mountainman

But we know Eusebius was not alone. We know he was IN CHARGE OF at least one scriptorium -- an organisation of people - that included many "professional transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art."




Moreover, when Constantine rose to power c.305 CE the word that had been buzzing around the entire Roman Empire for more than a generation was a description of the government - the Tetrarchy - the leadershio of four people who were of course Roman military leaders.

When Constantine left the planet c.337 CE the word that had been enforced on the entire Roman Empire was that the greatest leadership of four people was that to be found in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - the four apostles of a long dead jew.

Quite a momentous change in the Roman empire "leadership of four".

Iskander

The tetrarchy was a political measure and it had nothing to do with religion. It was instituted by the pagan Diocletian to save the empire from the miserable failures of the 3rd century and it was of no importance .

“The term Tetrarchy (Greek: "leadership of four [people]") describes any system of government where power is divided among four individuals, but usually refers to the tetrarchy instituted by Roman Emperor Diocletian in 293, marking the end of the Crisis of the Third Century and the recovery of the Roman Empire. This Tetrarchy lasted until c.313, when internecine conflict eliminated most of the claimants to power, leaving Constantine in the West and Licinius in the East.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrarchy




A quick overview of Diocletian's Tetrarchy
http://www.celatorsart.com/collect_tetrarch_start.html

Iskander

Chapter XXXVI.—Constantine’s Letter to Eusebius on the Preparation of Copies of the Holy
Scriptures.
"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.

The catholicus3334 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 especial care that they be completed with as little delay as possible.3335 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!”



The letter of Constantine to Eusebius says that because of the expected increase in the number of churches there is a need to provide more copies of the existing scriptures and orders Eusebius to arrange for the copies to be produced using only the best copyists and to exercise a close supervision of this work to ensure an accurate high quality copy.

Constantine would have ordered the imperial printers to print 50000 copies after Gutenberg, but he took care to eliminate any mistakes.

mountainman

And he would have taken extra special care of eliminating any "prohibited books" such as those itemised in the index librorum prohibitorum, with the mandatory and immediate execution of anyone who authored these books, printed these books, or kept these books in their private library. His army would have been directed to perform search and destroy missions for these "prohibited books".

But as far as making mistakes with the bible, it would appear he made the mistake of including "The Shepherd of Hermas" in his publication of the bible, a decision which was obviously overturned by other more informed canon-followers after he went to the underworld.

Iskander

In the pagan world the roman emperor was an absolute king, he was also god and he also was the master of religious affairs as pontifex maximus: this poxy arrangement infected Christianity and made the pope the inheritor of the emperor’s power .The seismic—tom Holland’s phrase?—event of the emperor’s conversion to Christianity created the basis for the separation of Church and State,

The pope of Rome clung to his role of Emperor, resulting in the cruel dictatorship of the king of kings, governor of earth and heavens, the master of god, and supreme pontiff of the catholic jailers and storm troopers. All this perversion of religion was the result of the infection acquired in his fornicating with the Roman Imperial Cult, a cult ushered into the world by that revolting roman napoleon that was Julius Cesar.


Christianity has improved tremendously since its adoption by pagan emperors and, in addition, it is lessening the consequence of being the children of evolution: the only real and truly original sin. Regrettably, we were not ever created in the image of god.

sotto voce

Was it that it improved, or that it simply disappeared for a millennium, to re-emerge when the military grip of 'storm troopers' was relaxed? Many at the Reformation thought so— every single Reformer, in fact. Even the most state-influenced of them were obliged to describe the Vatican as the seat of the antichrist (which seemed eminently reasonable, at the time).

To apply oneself in this forum appropriately, dealing with biblical history, one must ignore almost everything that survives to historians from the end of Acts until the dawn of the Renaissance, and the concomitant freedom of self-expression, which of course one takes for granted now, partly because of the spread of real Christianity. To do otherwise is indeed to pay respect to criminality. It would certainly seem the most sick irony to abuse the freedom won by the Christian gospel to deliberately smear Christianity with the crimes of its previous brutal and brutish opponents.

mountainman

Grant describes this as "Constantine managed to convince himself that he'd had a religious experience".


Momigliano puts it like this:

mountainman

The question of course is whether the Gospels, the letters of Paul and Acts contain any history at all, and if they dont, one must ignore almost everything that survives to historians until the dawn of the Renaissance, at which time, according to what you write below, "real Christianity" commenced to spread (perhaps hand in hand with the rediscovery of the Greek intellectual tradition which had been savagely suppressed by the monotheism of the 4th century as heresy.)

sotto voce

With respect, the question is whether one can demonstrate that the NT contains no history, to the degree that billions of people worldwide cease to give the NT credence. Until that is demonstrated, people will continue to treat the NT as 'fact' in their experiences. Until that is demonstrated, the Bible itself is a live subject for scrutiny; as is the history of the ideas it contains. So the Bible, from Abram to the end of Acts (or perhaps the last {prophetic?} words of 2 Timothy) provides the former; the relevant aspects of the history of the world from the Renaissance— from, say, Marsilius' Defensor pacis— up to the biblical beliefs of the present day, represented, say, by the growing house group movement, gives us the latter. The Bible historian can hardly give attention to the long intervening span between them, not only because there is almost no trace of orthodox authorship in that period, but also because, for almost all of it, freedom of expression was limited only to the egregiously heretical. What survived, evidently survived because it was wrong. Might is right, but might was ruinously wrong. Might is always wrong in any religious context. It is inexcusable to make allowances for previous eras. Theft is theft, murder is murder.

It was 'Lollards' and John Wyclif, abused verbally and physically by criminals, who withstood oppression and criminality, and who largely created freedom of self-expression, which of course one takes for granted now. To accept the 'Dark Age' as morally acceptable and legitimate is indeed to pay respect to criminality. One must make a choice.

It would anyway seem the most sick irony to abuse the freedom won by the Christian gospel to deliberately smear Christianity with the crimes of its previous brutal and brutish opponents, whose suppressive acts were aimed at Christians.

Tritheism. At the least. Do use a calculator. But of course. The democratic, individualist tradition of Abraham, passed on through Moses, undoubtedly contributed to the democratic, individualist flowering of Greek thought; though it was not to the taste of Roman elites, whose jackboot polity had always been firmly founded on the duped condition of the people who made them elite. Before Jesus, it was beauty vs. the beast. And the beast won, as indeed one might expect from the analysis of human nature that the Bible provides.