Representations and depictions of the deity

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Those were the relevant sections. Nothing showed in skimming the rest that seemed to contradict what was in those pages, and Woods is careful to state that much of what he writes is speculation. In short, this reads much as a discussion paper exploring and intending to open avenues of enquiry.

Your citation of a few sentences from the first five pages suggests a degree of cherry picking purely in support your own prejudice and a reluctance to read any further.

[tabibito]

Your citation of a few sentences from the first five pages suggests a degree of cherry picking purely in support your own prejudice and a reluctance to read any further.

The balance of the paper is simply not relevant to the discussion at hand; what was in circulation per the relevant documents was. Woods' assessment of the reliability of those documents doesn't affect whether they were considered valid at the time they were written.

By Woods' own comments, the source texts state what I have already relayed. By his assessment, those texts should perhaps not be regarded as reliable.

Also according to Woods -

"To summarize, the accounts by Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in AD 19 are second or third-hand accounts, and need to be treated accordingly. In so far as they all repeat the same bizarre claim that Tiberius conscripted 4,000 men at Rome in order to punish them for their religious beliefs, it is clear that they all depend on the same ultimate source."

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot backing his assessment - in fact, it doesn't seem that he provides any supporting citations.

[rogue06]

The question made pertains to when the church started openly displaying crosses. And that did not occur after the early fourth century

I don't recall anyone saying they were never displayed until after the 4th cent. but rather until then it was rare or not extensive. The fact that the pagans were quite familiar with Christians venerating the cross (calling us cross worshipers as a result), not just in Carthage but in Rome as well, provides strong evidence that there were visible crosses and they were associated with Christian worship. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense for pagans to have made those charges.

Your phrase "adoring or worshiping the cross itself" raises questions. Jesus the Christ was worshipped but was the cross as an icon in and of itself worshipped in the second/third centuries? There is a subtle distinction between veneration and adoration/worship. [/FONT]

Not my phrase but rather what pagans in the second and third centuries were calling Christians. You might want to at least get that important fact correct.

Furthermore, Christianity was hardly a monolithic religion in those early centuries and various different forms were to be found across a wide variety of theological beliefs, commitments, and practices. The entire belief system was fluid ranging from the proto-orthodox to various Gnostic forms, and because of that the beliefs of adherents cannot be neatly packaged and assumed to be uniform.

Are you done? We're discussing when the cross began to be displayed by Christians. Try to remain focused.

The staurogram, while adopted by some early Christians, predates Christianity and just because two intersecting lines were made on an ancient artefact it cannot automatically assumed that those lines represented a Christian cross. Nor do other artefacts from those early centuries necessarily indicate an exclusive Christian monotheism. Would an amulet or ring with a cross automatically mean that the owner/wearer worshipped the Christian deity exclusively? Were there groups who worshipped Jesus among other gods? It is not inconceivable. Verses in Revelation refer to the Nicolatians and a Gnostic sect of this name is mentioned by Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Pseudo-Tertuallian. That Irenaeus alleges this sect was founded by the Nicholas of Antioch who appears in Acts, that is nothing but his own conjecture and his and those other Christian writers may all be deriving their accounts from the verses found in Revelation.

Again, we are discussing when the cross began to be displayed by Christians. Nobody is saying that crosses have been used by other societies and cultures. Try to remain focused.

I think you are in danger of falling into the assumption that those early followers of Jesus made frequent use of the cross at all time from the very outset. That assumption does not hold up against the historical data.

Then you would be wrong. Not "frequently" but often enough for the cross to have been a symbol of Christianity stretching back through Paul's letters, John's Revelation, and onto the ECFs. That is exactly what the evidence reveals.

The symbolism of the cross was clearly of significance to those early Christians but the material evidence from the early centuries is scant and suggests that it was not at the focal point of devotion in Christian gatherings until much later and its artistic prominence only occurred after the initiatives of Constantine.

