dizzy

What Suetonius gives a good introduction to is the pervasive effect of damnatio memoriae. He mixes truth with barefaced nonsense, and I would suggest that anything negative he has to say is the most unreliable of all. A portrait of corruption, or literary servitude to the senatorial class?

Speaking of which, what influence do you believe the senate had under Constantine's rule? I haven't read much about Rome past the 2nd century.

I can't comment on this. I haven't read them. But I hope to get around to it.

mountainman

As Constantine pronounced damnatio memoriae on at least 4 figures Seutonius is also useful - just as an introduction. Histories and inscriptions from the early centuries present the detailed picture of the absolute power that the Roman Emperor - the Lord God Caesar "BOSS" - weilded at that time. The army became the greatest social force, and it was lead by the "Pontifex Maximus" who received advice from his "Sacred College of Pontifices" (ie: the "pagan" priesthood).

Constantine very early increased the numbers in the senate so that he could jack up the senatorial tax and make a quick killing. IMO the senate of Rome had no influence on Constantine - they were about to be robbed. Constantine needed the gold. He had plans c.312 CE.

An interesting summary introduction may be found in Emperor Julian's The Caesars . Thirty seven rulers (including Alexander) are presented with the Gods with running commentary. It's a satire in Greek. Jesus gets introduced in a compromising situation with Constantine at the end. Hermes and Marcus Aurelius take out the major prizes.



The original three books of Julian "Against the Christians" are - at present - not extant. What has been preserved are "Refutations" against Julian by his censors (eg: Doctor Cyril of Alexandria)

mountainman

You could read Gibbon or I did cite the thesis of the author of Barbarians, --- by Terry Jones (2006)

Are you arguing that the Roman Emperors - as people - were not corrupted by the absolute power that their office held?

Ferryman to the Dead

What exactly does the NT tell you about Jesus? Very little in the way of his life cause they knew absolutely nothing about him they are writing some 150 years after the fact. Does that prove he did not exist? Nope. As Ken Humphrey is fond of saying the Gospels are

mountainman

If Ken is saying this about the orthodox canonical tetrarchy of gospels then I'd agree with him, but you cant say this about the heretical non-canonical mass of Gnostic Gospels, because they are demonstrably later and faker - the fakeness includes wild romantic yarns from Aesop to Asclepius. See the recent APOCRYPHA thread.

The roots of the lies are insidious, and at these roots a fabricated history of the canonical gospels and acts have been intermingled with a fabricated history of the gnostic gospels and acts. There are two trees but in which century were they planted?

One certainly matured in Constantine's orchard, and was preserved by a bunch of orthodox christian imperially sponsored gardiners. On the far side, the other was outlawed, prohibited, searched for, destroyed and had to be buried for their survival. Evidence for the manuscripts of these gnostic heretics is only just recently becoming available, such as the Nag Hammadi codices, and more recently the [Gnostic] Gospel of Judas.


What will they [the archaeologists and/or the black market] did up next?
I'd like to read Ammianus Marcellinus's Obituary to Constantine.
Or Julian's original three books "Against the Christians".
Or some books by Arius of Alexandria.

dizzy

If Constantine was so out of control, why wasn't he assassinated by the senate? There's a fine tradition of that.

Thank you. I'll have a read of this.

mountainman

Yes there is but AFAIK the intermediatory traditional assassins usually came from the Praetorian Guard who were bribed by the senators. Constantine dismissed the praetorian guard and instead at all times surounded himself with barbian chieftains. There was no way the senate could physically get at him.


I think its designed to be humorous.

Doug Shaver

Further evidence than what? You mean evidence other than Julian's opinion?

Doug Shaver

I am arguing (a) that the emperors, and their subjects -- as people -- were just like all other people have ever been throughout human history and therefore (b) that they did not have absolute power.

spamandham

Does the falseness of the gospels prove the nonexistence of a historical person upon whom the legends are loosely based? Of course not. The argument is that the gospels do not demonstrate a historical Jesus, they demonstrate a literary Jesus. Proposing a historical Jesus is adding a needless hidden variable about which nothing can be known.