mountainman

The letter of Constantine was collected from B. H. Cowper’s, Syriac Miscellanies, The Council Of Nicea. Extracts From The Codex Syriacus 38 In The Imperial Library At Paris, p.249. You'll find, I think, that it is the collator who has authored the title of the letter (which says: "Letter of Constantine the King, summoning the bishops to Nicaea") as supplied in my original post, and also the synopsis of the letter.

In the text of the letter, as I have pointed out, Constantine mentions
the bishops of the west (his lands for the period 306-324) but does
not state to whom he is writing, and summoning to appear before him,
at Nicaea.

The text does not state he was summoning bishops from the east.
You may assume there were christian bishops in the east, and that
this letter was summoning them, but I do not, as I have earlier in
this thread outlined. He had just obtained supremacy.

It was the summons of the new King of MiddleEarth to his devoted
subjects: time to party with the fear of God in realtime.



Best wishes,




Pete

spin

This Arian controversy flared up while Constantine was master only of the western part of the Roman empire, ie it happened in the realm of Licinius and beyond the power of Constantine.

HTH


spin

mountainman

CHAPTER XXXIII: How he listened standing to Eusebius' Declamation in Honor of our Saviour's Sepulchre.


ONE act, however, I must by no means omit to record, which this admirable prince performed in my own presence. On one occasion, emboldened by the confident assurance I entertained of his piety, I had begged permission to pronounce a discourse on the subject of our Saviour's sepulchre in his hearing. With this request he most readily complied, and in the midst of a large number of auditors, in the interior of the palace itself, he stood and listened with the rest. I entreated him, but in vain, to seat himself on the imperial throne which stood near: he continued with fixed attention to weigh the topics of my discourse, and gave his own testimony to the truth of the theological doctrines it contained. After some time had passed, the oration being of considerable length, I was myself desirous of concluding; but this he would not permit, and exhorted me to proceed to the very end. On my again entreating him to sit, he in his turn was displeased and said that it was not right to listen in a careless manner to the discussion of doctrines relating to God; and again, that this posture was good and profitable to himself, since it was reverent to stand while listening to sacred truths. Having, therefore, concluded my discourse, I returned home, and resumed my usual occupations.


CHAPTER XXXIV: That he wrote to Eusebius respecting Easter, and respecting Copies of the Holy Scriptures.


EVER careful for the welfare of the churches of God, the emperor addressed me personally in a letter on the means of providing copies of the inspired oracles, and also on the subject of the most holy feast of Easter. For I had myself dedicated to him an exposition of the mystical import of that feast; and the manner in which he honored me with a reply may be understood by any one who reads the following letter.


CHAPTER XXXV: Constantine's Letter to Eusebius, in praise of his Discourse concerning Easter.


"VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to Eusebius.


"It is indeed an arduous task, and beyond the power of language itself, worthily to treat of the mysteries of Christ, and to explain in a fitting manner the controversy respecting the feast of Easter, its origin as well as its precious and toilsome accomplishment. (1) For it is not in the power even of those who are able to apprehend them, adequately to describe the things of God. I am, notwithstanding, filled with admiration of your learning and zeal, and have not only myself read your work with pleasure, but have given directions, according to your own desire, that it be communicated to many sincere followers of our holy religion. Seeing, then, with what pleasure we receive favors of this kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden us more frequently with those compositions, to the practice of which, indeed, you confess yourself to have been trained from an early period, so that I am urging a willing man, as they say, in exhorting you to your customary pursuits. And certainly the high and confident judgment we entertain is a proof that the person who has translated your writings into the Latin tongue is in no respect incompetent to the task, impossible though it be that such version should fully equal the excellence of the works themselves. God preserve you, beloved brother." Such was his letter on this subject: and that which related to the providing of copies of the Scriptures for reading in the churches was to the following purport.


CHAPTER XXXVI: Constantine' s Letter to Eusebius on the Preparation of Copies of the Holy Scriptures.


"VICTOR CONSTANTINUS, MAXIMUS AUGUSTUS, to Eusebius.


"It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that great numbers have united themselves to the most holy church in the city which is called by my name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite, since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other respects, that the number of churches should also he increased. Do you, therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf. I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty copies of the sacred Scriptures, the provision and use of which you know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church, to be written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient, portable form, by professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art. (1) The catholicus (2) of the diocese has also received instructions by letter from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care that they be completed with as little delay as possible. (3) You have authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal inspection; and one of the deacons of your church may be intrusted with this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality. God preserve you, beloved brother!"


CHAPTER XXXVII: How the Copies were provided.


SUCH were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form. (1) This fact is attested by another letter, which the emperor wrote in acknowledgment, in which, having heard that the city Constantia in our country, the inhabitants of which had been more than commonly devoted to superstition, had been impelled by a sense of religion to abandon their past idolatry **, he testified his joy, and approval of their conduct.