You started out well but then made a huge assumption without bothering to link it to any evidence.

As you correctly stated "The symbolism of the cross was clearly of significance to those early Christians" and there is no indication of that significance waning. Constantine making Christianity legal merely allowed for the symbols already in play to come out and be seen more. That is where the evidence clearly leads.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I don't recall anyone saying they were never displayed until after the 4th cent. but rather until then it was rare or not extensive.

That was the question put to me by Machinist. He wrote " When did the church start openly displaying crosses?"

The fact that the pagans were quite familiar with Christians venerating the cross (calling us cross worshipers as a result), not just in Carthage but in Rome as well, provides strong evidence that there were visible crosses and they were associated with Christian worship. Otherwise it makes absolutely no sense for pagans to have made those charges.

The Christians worshipping a crucified Jew was evidently known.

Not my phrase but rather what pagans in the second and third centuries were calling Christians.

Really? Then you can give us all the name of the specific non-Christian who made the comment that early Christians were "adoring or worshiping the cross itself"

Are you done? We're discussing when the cross began to be displayed by Christians. Try to remain focused.

You fail to understand that your religion was fluid at this period and a practise in one community cannot be supposed to have been a practise across all the disparate communities.

Again, we are discussing when the cross began to be displayed by Christians.

Then you have your answer. It was not publicly and openly displayed until after Constantine's initiatives.

Then you would be wrong. Not "frequently" but often enough for the cross to have been a symbol of Christianity stretching back through Paul's letters, John's Revelation, and onto the ECFs. That is exactly what the evidence reveals.

The data do not support your contention.

Written references or secret signs are not the same as publicly and openly displaying this icon as a symbol of worship.

You started out well but then made a huge assumption without bothering to link it to any evidence.

Do some reading. Jensen for example.

As you correctly stated "The symbolism of the cross was clearly of significance to those early Christians" and there is no indication of that significance waning.

That it clearly had symbolic significance for Christians is not disputed and it starts to appear in graffiti and in funerary iconography from the late third century as well as in amulets and rings but the open and public display of venerating or worshipping the cross itself as a symbol does not occur until after Constantine.

[tabibito]

Not my phrase but rather what pagans in the second and third centuries were calling Christians. You might want to at least get that important fact correct.

It seems possible on the basis of no more than gleanings, that the primitive church did use the cross and other Christian symbols openly. It also seems likely that from the late second century and well into the fourth (if not the early fifth), open display of those symbols would have ceased.

Christianity Today has an article - not that it directly addresses the issue at hand - that seems relevant. The article's opening, "Beginning as a despised, illicit religious sect, Christianity endured 300 years of hostility to emerge as the dominant force in the Roman Empire" is something of an over-statement when compared with its content.

[rogue06]

It seems possible on the basis of no more than gleanings, that the primitive church did use the cross and other Christian symbols openly. It also seems likely that from the late second century and well into the fourth (if not the early fifth), open display of those symbols would have ceased.

Christianity Today has an article - not that it directly addresses the issue at hand - that seems relevant. The article's opening, "Beginning as a despised, illicit religious sect, Christianity endured 300 years of hostility to emerge as the dominant force in the Roman Empire" is something of an over-statement when compared with its content.

While possible I see no evidence for a "dark age" of the cross starting in the late second to early third cent. where it disappeared from view until later, and certainly not until the fifth cent. (almost a hundred years after the Edict of Milan in 313).

The evidence seems to indicate that, as a persecuted group that could be sentenced to death merely for being a Christian, that they wouldn't parade their symbols around but would keep them and their ceremonies low key (befitting a group that would hide in the catacombs to worship). But even so, it is pretty clear that the cross was seen enough so that the average citizen were calling Christians cross worshippers.

Unfortunately CT appears to have started putting their articles behind paywalls only allowing previews.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It seems possible on the basis of no more than gleanings, that the primitive church did use the cross and other Christian symbols openly. It also seems likely that from the late second century and well into the fourth (if not the early fifth), open display of those symbols would have ceased.

