Comments by "" (@neutronalchemist3241) on "UsefulCharts"
channel.
-
151
-
72
-
@jmiquelmb Many people talk of "most something" when trying to find a justification for their very personal beliefs. Actually that only the elites were literate (and used this as a "weapon" to keep the lower strata subjugated) is the old school, represented, IE, by W.Harris. Most modern historians refuted that view, exactly for what I said. There are too many surviving inscriptions specifically destined to the lower classes and/or written by them. Even the bricks were often numbered to mark their pre-planned place in the construction (many Roman buildings were "prefabricated"), but that means that the bricklayer could read numbers.
In middle age, graffiti were the exception, and they were different kind of graffiti. Mostly left by people that were evidently educated to record their passage somewere. In Rome, like in the present world, graffiti on the most trivial matters were the norm. Martial wrote "There’s no place for a poor man to think or
rest. Schoolmasters disturb life in the morning, the bakers at night, the coppersmiths hammer all day". Street schools were so diffused that the lessons disturbed people like the other artisanal activities.
Harris counters these arguments by citing the poor quality of the graffiti, noting that quoting (or more often misquoting) Virgil’s Aeneid on a tavern wall does not make a man literate. Maybe, but it makes him able to read and write.
That's the key. When stating that in ancient Rome the "literacy rate" was "only" from 10% to 20%. Scholars refers to something else than the simple ability to read and write. The ability to read and write at an elementary level (what Petronius in the Satyricon called the ability to "read stone letters") was MUCH more diffused.
20
-
@SevCaswell First, to counter the "100 years" argument.
Around 140 AD Marcion of Sinope wrote his own "single" gospel, largely copying that of Luke. It' wouldn't have made sense to copy a text that was less than 10 years old.
The muratorian fragment (the original dated around 170) estabilishes the canon on the basis of the antiquity of the writings, saying, IE, that the Shepherd of Hermas was too recent to be included in the canon. The Sheperd had been composed in the first half of second century at the latest. It wouldnt have made sense to include in the canon the four gospels if they had been written in the same years.
The Papyrus 52, a fragment of John's Gospel, is dated at around middle second century. Since the fragment is separated from the original autograph by at least one copy, the date of composition of the Gospel of John cannot be later than a few years before the production of P 52 ; this date must be further moved back to allow the original work to spread from the place of composition of the gospel to that of the production of P 52. In this case P 52 would confirm the traditionally accepted date for the definitive redaction of the Gospel of John, the end of the 1st century. Note that in John's gospel is already reported that many others had written about the life of Jesus.
Papia of Hierapolis wrote about the gospels in the years 95–110 AD, stating that Mark was an interpreter of St. Peter. So Mark's gospel was already old and well known in his time.
The author of Luke's gospel is largely considered to be the same of the Acts of the Apostles. Not only the Acts described a church in it's infancy, that was no more relevant in second century, but they end before the inprisonment of Paul (around 64 AD). There are not many explanations for the abrupt end of the Acts other than the author could no more write after that date.
12
-
8
-
6
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
In Rome beard came in and out of fashion several times (you can see wih the bearded and shaved Emperors), but the beard was always associated with the sacerdotal status and with positions of particular power and wisdom (Jupiter was always depicted bearded). That's why i had been finally adopted for Jesus. Among the bearded Jesus images, the author missed the 4th century (very early 4th century for some scholar) "Christ between Peter and Paul" in the catacombs of Marcellinus and Peter. It can be older than that of the Catacombs of Commodilla, and it's quite evident the resemblance with images of Jupiter.
However, after the fall of the Empire, medieval depictions of the saints (Christ with the beard, John the Baptist covered in animal skin, Mattew with the lion, Luke with the eagle...) were made like that not because the artist believed John the Baptist was always covered in animal skin (a symbol of him being an hermit), but to make them canonical, and so recognisable by people that generally couldn't read. Bearded Christ was a convention, and artists knew it was a convention, that sometimes they decided to not follow (IE Michelangelo's Christ in the Last Judgement is beardless).
