quotation -- renders it as 'fiction', can it not mean just that?
That's ok with me. The word "falsehood" might be another less emotively charged word than "lie".

Not sure what the point about dictionaries is -- don't words have the meaning they have in texts? If the professionals, with no axe to grind in that context, can so render it, then can it not have that value? The sense somewhat requires it, you see.
Roger, as far as I can tell, it is your sensibilities that require it, not the sense. My sensibilities make no such demand. But, again, I have to admit that I do not read Greek. It is always possible that words are used in unusual ways in a given context.

If that is so, can I suggest we agree to use 'fiction?' You see, I do think it makes a considerable difference, myself, since 'fiction' does not necessarily have a malign meaning -- allowing room for interpretation --, while 'lie' does have a pejorative meaning and closes off discussion.
I have already stipulated to that connotation, but it is a little odd for us to split hairs over the translation. I don't see why Eusebius could not have used the Greek word for "parable", if that is what he really meant. Pseudos seems to have been used rather commonly to refer to ordinary falsehoods.

'Lie' also makes nonsense of Eusebius' comment, unless we are prepared to believe he thinks some parts of the bible are a lie.
Oh, come now. He lived in an age when half the Christian world disagreed with the orthodox "catholic" movement. They burned books that they wanted to suppress, for Christ sake. (pun intended ;)) They fought wars of religious suppression. Do you really think they were above telling lies for the cause?

However I do think he considers some parts of the bible written as fiction -- indeed that is his point: and, as I have said several times, what is being discussed by Plato and Eusebius in Book 12 is educational fiction.
There is every reason to believe that christian scholars had trouble with the idea of biblical inerrancy. After all, the fourfold gospel contained plenty of discrepancies from each other, let alone the gospels they suppressed.

But as I see it, there is no way to read Eusebius in this way that does not involve attributing to him absurd statements.
Absurd in your mind. Perhaps he just felt that it was pragmatically necessary to shade the truth in the name of building a unified church.

get the impression that the effort to attribute this view to him can only be malicious ...
Look, you drift into ad hominems a lot. They are not good reasons to believe one way or the other. It is not as if you are neutral on these issues either.

On In hoc signo vinces: I wonder whether there is some special evidence that Constantine did not say this? If not, what is the meaning of this comment? ...
What I meant was that Eusebius had his own doubts about what he claimed Constantine said. It is quite possible that he knew it to be a false claim, but it was certainly a good way to rally the troops. Constantine had it inscribed on his soldiers' armor, after all. Onward Christian Soldiers, and all that!

On Constantine's being a pagan until shortly before his death: Um, how do we know this?
I have no direct knowledge of it, of course. It is widely reported that he was not baptised until shortly before his death, e.g. see this link (http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/constantine.html). He did, after all, have to rule over a pagan empire, and the empire did not technically become a christian state until 70 years after his death. He was not the first emperor to try to unify the state through religious reform.

Regarding my paragraph on the Nag Hammadi text: This is terribly unhistorical, I'm afraid. Authors who invent stories because they are convenient, and rubbish the Christians, relying on the sketchy public knowledge of our day, are a real peril to the wayfaring atheist. I'd keep clear of this garbage.
Thanks for the advice, Roger. I based my comments on a recent reading of Elaine Pagels' Beyond Belief. I realize that I should steer clear of the garbage written by people who win the National Book Award for their scholarship on the Nag Hammadi scripts. :D

I query whether the Nag Hammadi books were even in existence when Constantine came to the throne -- they are 'fourth century', and so I suppose were written most likely in his reign or later...
The books were probably buried within a few decades of his death--to preserve them from that the book-burning orgies of Athanasius, who was busy stomping out heresy in the name of the church. No doubt he did it for posterity's sake--so that they wouldn't be distracted by a "pseudos" or two.

Likewise we have no knowledge of why they came to be hidden where they were, in a jar of 4-5th century ware. They were found in a jar, and that is the extent of our knowledge. As far as I know, the rest is imagination.
I think that Elaine Pagels' speculation is a touch better than pure imagination. Given the date and the times, it is reasonable to suppose that proscribed manuscripts ended up buried to escape destruction. After all, how many gospels of Thomas have survived to this time? It used to be a fairly popular book in the early Roman Empire.

Roger Pearse

September 2, 2003, 06:56 AM

Originally posted by copernicus
Many many statements

Again, your comments are heavy with statements which are untrue, or worse. You'll excuse me if I do not list them all!

Elaine Pagels is the source you're working from, eh? That is *precisely* the sort of author I had in mind when I warned you to beware of imaginative garbage: likewise Bart Ehrmann, whom I heard lauded to the skies at a recent academic conference (and who attempted to pass off a falsehood on his audience). I am amused to hear that the political establishment loads these people with honours; but then, in New Testament Studies, we have all been here before. 70 years ago the (successful) attempt to create a fake consensus that John was written in 170 was eventually punctured by the polite insistence of the papyrologists. I find that the professionals in politicised disciplines reflect only the views of those who appoint them (and this was just as true when the state had a religious position more or less Christian). Even so, while I pay only limited attention to NT Studies, I think Pagels is fairly far out on the wacko wing.

In any politicised discipline, I think that it's best to descope authorities, descope one's own prejudices and work directly from the raw primary data in the historical record.

Btw, in case I did not make this clear I have only limited knowledge of Greek, and write purely as an amateur.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

joedad

September 2, 2003, 08:39 AM

Roger Perse:
In any politicised discipline, I think that it's best to descope authorities, descope one's own prejudices and work directly from the raw primary data in the historical record.I'll second that.

And along those lines I'm hoping to make available a picture of Bede's "magical" crucifixion amulet from Kieckhefer's Magic in the Middle Ages. I'd simply attach it as a file if that were possible, but such is not the case. In the meantime, if anyone is interested, email me, and I can send you the image (JPG).

Bede

September 2, 2003, 09:13 AM

joedad,

Are you saying the amulet is or is not magical? Or do you take the view that if it is Christian it can't be magical?

Not sure what your problem with it is, but I would be interested in your take on the artifact.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

joedad

September 2, 2003, 09:29 AM

Bede:
Are you saying the amulet is or is not magical? Or do you take the view that if it is Christian it can't be magical?More the latter, if those are my choices, only adding that calling anything "magical" for this time period is simply to say it is not high christian. "Magical" is just not an important distinction.

But as stated previously, to see a 'christ crucified' in this amulet requires "seeing" through a christian lens.

Do you know of other similar crucifixion amulets?

Roger Pearse

September 2, 2003, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by joedad
...calling anything "magical" for this time period is simply to say it is not high christian. "Magical" is just not an important distinction.

I'm not certain that I understand, but what I'm hearing is the ideas that

1. Paganism and magic are the same thing in the eyes of pagans
2. That there were the same thing in the eyes of medieval Christian writers.

On these in turn:

1. Was not sorcery a capital crime under Roman law? (Which would sort of indicate a distinction). I seem to recall that obtaining the emperor's horoscope (or being accused of doing so) was a fatal mistake for ambitious senators. All this in the pagan period.

2. I seem to recall two positions on pagan religion, throughout the fathers. The first is that the pagan deities are demons (so Tertullian). The second is that they are nothing: just deified men (so Eusebius in the Praeparatio Evangelica). Will this picture fit with the idea of 'paganism=magic'?

Afterthought:

Christians of course might end up practising astrology, or wearing 'good luck' charms -- is that 'magic'? This would be particularly true from the 4th century on, when Christianity became rather diluted by an influx of nominal believers.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

joedad

September 2, 2003, 12:16 PM

Roger Pearse:
I'm not certain that I understand, but what I'm hearing is the ideas that

1. Paganism and magic are the same thing in the eyes of pagansNo, and this is not Kieckhefer's assertion or conclusion. To use your words but make the statement historically accurate it should read:
1. Paganism and magic are the same thing in the eyes of 'high christian culture.'Roger Pearse:
2. That there were the same thing in the eyes of medieval Christian writers.Don't know yet. I've not read far enough into Kieckhefer's book. I'm talking about antiquity up until about the Theodosian Code. Typically, the Middle ages commence in the 700s. Bede's amulet is 3rd century, a time when paganism was alive and well, diverse, flourishing, etc.Roger Pearse:
1. Was not sorcery a capital crime under Roman law? (Which would sort of indicate a distinction). I seem to recall that obtaining the emperor's horoscope (or being accused of doing so) was a fatal mistake for ambitious senators. All this in the pagan period.I do not know, but have no reason to believe such was not the case. I do not believe, however, that pagan Pagan Roman high culture ever held that all else is "magical," therefore rendering the word "magical" useless in so far as conveying specific information. The word "Barbarian" is frequently offered in the same useless manner.

Bede is maintaining that "magical," and from the perspective of high christian culture, has another meaning, involving chants and spells, and he has addressed this earlier in the thread. On this point his assertions are incorrect becuse they are historically innacurate, and it is he that is being anachronistic. "Magical" had an altogether different christian meaning in the times of Eusebius than we have of it today, or it did in the Middle Ages. Kieckhefer gives us this background information early in his book, as I attempted to indicate in earlier posts.

Toto

September 2, 2003, 01:01 PM

Roger, I can brush off your opinion that Elaine Pagels is a wacko since it is clearly opinion, and you have admitted your amateur status, but when you are going to accuse Bart Ehrmann of attempting to pass off falsehood, I think you should provide more supporting detail.

copernicus

September 2, 2003, 09:10 PM

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
Again, your comments are heavy with statements which are untrue, or worse. You'll excuse me if I do not list them all!
Thank you. I can go back to my own post for the list. As for your abrupt dismissal of my statements, I can well understand your inability to come up with a better response.

Elaine Pagels is the source you're working from, eh? That is *precisely* the sort of author I had in mind when I warned you to beware of imaginative garbage: likewise Bart Ehrmann, whom I heard lauded to the skies at a recent academic conference (and who attempted to pass off a falsehood on his audience)...
Actually, I met Elaine early in her career, when we were both assistant professors at Barnard College. We used to talk about her work on the Gnostic Gospels during afternoon faculty teas. She is now the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University. So I am in a position to know a little more about her scholarly credentials than you are, Roger. Indeed, I suspect that Elaine has read quite a few more works on the subject of the history of religion than you have, and I suspect that she has even published a few more books and peer-reviewed scholarly articles on the subject. I'm sure that she would measure up even to your lofty standards, if you would give her work more than a sniff and a sneer. ;)

I am amused to hear that the political establishment loads these people with honours; but then, in New Testament Studies, we have all been here before. 70 years ago the (successful) attempt to create a fake consensus that John was written in 170 was eventually punctured by the polite insistence of the papyrologists.
What does this have to do with Elaine Pagels? That was before she was born. Moreover, the "political establishment" is not the people who have given her honors. It is the community of scholars who publish on the subject of religion, which you apparently need to study a little more carefully. You are not qualified to judge her academic credentials, and they are.

I find that the professionals in politicised disciplines reflect only the views of those who appoint them (and this was just as true when the state had a religious position more or less Christian). Even so, while I pay only limited attention to NT Studies, I think Pagels is fairly far out on the wacko wing.
Given your credentials in the area, I'm not sure that you can risk judging lest ye be judged, Roger. ;) Not only are you arrogant, but you aren't afraid to display your ignorance. In any case, the only real contribution you seem to be able to make here is to cast aspersions on the intelligence and the scholarship of those that you disagree with, even when you haven't the slightest idea of their work. BTW, Beyond Belief. The Secret Gospel of Thomas raises the fascinating hypothesis that John's Gospel was not a standalone work, but quite possibly written as a response to Thomas. This was one of the insights that Pagels claimed to have reached from her years of research into the Nag Hammadi documents. Oh yes. I forgot to mention. Unlike you or me, Elaine actually reads quite a few biblical languages, including Greek.

In any politicised discipline, I think that it's best to descope authorities, descope one's own prejudices and work directly from the raw primary data in the historical record.
I believe that Elaine actually has read the original documents, whereas you are incapable of doing so. She writes from the perspective of a church-going theist, by the way. Perhaps that will do something to build her credibility in your eyes. I know that you prefer to judge people more on the basis of who they are and what their conclusions are than on the basis of how they reach their conclusions. ;)

Btw, in case I did not make this clear I have only limited knowledge of Greek, and write purely as an amateur.
Thank you, Roger. I admit to no special expertise in this area either. Note that Elaine makes her living by her scholarship in this area, and I do not think that she was given tenure at one of America's most prestigious universities for her political skills alone. She is one of the best known researchers on Nag Hammadi documents, and you should be aware of that. It is a lot easier to make snide comments about the work of scholars than to actually say something of substance on the matter.

Rick Sumner

September 3, 2003, 02:52 AM

BTW, Beyond Belief. The Secret Gospel of Thomas raises the fascinating hypothesis that John's Gospel was not a standalone work, but quite possibly written as a response to Thomas. This was one of the insights that Pagels claimed to have reached from her years of research into the Nag Hammadi documents.

This book was bitterly disappointing. I wouldn't go so far as Pearse does, but I definitely wouldn't reccommend it to anyone. It was the Gnostic Gospels Redux, with autobiographical commentary by the author. Except, like all sequels, it was nowhere near as good as the original. I'd actually anticipated it for exactly the reason you outline above--I'd understood it to be about John and Thomas. At the time I had just finished Riley's _Resurrection Reconsidered_ and Charlesworth's _The Beloved Disciple_, and so was in a "John and Thomas" state of mind. Except the book wasn't about Thomas, excluding Ch.II. Once you parse away autobiographical information up to p.35, you're left with 38 pages about Thomas--out of a 185 p. book (not including notes). A book bearing the misleading subtitle "The Secret Gospel of Thomas" no less. It was, in essence, not only disappointing, but deceptive. I don't know that I'd be citing it as one of Pagels' accolades.

Regards,
Rick

Dean Anderson

September 3, 2003, 04:00 AM

So, having established that Eusebius found it acceptable for teachers to write/say things that were not 100% in accordance with historical truth (regardless of whether he did or did not do so himself) in order to make a theological point - can we simply agree to disagree on whether these 'Pseudos' should be translated as 'Lies', 'Parables', 'Fictions', 'Falsehoods', or 'Elephants' and get back to the original topic?

What other evidence is there for and against there being stories of the crucifixion of the mythical Dionysis?

Sorry to sound irritable, folks, but this was going way off topic with no sign of ever returning to it and I am interested in an answer to the original question...

Roger Pearse

September 3, 2003, 05:32 AM

Originally posted by copernicus
Thank you. I can go back to my own post for the list. As for your abrupt dismissal of my statements, I can well understand your inability to come up with a better response.

This seems to require no response.

...Lengthy bum-suck...

ROTFL.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

September 3, 2003, 06:55 AM

Originally posted by Pervy Hobbit Fancier
So, having established that Eusebius found it acceptable for teachers to write/say things that were not 100% in accordance with historical truth (regardless of whether he did or did not do so himself) in order to make a theological point - can we simply agree to disagree on whether these 'Pseudos' should be translated as 'Lies', 'Parables', 'Fictions', 'Falsehoods', or 'Elephants'

This is to misrepresent Eusebius, and to pretend that literature does not exist as a genre.

What other evidence is there for and against there being stories of the crucifixion of the mythical Dionysis?

I'm sorry to say that I have no information on this topic, although I have never heard of such a story, I must say. What is needed is raw, primary, data, isn't it?

I'd suggest proceeding something along these lines:

1. Where does the idea that there is such a story come from? Do we have any leads to the primary data?
2. Where in the primary data are the legends of Dionysius discussed? (Hesiod, 'Works & Days', or something like that? <guessing>) We'd want a good list of the literary refs.
3. Once we have this info, we can go through them, and get a good idea as to what (if anything) is alleged in this direction.

I think we want some sort of dictionary of classical antiquity, which has detailed refs, and follow those refs.

There seems to be a remarkable dearth of useful material online, I must say. A few trivial accounts, with no indication of what in the way of data underlies them, was all I could find. It's remarkable how little there is, given the pseudo-pagans prancing around. Perhaps worshipping rocks is more fun than documenting facts, eh? (Must be nice rocks). What are the main literary sources for ancient paganism, I wonder?

