arnoldo

The sources you quoted seems to disagree with your opinion in reference to the non-existence of christianity in the early first century. Right before your quote your source states the following;

However, when reading this quote by Renan in context it is clear he is discussing alleged lack of persecution against scientific beliefs before Constantine rather than religious beliefs. According to Renan:

You might want to consider providing sources which actually agree with your opinions rather than disagree with them.

mountainman

Let's just say that I do deny that the christians either existed or were persecuted but now is not the time or place to try and defend the reasons by which I was convinced of this state of affairs lest I be acused of hijacking my own thread.

I probably should have stopped short and not made any comment about the epoch prior to the arrival of Constantine.


Galen was a pagan physician and a therapeutae to Asclepius.
Plotinus was a pagan pythagorean priest and academic.
Lucan was a Roman poet.

Constantine berates the philosophers and poets in his "Oration".
We do not have to wait until the Middle Ages before the persecution
of the Hellenistic priesthood, and the destruction of the Hellenistic temples
is in evidence --- this was well underway prior to the Council of Nicaea.

Christian persecution and intolerance accelerated as the fourth century progressed.

bacht

Right, I just wanted to suggest that the Romans didn't invent the category of thought crime. Look how Akhenaten was erased from Egyptian memory for his "heretical" cult.

mountainman

Good point.
Ideas move between rulers.
The Romans used whatever method were necessary.

Persecution and intolerance are exemplified in the act of Damnatio memoriae
This persecutionary and intolerant act is abundant in Constantine's rule.

bacht

That's good, it seems related to the practice of ostracism in classical Greece, but in the latter case I don't think the accused was totally erased from public memory (?)

mountainman

As in the Roman empire prior to Diocletian and Constantine, and in the Parthian Persian empire prior to Ardashir, the political arrangement was to say the least "rather loose". Vassal kingdoms were continually breaking away, etc. One of Constantius Chlorus' tasks was to clean up the bunch of pirates around Briton who had continually disregarded the "orders from Rome". This political instability in the Roman empire was managed by earlier by Diocletian and his tetrarchy in the same manner that Ardashir and his son Shapur managed their brand new political state ... centralised state power. Diocletian set the stage for this with the tetrarchy and the establishment of "diocese" --- local regions --- before Constantine got control and established himself supreme ruler.

Damnatio memoriae in order to be effective required a centralised state orthodoxy. As a direct result of the first christian "council" of Nicaea, death sentences were proscribed for those who would not conform to othodoxy. Before the council actually took place there was massive destruction of ancient and revered Hellenistic temples and shrines, executions of their priests and the torture of the upper classes (at Antioch). What made all this possible was a centralised political state under the one supreme military commander. This was not maintained until Constantine's basilicas arrived. [IMO]