mountainman

One of his prefects describes his rule as "Neronian". Eusebius thinks Constantine is Moses, and everything is harmonious and rosy. How are these two facts reconciled?

The provenance, genuineness and authenticity of the Greek canonical books of the New Testament in the 50 Constantine Bibles have no interest for you? Or perhaps you have interest in these books of the new testament, but no interest in the political assessment of its imperial patron and publisher Constantine? Or is Constantine really Moses?

mountainman

If Eusebius is considered to have no reputation as a competent chronographer how can anyone expect him to have any reputation as any sort of an historian? Is he not a polemecist in "Against Hierocles"?

mountainman

relish the irony and reflect ...


On that last paragraph Ossius is Constantine's chief agent presiding. Most histories have Constantine turning back after Antioch from his journey to the great "City of Alexandria" because of the Arian controversy. Two items of evidence suggest to me that Constantine would not have missed personally leading his victorious army to Alexandria. (1) Ammianus's statement that Constantine ripped the largest obelisk in Egypt from its foundations, and (2) a graffito in an Egyptian tomb dated 324/325 (I dont have the details available right now - I'm mowing the lawn)

mountainman

That's what the victors assert but what was the real story?

Pontifex Maximus of Rome, Constantine was a military commander and Roman Emperor who taxed the roman people like the rest of them. He assessed the philosophical and theological schools and academies of Plato described by Porphyry as a threat to the stability of the monotheistic state government and the general acceptance of the canonization of his Constantine Bible; the perceived need to ban argumentative questions in critical times is a perennial problem for governments everywhere and Constantine solved it with the sword.


More recently and with far greater erudition Arnaldo Momigliano explains the triumph of Christianity in Rome and a revolution and a miracle.


This does not explain why Platonism, Pythagoreanism, Stoicism, Hellenism etc are specifically listed as later 4th century Christian heresies.


Here is Russel on the Holy Trinity of Plotinus and Plato ...

Constantine burned the writings of Porphyry, who preserved the works of Plotinus. Transmission of these and other heretical writings was largely performed outside the empire.

Also somehow the idea of the Holy Trinity moved from the academy of Plotinus to the academy of Nicaean Christians, yet the Holy Trinity was never mentioned at Nicaea.

Iskander

Yes, Constantine was the roman emperor who converted to Christianity.
He was not perfect, we agree on that.

Theology is a subject beyond my comprehension and it is, therefore, of no interest to me.


Constantine adopted Christianity as the political party of the empire to strengthen it and make the empire powerful again. I suppose he tried to do what Mohamed achieved some years later with the quarrelling tribes of Arabia; onward Muslim soldiers marching...


The nascent Judaic, Christian and Muslim religions were all at the beginning martial fascist parties designed for war and conquest. Regrettably, the Christian party had already a life of its own and too much Plato in it.

Iskander

I don’t understand why you seek support in an obscure passage of Ammianus Marcellinus

I have a copy of The Later Roman Empire (AD354-378) by Ammianus Marcellus, Penguin Books; 1986.This copy was translated by Walter Hamilton and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill with Betty Radice as the advisory editor.

The preface says as follows
The passage under consideration forms part of the XVII chapter and in this passage Ammianus tells us something that happened before he was born.
I don’t want to spend time typing from my copy [ I prefer my translation, but...] and I am copying and pasting from here:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/...mmian/17*.html
It is impossible to date this story about Constantine.
As to graffito.., please continue with your gardening duties and enjoy a cool bear afterwards, ( a Foster?)

Doug Shaver

Fact: One man expressed an opinion. Fact: Another man expressed a contrary opinion. What is there about those two facts that needs reconciling?

I could be interested in both. It would not follow that I should have any interest in a theory connecting the two if the theory's proponent produces no evidence to support it.

My opinion of the "provenance, genuineness and authenticity" of the New Testament writings is not exactly friendly to Christian orthodoxy. It's even hostile to a great deal of non-orthodox NT scholarship. But I can defend that opinion without any reference to Constantine's political virtues or lack thereof, and if I can, parsimony says I should.

Doug Shaver

That doesn't answer my question.

mountainman

One question an ancient historian might ask about these two facts is which is closer to all the available corroborrating (or non-corroborating) evidence and the ancient historical truth concerning the rule of Constantine in his final decade after Nicaea.

mountainman

That's what he asserted in the codex publications manufactured during his rule. The question is of course, do we have to necessarily believe him.


YES but CHRONOLOGICALLY his blueprint was the creation of the Persian Sassanid State monotheistic Zoroastrian religion c.222 CE by the military supremacist and "King of Kings" Ardashir. This Persian monotheistic revolution had only occurred a century before Nicaea, and since then the Persians had become very vigorous and successful in their military campaigns and had captured alive a number of Roman Emperors and Roman Legions.

Constantine was well aware that religion to the common people was true, to the wise false and to the ruler useful. All he needed to do was to censor the wise philosophers' reactions to the monstrous tale he published.



Eusebius "borrowed" the identities of key 3rd century Platonists to fabricate his 3rd century Christian sources and "Bishops"