mountainman

Dear ddms,

Essentially they were pragmatists concerned over their own welfare. They had no choice in the matter. They were to either choose to follow the words of Constantine and the canon and the power and the glory, or, they had the choice to ratify the words of Arius. What would you have done if you have just walked throuigh a wall of drwan swords into a council meeting with the supreme commander of those swords, Constantine?

NO. I have stated that I think the eastern delegation knew it was a fiction and totally inauthentic. It might have looked good as a package on display, with perhaps the letter of Jesus and the interpolation of Josephus opening on a large desk. But the greek Hellenistic non-christian academics were no fools and they saw it for what it was --- a simple fraud. Yet they had no choice under duress but to comply with it in defence of their lives.

NOTE: At this point in history (Nicaea) I do not think the new testament apochryphal coprpus of literature had been authored and did not exist. MKy thesis has it that it was authored largely by Arius of Alexandria during the period of his exile and political banishment 325 to 336 CE.


After Nicaea the turbulence of the Arian controversy started. Most of the eastern attendees actually supported Arius - the new god is a fiction! But think about how complex things became in that era and after it. A new authority had descended on the Roman empire. The old authority of the pagan priests (and/or the greek academics) was no longer vital. It had been cut off by Constantine by the sword, and now the pen.

The new state religion took control of the preservation of literature as best it could.
But alot of things were happening 324/325 CE
Here are a few samples ....

1) Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice (Barnes)

2) Constantine marks out the boundaries for "The City of Constantine"

3) Phrygian settlement of Orcistus petitoned Constantine, referring to its totally christian population

4) Gregory of Nazianzus' father, a great landowner, was converted to christianity by an opportune dream

5) Pachomius "has a vision" and flees up the Nile to start monastic refuges (He is followed by thousands)

6) We are also informed that Constantine had to legislate against clever pagans who were taking the oppoortuinity of becoming "christians" because of its attractive tax-exempt status. This is an important point to remember.

Think about what would have happened if Constantine introduced Scientology instead of Christianity. We need to separate the theology from the history. This as an exercise in objectivity. ie: explore "non-christian-ness".


He had the army. That was all he needed. The history of Ardashir and the rise of the Sassanian state religion of Zorastrianism had shown him this. As in the case of Ardashir, he caused the publication of a set of canonical literature which was authorised and made the basis of the holy writ on the new state monotheistic religion. This involved using the technology of the codex. In the case of Constantine I am questioning the auhenticity of his sources -- whether the NT canon existed before 312 CE.


I have it that the heretical activity in relation to christianity only started with Nicaea and Arius. By the time Julian arrived on the scene, generations had passed by and many of the major temples were in ruins and many of the major basilcas were in full swing. It was a state public service. A brand new opportinity for people to join an elite group of tax exempt "bishops". The old pagan "priests" were vanishing with their temples, a new series of "christian bishops" assumed the authority which the Hellenistic priesthood once had earned though perhaps "hard asceticism" and the study of literature and mathematics, etc, etc, etc.

I follow Barnes. Here is his paper prefaced by his major detractor Bradbury:

Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century
Scott Bradbury, Classical Philology, Vol. 89, No. 2 (Apr., 1994), pp. 120-139

Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72


They are Eusebian. The C14 suggests fourth century.


Will you accept the essays of Sir Isaac Newton "On the Morals of Athanasius and His Followers"? Please read this. Newton (posthumously) paints a very different picture of Athanasius that that which you may be used to seeing. You'll find this and other articles at The Theological documents in the Newton Project.



The greek academics were seditiously arguing semantics: IMO they were aware they were dealing with a fiction. The entire corpus of the NT apochrypha have this hue. The greeks were locked in by Constantine who in his autocratic role was turning from bad to worse and becoming a malevolent despot. Taxation was increased: and Chrysargyron (Poll Tax) introduced. The army ruled.



Constantine reveals Arius hid out perhaps in Syria as well. The apochrypha were additional stories about the canon characters. New gospels from all sorts of perspectives, one having an "Acts of Pilate" embedded within it. Clever gnostic, with abundant references to "ascetic practices", and some overtly docetic, which I view as a christian "euphemism" for someone who thought Jesus was non historical. (ie: the christian historians did not want to say that there were people around who actually believed Jesus to be non-historical. They did not like to write this. They therefore invented the term "docetist" which they defined as a christian heretic who did not believe in the physical body of Jesus in the same way as normal people. Thus, by reporting the existence of docetists, they did not have to report the actual existence of the heretics who thought Jesus was simply a non historical character in a simple fiction contrived by Constantine for political religious state momotheistic purposes. (ie: following Ardashir).


The apochryphal NT tractates were sought out as heretical. Many appear in the Nag Hammadi codices, three hundred miles up the Nile and dated 348 CE. Was Pachomius -- one of the early instigators of remote monasticism at Nag Hammadi (c.324 CE) a christian? I dont think so. I think he was the same as Arius.


Arius and the ex-temple priests of the east were the gnostics. They were the Hellenistic priests who preserved Pythagoras, Plato, Euclid, etc. They were clever and educated people. But they were robbed by Constantine, their literature was calumnified by Eusebius and his continuators.

In order to draw an equality you ned to know what is on both sides of the equals sign. What is Arianism? What is Gnosticism? I am not so sure that at that epoch in history, under the rule of supreme Constantine from 324/325 CE, we know exactly what these two terms mean.

The Nag Hammadi codices. Are they christian? Are they Hellenenistic? Are they pagan? Why were they buried? Did Pachomius bury them? Who authored the tractate NHC 6.1 "The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles" in which the leading character is a mysterious "Pearl Man" with the outlandish name of Lithargoel? We are looking at this epoch through christian glasses. We need to take off the christian glasses and begin to ask some far more objective questions about what we really think we know about the history, and particularly the pagan history, of this epoch.

A history of the Hellenistic resistance to Constantine's state monotheistic religion he called christianity is not extant, but should be expected to have been written. What would it say?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Constantine had Sopater executed.

Whoever it was that did not preserve Ammianus from c.390, it could not have been Constantine who cashed in c.337 CE.



I have ten different paleographers certificates to support me.

I will argue that at least the major temples to Ascelpius had such priesthoods, and then extend the argument out to other cults.

What problem do you have with the English translation given in the Post-Nicene Fathers, II (New York, 1890) of the Ecclesiatical History of Socrates Scholasticus, which I put forward as an example of Socrates Scholasticus' account? Does Eusebius preserve the creed/oath?

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Evidence is always parsed through the paradigms which circulate in the mind of the examiner of the evidence. Consider the following well-known example of the black and white rendition of the following woman. Is this a young woman or is this an old woman?


The Arian controversy for example might be explained in such a manner as to use analogously the controversy caused over the argument as to whether the picture is evidence of a young woman or an old woman. And who would be right? A massive controversy!. And who would be "authoritatively right" with repect to the evidence? Obviously the victors of the competitive struggle for orthodoxy.

Thus do I present as a problem the authority with which just one interpretation of "christian" evidence can blind our senses in a very real manner to what the evidence is actually trying to tell us. Multiple paradigms need to be explored. At present only the super-highway of the "christian" paradigm of ancient history has been explored (with authority). Behind the evidence is the paradigm of the non-christians, who would have their story also known for posterity.


Best wishes,


Pete

Toto

I have merged in Pete's last post. It is too vague to serve as the focus of a separate discussion.

And other separate threads of a similar nature will be merged in here.

Didymus

You seem to think any evidence that doesn't directly contradict your imagined scenario, supports it. And you're inclined to see evidence where none exists, e.g., in your list of post-Nicene events:

You cite these events - whether correctly, I don't know; you have a poor recent track record in that regard - as though they give credence to your theory. At best, they only suggest that Romans responded in a variety of ways to the new legal status of Christianity.

This comes as no surprise, and it supports nothing more than the standard historical view that Constantine legalized the religion.

You expend a lot of bandwidth on utterly unevidenced scenarios, e.g., "I have stated that I think the eastern delegation knew it was a fiction and totally inauthentic," on propositions against which there is overwhelming evidence, e.g., "I have it that the heretical activity in relation to christianity only started with Nicaea and Arius," and on banalities: "Evidence is always parsed through the paradigms which circulate in the mind of the examiner of the evidence."

And how can I forget all the surplus details whose meaning you don't bother to explain? All that clutter seems intended only to confuse and intimidate.

I can see why some other members of the forum think it's a waste of time to argue with you.

Ddms

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Concerning the destruction of the temples and the executions of the priests Robin Lane-Fox writes the following:
I am not certain of Lane-Fox's source citation for this, but the following is Eusebius on the destruction of the temples:

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear ddms,

In considering the following evidence are we to conclude that the portrait is of a young woman or an old woman? Please answer the question and explain your perceived banality.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Leaving aside the fact that Lane Fox is not Eusebius (I asked where in Eusebius' VC we could find Eusebius speaking of executions of "chief priests" as you claimed we would if we looked there), Lane Fox says nothing about priests, let alone "chief priests" in this quote of his, or of anyone's execution.

You are reading into his text what you want to see.

Then you haven't read him.For on p. 785 he specifically cites Eusebius P.E. 4:135C-136A.

[snip]

None of which speak of priests, let alone "chief priests", let alone of any person being executed.

So I ask again, Pete. You said we could find attestation to Constantine executing chief priests of some of the (5 or so) pagan temples he destroyed in Eusebius' VC. So where specifically in Eusebius' VC can such attestation actually be found?.

Jeffrey

Toto

The discussion of the meaning of Retrojection has been split off here

J-D

The image is an image. It's black and white lines and patches on a flat surface. It is neither an old woman nor a young woman. It does not represent either an old woman or a young woman. It can be seen (by most people) either as a picture of an old woman or as a picture of a young woman. This ambiguity is intentional. The ambiguity is the intended and designed effect. Anybody who thinks it is meant only to look like an old woman is mistaken, and anybody who thinks it is meant only to look like a young woman is mistaken. For the reasons just stated, in this case 'it looks like an old woman' and 'it looks like a young woman' are not contradictory.

On the other hand, your interpretation of the Arian controversy and the conventionally accepted interpretation are contradictory. They can't both be true. If you're right, the conventional interpretation is wrong. If the conventional interpretation is right, you're wrong. The ambiguous image is a red herring.