Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 11-29-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

And how do you think this extra material from Momigliano's essay has impact on the quote you've already supplied?

It's too early to say at the moment, to be honest.

On the positive side, as is the characteristic (it seems)
of many knowledgeable commentators on history, its
not in the details of what they say, but what is left
unsaid, what is hinted at. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.
The "miraculous" seems to be a key word by which
the author expresses his interpretation of historical
events, despite his background of having to flee
Mussolini's regime in his early academic career.

On the negative side, the book in which this essay is
bound also contains a number of other essays related
"Paganism and Christianity in the 4th century", such as
"Pagans and Christians in the Family of Constantine
the Great" (J.Vogt); "The Social Background of the
Struggle between Paganism and Christianity" (Momigliano).

Thus it introduces entire new areas of research, each
strand a possibility in its own right. Not one of these
minutiae alone must be seen as more important than
others, because 1) they are each important, and 2)
our knowledge of them is so distant. However in a
collective sense, in the manner by which these same
minutiae are collated, and related, importance of the
different aspects of the whole picture may emerge.

The further parts of this same essay provide some very
insightful comments, particularly upon the role of, and
Momigliano's assessment of Eusebius. These only
reinforce the need to be wary of what tradition has
been handed down to us, and the manner by which
it was handed down. Text is one thing, context is
another.

Best wishes,

Pete

spin · 11-30-2006, 12:02 AM

Don't you think Momigliano worked on the notion that there were christians prior to Maxentius's defeat in Rome? The reference to Lactantius's De mortibus persecutorum seems to be further evidence of his position regarding christians prior to Constantine.

spin

mountainman · 11-30-2006, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Don't you think Momigliano worked on the notion that there were christians prior to Maxentius's defeat in Rome?

I am sure he did not anywhere say "Constantine create christianity",
but then I ask you, if he thought such a thing, would be be in a
position to say such a thing? Or would he hint at the idea? The
notion that there were christians prior to 312 is the default notion
with which every new student of this area of studies is instructed.

The better question might be, does he show signs of escaping
this default notion. And to that, miraculously enough, IMO
there are certain signs, hints and innuendos, such as the
quote that prompted this thread.

Quote:

The reference to Lactantius's De mortibus persecutorum seems to be further evidence of his position regarding christians prior to Constantine.

He cites Lactantius's De mortibus persecutorum
as being written c.316 CE. I will look out for his references
to periods earlier than the fourth century.

Pete

spin · 11-30-2006, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am sure he did not anywhere say "Constantine create christianity",
but then I ask you, if he thought such a thing, would be be in a
position to say such a thing? Or would he hint at the idea? The
notion that there were christians prior to 312 is the default notion
with which every new student of this area of studies is instructed.

When Maxentius lost to Constantine, the death knell to paganism rang out. Your citation starts:

On 28 October 312 the Christians suddenly and
unexpectedly found themselves victorious.

Note first the date. Second, note that christians were victorious in some way at that date, ie they existed before that date. Momigliano in no way supplies with grease to oil the Grand Conspiracy. He would obviously have rejected it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

He cites Lactantius's De mortibus persecutorum
as being written c.316 CE. I will look out for his references
to periods earlier than the fourth century.

Let me just ask you this: when were the persecutions referred to in the title of Lactantius's work carried out and who do you think were persecuted??

spin

Malachi151 · 11-30-2006, 09:46 AM

The main reason that Christianity wasn't invented by Constantine is that it would be a lot more consistent and make more sense if he did, oh, that plus all of the references to it from prior to Constantine.

mikem · 11-30-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Here is the opening paragraph ...

Pagan and Christian Historiography
in the Fourth Century A.D.
--- ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO (1959/60)

On 28 October 312 the Christians suddenly and
unexpectedly found themselves victorious. The
victory was a miracle - though opinions differed
as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed to
Constantine. The winners became conscious of
their victory in a mood of resentment and
vengeance. A voice shrill with implacable hatred
announced to the world the victory of the Milvian
Bridge: Lactatius' De mortibus persecutorum.
In this horrible pamphlet by the author of De ira
dei there is something of the violence of the
prophets without the redeeming sense of tragedy
that inspired Nahum's song for the the fall of
Nineveh.

Also in the first part (of 4 parts) in this essay, is the second
reference to this "miracle". The expanded context of this quote
is as follows:

If there were men who recommended tolerance
and peaceful coexistence of Christians and pagans,
they were rapidly crowded out. The Christians
were ready to take over the ROman empire, as
Eusebius made clear in the introduction of the
Preparatio evangelica where he emphasises
the correlation between pax romana and
the Christian message: the thought indeed was
not even new. The Christians were also determined
to make impossible a return to the conditions of
inferiority and persecution for the Church. The
problems and conflicts inside the Church which
all this implied may be left aside for the moment.

“The revolution of the fourth century,
carrying with it a new historiography
will not be understood if we underrate
the determination, almost the fierceness,
with which the Christians appreciated and exploited
the miracle
that had transformed Constantine
into a supporter, a protector, and later a legislator
of the Christian church.”

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."

END QUOTAGE

Pete Brown

The miracle was surely that Constantine won the battle of Milvian Bridge. The text explicitly says so ...the victory was a miracle, although opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed... The author refers to the date of the miracle - the day of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. In hindsight, it can be called victorious for the Christians because without the events that happened on that day, Christianity would never have become the political power that it did. The victory for the Christians was sudden, in the sense that what happened that day dramatically CHANGED the course of Christian history. In order for something to change, it has to already exist, and so the text is actually evidence for the existence of Christianity prior to Constantine.

mountainman · 11-30-2006, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Let me just ask you this: when were the persecutions referred to in the title of Lactantius's work carried out and who do you think were persecuted??

In my opinion it cannot be ruled out that the persecutions,
reported in that pamphlet, like the rest of the fabrication
of the galilaeans, were part of the fiction of wicked men.

The modus operandi of dictatorial propaganda is the use
of scare tactics, blood-and-gore monstrous tales, and a
mass of fiction. Constantine flooded the empire with what
in today's world would be called a dictator's propaganda,
much like Hitler created his fictions, and pamphlets.

Pete

spin · 11-30-2006, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

In my opinion it cannot be ruled out that the persecutions,
reported in that pamphlet, like the rest of the fabrication
of the galilaeans, were part of the fiction of wicked men.

Having just skimmed the Lactantius text, De mortibus persecutorum, here, it does seem pretty putrid. However, what is interesting about Lactantius was that he was very old when he was given the post of Latin tutor to Constantine's son, Crispus, who went to Trier as caesar circa 317 CE, so he was well away from the court intrigue and any Grand Conspiracy and disappeared from the radar. Crispus was put to death in 326. From far away Trier where Lactantius probably died of even greater old age, he wrote this rag in Latin which shows knowledge of various emperors, but no Eusebius, of christian persecution, which according to him took place from circa 303 to 311, but no hint of christian invention.

Lactantius also wrote the Divine Institutions, which, he indicates in the introduction to a later edition, was a much earlier work. It also features a looking back to bad old times for christians.

How do you fit Lactantius into the Grand Conspiracy??

spin

mountainman · 11-30-2006, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikem

The miracle was surely that Constantine won the battle of Milvian Bridge. The text explicitly says so ...the victory was a miracle, although opinions differed as to the nature of the sign vouchsafed...

Vouchsafed ... to Constantine alone.
We are talking about a military campaign.

Do you happen to have any idea whatsoever
about the numbers and the constitution of
the two opposing armies of Constantine and
Maxentius? How miraculous was his victory
in terms of this information.

Pete

mountainman · 11-30-2006, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Lactantius also wrote the Divine Institutions, which, he indicates in the introduction to a later edition, was a much earlier work. It also features a looking back to bad old times for christians.

How do you fit Lactantius into the Grand Conspiracy??

Constantine had two desks for the ministers of propaganda.
Esuebius covered the greek, Lactantius the latin. It was this
Constantine the Grand, who was the great conspiracy unto
himself. He employed people, not vice verse. He was boss.

He possessed what might be classically termed
"BOUNDLESS AMBITION". He is descibed as a brigand
for the period 316-326 and for the following decade
"a ward irresponsible for his own actions".

The plan was that by introducing a new Roman religion, the
existing Graeco/Roman/Egyptian religion would be "available
for plunder". Constantine saw that the new religion was well
estalished by the technology of his day --- literature.

Further, it seems apparent to me that much of this propaganda
was then sent in advance of his military, as early as 316/317,
into the eastern empire. Contraversial writings.

During that period 317-324 it is likely that most this
literature, having been sent to the Eastern empire,
ended up at the Oxyrynchus rubbish dump, where
much of it still rests; except Rylands, et al.

Pete

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-30-2006, 12:02 AM	#12
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Don't you think Momigliano worked on the notion that there were christians prior to Maxentius's defeat in Rome? The reference to Lactantius's De mortibus persecutorum seems to be further evidence of his position regarding christians prior to Constantine. spin

11-30-2006, 09:46 AM	#15
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	The main reason that Christianity wasn't invented by Constantine is that it would be a lot more consistent and make more sense if he did, oh, that plus all of the references to it from prior to Constantine.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.