Christianity Today has an article - not that it directly addresses the issue at hand - that seems relevant. The article's opening, "Beginning as a despised, illicit religious sect, Christianity endured 300 years of hostility to emerge as the dominant force in the Roman Empire" is something of an over-statement when compared with its content.

From the article:

Despite this toleration, by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

A distorted and over-simplified rendering of the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan.

As for Christianity becoming the dominant force in the Empire, that arose from the luck of Imperial patronage.

If only Julian had not died of his wounds!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The balance of the paper is simply not relevant to the discussion at hand; what was in circulation per the relevant documents was. Woods' assessment of the reliability of those documents doesn't affect whether they were considered valid at the time they were written.

By Woods' own comments, the source texts state what I have already relayed. By his assessment, those texts should perhaps not be regarded as reliable.

Also according to Woods -

"To summarize, the accounts by Josephus, Suetonius, and Tacitus of the expulsion of the Jews from Rome in AD 19 are second or third-hand accounts, and need to be treated accordingly. In so far as they all repeat the same bizarre claim that Tiberius conscripted 4,000 men at Rome in order to punish them for their religious beliefs, it is clear that they all depend on the same ultimate source."

There doesn't seem to be a whole lot backing his assessment - in fact, it doesn't seem that he provides any supporting citations.

I suspect that Margaret H Williams' 1989 paper may be closer to the truth and the expulsion was for serious disturbances. You can read it here if you have a log-in https://www.jstor.org/stable/4153547...e074ff0358c5dc

She quotes J A Crook in the final paragraph of that paper who commented that "if Jews were thought to be responsible for disturbances they got into trouble like everyone else". Her contention is that that is what led to the expulsion of 19 CE.

[tabibito]

Unfortunately CT appears to have started putting their articles behind paywalls only allowing previews.

Persecution by the Jews.

64 CE - Persecution (Nero)

c. 115 Tacitus included an account of the incident in his Annales (XV, 44). Except for the manner of the Christians’ deaths, which he thought excessively cruel, he showed no sympathy for the Christians. Recording that “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin” was executed by “one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,” Tacitus described the Christians as a “class hated for their abominations” and guilty of “hatred of the human race,” an accusation he also made against the Jews. Theirs was not a “religion” but a “deadly superstition,” and hence worthy of repression.

30 years of relative peace - then a pogrom that may have been undertaken at that time. Uncertain, but Domitian may have acted against Christians among Roman hierarchy.

Domitian acted drastically against some members of the Roman nobility accused of “atheism” and “lapsing into Jewish customs.” It is not sure that Christianity was meant. However, Domitlla, the emperor’s kinswoman (neptis) who was exiled to the island of Pantelleria [near Sicily], was believed to have been a Christian.

by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

112 - Pliny's letter. Trajan gives a minor concession to Christianity in advising that Christians should not be searched out.

124–125 Christianity given further concessions.

Anti-Christian riots had broken out in the province of Asia (western Asia Minor) in 122–123, and the governor had written to Emperor Hadrian for advice. In response, Hadrian’s rescript (imperial order) allowed cases against Christians to be brought to trial, but ordered that the Christians had to be proven guilty of illegal acts before they could be condemned. Once again, “slanderous attacks” against Christians were forbidden. The rescript helped protect Christians, for now the emphasis was less on their name than on specific misdeeds.

161, With the accession of Marcus Aurelius as emperor ... Christians were ... blamed for causing natural disasters by refusing to worship the deities that protected communities. Christians were also accused of immorality, unnatural vice, and black magic, all calculated to bring the rest of the population into peril.

[/box]

See-sawing between persecution and relative peace continued.

"July 258, Valerian ordered that bishops, priests, and deacons be executed, that church property be confiscated, that socially superior (honorati) laity lose their privileges and imperial civil servants (Caesariani) be reduced to slavery (a status from which many had emerged).

