mountainman

Is there any possibility that Crispus was crucified?

What do the sources say?

There is definitely some sort of "Black Hole" of History concerning the history of things done during the rule of Constantine. We are getting very faint "Christianized Light" from the event horizon of his rule. I am not aware of any historian writing during the rule of Constantine other than Christian Ecclesiastical Historians.

Photius EPITOME OF BOOK II of PHILOSTORGIUS

CHAP. 4.
Philostorgius asserts that Constantine was induced by the fraudulent artifices of his step-mother to put his son Crispus to death; and afterwards, upon detecting her in the act of adultery with one of his Cursores, ordered the former to be suffocated in a hot bath. He adds, that long afterwards Constantine was poisoned by his brothers during his stay at Nicomedia, by way of atonement for the violent death of Crispus

How violent was the execution of his son Crispus by "father Constantine", the first publisher of the Christian Bible?

ApostateAbe

If the event was stricken from the records, then of course anything is possible, but it doesn't really help to draw speculations to fit a theory of yours that seems unlikely enough as it is. That is what a typical conspiracy theorist would do, but mysteries are best explained with the most probable ideas given what we already know. Don't you think a crucifixion of Crispus would be more likely to be noted as such by Christians?

Toto

Execution in the Roman Empire was pretty gruesome, even if it did not involve crucifixion.

link But if there is a black hole, the culprit is Constantine, and his reasons seem to unrelated to Christianity - just family politics.

Wikipedia

mountainman

Constantine's rule is described by one of his praetorian prefects as "Neronian" which to me suggests the epoch was a "throw back" of several centuries. For example, according to various sources Constantine seems to have introduced laws by which people could be burt alive in various metalic devices. This is not what I would call the rule of an enlightened man.

The question is not "if there was a black hole". There is a black hole. For every good reason people such as Jeffrey Gibson could not find any evidence of any non christian historian's account being leaked out of this black hole, which covers the years at least from 312 to 337 CE. The reason is that the evidence has been deliberately obscured.

We know the culprit was Constantine but we certainly cannot know that his reasons seem to be unrelated to Christianity but just family politics. The clean sweep of evidence from the epoch suggests very very strongly that later generations of people (such as Vatican officials) have also very purposefully secured the area of the black hole. These later generations of people obviously had vested interests in the authenticity of christian origins and very little vested interested in Constantine's family. This deliberate obscuration of the evidence could have been a process which has been active since that epoch until quite recent times when the power of the church waned. Perhaps the vaticans interest in the dead sea scrolls represents the last attempt. Had the vatican and the power of the church been strong enough in the last half of the 20th century, it is reasonable to think that we would not be reading the texts of the Nag Hammadi library today on the internet, for example.

It is therefore IMO quite reasonable to suspect that the "Black Hole" of historical events inside the rule of Constantine is directly related to what Constantine did with the Christian movement itself.

Huon

Crispus was the son of Constantine and his concubine Minervina.
from :
http://www.roman-emperors.org/conniei.htm