Agrippina wrote:He was not writing from what he saw, he was writing from source documents at a time after the church was the established religion of the Empire, even being a pagan, he held a privileged postion at the court and he took his source from Dexippus:

PUBLIUS HERENNIUS DEXIPPUS (c. A.D. 210-273), Greek historian, statesman and general, was an hereditary priest of the Eleusinian family of the Kerykes

This says something, Zosimus, even though a pagan, takes his history from a priest. Of course his history is going to paint Constantine as a pious Christian.

Since I'm trying to be nice, I'll let you go look up what the words an hereditary priest of the Eleusinian family of the Kerykes and realise the total blunder you just made. Remember what I said above about starting with your position then going to try to find the evidence later? It leads to embarrassing howlers like this.

That Zosimus was a pagan, and that the aristocracy was still around during Constantine's time, shows that Christianity hadn't become the sole religion of the Empire even after Theodosius made it official.

And the relevance of that statement would be ... ? Didn't I tell you how the senatorial class stuck with paganism into the Sixth Century just a few posts ago?

Evidence for this? He wasn't baptised until he was on his deathbed. Surely, as emperor and certainly if he was the devout Christian, wholely converted, he would have been baptised immediately, but not so:

Delaying baptism until just before death was a common practice in Constantine's time. This was based on the common view that after baptism, major sins cannot be forgiven and minor sins require penance for forgiveness. Better, then, to delay baptism that washes away all sins as long as possible. Some bishops frowned upon it and preached against it (which is how we know it was common practice) because of the obvious result: if people knew they could wipe away all their sins on their deathbed, why bother trying not to sin until then? As emperor and soldier who had to do many "non-Christian" things, Constantine would have felt that being baptized right after his conversion would certainly cost him salvation - for any sins (like killing) committed after baptism would be unforgivable.http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/constantine.htm

Mention da Vinci code and I'm sure you'll see red, TIm. This one is about what's wrong with the book.

And the relevance of that would be ... ? That's "proof" of what exactly?

I'm inclined to go with the slow process: that he saw the benefits of being a Christian, and accepted the religion, but still hung onto some pagan beliefs. Over time he leaned more and more towards Christianity, but continued to collect wealth and political power, and eventually when he was old and dying, went through the process of baptism.

You're "inclined" toward this based on what, exactly? As for why he left baptism until his deathbed, didn't you read your own quote above?

Christ, what a total muddle you've come up with.

Why do I have to defend myself to you. If you think I'm an idiot, then go away and pick a fight with someone else. I don't want to fight with egotists.

Agrippina wrote:Why do I have to defend myself to you. If you think I'm an idiot, then go away and pick a fight with someone else. I don't want to fight with egotists.

I'm an "egoist" because I point out that you (i) haven't actually produced ANY evidence for your position at all and (ii) make astonishing blunder like thinking a pagan priest of the Eleusinian mysteries was a Christian? I'm an "egoist" because I'm trying to show you why starting with your conclusion and then scrabbling around for something to back it up is stupid?

Try this. Try it the other way around. Look at the evidence first, objectively, then draw careful conclusions. It works better that way around. That's what historians do.

Of course, if you want to stick to the fundie/polemicist way of doing it then feel free. But then you'll have to "defend" the clusmy, error-riddled nonsense you come up with from horrible old Tim the "egoist".

TimONeill wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Why do I have to defend myself to you. If you think I'm an idiot, then go away and pick a fight with someone else. I don't want to fight with egotists.

I'm an "egoist" because I point out that you (i) haven't actually produced ANY evidence for your position at all and (ii) make astonishing blunder like thinking a pagan priest of the Eleusinian mysteries was a Christian? I'm an "egoist" because I'm trying to show you why starting with your conclusion and then scrabbling around for something to back it up is stupid?

I draw conclusions from what I read and what I have read over some 50 + years of reading history in preference to most other things.

Try this. Try it the other way around. Look at the evidence first, objectively, then draw careful conclusions. It works better that way around. That's what historians do.