** This is an imperial euphemism for Constantine's brigandry.




Pete Brown

mountainman

Propaganda has no boundaries other than the courier service.
More on that later, but here is a map of the rise of Constantine:



Clearly the military insurgences show an early and gradual
acquisition of the empire from Licinius.

There is the separate question of the role of propaganda...

Imagine, Licinius and Constantine had met. It was Constantine
who was pushing for this new and strange religion, which IMO
Licinius had never before head about before Constantine, and
simply accepted Constantine's overt preferences for their face
value --- some other philosophy.

Imagine, if you were Licinius, sitting back in the (gradually
diminishing - see above) eastern empire, and then reading
the following article written as a purported history:

Prisca was the wife of the Emperor Diocletian. She bore him a daughter named Valeria, who was apparently the second wife of the Emperor Galerius. Although she was a Christian or favorably disposed to Christianity, she was forced to sacrifice to the gods during the Great Persecution of 303. Her husband had built her a home in Nicomedeia. When Galerius died in 311, she and her daughter were exiled to Syria by the Emperor Maximinus Daia . She was later arrested and beheaded by the Emperor Licinius in 315.

Valeria, like her mother a Christian or Christian sympathizer, seems to have married Galerius in 293 and, perhaps in November 308, was raised to the rank of Augusta and Mater Castrorum. Her husband named a province after her. She adopted Candidianus, Galerius's illegitimate son, as her own child; he was betrothed to the daughter of Maximinus Daia . Valeria and her mother Prisca fled from Licinius , to whose care they had been entrusted, to the realm of Daia after Galerius died in 311. When Valeria did not accede to Daia's wishes to marry him, the emperor took possession of all her property and exiled Valeria and her mother to Syria. When he died, Licinius sentenced her to death. Valeria escaped from his clutches and survived in hiding for over a year. Licinius eventually captured her and had her put to death ca. 315 along with Candidianus.

There is another story somewhere, I cannot for the moment find it,
where we are told Licinius has some sort of hysterical fit, and orders
all the christians out of his palace. BISHOP episkopos means
also "spy".


In the end, Constantine had Licinius strangled and dealt with
the words of Arius in Arius' front garden, at Nicaea, once he
had become supreme.



Pete

spin

Sorry, you haven't at all dealt with your problem. How can you have a confabulation between Constantine and Eusebius to create a new religion when Eusebius was busy in caesarea (and Arius in Alexandria) first under Maximinus Daia then under Licinius? Constantine was in no position to impose your Grand Conspiracy on the Roman empire because he only had control of part of it and was busy trying to jockey for more.

The edict of Milan, jointly issued by Constantine and Licinius (was Licinius part of the Grand Conspiracy?), shows that christianity existed prior to 313 CE, and for the two augusti to restore the christians' property. (The edict of tolerance issued by Galerius in 311 CE also shows the same but a few years earlier.) I suppose you can go into denial over the edict as well.

Your conspiracy has been falsified, which is sufficient, but it has also been shown not to reflect the historical possibilities available to Constantine and Eusebius.


spin

funinspace

Voted for the Joker…probably even less likely than the JFK conspiracy theories

mountainman

Stage 1: 312-324 CE

Constantine takes Rome and implements a mini-proto-Nicaea (see below)
He consolidates his position, constantly looking east, planning supremacy.
He promotes the new religion in the west, and send literature to the east.
Eventually this results in the Arian controversy.

(NOTE: Our hypothesis sees the Arian controversy
as the reaction of the eastern empire against the new
testament texts, and the new religion. The controversy
is stated by the dogmatic assertion of a series of phrases
by Arius, such as:

* there was time when he was not.
* he was made out of nothing existing)


Stage 2: 324-325 CE

Constantine takes the eastern empire, and has Lucinus strangled.
He calls the Council of Nicaea on account of the words of Arius.
(See the above words of Arius).
He summons attendees to the council.

There were no "christian bishops" in the eastern empire, as per your
own reasoning, the only "christian bishops" in attendance being those
whom Constantine had "cultivated in Rome". The pope didn't make it,
but sent some juniors in his stead.

Our hypothesis is that the attendees summoned to Nicaea were the
patrician level land-holders, governors, nobility and other important
key people of the eastern empire, whom Constantine had just conquered.

They were summoned to Nicaea to discuss how the new empire was
going to fuction for the maintenance phase under the taxation and
regulation and administrative and new religious regimes, which were
to be implemented by Constantine.


Stage 3: 325 CE
Nicaean Council Meeting: what happened?

Constantine ran the show.
His mercanery barbarian storm troops were milling around outside.
He entered the meeting, not with his troops, but his family.
He berated the attendees for their discord, and quoted chapter & verse.
He pointed out the need for perceived harmony.
He burnt their written petitions in their presence.
He wined and dined them for 4 months.
He gave them presents and promises of civil works (new churches).
He supported those people who supported him.
Who was with Constantine, and who was with Arius?

