mountainman

Dear Shesh,

The destruction of Hellenistic temples by the Romans appears to have been held in obeyance until the time of Constantine. As late as Diocletian the ancient tradition of sponsorship of these temples by the emperors appears to have continued. We may have had a few incursions by the Persians, but by and large the emperor responsible for the destruction of the (Hellenistic) temples is Constantine. Eusebius provides much info.

The temples as part of the culture went in the fourth century following Constantine's example during the period 312 to 337 CE. The destruction is described in various sources. Associated with this destruction of the temples was the opposite construction of the basilicas by those responsible for the destruction of the temples. The fourth century was a boundary event for the culture and civilisation of the Greek academic philosophers and physicians and astronomers and mathematicians, etc, etc, etc.

The wisdom preserved in the NT canon, and the wisdom preserved in the NT non canonical literature is pagan wisdom -- Hellenistic wisdom, which has always been examined by wearing "christian glasses" and "Eusebian chronology".


Best wishes,


Pete

Sheshbazzar

I did not mention any destruction of any temples, just that "Rome" first "overran and mongrelized" temples, the destruction comes latter.

The hundreds of millions of "temples" I was referring to, are not temples of stone, brick, and wood, but are of bone, flesh, and blood.
Likewise subtly invaded by syncretism, taken over, polluted by Romes whoredoms, and finally at the last brought low and destroyed.
History has a way of repeating itself for those who don't heed its lessons.

Jeffrey Gibson

Perhaps you'd like to tell that to the Corinthians -- or, for that matter, the Jews in Jerusalem in 70CE.


How many exactly did he destroy? Where were they located? And what, according to primary sources, was his motive for doing so?

Please name them.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

I was referring to wholesale empire-wide destruction not isolated instances.


My rough count so far is at least 18 temples and shrines. If you want the names, the locations, the primary sources then these have been tabulated here. I have not yet seen a good account of what motives Constantine may have had for destroying the old temples and then building the new basilicas Perhaps he was just some sort of anti-Hellenistic autocrat.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Which didn't occur in Constantine's time either. So what's your point?

Out of how many in existence at that time?

Since you do not -- and by your own admission, cannot -- ever look very far, let alone widely, and frequently misread, misinterpret, and misunderstand the very limited amount of material you do look at, your statement above means very little. It is in the end an example of the appeal to personal incredulity. And besides that, what I asked you to provide was a summary of what the primary sources say Constantine's motives were, not an evaluation on your part on whether these accounts themselves are any good.

And perhaps he wasn't, especially given his use of Hellenistic topoi to self aggrandize himself.

I suggest you have a look at The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk)(Noel Lenski, editor), especially at the essays by A.D. Lee on Constantine and Traditional religion and that of Mark J. Johnson on Architecture of Empire.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear DCHindley and others,

To what extent is the new testament a collage of blantant plagiarizations?

Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Hi Pete - the ancients did not use the term plagiarism, as we probably would not. The NT authors creatively reworked classical themes. I recommend Why do the Gospels Contradict Each Other? if you want a current essay on the question.

mountainman

Dear Toto,

Thanks for that reference. The author makes a summary point (4) that the authors of the new testament literature "freely interpretted from earlier literature including Biblical literature". The article does not appear to deal with freely interpetting from pagan literature. Great shades of the tabulation of Graves! But how much of the new testament was thus procurred?

Utter shock it was for me to read DCHIndley's post! Yes, many will say I knew that already, but so what, not all things are revealed to all at the same time. This should be granted. This issue is -- and what I would really like to know --- is how people actually feel, and think and contemplate the issue at that moment when they realised that this verse from Acts for in thee we live and move and have our being. was dedicated to Zeus. Is this not a little unsettling to the authority and authenticity of the canon?

To restate the question: To what extent is the new testament a collage of blantant "free interpretations"?

And additionally, to further the spirit of the OP, who was the first author to make notice of the fact that this verse in Acts "for in thee we live and move and have our being" was actually "freely borrowed by the author of Acts" from another source? When did this become first noticed in a modern historical sense, or was it noticed by others in antiquity, or later antiquity?


Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

Come on Pete, read the thread:

Do you think that these educated early Christians knew the source of the quote, but did not realize that it referred to Zeus?

Do you know that the Seal of the United States has a quote from Virgil that refers to Jupiter?

mountainman

Dear Toto,

As I have stated, I was completely unaware of this issue. So I dont know what to think. I need to read Clement and Jerome I suppose, regarding what they say about this quote that reflects upon the author of Acts.

No I did not know that, but it's an encouraging sign.


Best wishes,


Pete