Don't tell me what historians do. I don't need lectures.
You cannot draw "careful" conclusions. You can only make assumptions from what material is available for you to read. People write things the way they see them, and an Eleusinian priest is still a priest. He is not a pragmatist. When people write a report, they write the report the way they see it. A Christian will view someone from the point of view of a Christian, a pagan from his point of view, and an atheist from his point of view.

For instance, my view that Jesus was a myth, from the point of view of someone who had never studied Christianity, changed because I read the NT and learnt something about the religion. Now I say that from what I've learned, I believe he was a real person. My Christian friends are thrilled, they think I'm halfway to becoming one of them, some of my Jewish friends ask if I'm abandoning my culture (which I've never practiced but they don't see that because they don't want to believe that you can be a Jew and not religious) and my less-knowledgeable atheist friends are shattered, they tell me that as an atheist I "have to believe that it's a myth" and they keep throwing zietgeist rubbish at me. So can you see, different people have different views about the same thing. I'm still militantly against religion, but I've become more tolerant of people's beliefs because I understand them better.

Apply that to people living in a society where various forms of paganism are all around them, and Christianity as one of the fringe religions, and then when it gets bigger and more important, even some of the people in charge become interested. A Christian church father who seriously believes in Jesus and all the mythology, like Eusebius, sees it as a total conversion, while the person who is intent on feathering his political and power nest is merely adopting it into the pantheon of his beliefs. Why is that such a difficult concept to consider? Open your mind to looking at things from the human perspective. History is not science, there are no irrefutable truths in history, no matter how assiduously you apply the "historical method."

Of course, if you want to stick to the fundie/polemicist way of doing it then feel free. But then you'll have to "defend" the clusmy, error-riddled nonsense you come up with from horrible old Tim the "egoist".

I don't think you're horrible. I think you're very knowledgeable and perhaps could be a bit kinder while I scratch through my declining intellect for information I've lost.

Agrippina wrote:
Don't tell me what historians do. I don't need lectures.

Yet you keep making statements about what you “think” was the case and, when I present counter-arguments and evidence to the contrary and ask you to back up your “thoughts”, consistently come up with nothing. Though that’s not without a lot of Googling around and general scrabbling and then the odd hissy fit about what a meanie I am for actually expecting you to back up your “feelings” with real evidence.

You cannot draw "careful" conclusions. You can only make assumptions from what material is available for you to read.

People who practice the actual historical method, however, make well-informed and judicious judgements (not “assumptions”) based on as objective an analysis of all the evidence as possible. They don’t start with a “feeling” that something may have been the case and then desperately scrabble around for anything they can find which might look as though it supports what they have decided to “think” about the matter.

People write things the way they see them, and an Eleusinian priest is still a priest. He is not a pragmatist.

I have no idea what your definition of a “pragmatist” might be in this context, but all kinds of people were priests in this period, including most pre-Christian politicians and office-holders of any kind. So if that rules out their testimony in some way then you are going to have to throw out a hell of a lot of our source material. Want to use Tacitus? Oops you can’t – because he was “a priest” Want to use Caesar’s Gallic Wars? Sorry, he was “a priest” too. Your own link tells you that Dexippus was not simply “a priest” but was, like most holders of priestly offices in the period, a local leader and aristocrat as well as general and scholar.

More importantly, the reason I cited Zosimus and Julian (and therefore Dexippus) is that you tried to object that the idea Constantine converted for personal reasons (divine revelation) was purely Christian propaganda and that his “real” motives were probably more political. So I pointed out that those who had no interest in Christian propaganda still insisted his motivations were personal (redemption). So now you’re in the rather weird position of dismissing both the pagan and the Christian sources and sticking to … well, your unsupported “feeling” that his motives were political.

I don't think you're horrible. I think you're very knowledgeable and perhaps could be a bit kinder while I scratch through my declining intellect for information I've lost.

I’d be a bit more patient if you dropped this defensive habit of reacting to criticism by digging your toes in and trying to dig up anything to back up your position rather than stepping back and looking at the evidence. I don’t post on a subject unless (i) I’ve really done my homework on it and (ii) I have the relevant evidence at my fingertips. So I tend to not to have much patience with people who present vague ideas and then don’t seem willing to accept they they might not quite have things right. Given that you admit your memory isn’t as sharp as it could be, how about next time I challenge you on something you drop the overdefensiveness, take a deep breath and walk through the relevant evidence instead of instantly and often obstinately sticking to your guns at all costs. On the rare occasions I post from vague memory I always happily give ground if someone corrects my impressions with detailed analysis.

Never mind Tim, just drop it I'm too old and too ill right now to deal with the stress of another argument with you. I don't have the inclination to do research just to win points with you. You've won the argument. I'm letting this discussion go.

I might be missing something, but if Zosimus' account is true, it does point to Constantine's conversion being a slow process.

If we read the passage before the one you quoted Tim:

For he put to death his son Crispus, stiled (as I mentioned) Caesar, on suspicion of debauching his mother-in-law Fausta, without any regard to the ties of nature. And when his own mother Helena expressed much sorrow for this atrocity, lamenting the young man's death with great bitterness, Constantine under pretence of comforting her, applied a remedy worse than the disease. For causing a bath to be heated to an extraordinary degree, he shut up Fausta in it, and a short time after took her out dead. Of which his conscience accusing him, as also of violating his oath, he went to the priests to be purified from his crimes. But they told him, that there was no kind of lustration that was sufficient to clear him of such enormities. A Spaniard, named Aegyptius, very familiar with the court-ladies, being at Rome, happened to fall into converse with Constantine, and assured him, that the Christian doctrine would teach him how to cleanse himself from all his offences, and that they who received it were immediately absolved from all their sins. Constantine had no sooner heard this than he easily believed what was told him, and forsaking the rites of his country, received those which Aegyptius offered him ; and for the first instance of his impiety, suspected the truth of divination.
Zosimus, Historia Nova, II

Crispus' death was in 326, we know that Constantine started favouring the Christian church in law and privileges starting around 312. So there's a fourteen year gap between when Constantine starts favouring Christianity and when, according to Zosimus, he gets absolution from the Christian faith for the murder of his kindred. The Emperor Julian also refers to this in his satire where he says that Constantine (and his sons) are punished for "the shedding of the blood of their kindred" where they then turn to Jesus...

but then how could Constantine not know about how Christianity absolves sins for all that time, it doesn't make sense?

U-96 wrote:I might be missing something, but if Zosimus' account is true, it does point to Constantine's conversion being a slow process.

If we read the passage before the one you quoted Tim:

For he put to death his son Crispus, stiled (as I mentioned) Caesar, on suspicion of debauching his mother-in-law Fausta, without any regard to the ties of nature. And when his own mother Helena expressed much sorrow for this atrocity, lamenting the young man's death with great bitterness, Constantine under pretence of comforting her, applied a remedy worse than the disease. For causing a bath to be heated to an extraordinary degree, he shut up Fausta in it, and a short time after took her out dead. Of which his conscience accusing him, as also of violating his oath, he went to the priests to be purified from his crimes. But they told him, that there was no kind of lustration that was sufficient to clear him of such enormities. A Spaniard, named Aegyptius, very familiar with the court-ladies, being at Rome, happened to fall into converse with Constantine, and assured him, that the Christian doctrine would teach him how to cleanse himself from all his offences, and that they who received it were immediately absolved from all their sins. Constantine had no sooner heard this than he easily believed what was told him, and forsaking the rites of his country, received those which Aegyptius offered him ; and for the first instance of his impiety, suspected the truth of divination.
Zosimus, Historia Nova, II

Crispus' death was in 326, we know that Constantine started favouring the Christian church in law and privileges starting around 312. So there's a fourteen year gap between when Constantine starts favouring Christianity and when, according to Zosimus, he gets absolution from the Christian faith for the murder of his kindred. The Emperor Julian also refers to this in his satire where he says that Constantine (and his sons) are punished for "the shedding of the blood of their kindred" where they then turn to Jesus...

but then how could Constantine not know about how Christianity absolves sins for all that time, it doesn't make sense?

