Minimalist

Agreed. So was it "The Romans" who were intolerant or the "Christians?" I'll go with "christians" as they had the motive.

Minimalist

Understood, Pete. The question I have is whether or not there was resistance in other areas. I seem to recall reading somewhere, can't place it now, that there was considerable forced conversion to christianity elsewhere in the empire. How much of a stretch is it, really, to add heretics to the pagans in the zeal to foist Constantine's new religion on the masses?

If Christianity spread throughout the empire prior to Constantine, what form did it take? How can we say that gnostic ideas were limited to the East? Almost by definition, before Constantine's enforced orthodoxy they would all have been free agents to one extent or another.

Roger Pearse

I'll presume that it was the Christians who fed the Romans to the lions, then?

Interesting to hear this shibboleth of 'tolerance' being used as an absolute moral value, tho. Isn't its use in this way an artefact of the political left, invented in the late 1980's (?), as a way to demonise their political opponents and prevent them advancing certain views? Very much a period value, anyhow.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

Historians such as the late Moses Finley argued that the Roman Empire permanently became a less tolerant more authoritarian institution in the 3rd century CE.

This increased institutional coerciveness provides a background for the empire wide persecutions of Christianity in the late 3rd and early 4th century and the measures against paganism from the late 4th century onwards.

Andrew Criddle

Minimalist

The whole thing was starting to go downhill by that time. A number of serious defeats, particularly in Parthia, in the middle of the 3d century so there is much to support the idea. Military reverses usually lead to authoritarian measures as the power structure attempts to maintain their hold on power.

Whenever there is a discussion of 'Roman' history it is imperative to recall that it covers a very long period of time and things did change throughout.

mountainman

There was also, actually, quite the opposite. People who were to become the priests and bishops of the new religion were to become tax-exempt under the regime, and COnstantine had to legislate against movers and shakers who had set themselves up as christians. In other instances, Constantine bribed barbarian tribes to become christians by giving them gold.

IMO the stretch is a literary one only. Constantine's new regime was foisted on the indigenous Hellenic culture, since there were at that time, no christians or pagans on the planet -- all was simply Graeco-Roman. When Constantine implemented his new cult, he introduced -- we know very well both persection and intolerance.

The resistance and opposition was called heretical. The Council of Nicaea marked the boundary event at which the two words "christian" and "pagan" were brought into focus. Eusebius and COnstantine termed their opposition either as pagan or heretical --- it did not really matter --- since it was by defintion anti-christian.

We need to understand that there need not have been any other christian heretics prior to Constantine. The 2nd century Gnostics, for example, according to Eusebius' pseudo-history, wrote haughtily in Greek for Greek audiences, amidst an ocean of other heretics. Origen, whose Greek LXX Eusebius uses for our "Old Testament/Hebrew Bible" was regarded as a heretic before the end of the fourth century.

IMO the "Gnostics" were Hellenic priests of the fourth century, whom Constantine executed and disspossessed of their temples, temple services and ancient traditions -- particularly in the East after 324 CE. He and Eusebius terms them "christian heretics" simply to make us think there were christians before COnstantine. There were not. They were all "pagans". The Nag Hammadi codices tells us that their gnostic authors wrote in Coptic, in order to hide from the Greek and Latin eyes of christian bishops, and their appointed agents, on the look out for "heretical writings and books".

In the year 324 CE there was an eastern empire full of Graeco-Roman citizens who observed their ancient traditions. In the year 325 CE, there was an eastern empire full of a milieu of christians, heretics and pagans. It is simply part of the literary propaganda to think the "heretics" were not all 100% pagans. The christian victors wrote the history of the event, such that it buried the controversy of the masses, that Constantine's new religion was simply based on a monstrous literary tale, which had no substance in any historical sense.

We can see that this is so of we were to examine the list of anathemas which many of the 4th century "Councils" recorded -- along with their creeds. The public opinion of the fourth century is provided by an analysis of these anathemas.

Stuff like: "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three Gods"
Stuff like: the words of Arius, which constitute the anathema from Nicaea.


This is a bitter pill to swallow and meditate upon Minimalist, but I am of the opinion that christianity did not in fact spread through the empire prior to Constantine. The literature published by his regime would have us assume this to be the case, however I am rejecting his literature as fraud - the entire package: the NT, Eusebius' "Fathers", the martyrs, etc -- is simply a novel fraud designed by Constantine to rob the rich and poor alike.

We are dealing with a malevolent despot and military supremacist who went downhill (as did the majority of the Roman emperors) due to their association with absolute power. Suetonius' Twelve Caesars tells the story simply.

The evidence is not inconsistent with fourth century fraud.
The problem is our own preconceptions of "history".


Best wishes,



Pete Brown

Minimalist

Interesting discussion, Pete.....btw, my name's Bob. I'd like to think about this a while before replying in full.

Just one quick question in the meanwhile; do you agree with Klaus Schilling that all of the pre-Constantine Christian references were forged or not?

mountainman

TACITUS AND BRACCIOLINI:
THE ANNALS FORGED IN THE 15th CENTURY
by JOHN WILSON ROSS (1818-1887)

John Wilson was a good classical scholar.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

mountainman

YES.

With the following comments:

1) The references that we have today were not necessarily forged
in the time of the fourth century. For example, the Tacitus reference
could have been added as late as the 15th century.

2) The forgeries that were extant in previous epochs commencing
with the epoch under Constantine and Constantius, and all subsequent
periods probably had their own sets of pious forgeries which no longer
survive. A good example of this would be the spurious writings of
Lucian, and of Origen, in the fourth century.

3) The forgery business was not restricted to the literary business.
Holy relics with strange powers attracted tourist money in many
basilicas, and forgery of relics was ---- and need I say still is ----
a very very very very very very lucrative business. Again, tax exempt.

4) The problem of non-literary evidence to support the assertion (or
postulate) of Pre-Constantinian Christianity is not appreciated in this
forum due to the predominance of textual critics, whose expertise
is in the inner characteristics of documents, rather than their political
exterior environment, and upon whom archaeological citations appear
somewhere outside the Hubble Limit.

5) There are also issues of extant references to "Chrestos" and "Christos"
in the period BCE which are not forgeries as such, but are references
by which the christian historical apologetic readily conflates and confuses with the Eusebian Nation of Christians.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown
http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/

Clivedurdle

Why this christocentricity? I thought we had shown that other groups were persecuted to orders of magnitude far greater than xians ever were - Druids and slaves as starters, Jews?

Where is the Saint Spartacus?

What is all this focus on a few nutters in the games? How many gladiators were killed compared with xians? How many lion, tiger, elephant, hippo?

http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/gladiatr/