mountainman

Robin Lane Fox's Pagans and Christians

For example we learn that "The Boss Himself" (Constantine) takes the stand in the lead up to his Council of Nicaea, probably at Antioch 325 CE, and in his "Oration" tells us that Jesus Christ was predicted by a trinity of prophecies: by the Apollonian Sybil, and by two ancient Roman Poets. In mocking admission of his own authenticity, he then adds:

"Our people have compared the chronologies
with great accuracy", and the 'age' of the Sibyl's verses
excludes the view that they are a post-christian fake."

--- Constantine, Oration to the [Non-Christian] Saints,
--- Antioch, April 325 CE, in preparation for Nicaea.

Now, about this word pagan ...

p.31: the word "pagani:
in everyday use
meant "civilian" and/or "rustic".

"pagani: first appears in
christian inscriptions
from early 4th century.

"pagani: earliest use in the
Law Codes in Codex Theodosius 16.2.18 (c.370)

"pagani: is a word coined
by christians -- of
the towns and cities.



The word did not exist until the fourth century
according to the inscriptions and papyrii.

And yet everyone uses the terminology "Pagan"
with respect to earlier centuries! This wilful anachronism
is practiced by most ancient historians and biblical historians.

Are you guilty of this practice ?????

Do some penance, contemplate an antiquity
before Constantine which was free of pagans
and christians.

This is an extremely important issue to understand.
There were literally no pre-Nicaean pagans.
The word had yet to be invented.
Does anyone understand this?

When Constantine invented christianity's exclusivity,
he also invented the "religious other":
and there was little tolerance for the "non-christian"
or "pagan" beliefs constituting "the other".

It could be said that the Christians and
the Non-Christians ("Pagans" if you will)
were created as virtual pairs; like an
atomic particle and its associated anti-particle.


This is what the evidence tells us.
PAGAN did not appear before christianity.
The terms appeared together in the
records of the fourth century
and not any earlier
despite the insistence
of the literature
published under
the despot
Constantine.


Constantine held the role of the Pontifex Maximus.
He was supposed to be the head of the college
of pontiffs of all the ancient religious orders, and
there were stacks of them, we know.

But he decided to create a new one for profit and
for state security purposes, since those pesky Persians
were on the borders all lined up in a monotheistic
array under Shapur et al.

He used his role of Pontifex Maximus to put disarray
into the Hellenic religions, but more, to physically
persecute its priests and destroy its temples.


Notably, in 365 CE the role of Pontifex Maximus
after more than a thousand years in the hands of
the rulers of Rome, passed into the hands of
the families of the "NICENE FATHERS" --- bound
together by Constantine. Pope Damasius, who
did such a good job on restoring the catacombs.

The final nail in the coffin was when the NICENE
CONNECTION, self perpetuated via power since
Nicaea, finally sponsored Cyril of Alexandria, 425 CE,
to write a political written censorship of the treatise
in three books of Julian, and burn them.

Cyril according to Carl Sagan torched the entire
library of Alexandria. Either before or after he
arranged for the execution of the non-christian
mathematician and philosopher, Hypatia.

This was why Cyril got the name
"The Seal of the Fathers".

Before Cyril's doctrines the "fathers"
of the church were the "Nicene Fathers".

After Cyril, the "fathers" were the
prenicene fathers.

Hello? Shades of Smedley?


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Johnny Skeptic

So when Elaine Pagels wrote that "The victors rewrote history, 'their way,'" what she meant was that "Constantine's handpicked early church leaders, most notably Eusebius, rewrote history under his (Constantine's) supervision, 'their way,'" right? If so, I agree. How could it possibly have been otherwise? A coalition between Constantine and Eusebius would have been impossible for anyone to contest. "Might makes right" prevailed once again. Truly, for all biological lifeforms, life is survival of the fittest, not survival of the most righteous, or of the most truthful.

GakuseiDon

The word didn't exist until then? Or the meaning that the word later took on didn't exist until then? I always understood that the word already existed, and meant something like "country bumpkin" originally.

