Agrippina wrote:

dejuror wrote:

You MUST know that in the 4th century Constantine the Emperor of Rome decided to make Jesus, the Creator of heaven and earth, the offspring of the Holy Ghost and a virgin, the new God of Rome.

No, I don't know that because he didn't. He handed over the management of the religion of Rome to the Church, he continued to worship the sun. You need to study some ancient history.

Well, if you want to advise others on ancient history, it's best to get it right yourself. Constantine didn't "hand over the management of the religion of Rome to the Church" at all. He didn't do anything remotely like that. Christianity didn't become the state religion of Rome until the reign of Theodosius, 44 years after Constantine was dead and buried. All Constantine did was convert to Christianity and make it legal.

He also did not "continue to worship the sun". The evidence is quite clear that he was a Christian. He described paganism in his own letters as "the rites of an outmoded illusion" and spoke of how he shunned the "abominable blood and hateful odours" of pagan sacrifice. At most he avoided overt Christian symbols on his monuments so as not to offend the pagan aristocracy and some coins of his reign still carried traditional symbolism of the cult of Sol, which is where this myth that he "continued to worship the sun" seems to have come from.

TimONeill wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

dejuror wrote:


No, I don't know that because he didn't. He handed over the management of the religion of Rome to the Church, he continued to worship the sun. You need to study some ancient history.

Well, if you want to advise others on ancient history, it's best to get it right yourself. Constantine didn't "hand over the management of the religion of Rome to the Church" at all. He didn't do anything remotely like that. Christianity didn't become the state religion of Rome until the reign of Theodosius, 44 years after Constantine was dead and buried. All Constantine did was convert to Christianity and make it legal.

He also did not "continue to worship the sun". The evidence is quite clear that he was a Christian. He described paganism in his own letters as "the rites of an outmoded illusion" and spoke of how he shunned the "abominable blood and hateful odours" of pagan sacrifice. At most he avoided overt Christian symbols on his monuments so as not to offend the pagan aristocracy and some coins of his reign still carried traditional symbolism of the cult of Sol, which is where this myth that he "continued to worship the sun" seems to have come from.

I don't think it was a myth, as much as a way that people who look at the way people behave indicating their real "belief" as more of an indicator of their true feelings. And sometimes people say things that they think people want to hear. Like not offending the "pagan aristocracy and some coins of his reign still carried traditional symbolism of the cult of Sol." I'm not inclined to believe that he was wholly converted.

His mother was a Christian, he wasn't, until he realised that he had to make some sort of pretence at having converted. According to a whole lot of historians, including Gibbon, Eusebius and Lactantius were lying when they claimed he was converted. They couldn't even agree on how the conversion happened, even though they practically lived with the man.

Constantine was an empire-builder first, he didn't want to be bothered with religion, and he wanted to keep his empire. It suited him to have the Bishop of Rome take care of religious business, so he, to all intents and purposes, "handed over" the management of church affairs to the Bishop of Rome. I think he was just fed up with the squabbling more than actually a convicted Christian. Imagine that while you're trying to build an empire and a new city, you have to be involved in arguments about whether God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one, or three separate, gods. I think he'd just had enough of prelates writing to him with stupid questions, so he called them all together and said, "OK you can have your religion,only please fight among yourselves and leave me out of it!" or something to that effect and then went on building his empire. Yes, it was Theodosius who made it the official religion not Constantine.

I'm not alone in this, I've had this discussion for years with my university's AH faculty. The Christians believe he was converted, the atheists are skeptical and the psychologists say there is always more to historical figures than their overt behaviour. It's an interesting subject to discuss, but not the topic of this thread.

Agrippina wrote:

TimONeill wrote:

Agrippina wrote:

Well, if you want to advise others on ancient history, it's best to get it right yourself. Constantine didn't "hand over the management of the religion of Rome to the Church" at all. He didn't do anything remotely like that. Christianity didn't become the state religion of Rome until the reign of Theodosius, 44 years after Constantine was dead and buried. All Constantine did was convert to Christianity and make it legal.

He also did not "continue to worship the sun". The evidence is quite clear that he was a Christian. He described paganism in his own letters as "the rites of an outmoded illusion" and spoke of how he shunned the "abominable blood and hateful odours" of pagan sacrifice. At most he avoided overt Christian symbols on his monuments so as not to offend the pagan aristocracy and some coins of his reign still carried traditional symbolism of the cult of Sol, which is where this myth that he "continued to worship the sun" seems to have come from.

I don't think it was a myth, as much as a way that people who look at the way people behave indicating their real "belief" as more of an indicator of their true feelings. And sometimes people say things that they think people want to hear. Like not offending the "pagan aristocracy and some coins of his reign still carried traditional symbolism of the cult of Sol." I'm not inclined to believe that he was wholly converted.

And you don't "think" this based on ... ?

His mother was a Christian, he wasn't, until he realised that he had to make some sort of pretence at having converted.

And your evidence for this assertion would be ... ? You're writing historical fiction here.

According to a whole lot of historians, including Gibbon, Eusebius and Lactantius were lying when they claimed he was converted. They couldn't even agree on how the conversion happened, even though they practically lived with the man.

Gibbon is hardly an unbiased authority here and not exactly up to date either. And both Eusebius and Lactantius tell pretty much the same story: Constantine was directed in a dream to use a symbol of Jesus as a battle standard and went on to win a victory which he attributed to the favour of a the Christian god. Both mention the dream, though Eusebius (who says he got his details from the Emperor himself) says this was preceded by a sign in the sky the previous afternoon. Eusebius talks about the Christ symbol being fixed to a standard and Lactantius talks about it being painted on the soldiers' shields, but both are clearly telling the same story.

Constantine was an empire-builder first, he didn't want to be bothered with religion, and he wanted to keep his empire. It suited him to have the Bishop of Rome take care of religious business, so he, to all intents and purposes, handed over the management of church affairs to the Bishop of Rome. I think he was just fed up with the squabbling more than actually a convicted Christian. It was Theodosius who made it the official religion not Constantine.

I just told you that. And the rest of the sentences above are more historical fiction. For a guy who wanted to "have the Bishop of Rome take care of religious business" he certainly seems to have been pretty active in that area. You also seem to have a totally anachronistic idea of the importance of "the Bishop of Rome".

I'm not alone in this, I've had this discussion for years with my university's AH faculty. The Christians believe he was converted, the atheists are skeptical and the psychologists say there is always more to historical figures than their overt behaviour. It's an interesting subject to discuss, but not the topic of this thread.

Feel free to start a thread in the History forum then. I'm going on the EVIDENCE (as I always do) so I don't care what the Christians or the atheists believe. History is not about wishful thinking. And of course "there is always more to historical figures than their overt behaviour" but you can't just assume an ulterior motive because you happen to like the idea - you have to have some EVIDENCE. Start the thread and let's see who can back their interpretation up with detailed EVIDENCE.

I've had this discussion before, so I can already tell you how it will go ...

Agrippina wrote:Constantine was an empire-builder first, he didn't want to be bothered with religion, and he wanted to keep his empire. It suited him to have the Bishop of Rome take care of religious business, so he, to all intents and purposes, "handed over" the management of church affairs to the Bishop of Rome. I think he was just fed up with the squabbling more than actually a convicted Christian. Imagine that while you're trying to build an empire and a new city, you have to be involved in arguments about whether God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are one, or three separate, gods. I think he'd just had enough of prelates writing to him with stupid questions, so he called them all together and said, "OK you can have your religion,only please fight among yourselves and leave me out of it!" or something to that effect and then went on building his empire. Yes, it was Theodosius who made it the official religion not Constantine.

In fact, one surprising detail here that someone recently sent me a private e-mail on: Constantine could not have been more different from Theodosius when it came to Constantine's view of any such thing as an official religion. Apparently, in Bk. II, 56 of Eusebius's Life of Constantine, Eus. recounts a pretty startling prayer that Constantine cobbled together at one point --

"My own desire is, for the common good of the world and the advantage of all mankind, that Thy people should enjoy a life of peace and undisturbed concord. Let those, therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquility which they have who believe. For it may be that this restoration of equal privileges to all will prevail to lead them into the straight path. Let no one molest another, but let everyone believe as his soul desires. Only let men of sound judgment be assured of this, that those only can live a life of holiness and purity, whom Thou callest to a reliance on Thy holy laws. With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of falsehood: we have the glorious edifice of Thy truth. We pray, however, that they too may receive the same blessing which Thou hast given in accordance with Thy Nature, and thus experience that heartfelt joy which unity of sentiment inspires."

However one views the sagacity of Constantine's beliefs, it's evident that his political instincts were diametrically opposed to those of the later Theodosius! Talk about pluralism!

Cheers,

Stein

HIs historians describe it as the one depicted in the catacombs, not completely the same, but similar, so it already existed. And yes I have heard about the solar halo, this is another of the zeitgeist ideas around Jesus as well, i.e. that he is a personification of the sun worship.

Agrippina wrote:HIs historians describe it as the one depicted in the catacombs, not completely the same, but similar, so it already existed. And yes I have heard about the solar halo, this is another of the zeitgeist ideas around Jesus as well, i.e. that he is a personification of the sun worship.

Err no, it's nothing to do with that new age bollocks. I am rusty on the details but if I remember correctly there are two accounts, one where he and his army see the sign in the sky in the middle of the day - some 18 months before the battle of the Milvian Bridge. Tim's already mentioned the coins that show Sol - which are independently dated to begin in 310. Thus it's a fair conclusion that this individual sign was connected to the sun and hence Sol some 18 months before it was connected to Christ. These coins by the way are by far the most common issued by Constantine during the period 310-313.

Here is the type, by the way, iiric the reverse legend translates as "to the companion of the unconquered Sol".



Then we have another account which has Constantine seeing the sign in a dream just before the battle against Maxentius, in which he is told to have it painted on the shields of his soldiers. And only now is it "recognised" as a Christian symbol.

Another oldie, Jacob Burckhardt (1818-1897) says:

Eusebius, though all historians have followed him, has been proven guilty of so many distortions, dissimulations and inventions that he has forfeited all claim to figure as a decisive source. It is a melancholy but very understandable fact that none of the other spokesmen of the Church, as far as we know, revealed Constantine's true position. That they uttered no word of displeasure against the murderous egoist who possessed the great merit of having conceived of Christianity as a world power and of having acted accordingly. We can easily imagine the joy of the Christians in having finally obtained a firm guarantee against persecution, but we are not obliged to share that elation after a millennium and a half....

..the familiar miracle which Eusebius and those who copy him represent as taking place on the march against Maxentius must finally ben eliminated from the pages of history. It has not even the value of a myth, indeed is not of popular origin, but was told to Eusebius by Constantine long afterwards and by Eusebius written up with intentionally vague bombast.

Another oldie, Henri Gregoire, (1750-1831) also speaks of the cross sign on the shields, Constantine used similar signs employing a "barred X" in 310, and Jacques Moreau says :

A Groag conjectures that Constantine, in displaying Christian views with every possible ostentation, wished to win over the numerous Christian soldiers, Romans and Africans in Maxentius' army. To Groag one may reply that such a strategem had to succeed, and it did in fact when it was a question of combatting a declared enemy of the Christian religion: the pray of Licinius' soldiers led a great part of Daia's army to desert on the Battlefield. But why would Christians in Maxentius' army leave, for religious reasons, the camp of a ruler who had furnished so many proofs of his good will toward the Church? For this, Constantine would have had to have been considered a convinced Christian.

Constantine was just a man who saw which way things were going and used them to his advantage.

virphen wrote:

Agrippina wrote:HIs historians describe it as the one depicted in the catacombs, not completely the same, but similar, so it already existed. And yes I have heard about the solar halo, this is another of the zeitgeist ideas around Jesus as well, i.e. that he is a personification of the sun worship.

Err no, it's nothing to do with that new age bollocks.

There is a thing about the big circle around Jesus' head being a sign of the sun and that Jesus was the sun become man or some bullshit like that, however. OK, I'm looking at my files of notes for quotes.

I am rusty on the details but if I remember correctly there are two accounts, one where he and his army see the sign in the sky in the middle of the day - some 18 months before the battle of the Milvian Bridge. Tim's already mentioned the coins that show Sol - which are independently dated to begin in 310. Thus it's a fair conclusion that this individual sign was connected to the sun and hence Sol some 18 months before it was connected to Christ. These coins by the way are by far the most common issued by Constantine during the period 310-313.

The two accounts are that he saw the cross and rho sign in the sun and heard Jesus saying "in this sign conquer" and that he then had a dream in which he was told to use the sign.

Eusebius:

He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, CONQUER BY THIS. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.

Lactantius:

Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top (P), being the cipher of CHRISTOS. Having this sign, his troops stood to arms. The enemies
advanced, but without their emperor, and they crossed the bridge. The armies met, and fought with the utmost exertions of valour, and firmly maintained their ground. In the meantime a sedition arose at Rome, and Maxentius was reviled as one who had abandoned all concern for the safety of the commonweal; and suddenly, while he exhibited the Circensian games on the anniversary of his reign, the people cried with one voice, "Constantine cannot be overcome!"

Here is the type, by the way, iiric the reverse legend translates as "to the companion of the unconquered Sol".



Then we have another account which has Constantine seeing the sign in a dream just before the battle against Maxentius, in which he is told to have it painted on the shields of his soldiers. And only now is it "recognised" as a Christian symbol.

Burckhardt says:

On inscriptions and coins Constantine continually calls himself Pontifex Maximus and has himself represented as such with head veiled. In the laws of 319 and 321 he still recognizes the pagan cult as existing as of right; he forbids only occult and dangerous practices of magicians and of auspices, but he admits conjurers of rain and hail, and on the occasion of public buildings being struck by lightning he expressly requests the responses of the haruspices, Zosimus, if we may credit that fifth-century pagan, confirms Constantine's consultation of pagan priests and sacrificers.

But the coins with unequivocal Christian emblems which he is said of have struck are yet to be found.

I've asked the mods to move the Constantine discussion to a new thread.

Agrippina wrote:
Burckhardt says:

On inscriptions and coins Constantine continually calls himself Pontifex Maximus and has himself represented as such with head veiled. In the laws of 319 and 321 he still recognizes the pagan cult as existing as of right; he forbids only occult and dangerous practices of magicians and of auspices, but he admits conjurers of rain and hail, and on the occasion of public buildings being struck by lightning he expressly requests the responses of the haruspices, Zosimus, if we may credit that fifth-century pagan, confirms Constantine's consultation of pagan priests and sacrificers.

But the coins with unequivocal Christian emblems which he is said of have struck are yet to be found.

Well someone else calls himself Pontifex Maximus to this very day. He goes by the assumed name of Benedict.

And there is a very famous coin type struck by Constantine with as Christian a symbol as you will get:

Interesting, thanks Virphen.
I found the idea of the symbol being similar to the ones in the catacombs interesting. I need to learn more about those. Maybe get to see them one day. My husband's been there, he said it was "spooky" in there.

btw my response to the Pontifex Maximus point was rather facetious.

But the real point there would be that Constantine needn't throw away all the Pagan traditions of state even if his conversion was genuine - at that point it may well have been political suicide to do so, for reasons that have been given earlier when discussing the persecution of Christians. Tolerance in the 310s-320s was one thing, abandonment of paganism in all ways quite a different matter.

Agrippina wrote:Another oldie, Henri Gregoire, (1750-1831) also speaks of the cross sign on the shields, Constantine used similar signs employing a "barred X" in 310, and Jacques Moreau says :

A Groag conjectures that Constantine, in displaying Christian views with every possible ostentation, wished to win over the numerous Christian soldiers, Romans and Africans in Maxentius' army. To Groag one may reply that such a strategem had to succeed, and it did in fact when it was a question of combatting a declared enemy of the Christian religion: the pray of Licinius' soldiers led a great part of Daia's army to desert on the Battlefield. But why would Christians in Maxentius' army leave, for religious reasons, the camp of a ruler who had furnished so many proofs of his good will toward the Church? For this, Constantine would have had to have been considered a convinced Christian.

Constantine was just a man who saw which way things were going and used them to his advantage.

And this "Groag" guy backed up his "conjectures" with evidence? For example, of desertions of Christians in the (anti-Christian and Christian-persecuting) Maxentius' army.

No?

More historical fiction.

He is A.M. Groag, cited by Jacques Moreau in"]Syncretic Propaganda" (Rv. des Etudes Anceinnes(1953) pp307-333, extracts in the book: The Conversion of Constantine by John W. Eadie, 1977, pp 46-51.

I can't find, the original works, of either Groag or Moreau online, Eadie's book is available from Amazon.

Agrippina wrote:He is A.M. Groag, cited by Jacques Moreau in"]Syncretic Propaganda" (Rv. des Etudes Anceinnes(1953) pp307-333, extracts in the book: The Conversion of Constantine by John W. Eadie, 1977, pp 46-51.

I can't find, the original works, of either Groag or Moreau online, Eadie's book is available from Amazon.

That's great. What you still haven't produced is a single scrap of EVIDENCE that Constantine's conversion had some ulterior political motive. You talked about your feelings and you've quoted someone else's evidence-free "conjecture" and otherwise produced zip.

Is this how history is analysed?

I wasn't there was I? All I can do is produce what people have written on the subject.

What are you saying? Should I accept the word of two church fathers simply because they claim that Constantine said something to them? Don't play the Paul met James game with me on this one.

Really Tim, I don't want to fight you. I'd really rather learn from you.

Agrippina wrote:I wasn't there was I?

That’s why we are left to use the evidence we have.

All I can do is produce what people have written on the subject.

Nothing you’ve produced has any substance on the point at issue.

What are you saying? Should I accept the word of two church fathers simply because they claim that Constantine said something to them? Don't play the Paul met James game with me on this one.

The “game” that I am “playing” here is called “the historical method”. We don’t simply decide to believe something because it’s a nice idea, because it fits our conception of human psychology. We do so on the basis of evidence. Yes, of course the Fathers are going to present Constantine’s motives for conversion as pure as the driven snow, but where did you get the idea that they are the only sources on his reign? The pagan historian Zosimus hated Constantine, so if there was any hint of a political motive for his conversion we’d expect to find it in Zosimus’ Historia Nova. But when he gets to Constantine’s conversion, he gives us a purely personal motive:

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.
(Zosimus, Historia Nova, II.29.3-4)

He also makes it clear that once Constantine made his conversion for this rather grubby personal motive, he was conscientious in his new faith, (“treading the holy ceremonies, as it were, under his feet”) and that he was happy to do this despite the fact that this outraged many people (“[thus] incurred the hatred of the senate and people”.

The Emperor Julian also indicated in his writings that his great-uncle converted out of guilt over his various crimes in his rise to power and gave no indication of any political motive. So if we turn to the pagan sources, they don’t support the idea of his adoption of Christianity as being some kind of opportunism at all. In fact, their idea of his conversion being out of guilt, which is almost certainly as much of an oversimplification as the Christian accounts’ idea that he converted out of pure revelation from God, actually fits with the Christian accounts and everything else we know about him. A superstitious soldier of his time would embrace a deity that gave him victory. By the same token, the rise to power in the Fourth Century was a messy business for anyone and required particular ruthlessness, so the image of a guilty man embracing a new faith and then acting with the zeal of a “born again” convert fits what we see in the evidence as well.

Really Tim, I don't want to fight you. I'd really rather learn from you.

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.

Zosimus lived in the 5th century, Constantine in the late 3rd, so he was not there.

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, (b. c. 210—d. after 270), Roman historian and Athenian statesman, one of the principal authorities for the history of the mid-3rd century AD.(Encyclopedia Britannica).

PUBLIUS HERENNIUS DEXIPPUS (c. A.D. 210-273), Greek historian, statesman and general, was an hereditary priest of the Eleusinian family of the Kerykes, and held the offices of archon basileus and eponymus in Athens. When the Heruli overran Greece and captured Athens (269), Dexippus showed great personal courage and revived the spirit of patriotism among his degenerate fellow-countrymen. A statue was set up in his honour, the base of which, with an inscription recording his services, has been preserved (Corpus Inscrr. Atticarum, iii. No. 716). It is remarkable that the inscription is silent as to his military achievements. Photius (cod. 82) mentions three historical works by Dexippus, of which considerable fragments remain: (I) Ter, /1eT' 'AAE avSpov, an epitome of a similarly named work by Arrian; (2) /KVO KiL, a history of the wars of Rome with the Goths (or Scythians) in the 3rd century; (3) X povi iaropia, a chronological history from the earliest times to the emperor Claudius Gothicus (270), frequently referred to by the writers of the Augustan history. The work was continued by Eunapius of Sardis down to 404. Photius speaks very highly of the style of Dexippus, whom he places on a level with Thucydides, an opinion by no means confirmed by the fragments (C. W. Muller, F.H.G. iii. 666-687).http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Publius_Herennius_Dexippus

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.

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.

Michael Grant,( President and Vice-Chancellor, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, 1959–66. Author of History of Rome and others; editor of Latin Literature and others), cited in Encyclopedia Britannica, 2009 says that it was an assimilation that led to everyone adopting the new religion. Why should Constantine have been any different?

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.

The point is that we simply don't know do we? We can say "yes, he was wholly converted," or "no, he wasn't," or it was a slow process. 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.

Agrippina wrote: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.

The late baptism is certainly not evidence of a lack of commitment - if you were baptised that late, it gave you no time to work up new sins to hazard your salvation. It was (as I understand it) common practice.

virphen wrote:

Agrippina wrote: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.

The late baptism is certainly not evidence of a lack of commitment - if you were baptised that late, it gave you no time to work up new sins to hazard your salvation. It was (as I understand it) common practice.

not for Jesus it wasn't!
Seriously yes, I understand that.
I don't quite understand about Christianity. If you sin after baptism, can't you just confess and be forgiven? Surely, don't the Catholics only baptise babies. They don't do the adult in the river thing do they?