SLD

I think it would make an interesting debate and discussion on the reasons why Constantine choose Christianity to be the favored religion in the Roman world and ultimately why did it come to be chosen as "the" religion of the Empire.

Surely, critical thinkers such as ourselves don't just think it was because he had a dream the night before his famous battle at the bridge?

After that battle and his triumphant entry into Rome, he still had coins struck with Sol Invictus on them, and attributed his victory to Apollo the Sun God.

There must be more to the story, and perhaps the real historians in this group can add their thesis.

My own conjecture is that Constantine felt like he needed a unifying religious force for the empire after a century of disunity and strife. The old religions weren't fitting the bill any longer, even if they had in the past, and other religions such as Mithraism were too exclusive to cover all members of the empire.

But perhaps there's a lot more to the story, and I haven't read enough. So fire away.

SLD

WCH

Well, I think you're probably right that it was an attempt to unify the country, or at least garner political support. Christianity may have been one of many religions at the time, but it had a lot of followers, and most of these followers were both pacifistic and non-aligned, as I recall. By siding with them (in words, at least), he got them on his side, and succeeded in twisting their theology to allow for them to forsake pacifism, while still himself worshiping the Sun (going so far as to order Christians to worship on the Day of the Sun [Sunday], rather than the Sabbath [Saturday]).

Calzaer

The story is, his armies were amassed for some giant battle, and he saw a vision of a cross in the sky with the words "Under this banner, you shall triumph" (in Latin, obviously). So he changed all his banners to depict crosses, won the battle, and converted on the spot.

SLD

Well, that's the myth. But I think the real story is more complicated than that. Constantine took a long time to "convert" and right after the battle when he entered Rome sacrificed to the Sun God. He just ended the persecution of the Christians then. It wasn't until later that he entered his famous Edict of Milan, officially ending persecution and calling for religious tolerance, and still later does he actually elevate Christianity over all other religions, and on his deathbed he is finally Baptized (although that was not uncommon for many Christians of that era).

SLD

Emp-JohnIV

Because it was a religion tht lent its self to being turned into a dogma. And with that you can control how people think.

jbernier

Disclaimer: I am not an expert in Constantine or the 4th century.

With that disclaimer out of the way, I have been tossing around something in my head. I am more and more seeing a strong current of social and political critique in the New Testament writings. I see a real theme of "The Roman empire and all other political powers are transitory, there today, gone tomorrow. God, however, is eternal - thus give your loyalty to God." I am increasing wondering if this was social and political critique was not one of the major items on the early Christian "agenda" and whether it might have continued throughout the early centuries of the church. This would help explain why the Roman state and provinces would engage in periodic persecutions - if Christianity was preaching a critique of the powers-that-be no wonder it was seen as seditious.

I further wonder if, with the breakdown of the Roman imperial system in the 3rd century, the ideologies and institutions which supported and were entailed with said system did not also break down. This would include those religious ideologies and institutions (what Bruce Lincoln, in Holy Terrors, calls "the religion of the status quo"). If, as I suspect, Christianity was a "religion of resistance" (again, using Lincoln's typology), then it makes perfect sociological sense that people who are increasingly dissatisfied with the religion of the status quo would begin to turn to a religion which critiqued said religion of the status quo. This growing popularity of a 'seditious' cult would both exaceberate and appear as emblematic of the breakdown in the imperial system - thus accounting for increased persecution of the church in the later 3rd century.

Thus I suspect that Constantine did not so much radically change the course of Roman religious life but rather got with the flow of already long-standing trends. What happened then, however, is that Christianity became the new religion of the status quo. In so doing it lost the social and political critique of the status quo which had originally defined it - for me, that means that it lost its very soul.

However, as I said, just a pet hypothesis I have been tossing around in my head. I really have not done anywhere near enough research to substantiate this.

muon

All of my books are packed up right now, so this is from memory. BUt I seem to recall that Constantine had some Christian relatives, and had been exposed to Christianity well before he became emperor. Quite probably he was a Christian by conviction from a youngish age. Don't read too much into his coinage and actions in Rome---Constantine was no fool, and initially was quite cautious and careful to maintain the traditional forms.

A trip to the library would spread some light on this. The first place I'd look is Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians".

SLD

That's a good point Oser. Constantine could not just throw out the old religions immediately upon entering Rome. He had to play to the crowd, at least initially. Converting an entire society to a religion that had just been through a terrible persecution was not an easy task.

Constantine, may not actually have been the first Christian emporer. It has been reported that some of the Severan's actually worshipped Christ, along with other deities, although they were probably just covering all bases. It is said that one of the Empress Dowagers studied under Origen in Alexandria or Caesarea in the 200's.

SLD

aikido7

Didn't Constantine--even after his conversion--pour molten lead down one of his relatives' throat as a reaction to some court power play or something? I DO remember reading something about this.

(That hot bit of info just sticks in my craw!)

DramaQ

Wow, I'm not seeing that at all. To me it seems more like a compilation that goes increasingly out of its way to maintain its beliefs in the face of Roman authority AND trying to keep them happy. To the point of rewriting history by turning Pilate into a Good Guy.

Then there's the whole "render unto Caeaser" thing. And Paul's "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities".

And they musta played it right, too. By ingratiating themselves into Rome's good graces they became politically strong by Constantine's time....