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
@Brother_Piner The medieval graffiti we have are mostly drawings. The Roman ones are mostly written, and not only names, they are jokes, vulgarities, ads, riddles, etc. It's evident that who left them used writing for the most mundane things, and expected the general public, not only a small minority, to be able to read them. What's the sense of a writing that cursed whoever pissed on a wall, if only 1/10 of the people could read it?
You dont' need to be literate to carve your name. It only needs for you to know the "shape" of it. That's why the fact that the Romans carved other words than their names is significative.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ghostriders_1 It's not a question of buying. To decide the gospels are post 70 because of the reference to the destruction of the temple don't solve more problems that it poses. Why Mattew, that writes for Jews, talks about Jerusalem as a vital city? If they had all the infos, why they talked about the destruction wrong, leaving the readers guessing if Christ had just being lucky, and not even that much? Then there is the Paternoster, not found in Mark, existing in Mattew, slightly different in Luke, and found on a wall of Pompeii (in form of the sator square), so written and known before 79CE...
AND, on the other end, Jesus Christ was not the only guy predicting the destruction of the temple before 70CE, it was not even the only Jesus predicting it. Josephus records that, in 62 CE, a man named Jesus son of Ananus began to prophesy exactly the same thing. Jerusalem had been invaded an conquered multiple times, and its temple had already been destroyed once, the fear it could happen again was justified.
1
-
1
-
@ghostriders_1 Then why you are not stating you don't know, instead of stating the reality of a fictional world of your where Christians didn't even believe in the phisical body of Christ until, precisely around 80CE, a guy composed a tale about the life of a guy named Jesus and all the Christians "oh, yeah! It's our Christ!".
Religious people are not more idiot than the others. If you have to postulate the idiocy of people for your theory being right, then your theory is wrong. You can't adapt reality to theory. Religious people have strong believings that are not easily bent. The stronger themore sectarian is the group. Christians were not idiots that accepted anything with the word "Jesus" in it. To be accepted by them, like by ANY religious group, a writing should have been compatible with what they already believed. If they only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark, like many other gospels. is possible, and, surprise surprise, whe had Mark and many other gospels.
You seem to be under the delusion that very early Christianity was unified in one place & in one belief, that's why you concentrated on Paul. it was not. Wake up. If the Christians only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark, like many other gospels. is possible, and, surprise surprise, whe had Mark and many other gospels.
All of that happened before Catholicism, sorry and the same Pauline epistles show those early Christian "different believings" to be just nuances. The theological questions that divided Christianity in incompatible sects had yet to be posed.
Mattew considers Gerusalem a vital city the moment he's writing, not the moment the story is set.
Then where is a paternoster before Mattew?
1
-
So much of what you say doesn't make any sense and is not backed by any evidence. To decide the gospels are post 70 because of the reference to the destruction of the temple doesn't solve more problems that it poses. WE KNOW those kind of predictions were diffused before 70 CE in the Jewish community. Why Mattew, that writes for Jews, talks about Jerusalem as a vital city in the moment he writes? If they had all the infos, why they talked about the destruction wrong, leaving the readers guessing if Christ had just being lucky, and not even that much? Why the paternoster, that we find first in Mattew, was known and diffused before 79CE?
Your pretense people should be idiots for your theory to work disqualifies it. You can't adapt reality to theory. Your theory fails to take into considerations religious people have strong believings that are not easily bent. The stronger the more sectarian is the group. New people are welcomed into the sect when they accept the believing of the sect. Is not the sect that acquire the believing of the new people. Another time you have to adapt reality to theory. You have even to force early Christianity to be a mysteric religion, another time adapting reality to theory, when that was EXACTLY the problem Christians had with gnosticism, that sold "very special revelations" only for the initiates. Sorry, but early Christianity didn't work like that. Bishops were elected, not cooptated.
You have not debunked anything, sorry. You seem to be under the delusion that very early Christianity was unified in one place & in one belief, that's why you concentrated on Paul. it was not. If the Christians only had Paul, Mark is not possible. If they had Paul and a series of stories about the life of Christ, compatible with Mark later wrote and indipendent from Paul, then Mark, like many other gospels. is possible, and, surprise surprise, whe had Mark and many other gospels. Contrary to you, I've not to adapt reality to theory.
1
-
1