It doesn’t, but that doesn’t affect my point. We still have what seem to be two narratives about why Constantine converted: (i) the Christian one (“He saw a vision from God and believed!”) and (ii) the pagan one (“He was a murderous bastard who was simply looking for a way to absolve himself of his wicked crimes.”) Neither seem to be the whole story and both have their own agenda. But the point is that both agree that he converted for personal reasons.

There’s no hint in either of the political reasons so fondly imagined by many moderns. There’s actually no indication of that anywhere, even though there was no shortage of people at the time and later who hated Constantine and who would have had a motive to emphasise this motive if there was any basis for it.

yeah I agree, you can say in hindsight there were benefits politically, but how can you say that his motivations were political when there was no clear separation between politics and religion to the Roman mind of the time.

U-96 wrote:yeah I agree, you can say in hindsight there were benefits politically, but how can you say that his motivations were political when there was no clear separation between politics and religion to the Roman mind of the time.

Actually, I can't see any benefits politically even in hindsight. Aligning himself with a marginal and despised faith whose devotees tended to be peasant scum and artisans gave him no benefits at all and worked against him with the people whose political support actually mattered – the aristocrats, senatorial class and the equestrians. The Roman Empire of the Dominate wasn’t a democracy or even a pseudo republic the Empire of the Principate, where popularity with the masses counted for anything much. It was a brutal oligarchy ruled by generals with the support of aristocrats.

The only reason Constantine didn’t suffer a backlash over his conversion to this peasant faith and join the ranks of all the other short-lived (and quickly dead) Emperors of the time was he was more ruthless than anyone else at outmanoeuvring and eliminating his rivals. His total domination of the Empire for 31 years meant that by the time of his death his adopted faith had gained new respectability and many aristocratic converts. But when he converted Christianity did no confer any political advantages at all – quite the opposite.

TimONeill wrote:

U-96 wrote:yeah I agree, you can say in hindsight there were benefits politically, but how can you say that his motivations were political when there was no clear separation between politics and religion to the Roman mind of the time.

Actually, I can't see any benefits politically even in hindsight. Aligning himself with a marginal and despised faith whose devotees tended to be peasant scum and artisans gave him no benefits at all and worked against him with the people whose political support actually mattered – the aristocrats, senatorial class and the equestrians. The Roman Empire of the Dominate wasn’t a democracy or even a pseudo republic the Empire of the Principate, where popularity with the masses counted for anything much. It was a brutal oligarchy ruled by generals with the support of aristocrats.

The only reason Constantine didn’t suffer a backlash over his conversion to this peasant faith and join the ranks of all the other short-lived (and quickly dead) Emperors of the time was he was more ruthless than anyone else at outmanoeuvring and eliminating his rivals. His total domination of the Empire for 31 years meant that by the time of his death his adopted faith had gained new respectability and many aristocratic converts. But when he converted Christianity did no confer any political advantages at all – quite the opposite.

True, but I remember it was from Steven Runciman that I read this idea, from memory, his idea was that Constantine's conversion was sincere, but also he saw something in Christianity that was useful and wanted a syncratism of religions, the Undying Sun and the Christian god to unify the people and strengthen morality, something that was seen as very important for emperors to do in that climate of fear, uncertainity and destruction.

Still Runciman's pretty old school...

U-96 wrote:

TimONeill wrote:

U-96 wrote:yeah I agree, you can say in hindsight there were benefits politically, but how can you say that his motivations were political when there was no clear separation between politics and religion to the Roman mind of the time.