I certainly am, though I don't feel guilty. It's a convenient term to use, despite its prejudicial origin. Does Fox recommend a better word?

aa5874

Mountainman, Marcion of Pontus the Christian was around, as far as I understand, sometime in the 2nd century. He believed in the Christ, the one with only a spiritual body.

How does Marcion fit into your 4th century hypothesis, with respect to the origin of Christianity?

mountainman

Academics should not continue to underrate the
native cunning of the military mind.

“And remember, where you have
a concentration of power
in a few hands,
all too frequently men
with the mentality of gangsters
get control.
History has proven that.
All power corrupts;
absolute power
corrupts absolutely.”

IMO, Johnny Skeptic, for the period
from 325 CE until 435 CE it was common
knowledge that the Constantine Bible
was just a fraud, and that the BOSS
was a robber and a brigand, etc.

Arius called him out but what power
did Arius have in the face of a large
victorious army and a megalomaniac
warlord as its boss?

Emperor Julian exposed the fraud.
In 362 he wrote the reasons by which
he was convinced the NT was a fiction
of men composed by wickedness.

However the NICENE "fathers" got rid
of Julian and resetablished power.

They dealt with the common knowledge and Julian's
book by sponsoring (finally) CYRIL of
Alexandria to write a refutation of Julian,
and burn the original works.

Cyril and the torch and the library of Alexandria,
Hypatia and other activities paint the picture.

Cyril writes about "Julian's Lies".

For 100 years it was common knowledge
that the new and strange Roman religion
was a fiction.

Then it got buried by Cyril and the NICENE
perpetuation, because it was vauable etc.


Best wishes,



Pete


and

mountainman

The word did not exist until the fourth century
if we are to allow the epigraphic and papyri
evidence speak for itself.

This is my point. The word pagan appeared
first on christian epigraphy and papyri in
the mid fourth century and later.

I can think of a good political explanation
for this statistical distribution. Quite simply
the new and strange religion was a top-down
emperor cult, with a Pontifex Maximus
who was not your usual tolerant member
of the college of pontiffs created for
the sole purpose of power 325 CE.

Time to meet the boss.
Start praying to your favorite deity.

Or the Boss's. Are you really
going to choose, having walked
though a wall of drawn swords
into the assembly of Nicaea?



No, Fox outlines the facts of the inscriptions and papyri
but does not recommend a better word specifically as far
as I can tell. Hellenic, Graeco-Roman ... these are some
of the terms that immediately spring to mind however.

IMO, these terms should be used in preference to the
anachronistic term "pagan", for the reasons stated.


Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Hello aa5874,

Aside from BURNING and DESTRUCTION
Constantine's perversions as far as I am able
to determine may be specified as follows:

1) FORGERY of EXTANT AUTHORS:
Constantine sponsored the wholesale forgery of additional works in the names of genuine authors of antiquity, such as
Pontius Pilate (c.-10),
Lucian of Samosata (c.165),
Julius Africanus (c.170),
Origen (c.185),
Mani the Prophet of Zoroastrianism (c.210) and particularly
Porphyry (c.234), perhaps the leading academic of the Roman empire at the turn of the fourth century. [1]

2) INTERPOLATIONS:
The original texts of other historians, writers and even Roman emperors were targeted for various degrees of interpolation, or the insertion of a phrase or a paragraph. These include the authors Flavius Josephus (c.37), Trajan (Marcus Nerva Traianus) (c.53), Tacitus (Cornelius) (c.56), Pliny the Younger (c.63), Suetonius (c.70), Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus) (c.121), Galen (Claudius Galenus) (c.129).

3) WHOLESALE FICTION:
Constantine sponsored the fabrication legions of entirely fictitious authors and their inter-related texts ....