In some parts of the Empire this persecution of 258 259 was the bloodiest the church endured."

43 years of peace and then

In 303 ... came 10 years of persecution, the “Great Persecution” as it became known.

All that would have made open display of the cross, but not the use thereof, rather problematical. However, as you pointed out, the Edict of Milan would have been a watershed.

[rogue06]

Persecution by the Jews.

64 CE - Persecution (Nero)

c. 115 Tacitus included an account of the incident in his Annales (XV, 44). Except for the manner of the Christians’ deaths, which he thought excessively cruel, he showed no sympathy for the Christians. Recording that “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin” was executed by “one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,” Tacitus described the Christians as a “class hated for their abominations” and guilty of “hatred of the human race,” an accusation he also made against the Jews. Theirs was not a “religion” but a “deadly superstition,” and hence worthy of repression.

30 years of relative peace - then a pogrom that may have been undertaken at that time. Uncertain, but Domitian may have acted against Christians among Roman hierarchy.

Domitian acted drastically against some members of the Roman nobility accused of “atheism” and “lapsing into Jewish customs.” It is not sure that Christianity was meant. However, Domitlla, the emperor’s kinswoman (neptis) who was exiled to the island of Pantelleria [near Sicily], was believed to have been a Christian.

by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

112 - Pliny's letter. Trajan gives a minor concession to Christianity in advising that Christians should not be searched out.

124–125 Christianity given further concessions.

Anti-Christian riots had broken out in the province of Asia (western Asia Minor) in 122–123, and the governor had written to Emperor Hadrian for advice. In response, Hadrian’s rescript (imperial order) allowed cases against Christians to be brought to trial, but ordered that the Christians had to be proven guilty of illegal acts before they could be condemned. Once again, “slanderous attacks” against Christians were forbidden. The rescript helped protect Christians, for now the emphasis was less on their name than on specific misdeeds.

161, With the accession of Marcus Aurelius as emperor ... Christians were ... blamed for causing natural disasters by refusing to worship the deities that protected communities. Christians were also accused of immorality, unnatural vice, and black magic, all calculated to bring the rest of the population into peril.

[/box]

See-sawing between persecution and relative peace continued.

"July 258, Valerian ordered that bishops, priests, and deacons be executed, that church property be confiscated, that socially superior (honorati) laity lose their privileges and imperial civil servants (Caesariani) be reduced to slavery (a status from which many had emerged).

In some parts of the Empire this persecution of 258 259 was the bloodiest the church endured."

43 years of peace and then

In 303 ... came 10 years of persecution, the “Great Persecution” as it became known.

All that would have made open display of the cross, but not the use thereof, rather problematical. However, as you pointed out, the Edict of Milan would have been a watershed.

It appears to mirror the sort of persecutions the Jews faced later on. So if H_A wants to whine that Christians weren't "routinely" persecuted prior to Constantine, then the same could be said about the Jews during the Middle Ages and later.

[rogue06]

From the article:

Despite this toleration, by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

A distorted and over-simplified rendering of the correspondence between Pliny the Younger and Trajan.

As for Christianity becoming the dominant force in the Empire, that arose from the luck of Imperial patronage.

If only Julian had not died of his wounds!

Whenever someone says something that tears another gaping hole into H_A's narrative we can expect her to sally forth and whine that it is "distorted and over-simplified" for nothing is allowed to show that once again the one who is in fact clueless and spouting oversimplified views is H_A herself.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Persecution by the Jews.

64 CE - Persecution (Nero)

c. 115 Tacitus included an account of the incident in his Annales (XV, 44). Except for the manner of the Christians’ deaths, which he thought excessively cruel, he showed no sympathy for the Christians. Recording that “Christus, from whom the name [Christians] had its origin” was executed by “one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate,” Tacitus described the Christians as a “class hated for their abominations” and guilty of “hatred of the human race,” an accusation he also made against the Jews. Theirs was not a “religion” but a “deadly superstition,” and hence worthy of repression.