All the best

demoninho

September 3, 2003, 08:12 AM

H,m I found a transcript of the television show I mentioned in my OP. It's in pdf and in dutch but it mentions the original english text is also there but hidden ( I don't know how to unhide but maybe you do)

transcript (http://www.canvas.be/html/canvas_web/hetderdeoog/hetgeheimvanjezus.pdf)

Roger Pearse

September 3, 2003, 09:37 AM

Originally posted by demoninho
H,m I found a transcript of the television show I mentioned in my OP. It's in pdf and in dutch but it mentions the original english text is also there but hidden ( I don't know how to unhide but maybe you do)

transcript (http://www.canvas.be/html/canvas_web/hetderdeoog/hetgeheimvanjezus.pdf)

Well, I've taken a look, but I don't know how to 'unhide' either -- anyone. My Dutch is wretched, I'm afraid.

This all seems to be stuff by Freke and Gandy, doesn't it? There seems to be a reference to an amulet, which, we are told, displays a picture of Jesus, but is labelled in accompanying Greek text as being Dionysius. I wasn't quite clear whether some source for this was given -- Dimoinho, would you translate the relevant bits for us, and see if we can get a ref to something scholarly.

The other references to Dionysius appeared to be assertions, undocumented. Again, if I missed something, by all means run it into English.

Obviously we need to get past Freke and Gandy and see the real publication of the artefact, as F&G are not scholars, but money-seekers, and so are only repeating (probably inaccurately) something they read elsewhere.

If the amulet is all there is, and it is as represented, obviously it has no value as testimony. Such items can come into existence in any number of ways. This is the frustrating thing about archaeology -- it's great, solid, evidence, but usually doesn't solve anything. We need literary evidence to make sense of it, as a rule.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Bede

September 3, 2003, 09:58 AM

Well, that script has Freke and Gandy being interviewed. Unless they had their worked trashed, I don't think we need pursue this any further as they are both frauds and nutters. If Eusebius is a bit unrelaible he is a model of probity compared to those two. They are the source of the Dionysius being crucified story and anything they say must be taken with buckets of salt.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

joedad

September 3, 2003, 11:36 AM

Here's Bede's amulet http://home.comcast.net/~mythology1/amulet.jpg which is supposedly a depiction of christ crucified, but that is supposedly demonic, hence magical, hence non-christian, because it contains "magical characters" on the reverse side. The Dionysus/Bacchus amulet is obviously more straightforward, and probably somewhat color enhanced, but I'm guessing.

Anyway, it is described on page 27 of Magic in the Middle Ages as ...a gem from around the third century that shows Christ crucified, with kneeling figures on either side of him, the inscription "Jesus M[essiah]" written in Aramaic, and magical characters on the reverse side... While it may be that non Christian magicians were drawing on the power of the Christian God, it seems more likely that Christians themselves were dabbling at times in magic.As stated previously, I think the author and Bede are seeing this amulet through a christian lens. It doesn't even have a cross, and the figure seems to be floating in space, with branch-like arms/hands sticking out from the neck. And is that a head?

I don't know what that thing is supposedly "kneeling," and I wish we could see the back. The author also says the inscription reads "Jesus M[essiah]" so I assume he is inferring that the "M" stands for "Messiah." Can anyone help with the inscription?

Sure wish I could see those "demonic," hence magical, characters on the back.

Roger Pearse

September 3, 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Bede
Well, that script has Freke and Gandy being interviewed. Unless they had their worked trashed, I don't think we need pursue this any further as they are both frauds and nutters.

This idea would appear to be the basis of one of their books, which presumably they were promoting:

The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0609807986/InternetInfidels)

A look at the titles of books written by each in Amazon is instructive. Freke is author of Exotic Massage for Lovers (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0806961708/InternetInfidels) .
Hmm. Clearly a man of versatile gifts.

Obviously there is a market for "The Real Story About Christianity As Known Only To Us" books in the US. Full marks on them for exploiting it, of course: but a nuisance to those of us not making money, and interested in the subject.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Edited Amazon links --Celsus

Toto

September 3, 2003, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Roger Pearse
. . .There seems to be a remarkable dearth of useful material online, I must say. A few trivial accounts, with no indication of what in the way of data underlies them, was all I could find. It's remarkable how little there is, given the pseudo-pagans prancing around. Perhaps worshipping rocks is more fun than documenting facts, eh? (Must be nice rocks). What are the main literary sources for ancient paganism, I wonder?

All the best

But we know that the Christians burned a lot of pagan literature when they had the chance. (The Bible records instances of this.)

All the best to you.

joedad

September 3, 2003, 12:41 PM

Roger Pearse
. . .There seems to be a remarkable dearth of useful material online, I must say. A few trivial accounts, with no indication of what in the way of data underlies them, was all I could find. It's remarkable how little there is, given the pseudo-pagans prancing around. Perhaps worshipping rocks is more fun than documenting facts, eh? (Must be nice rocks). What are the main literary sources for ancient paganism, I wonder?Roger Pearse,

Were you a christian in the third century and thereabouts, you'd be hearing this from pagans. It is, therefore, useless polemic imho. In particular, I think you err when you do not see religious continuity between paganism and christianism, if indeed you do not.

If I can steal from Dr Seuss,One god, two god,
red god, blue god':p

Do you see a crucifixion in Bede's amulet?

Dean Anderson

September 3, 2003, 01:45 PM

Well, I've had a look at a copy of Freke and Gandy's book ('The Jesus Mysteries') to see where they get their info from.

On the death of Dionysus they state (Page 62: I have placed their references in the same places they have, but numbered them 1-4 instead of 202-205 for clarity)

In the Mysteries of Dionysus, a large bearded mask representing the godman was hung on a wooden pole.(1) Like Jesus, who at his crucifixion is given a crown of thorns, Dionysus was given a crown of ivy. Just as Jesus is dressed up in purple robes when he is ridiculed by the Roman soldiers, so Dionysus was also dressed in purple robes and initiates at Eleusis wore a purple sash around their bodies.(2) Just before he dies Jesus is given wine mixed with gall to drink.(3) Wine was ritually imbibed by celebrants in the Mysteries of Dionysus, and the Hierophant who represented Dionysus himself, was given gall to drink.(4)

Their notes for this passage are:

(1) 'Dionysos Myth and Cult' (W. F. Otto 1965, Spring Publications) - See chapter 6, note 2 for details of August Frickenhaus' collection of many such depictions.

[My note: Freke and Gandy reproduce two depictions - one from a 2nd-3rd century sarcophagus showing 'a baby Dionysus being presented a large cross as an omen of his ultimate fate', and the other also from a sarcophagus of the same period showing Dionysus being 'lifted up on a tree' and saying that in many such images a crosspiece is seen (there is not one visible in this particular image)]

(2) Mark 15:17, 'Greek Religion: Archaic and Classical' (W. Burkert 1985, Harvard University Press) page 283, 'The Ancient Mysteries Sourcebook' (M. W. Meyer 1987, HarperCollins) page 59

(3) 'The Canon of the New Testament' (B. M. Metzger 1987, Oxford University Press) page 57, The Epistle of Barnabas

(4) 'Prologemena to the Study of Greek Religion' (J. Harrison 1922, Princeton University Press) page 569

Now I don't know whether Freke and Gandy have misrepresented their sources or not. However, since they give their sources openly (including page numbers) I suppose it is fairly easy to check.

Are they being misquoted?

Does anyone here have access to these sources so that they can check them?

Are the sources themselves known to be reliable or not?

Personally, I am willing to keep an open mind and not dismiss this as rubbish just yet.

Originally by Bede
Well, that script has Freke and Gandy being interviewed. Unless they had their worked trashed, I don't think we need pursue this any further as they are both frauds and nutters.

Originally by Roger Pearse
A look at the titles of books written by each in Amazon is instructive. Freke is author of Exotic Massage for Lovers .
Hmm. Clearly a man of versatile gifts.

Hmm... can we leave the blatant ad-hominem attacks out of this. They are not constructive at all.

Bede - What grounds do you have to dismiss the paragraph above as being that of 'frauds and nutters'? Can you quote me the originals to show where Freke and Gandy misrepresent them in a fraudulent and insane way?

Roger - So the guy is a good lover and masseur. Good for him. Does that make him know any less about Dionysus?

Mageth

September 3, 2003, 01:50 PM

What are the main literary sources for ancient paganism, I wonder?

The Golden Bough - A Study in Magic and Religion (1922) By Sir James George Fraser (1854 - 1941) is one good source.

It (the short version - it was originally 12 volumes, IIRC) can be found online here. (http://www.nalanda.nitc.ac.in/resources/english/etext-project/history/fraser/golden/leftframe.html)

Another source is Joseph Campbell, particularly The Masks of God series (http://www.jcf.org/works.php?id=259&PHPSESSID=c558601538463f84acc42757323f3dcb), but also The Hero with a Thousand Faces (http://www.jcf.org/works.php?id=46).

Toto

September 3, 2003, 02:28 PM

I don't have my copy of Freke and Gandy here - do they say that Dionysios was crucified?

The Golden Bough linked above says:

In Boeotia one of his titles was 'Dionysus in the tree.' His image was often merely an upright post, without arms, but draped in a mantle, with a bearded mask to represent the head, and with leafy boughs projecting from the head or body to show the nature of the deity.

This doesn't mean that he was crucified, but since Jesus' crucifixion is referred to in Acts as being "hung on a tree" there appears to be a possible link between the two images, which might well have been exploited by early Christians trying to convert the followers of the mysteries.

The other possible link:

Like other gods of vegetation Dionysus was believed to have died a violent death, but to have been brought to life again; and his sufferings, death, and resurrection were enacted in his sacred rites.

And Bede's amulet does not look like a crucifixion to me - but the head does look like a cross.

Rick Sumner

September 3, 2003, 04:08 PM

This doesn't mean that he was crucified, but since Jesus' crucifixion is referred to in Acts as being "hung on a tree" there appears to be a possible link between the two images, which might well have been exploited by early Christians trying to convert the followers of the mysteries.

In Jewish literature, being "hanged alive from a tree" is a common euphemism for crucifixion, eg. 4Q169 1.6. There's a better citation in the DSS somewhere--condemning the Kittim for hanging men alive from trees--but I can't for the life of me remember where.

Regards,
Rick

Toto

September 3, 2003, 04:14 PM

Jewish execution practice was to stone a miscreant and then hang the body from a tree - not exactly the same as the Roman crucifixion. In Acts the Jews are said to have slew Jesus and hung him from a tree.

In any case, Dionysios was "hung from a tree" (in effigy) in the mystery celebrations, which might have been interpreted as crucifixion by a spectator. But the legends that we have do not describe him as having died by crucifixion - it appears that he was torn apart.

Rick Sumner

September 3, 2003, 05:31 PM

Originally posted by Toto
Jewish execution practice was to stone a miscreant and then hang the body from a tree - not exactly the same as the Roman crucifixion. In Acts the Jews are said to have slew Jesus and hung him from a tree.

I know. That's why I said the better example was the verse in which they condemn the Kittim for hanging men alive from trees. I'll see if I can track it down--I really wish there was a concordance to these things that didn't cost a small fortune.

In any case, Dionysios was "hung from a tree" (in effigy) in the mystery celebrations, which might have been interpreted as crucifixion by a spectator. But the legends that we have do not describe him as having died by crucifixion - it appears that he was torn apart.

I'd be interested in seeing more reliable information on the matter. A quick Google of "Dionysus of the tree" turned up precisely zero results that weren't quoting Frazer. Ditto for "Dionysus in the tree." Replacing "Dionysus" with "Bacchus" turns up zero results period. Since he doesn't provide any references whatsoever, this is suspicious to say the least.

I would also be interested in knowing why any 'spectator' would have seen these secret rites other than those in the sect.

I would also be interested in knowing why it would be in any way acquianted with crucifixion. Dionysus was, after all, the god of fruit trees. Are we to presume that spectators to this secret rite didn't know that?

The 'evidence' that followers of Dionysus have anything to do with crucifixion is both lonely and late. And thus, as Bede noted, if we are going to view any causality on the matter, it runs *from* Christianity, not to it.

Incidentally, contra seemingly everyone else, I'd reccommend never looking at The Golden Bough again. The utter absence of reference to sources classical or contemporary, can only be described as appalling.

Regards,
Rick