Jeffrey Gibson

Nurse, to summarize: Pete is wrong.

Jeffrey

mountainman

I was recently recommended a book to read about Constantine, and took the time to read it over the recent weeks, before you recommended looking at A.D. Lee. This book was CONSTANTINE AND THE CHRISTIAN EMPIRE (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Charles Matson Odahl.

The editorial reviews looked quite favourable.


When I reached page 26 and read the following I nearly put the book down, but after a few days I was able to proceed through to the end.




I was looking forward to the "historian's" account of the death of Constantine and I was not disappointed.


Charles Odahl seems to be a professor of history.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Jeffrey do I need to remind you that Constantine was at war?





Letter of Constantine c.324CE:

Constantine’s edict to the people of the eastern provinces concerning the error of polytheism, etc.

Synopsis: This letter, written in Latin and translated by Eusebius, begins with “some general remarks on virtue and vice,” touches on the persecutions and the fate of the persecutors, expresses the wish that all would become Christians, praises God, and exhorts concord.



I may be in error about this (and if I am I am sure you will correct me) but AFAIK this above reported letter of Constantine is the "Eusebius' report" to which T. D. Barnes refers in his Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice, T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72 ....



εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

Where? When? And with whom?


What on earth is the "Eusebius Report"?

What Barnes is referring to is what appears in of the Life of Constantine Book 2. 11.24-60.

And what Barnes is noting here is a summary of something he was mooting in his Constantine and Eusebius. The article that you cite --- but obviously have not read (otherwise you would know that Barnes is not referring to something called "Eusebius Report") -- is an attempt to deal with the refutation of Barne's thesis by H.A. Drake in his AJP review of Bane's book (see AJP 103 [1982] 462-66).

The interesting thing about Barnes article piece is that even if it shows conclusively that Constantine did promulgate ant-pagan legislation, it does not show (nor, it seems, does it even argue) that he carried it out in any sustained or systematic way, let alone that prohibition against sacrifice would have ended pagan religion since as Lee carefully notes, and as is evidenced textually and archeologically, and as you, Pete, consistently ignore, sacrifice was hardly the only way that "pagans" worshiped their gods or gave them cult.

So since this is the real issue at hand, I am uncertain why you cite Barnes as evidence that Constantine did.

I am also puzzled, given your global apodictic declarations ad nauseam about Constantine's attitudes and practices with respect to pagans, that you seem to be totally unaware not only of such historical data as the fact (noted by Lee and others) of how in the mid 330s Constantine authorized the building of the pagan at Hispellum (Spello), that he was willing to associate with prominent adherents of traditional cults such as Sopater, and that at the dedication of Constantinople he adorned Constantinople with statues of deities taken from temples and allowed prominent adherents of traditional cults to have played a role in the dedication ceremony, and erected there a representation of the Tyche and a porphyry column surmounted by a radiate figure of Helios, the sungod but also the analysis of Barne's claim made by and R.M. Errington in "Constantine and the Pagans" Greek, Roman, And Byzantine Studies, vol. 29, 3 (1988), pp. 309-318, and T.G.Elliott on pp. 135-138 in hisThe Christianity of Constantine the Great (University of Scranton Press, 1996) and by Scott Bradbury "Constantine and the Problem of Anti-pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century", Classical Philology, 1994 - who echoes the question posed by Lee and others of whether the attitudes toward "paganism" that we find in The Life of Constantine, not to mention the promulgations set out there against sacrifice, was translated into action, when he notes that while

Constantine himself and his officials

and that

Sorry Pete. But i once again you've shown yourself to be not sufficiently well grounded in the primary sources on Constantine, let alone in the scholarly discussion about the matters you make claims about, that what you claim about Constantine's policies and practices vis a vis paganism should be taken seriously.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

What has the death of Constantine and how historians present it have ton do with whether your claims about Constantine's policies vis a vis "pagans" are well informed and sustainable?


Seems to be?? Once again, you haven't done your homework. See:

http://works.bepress.com/charles_odahl/

And as to new books on Constantine, you might wish to take note not only of the Cambridge Companion volume (or via: amazon.co.uk) I mentioned, but also

Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Paul Stephenson

The Life and Times of Constantine the Great (or via: amazon.co.uk) by D. G. Kousoulas

Constantine: History, Historiography and Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk) Samuel N. C. Lieu (Editor), Dominic Montserrat (Editor)

The Roman Revolution of Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Raymond Van Dam

and especially Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Peter J. Leithart

I'd also recommend

The Church in the Age of Constantine: The Theological Challenges (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Johannes Roldanus [/URL]

But, given the way you disdained Odahl's work because he accepts the historicity of Christian persecutions under Nero -- though why, except for bias, you did this is unclear since a scholar you adduce to support your thesis, Momigliano, does too -- I know you would't be able to approach this dispassionately

Jeffrey

mountainman

Odahl also appears to accept the historicity of Saints Peter and Paul and their deaths under the rule of Nero.

Upon what evidence are these claims for historicity based?



Even though I may not have read Momigliano's work on the persecutions under Nero, rest assured that I will find this work and read it.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

Are you attempting to argue that Constantine was not at war ?



I am familiar with the exchange between Drake and Barnes.
I have included it with other external references in my notes here



Your author Lee discusses in a section consisting of three short paragraphs, the state of the traditional religions during the last part of the 3rd century and asks the question did they exhibit vitality or decline?

The section heading provided by Lee is: Traditional Religions: Vitality or Decline?

Your author stresses the importance in understanding the answer to this question. I am sure you will agree it is an important question to start with, as it sets the historical basis in the understanding of Constantine's agendas against the non Christians, especially after Nicaea.


I do not have any earlier part of Lee's work, but I have read this small section and if Lee, as he appears to be doing (you may correct me if I am mistaken in this), is arguing that the traditional religions were in a process of decline and not vitality, then I would probably disagree with him, based on what he writes in these three paragraphs.


Will you therefore post these three paragraphs for discussion?

(Three paragraphs it would appear is deemed OK by this forum).

I will then outline my disagreements with Lee's assessments.







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Jeffrey Gibson

How can I argue for or against the claim when I have no idea what period within his reign you are speaking of?



All your notes show is that you are familiar with a few sentences (if not someone else's summaries) of the exchange. But note, I did not ask if you were familar with the exchange. I asked whether or not you had read the entirety of Barne's article. Your answer is a (not entirely unexpected or atypical) misreading of what I wrote and a dodge of the question I asked.

Actually Lee takes 10 pages to set up and discuss this.

How so? According to you, he was against them simply because they were "pagan", not because they were (or were not) "vital".

You are mistaken -- and I'm not sure where you get your view except through a misreading/misunderstanding of what you've read.wrong.

Not on the evidence he produces?

Sorry, no. Lee's work is something you should have been aware of and familiar with before this, especially since I made you aware of it some time ago. It's not my job to help you play catch up. And as Toto has noted, it's avaiable on Google books, isn't it?

But here's Lee's e-mail address at the University of Nottingham.

doug.lee@nottingham.ac.uk

Send him -- a fellow Aussie -- your thesis to see what he thinks of it. He is open to communication on this subject.

I'm sure Doug would be very happy to see your arguments.

BTW, here's his CV.


So you already know that you will disagree?

Jeffrey

mountainman

I have already read the three paragraphs of "Traditional Religions: Vitality or Decline?" [later 3rd century]







εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia