Magdlyn

Bingo! I thnk "favoring" is a much much better term than converting.

Not really. Being a Xtian also requires confessing ones' sins regularly, say weekly? Continuing to receive instruction, prayer, receiving the eucharist, etc. All that "sacrament" stuff.

I think it is odd, when scholars, striving so hard to be accurate and technical (all that methodolgy stuff), use such an imprecise term for Constantine's attitude towards Xtianity.

Then you have a higher opinion of politicians than I do...

So you hold that C was interested in Xtianity b/c he was quite spiritual? I think he was smart, and savvy.

I really do not see the difference.

As for the Sunday worship info, thanks for taking the time to find and post it all. I appreciate it. :thumbs: I have a lot to learn.

spin

Constantine continued to mint coins with Sol Invictus or related themes (eg Gloria Exercitus and variations) for several years. No coins with xian themes were produced during his reign. Late coins have reference to Jove or to the goddess Victory.

I don't know of any monument built during his reign with anything to intimate xianity.

The symbol used by Constantine for the Battle of the Milvian Bridge was the rays of the sun (Sol Invictus) which shone in the four directions.

I don't really know why people depend on tendentious religious literature to claim that Constantine converted early. Did he ever convert to xianity, or did he only curry favour amongst the xians?


spin

Peter Kirby

Perhaps a more appropriate phrase would be "Constantine's sponsorship of Christianity," especially given the context of this thread. Jacob Aliet is suggesting that Constantine sponsored the writing of the Ecclesiastica Historica by Eusebius (if I understand him) and that this led him to fabricate writings and harmonize his narrative (including, for example, the Memoirs of Hegesippus). This requires some change of attitude by Constantine with respect to Christianity, if not "conversion" (even though I did use that word, as it is commonly used). It is good that we've sharpened our understanding of what this event (or rather set of events) would involve. Now I would like to see more discussion of what relation those events had with the writing of H.E., if any can be demonstrated, in the first six or so books.

best,
Peter Kirby

Mosor

Not surprising given that the vast majority of the populace were pagan and still viewed christians with suspicion. But according to the following site Constantine did issue some coins with christian symbolism, particularly the chi-rho:

Accordingly, during the early 4th century AD, there were few artistic motifs available that could be relied upon to convey a specifically Christian message. Even the Chi-Rho, which is today universally recognised as a Christian sign, could be misinterpreted, Bruun (p. 61) reminding us that, ‘The sign, at the moment of its creation, was ambiguous. In essence it was a monogram composed of the Greek letters X and P, and, while the monogrammatic combination of these two letters was by no means unusual in pre-Constantinian times, the occurrence of X P with a clearly Christian significance is exceedingly rare.’ The potential significance of the sign would initially have been lost on the non Greek-speaking population of the empire, who might more readily have interpreted the sign as being linked to Solar or Mithraic worship.

Such initial ambiguities notwithstanding, there can be no doubt that Constantine saw his victorious sign as being an explicitly Christian symbol nor that, in the wake of the writings of Eusebius and Lactantius, its religious meaning came rapidly to be universally recognised. Constantine made only sparing use of the Chi-Rho on his coins, confining its use to a few scarce issues only. Following his death however, this most powerful symbol came to be used increasingly frequently, both as a means of celebrating the religious convictions of the succeeding emperors, and as a means of affirming the legitimacy of their succession from Constantine.

......Whilst there can be little dispute that the Coinage of Constantine the Great did indeed express his religious convictions, it is equally true that it was not exceptionally rich in Christian symbolism. As Bruun (p. 64) reminds us however, ‘There was no independently Christian artistic tradition. The Christian ideas now about to conquer the State had to employ old means to express new conceptions.’

http://www.new-byzantium.org/HocSigno.html




He had churches erected over all the known and "suspected" holy sites. I believe he even built the first st. peter's bascilica on vatican hill. He moved the capital to byzantium and surrounded himself with christian bishops and officials. I don't know if that qualifies.

I thought he used the chi-rho symbol super-imposed on the sun? That would make sense to me. His way of saying that christ is the "one god" and not sol invictus. Later christians like chrysostom would make similar allusions:

"They called December 25th the birthday of the unconquered sun who is indeed so unconquered as our Lord? . . . or if they say that is the birthday of the sun--He is the Sun of Justice, Christ the Lord.


Hehe, difficult question. We can look in our own times to see how hard it is to determine that. How about George W. Bush? He says he became "born again" and stopped drinking and snorting lines. Does he really espouse the christian ideal or is he just pandering to them? I know alot of christians who hate the man and see him as some sort of antichrist and warmonger. While still others hold him up as an example of christian morality. I wonder what future historians will say on the matter?

I think Constantine's "conversion" was a lifelong process rather than some overnight epiphany. I suppose that's true of most people.

Ted Hoffman

Good point. But I think the important thing at this stage would be establishing whether there was enough 'motive' on the part of Eusebius and Constantine then seeing whether they could work in concert.

Are you ruling out the possibility that these two could work together and that the council of Nicea was just one public display of their teamwork?

First, I think its clear that we can say scruples could not have stood in the way of Eusebius. It is also clear that as an empire that relied on millitary might, co-opting Xstianity to the Sol Invictus cult required 'ordering' Christianity and creating a kind of structure straight from Christ (historical succession) and one from God (authority).
This structure would need to show some harmony and reflect unity and discipline among the forerunners. We see how much Eusebius is preoccupied with demonstrating how James the Just was martyred, how he even attempts to use an eyewitness account (Hegessipus) which he claims is "the most accurate". This unflinching dedication and courage by such a martyr would suit the required millitary discipline among the Legions who were to be later shunted from Sol Invictus cult to Xstianity.

A religion that respected authority, that had power flowing from the top (one true God), that had fearless people willing to die for a cause, that wasn't splintered among its ranks, would map well into the Roman Empire whose mainstay was the millitary.

I think a prima facie case can me made that these two worked in cahoots. Eusebius as the respected insider who wanted to occupy a powerful position in the Church: Constantine as a superstitious powerful outsider who wanted to unify his subjects and the empires under one religion. Christianity's appeal lay in being the religion of the one true God, and Constantine wanted to be 'technically' the next in the pecking order from the top by seeing to it that God's purported will was done.

The causation doesn't have to have clockwork precision so long as their paths coincided together and they embraced each other while they were in positions of power, they would be in a position to execute their mutual dreams in concert even if it involved revision or killings exiles, anathematizations, burnings of non-orthodox books and brandings as was carried out around the time of council of Nicea as we learn here. Constantine was clearly ready to employ any means to get what he wanted.

It is my understanding that Christian communities were scattered all over the empire after undergoing persecution and persecuting each other at the same time and even had plenty of differing beliefs - Arianism, Manicheanism, Donatism etc.

Under these polarised circumstances, even if religious authorities 'undertook' to write a history of xstianity, it would not be comprehensive or even accepted as legitimate because the christian communities treated each other with suspicion, and had their own territorial leaders. Under such circumstances, getting the required info for such an undertaking and getting the authority to get info from the various communities would have been difficult and would have seriously jeopardized such work.

The idea of 'religious' authorities 'comissioning' someone, IMO, can only apply when we are thinking of a monolithic, unified movement which, to my understanding, was not extant at the time. Constantine made it possible.

Their being 'outlawed' made it difficult to carry out their activities. Co-opting a superstitious and powerful emperor to their ranks is an opportunity that the Christian leaders would doubtlessly have jumped at - especially Eusebius who believed in Liedagogy as a means of instruction and thought 'truth' needed to be passed on at all costs. It would afford them an opportunity to be 'lawful' and afford them level playing field with the pagan religions.

It is precisely because of this that Constantine's unattested claim of conversion was accepted and they embraced him uncritically and wholeheartedly: because they needed him. It is also possible that they simply had no choice in the matter because Constantine was so powerful: he could have simply invaded their religious strongholds and beat them to whatever shape he wanted.
IMU, the patristic writings were mostly addressed to certain communities and were homiletic, hortatory, on doctrinal matters, liturgical issues and so on. These writings reflect the stream of consciousness that maintained the fragile links between scattered Christian communities trying to expound Xstian docrines to intrigued but suspicious pagan leaders, and to encourage each other to hold on in the face of an ununderstanding and non-receptive pagan leadership. In the hope that what was promised by their forerunners would come to pass.

The Patristic writings were scattered efforts and the magnitude of the tasks involved, IMO, dwarfed Eusebius' Church History - if the title is anything to go by. The monolithic "church" was designed to engulf all small Christian currents like gnosticism, Arianism, Manicheanism, Donatism and so on, stamp out all heresies and suck in sol invictus cult. This was another level - different from the level Cyprian and Athanasius were operating under.
The implicit unity and tacit acceptance could have been a protest reaction against the oppressors. It happens in situations where societies are under subjugation by another - they reduce their infightings, accept each other and forge common efforts to sustain their interests.

I note above that Eusebius was operating on 'another level'. He had the emperor at his side, was able to depose Eustathius in 331, accusing him of Sabellianism, and we learn from Catholic encyclopaedia that "At the opening of the Council of Nicæa Eusebius occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor".

I wrote:
Kirby responded:
I believe this is based on your earlier argument wrt the patristic writings so I won't respond.

Enlighten me please. Examples in the early Church? (the mathematical precision doesn't matter +/- a decade because we don't know the precice date of his birth - in the internet, I see a variation between c260-c275).
This site indicates that Church History was completed c.326 (before the death of Crispus). In any case, book 10 of Church History mentions the defeat of Licinius which was in 323.
If we use the Catholic Encyclopaedia date of birth of c.260, he was 66 at the time he completed writing Church History. If we assume that it took 20 years to write, he started at 46.
Got you .
I think I have settled this above.

You may need to revise this. If he took 12 years to write Church history, then he started writing it on 314. We can settle this by settling a conclusive terminus a quo for the writing of Chursh History given that we have the terminus ad quem for it. In deference to your judgement, I will let you set it.
Take it easy. The fuzziness, IMO, is inescapable given we have no precice date of birth for Eusebius. However, we have the terminus ad quem for the writing of Church History.

And you believe that I...?

spin

Point missed, Mosor.

Constantine still issued Sol Invictus coins, along with related themes such as "Gloria Exerciti", after you want him to have been converted, even late coins with Jove and Nike. Coins of the period were methods of communicating with the people through symbolism. Constantine adhered to belief in Apollo, Jove and Nike.

As to the Chi-Rho, you should see that as it had a long history before xianity. What makes you think that its use under Constantine was anything other than its usual usage until that time?

While IOTA-CHI makes sense as a monogram for Jesus Christ, it is unusual to find a monogram based on the first two letters of a title as we find in this later use of CHI-RHO. Romans did use abbreviations, but not usually as monograms (I don't know of any examples). It seems likely that it was taken over and converted to a xian significance because Constantine had used it.

By monuments he built, I meant structures which bear inscriptions that assure the builder to have been the one nominated in the inscription(s).

I was pointing to the origin of the so-called cross. But let me go back to your quote:

"The potential significance of the sign would initially have been lost on the non Greek-speaking population of the empire, who might more readily have interpreted the sign as being linked to Solar or Mithraic worship."

The writer unjustifiably assumes that Constantine knew the xian usage of CHI-RHO, but wouldn't Constantine, at the time of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, "have interpreted the sign as being linked to Solar or Mithraic worship." He was after all a believer in Sol Invictus.


spin

Mosor

I don't know. But I doubt Constantine was that ignorant of christianity given that his predecessors were openly suppressing them.

I just take the facts as a whole.

1) Shortly after his use of the symbol at milvan bridge he issued he edict of toleration to the christians.

2)He bestowed great privlidges on the church and little in comparison towards other faiths.

3)After he defeated Licinius he moved the capital to Constantinople where he surrounded himself with christian bishops and built only christian churches.

4)He presided over the coucil of nicea in order to hammer out doctrine.

In fact, the more I think about, the defeat of Licinius in 324 may have been the real turning point for christianity and Constantine. Licinius initially confirmed the edict of milan and his own troops also fought under the christian banner but after Constantine began implementing further measures in their favour, Licinius renewed his suppression of the church. This may have been the tactical mistake which enabled Constantine to seize complete control. Licinius alienated the significant number of christians in his army and administration.

I think it may have been after that episode when Constantine realized that it was through the christians that he became sole ruler and united the empire. So he furthers the process of christianization by building the first truly christian city and capital.

As for art and coinage, like the article I linked says, christians didn't have their own artistic tradition. Art was mass produced in workshops. So christians would see the standard statue of orpheus carrying a lamb on his shoulders and say "that reminds me of the good shepherd story" and have slight alterations made to taste. Same thing with the pictures of Isis with child, it reminded christians of the virgin and baby Jesus and had some alterations made to the standard produced work to give it their own flavour.

If the chi-rho was not a specifically christian symbol then I could see the same process happening. It reminded christians of the first letters of christ.

I think all this evidence suggests that Constantine may have at least accepted the christian god along with all the others in the beginning and may have even believed sol and Jesus were one in the same. After he defeated Licinius I think he became fully convinced of the superiority of the christian god and lent his full and open support to them.

Peter Kirby

Jacob, do you think I should construct paragraphs in response to your paragraphs above? It's a problem with discussion boards that tit for tat exchange loses sight of what was actually being disputed. You have presented zero evidence concerning when Eusebius started writing the Historia Ecclesiastica. If you have evidence, you should just post that.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The tenth book of the Church History records the defeat of Licinius in 323, and must have been completed before the death and disgrace of Crispus in 326, for it refers to him as Constantine's "most pious son". The ninth book was completed between the defeat of Maxentius in 312, and Constantine's first rupture with Licinius in 314.

Since we're already nine books in, it is apparent that Eusebius must have started writing this work prior to 312. Constantine remained inactive in provinces whilst the other Emperors slugged it out, stirring only in 311. Perhaps Eusebius cooked up the last two books with the Emperor in mind, but given those dates, it doesn't seem likely that they worked together prior to that time.

Spin has already pointed out that Constantine may never have converted. Eusebius does not need respect, knowledge, and standing in the Church to write a history, just chutzpah and a good library.

Vorkosigan

Ted Hoffman

Vork,
Does this preclude that E started writing the ninth book and completed it in, for example 314 or even 320? If so, how?
It is unclear to me and I hope you clarify via your answer to my question above.

Kirby,
It is up to you to choose how to respond or even not to respond at all. It doesn't have to be what you see as tit for tat.

If I have presented zero evidence (assuming it was up to me to do that), then this thread has accomplished its objective and we can rule out the idea that E contsructed Church History to please Constantine.

That was easy .