Actually, I can't see any benefits politically even in hindsight. Aligning himself with a marginal and despised faith whose devotees tended to be peasant scum and artisans gave him no benefits at all and worked against him with the people whose political support actually mattered – the aristocrats, senatorial class and the equestrians. The Roman Empire of the Dominate wasn’t a democracy or even a pseudo republic the Empire of the Principate, where popularity with the masses counted for anything much. It was a brutal oligarchy ruled by generals with the support of aristocrats.

The only reason Constantine didn’t suffer a backlash over his conversion to this peasant faith and join the ranks of all the other short-lived (and quickly dead) Emperors of the time was he was more ruthless than anyone else at outmanoeuvring and eliminating his rivals. His total domination of the Empire for 31 years meant that by the time of his death his adopted faith had gained new respectability and many aristocratic converts. But when he converted Christianity did no confer any political advantages at all – quite the opposite.

True, but I remember it was from Steven Runciman that I read this idea, from memory, his idea was that Constantine's conversion was sincere, but also he saw something in Christianity that was useful and wanted a syncratism of religions, the Undying Sun and the Christian god to unify the people and strengthen morality, something that was seen as very important for emperors to do in that climate of fear, uncertainity and destruction.

Still Runciman's pretty old school...

He is, but the real problem here is trying to present what was going on in someone's head despite the fact the evidence doesn't give any indication of this. That's not historical analysis, that's historical fiction.

Yes, I guess that's one of the issues of hindsight.

Actually Tim, there's one thing that puzzles me about the Constantine conversion story. You may have some insight...

We know that Christianity was not well represented in the Roman army.

Also that the Roman soldiers painted the Chi Rho symbol on their shields before the battle.

We also know that the Roman army was very religious/superstitious, some historians have even referred to it as a religious institution, they would have been very aware of offending the gods.

Now Constantine faced an opposition with an large numerical advantage, the usual modus operandi in this situation was for the army to simply avoid the fight and assassinate the commander...

...but they did fight, as if they believed Constantine had divine providence.

What I don't understand is why did they fight, and why didn't the sudden change of gods spook them?

U-96 wrote:Actually Tim, there's one thing that puzzles me about the Constantine conversion story. You may have some insight...

We know that Christianity was not well represented in the Roman army.

Also that the Roman soldiers painted the Chi Rho symbol on their shields before the battle.

We also know that the Roman army was very religious/superstitious, some historians have even referred to it as a religious institution, they would have been very aware of offending the gods.

Now Constantine faced an opposition with an large numerical advantage, the usual modus operandi in this situation was for the army to simply avoid the fight and assassinate the commander...

...but they did fight, as if they believed Constantine had divine providence.

What I don't understand is why did they fight, and why didn't the sudden change of gods spook them?

Assuming Lactantius’ story is accurate (though he was tutor to the emperor’s son, so in a position to know), it should be noted that Constantine had had the strong support of his army for some time and its core (including its senior officers) had served under his much-admired father. So if the imperator says paint a weird symbol on your shields, you painted a weird symbol on your shields.

It’s also not clear how well-known the Chi-Ro symbol was amongst non-Christians or if it would have been widely recognised as a Christian symbol at all. Even if it was, to a pagan one god was as good as another in a fight anyway.

Tim O’Neill:
Actually, I can't see any benefits politically even in hindsight. Aligning himself with a marginal and despised faith whose devotees tended to be peasant scum and artisans gave him no benefits at all and worked against him with the people whose political support actually mattered – the aristocrats, senatorial class and the equestrians.

Most scholars would agree that Constantine was for his time fairly traditional, with Milvian Bridge victory and later ones proof of the Christian deity’s might and validity, thus forming the basis for his conversion (not the first Roman with this attitude), often asserting subsequently that his rule was divinely anointed, whilst throughout keen to promote Christian unity. The aristocrats and senatorial class had lost their former importance and prominence long go

By this time the Christians my well have comprised anything up to a quarter or more of the population, existing throughout all levels of society, including the bureaucracy and army. Suggesting they were a “marginal and despised faith whose devotees tended to be peasant scum and artisans” is arrant nonsense.