30 years of relative peace - then a pogrom that may have been undertaken at that time. Uncertain, but Domitian may have acted against Christians among Roman hierarchy.

Domitian acted drastically against some members of the Roman nobility accused of “atheism” and “lapsing into Jewish customs.” It is not sure that Christianity was meant. However, Domitlla, the emperor’s kinswoman (neptis) who was exiled to the island of Pantelleria [near Sicily], was believed to have been a Christian.

by the early second century the Roman governor of Bithynia (on the Black Sea) had no hesitation in sending to immediate execution those who had been denounced as being Christians. The name alone was a sufficient death warrant.

112 - Pliny's letter. Trajan gives a minor concession to Christianity in advising that Christians should not be searched out.

124–125 Christianity given further concessions.

Anti-Christian riots had broken out in the province of Asia (western Asia Minor) in 122–123, and the governor had written to Emperor Hadrian for advice. In response, Hadrian’s rescript (imperial order) allowed cases against Christians to be brought to trial, but ordered that the Christians had to be proven guilty of illegal acts before they could be condemned. Once again, “slanderous attacks” against Christians were forbidden. The rescript helped protect Christians, for now the emphasis was less on their name than on specific misdeeds.

161, With the accession of Marcus Aurelius as emperor ... Christians were ... blamed for causing natural disasters by refusing to worship the deities that protected communities. Christians were also accused of immorality, unnatural vice, and black magic, all calculated to bring the rest of the population into peril.

[/box]

See-sawing between persecution and relative peace continued.

"July 258, Valerian ordered that bishops, priests, and deacons be executed, that church property be confiscated, that socially superior (honorati) laity lose their privileges and imperial civil servants (Caesariani) be reduced to slavery (a status from which many had emerged).

In some parts of the Empire this persecution of 258 259 was the bloodiest the church endured."

43 years of peace and then

In 303 ... came 10 years of persecution, the “Great Persecution” as it became known.

All that would have made open display of the cross, but not the use thereof, rather problematical. However, as you pointed out, the Edict of Milan would have been a watershed.

What on earth has any of the above to do with the Jews?

Is it a C&P from the article or have you sourced elsewhere?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

It appears to mirror the sort of persecutions the Jews faced later on. So if H_A wants to whine that Christians weren't "routinely" persecuted prior to Constantine, then the same could be said about the Jews during the Middle Ages and later.

Whenever someone says something that tears another gaping hole into H_A's narrative we can expect her to sally forth and whine that it is "distorted and over-simplified" for nothing is allowed to show that once again the one who is in fact clueless and spouting oversimplified views is H_A herself.

Might I suggest you extend your reading beyond Wiki articles and what you can glean from Google Books and actually read some academic works on these topics?

[tabibito]

I suspect that Margaret H Williams' 1989 paper may be closer to the truth and the expulsion was for serious disturbances. You can read it here if you have a log-in https://www.jstor.org/stable/4153547...e074ff0358c5dc

She quotes J A Crook in the final paragraph of that paper who commented that "if Jews were thought to be responsible for disturbances they got into trouble like everyone else". Her contention is that that is what led to the expulsion of 19 CE.

Did you pay any attention to page 783? Action in Rome against the Jews (and other groups) coincided with political instability. And the paper doesn't seem to deal with events BCE. It may be that Williams is closer to the truth than others, but she also admits that much of her assessment is based on reading between the lines.

[tabibito]

What on earth has any of the above to do with the Jews?

Is it a C&P from the article or have you sourced elsewhere?

It is relevant to the discussion about the use (or not) of the cross in early Christian customs, and whether a hiatus in the public display of the cross in connexion with Christianity is possible.

And yes - it is sourced from the article in Christianity today. Given that the post was addressed to Rogue, context was enough to establish the fact.