mountainman

Constantine's new front man Jesus was not a greek but a hebrew, and as Eusebius tells us triumphantly, the ancient Hebrew sages foretold the coming of the new testament. Eusebius impresses upon us that the Hebrew sages had a greater antiquity than the Greek sages (Plato, Pythagoras et al). Julian berates the wretched Eusebius for claiming that the Hebrews wrote poetic hexameters before the Greeks.

Jesus could just as easily have been written up a a Druid (ie: not an Hellenic) by Constantine, since IMO Plan A was to rob, loot and plunder the Hellenic temples. To do this legally, he invented a new and imperially inspired religion. All this was within his power as emperor and pontifex maximus, and he created it, and he made it tax-exempt, and he divided the people from their taxes, and he saw that it was Good.

As did those who followed him to the underworld. (eg: Cyril).

IMO Constantine published a fraudulent NT.



Best wishes,


Pete

J-D

If, in your opinion, he could just as easily have been written up as a Druid, not a Hebrew, why, in your opinion, was he in fact written up as a Hebrew?

mountainman

The Hebrews had a revered and curiously arcane like holy writing tradition which extended back a considerable way in the paper record alone. The Jewish historiographic and literature traditions - if we are to follow Momigliano - were already at the time of Constantine - well and truly entwined with the traditions of the Egyptian, Hellenic and Persian nations, the empire now dominated by the Romans. (since the 1st BCE).

Secondly, the last stand of the Galilaeans and Hebrews at Masada in the first century would have been the substance of the stories of the Roman army, one of many of course, all tales of exploit, where you there, etc? The role of the resistance of the Hebrews against the Romans should never be underestimated at that time. Noone else stood up to Rome in the west. So the Hebrews already had a (then 4th CE) reputation as being fiercely independent of things Roman.

Thirdly though, and the clincher IMO, was the fact that when Constantine walked into the Roman libraries and assumed the role of Pontifex Maximus, this included the role of the preservation of knowledge. However he perverted this IMO, by taking the greek LXX transcriptions of the ancient author Origen as the basis for a new testament to a new Hebrew god man by whom Constantine would unify his newly acquired and soon to be supremely acquired empire. So he used the greek of Origen to cut and paste a new story which he put forward as the christian story. The heavy duty logistics and pseudo-history to accompany the fiction he reserved to Eusebius, whom Momigliano once comments, may have been Jewish.

The raw materials of the new testament is not simply Origen's greek LXX and its hexampla. These from 312CE and thereafterwards fell to Constantine. He attacked the Hellenic literature and surplanted a fabrication. But he used the Hellenic philosophy and its traditions in addition in his new testament. He incorporated The Logos and he incorporated The Healer. The healing tradiitons of that time are well attested ----- see the tradition of the Healing God Asclepius. See the role of the healing Pearl Man Lithargoel, and his assistance physician carrying herbs etc, and the archaeological citations thereto.

The new testament is a mixture formed in the fourth century.

The new testament non canonical literature may be seen as a reaction to the publication of the canon characters. All new storied then start emerging which are not part of the canon. What was Constantine doing about this? He was furious? He was being parodied by Arius. Nasty and cruel ascetic Arius was writing polemic which was causing disbelief and unbelief of the canon. Analysis of the ground of the fourth century IMO will show massive turbulence following the boundary event of Nicaea. The victors (the tax exempt custodians of the top-down emperor cult incorporated at Nicaea by the 318 founding attendees) - the second and final military supremacy council by which Constantine sewed things up and ruled like a malevolent despot until 337 CE, at which time the Boss went to the underworld.



The Druids, on the other hand, and their executions and thus control by the Romans, and the subsequent control of the people who revered these druids, such stories would have filled the first years of Constantine's new found freedom in the west (from c.305 CE) after fleeing his hostage situation in the court's (The Eastern Hellenic COurts) of Diocletian. His introduction to the druids included how the Romans had controlled the people by controlling the old religious control by its execution. Once the Druids were out of the wood and executed, their power in the eyes of the people was diminished, and the Romans controlled the people. The lesson learnt here by Constantine was that he could control the people by controlling their religion.

He similarly is known to have ordered the execution of Hellenic priests (c.324-336) and the spectacular mass destruction of ancient and revered temples to Ascelpius and other gods. This aside from (the executions of) his son, his wife, associated innocents, etc, etc, etc. You get the drift?


Last comment: I am often intrigued as to the answer to two questions. The question as to whether there was any relationship whatsoever in the timing of Constantine's rise to power, and the decision of Diocletian to retire from office (which previous emperor had ever retired?) and grow cabbages. The question of when, and how and under what conditions Diocletian died, during the rise to supremacy of Constantine.

Best wishes,


Pete