Tim O’Neill:
The only reason Constantine didn’t suffer a backlash over his conversion to this peasant faith and join the ranks of all the other short-lived (and quickly dead) Emperors of the time was he was more ruthless than anyone else at outmanoeuvring and eliminating his rivals.

It was no longer a “peasant faith” – if it ever was – but in this case his undoubted ruthlessness had scant to do with not suffering “a backlash”. Apart from which neither the Christians nor the pagans at this time were particularly homogeneous, or strongly hostile toward each other.

Tim O’Neill:
I keep repeating the same lesson over and over again – history is about careful, well-informed, objective analysis of the evidence, not starting with what we’d like to be true and then trying to find anything we can to support this.

Maybe time to take a leaf out of your own book…

Lewis wrote:By this time the Christians my well have comprised anything up to a quarter or more of the population, existing throughout all levels of society, including the bureaucracy and army. Suggesting they were a “marginal and despised faith whose devotees tended to be peasant scum and artisans” is arrant nonsense.

True, I have read Christians were found through all levels of society, but the figure of a quarter is way to high, the figure I've seen is about 8 to 10 percent by the fourth century based on the works of Ramsay MacMullen, Robin Lane Fox, Rodney Stark, and others... of course it also varied from city to city, and rural to urban...

For this era there simply aren’t any statistics, U-96, either on all up population or number of Christians etc. Some suggest the latter may even have exceeded thirty percent of the total, but even this is mere speculation and guesswork.

What historical evidence do we have of the bible’s Jesus though, that fine prodigy of a Nazareth carpenter who managed to get into all sorts of strife?

The other day on the radio a Catholic historian, in with other gibber-jabber, noted that “Jesus was of course literate”, pricking my ears –alas, not another supporting word.

Lewis wrote:For this era there simply aren’t any statistics, U-96, either on all up population or number of Christians etc. Some suggest the latter may even have exceeded thirty percent of the total, but even this is mere speculation and guesswork.

The estimate of around 10% is arrived at by sociologist Rodney Stark by using growth models based on the growth of analogous cults for which we do have more than speculation and guesswork. But simply pointing out that any estimate of the number of Christians is going to be uncertain won’t help you. You made a statement about how Christians represented “up to a quarter or more of the population” of the Empire. That’s quite a claim and well above even the most generous estimates give by the scholars U-96 has mentioned. So where do you get it from and, given that this is all “mere speculation and guesswork”, what is it based on?

Your statements about how Christians and pagans were all living more or less happily is also total nonsense. Constantine came to power just three years after the persecutions of Diocletian, the most extensive and bloody persecution of Christians in the history of the Empire. So how do you reconcile that with some crap about how pagans and Christians were not “strongly hostile toward each other”? That and ludicrous statements like “aristocrats and senatorial class had lost their former importance and prominence long ago” show that you don’t have the faintest clue about this period.

What historical evidence do we have of the bible’s Jesus though, that fine prodigy of a Nazareth carpenter who managed to get into all sorts of strife?

What’s that got to do with this thread?

The other day on the radio a Catholic historian, in with other gibber-jabber, noted that “Jesus was of course literate”, pricking my ears –alas, not another supporting word.

Just because he isn’t ignorant of the prevalence of literacy of a people whose faith was centred on the interpretation of sacred writings and you are doesn’t mean much. Try Catherine Hezser’s Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine for an exhaustive survey of the evidence and its clear implications.

Lewis wrote:For this era there simply aren’t any statistics, U-96, either on all up population or number of Christians etc. Some suggest the latter may even have exceeded thirty percent of the total, but even this is mere speculation and guesswork.

Which is why I didn't say your estimate was wrong, I said it was high compared to the figures I seen. Interestingly, using the similarity of the exponential growth of other cults to explain Christianities growth is a great argument against those Christians that claim the uptake of Christianity was unprecedented, and can only be explained if there were some divine intervention... if we're to believe that the number really was a quarter, then we're moving into miracle territory.