Constantine sold the package of christianity to the attendees.
The package was subscribed to voluntarily.
Signatures were collected to attest comitment to Constantine.
The big DISCLAIMER CLAUSE got rid of the words of Arius.

Christianity was implemented.


Stage 4: 326-337 CE

Constantine implements a new and strange ROMAN church.
He wanted to get rid of the Hellenic culture and religions.
He did not to pay tribute to any of the old traditional Roman religions.
These were all Hellenic is nature. (See Julian's summaries).
He wanted their treasure, lands, temples, statues, etc, for himself.
Once the one true religion was implemented, all else became taxable.

Adherance to the words of Arius ceased being controversial.
It became the Arian Heresy, and the downhill slide started.

The attendees at Nicaea became key figures in a power network
that distributed favors from Rome to the eastern empire, and taxation
revenue, lands, etc, etc back to Roman central.

The 22 sub-clauses on the Nicaean creed define the nature of this
administrative network, which was established by agreement at Nicaea,
and which through common interest perpetuated itself throughout the
next 12 years of Constantine's reign, and thereafter.

They knew they were not christian bishops when they set out from
their homes in the eastern empire after being summoned to the council.
But there were some bishops from the western empire present, and
they all acted in complete accord with the new and strange religion,
in a new and strange fashion, and the bishop Eusebius was there,
and he was certainly a christian bishop, because he had just in fact
finished writing a history of "tribe of christians", and of their texts,
and they even had a copy of Josephus, and Josephus mentions the
chritians back then, so they certainly exist somewhere.

But they became the christian bishops of Constantine by signing
the Nicaean creed, and when they returned home, they were full
of food, and had presents, and would represent Constantine to
their local communities and cities, and be a key figure standing
in the (new and strange Roman universal christian) channel of power
between the supreme imperial thug, and his remote subjects.

New church structres would be built by the new civil administration
of Constantine, and every one of those new christian bishops would
get a big cut of the action. They became important men overnight.

It was a complete cold start. When Constantine burnt
their written petitions, things warmed up considerably.
They were reminded of where they were, and who was
in their presence. Constantine was a thug, acting in
some ways benevolently, but why?

All they had to do was to agree with Constantine, and
disagree with the words of Arius, whatever these words meant.
In fact, it was clear that these words meant entirely different things
to different parties. Noone really had to worry about what these
words meant, so long as they disagreed with them. So they signed
the creed, in expectation of future glory of the new Roman church.


Constantine was the supreme imperial mafia thug
who forced the new and strange religion down the
throat of the Hellenic culture until
the highways were full of galloping bishops

Julian was the young supreme imperial Hellenic philosopher
who wrote, within 40 years of the Nicaean council:

It is, I think, expedient to set forth to all mankind
the reasons by which I was convinced that
the fabrication of the Galilaeans
is a fiction of men composed by wickedness.



Pete Brown
www.mountainman.com.au/essenes

spin

I was after at least a few facts, mountainman.


spin

Clivedurdle

There possibly is a new religion in the time of Constantine - an amalgamation of pre-existing judaic messianic stuff and much wider (celtic?) sun god stuff. Is this the new and strange fictional religion?

mountainman

Continuing Momigliano ...

One fact is eloquent enough. All the pioneer works in the field of Christian historiography are earlier than what we may call their opposite numbers in pagan historiography. De mortibus persecutorum was written by Lactantius about 316. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History probably appeared in a first edition about 312. [2] His life of Constantine – the authenticity of which can hardly be doubted – was written not long after 337. [1] Athanasius’ life of St. Anthony belongs to the years around 360.

Among the pagan works none can be dated with absolute certainty before the death of Constantine. The Historia Augusta purports to have been written under Diocletian and Constantine, but the majority of modern scholars prefer – rightly or wrongly – a date later than 360. [2] The characteristic trilogy, to which the Caesares by Aurelius Victor belong, was put together later than 360, [3]

The Lives of the sophists by Eunapius – which are pagan hagiography – were published about 395. [4] Ammianus Marcellinus, too, finished his work about 395. [5] On the whole, the Christians come before the pagans in their creative writing. The Christians attack. The pagans are on the defensive.

Towards the end of the century the situation changed.

The fact is we have only the one side of a multi-sided story.
We have the fiction which was violently thrust upon the empire, while
the traditional writings of the pagans were consigned to the flames.

The fact remains that it would appear that Apollonius of Tyana was
an historical philosopher/sage of the first century, who authored
a number of important, well respected and well-circulated works,
but whom was calumnified by Eusebius of Caesarea.

The fact remains that no matter how hard people have looked for
an historical Jesus, the reality eludes them. Why?

Perhaps we have to at least squarely examine the possibility that
we are dealing with --- in fact --- a fiction of men composed by
wickedness, and not some flaming divine text.




Pete