Celsus (c.178), Jesus of Nazareth (0), Jude (0), Matthew (0), Barnabas (0), Simon Magus (0), Judas (0), Mark (0), Luke (0), John (0), Peter (0), Clement of Rome (18), Paul (20), Ignatius of Antioch (40), Aristides the Philosopher (70), Quadratus (70), Carpocrates of Alexandria (80), Aquila of Sinope (of Pontus) (90), Hegesippus (110), Marcion of Sinope (110), Polycarp (110), Papias (110), Valentinus (120), Apollinaris Claudius (120), Basilides (120), Diognetus (130), Epiphanes (130), Aristo of Pella (130), Marcion (130), Mathetes (130), Pinytus of Crete (130), Polycrates of Ephesus (130), Tatian (135), Apollonius (136), Ptolemy (140), Minucius Felix (140), Isidore (140), Agrippa Castor (140), Alexander (of Cappadocia,Jerusalem) (150), Excerpts of Theodotus (150), Heracleon (150), Justin Martyr (150), Ammonius Saccas II (155), Julius Cassianus (160), Apelles (160), Octavius of Minucius Felix (160), Dionysius of Corinth (165), Melito of Sardis (165), Irenaeus of Lyons (175), Athenagoras of Athens (175), Rhodon (175), Theophilus of Caesarea (175), Theophilus of Antioch (180), Bardesanes (180), Hippolytus of Rome (180), Clement of Alexandria (182), Maximus of Jerusalem (185), Victor I (189), Pantaenus (190), Anonymous Anti-Montanist (193), Tertullian (197), Serapion of Antioch (200), Paul of Samosata (200), Apollonius (200), Caius (200), Cyprian of Carthage (200), Cornelius (of Rome) (200), Dionysius (of Alexandria) the Great (200), Novatian (201), Hermias (210), Dionysius of Rome (210), Gregory Thaumaturgus (212), Malchion (of Antioch) (220), Anatolius of Laodicea in Syria (222), Victorinus (bishop) of Petau (240), Peter of Alexandria (250), Phileas (Bishop) of Thmuis (250), Pamphilus (250), Methodius (250), Miltiades (270).

Best wishes,


Pete

[1] Eunapius “At any rate he left behind him many speculations that conflict with the books that he had previously published; with regard to which we can only suppose that he changed his opinions as he grew older"

J-D

The probability that the first ever use of a word was preserved seems to me to be low. Hence, it seems to me that the probability is high that any given word was in use before the first recorded instance of it.

In the later part of this old thread I argued that Pete's whole approach is methodologically bankrupt. I asked whether anybody reading the thread could see a flaw in my argument, but got no response. Can anybody reading this thread see a flaw in the argument I made there?

VoxRat

[QUOTE=mountainman;4718433]I just dropped by; haven't been following. But what work of Julian's are you talking about?

(I'm a big Julian fan - named my son after him.)

Also, is there really any good reason to believe the Christians did him in, as opposed to being killed in battle by Persians? "(Not-so)-Friendly Fire" certainly seems like a possibility, but how can we ever know?

PhilosopherJay

Hi Pete,

This is an interesting issue. There is an article online http://www9.georgetown.edu/faculty/jod/paganus.html entitled "Paganus"
on James O'Donell of Catholic University which says essentially the same things about the word that Robin Lane Fox does.

We should, however, be careful about seeing the term's invention by Christians as evidence of their own recent invention of themselves.

A modern parallel example of a perjorative term coming into existence to describe an 'other' is the term 'totalitarian.' It was first used by Benito Mussolini positively in 1932 to describe his own fascist government. After the the defeat of Fascism in 1944, at the beginning of the Cold-War, the term was appropriated by the United States Government and its right-wing supporters to describe socialist countries and basically any government that it did not like. The way the Christians used the word "pagan," for propaganda and rhetorical effect, the U.S. government and its supporters used the word 'totalitarian' in the second half of the 20th century. [Note:It was often used in conjunction with the concept that 'democracy' and 'freedom' were inherent properties of capitalism and 'authoritarianism' and 'slavery' were inherent properties of socialism/communism.]

Certainly the capitalist class existed long before it started to use the term 'totalitarian' to describe its 'other.' In the same way, Christianity may have existed long before it started using paganus to describe its 'other.'

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay