Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 30, 2019 at 14:02 vote accept Ken Graham
Aug 24, 2019 at 22:46
Jun 30, 2019 at 14:01 history edited Ken Graham CC BY-SA 4.0
added 218 characters in body
Jul 21, 2018 at 4:53 history edited Ken Graham CC BY-SA 4.0
added 784 characters in body
Jul 21, 2018 at 2:38 comment added Bit Chaser One from acedemia, BAR: academia.edu/31533569/Earliest_Images_of_the_Virgin_Mary This suggests another image (not from a catacomb) precedes our picture, though they acknowledge the two are competitors. At another place, they suggest our picture has been "debunked" as Mary -- but no reference for that.
Jul 21, 2018 at 1:13 comment added Ken Graham @disciple Even 210 AD is still the early church.
Jul 21, 2018 at 1:12 history edited Ken Graham CC BY-SA 4.0
added 64 characters in body
Jul 21, 2018 at 0:57 comment added Bit Chaser bbc.com/culture/story/20150224-the-secrets-of-the-catacombs definitely a very skeptical viewpoint. They comment on massive destruction, and claim private ownership of the Priscilla Catacomb. They do mention the same image, suggesting a date in the third century. Proposed dates so far 150, 170, and perhaps 210+ AD.
Jul 21, 2018 at 0:41 comment added Bit Chaser The two references you have so far both claim to be the "first" or "oldest", dates differ by twenty years (is it the same image?). By all means I hope you can find more sources. Eventually, some comment about inconsistencies seems called for.
Jul 20, 2018 at 21:04 history edited Ken Graham CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1837 characters in body
Jul 20, 2018 at 20:56 history edited Ken Graham CC BY-SA 4.0
deleted 2 characters in body
Jul 20, 2018 at 20:51 history answered Ken Graham CC BY-SA 4.0