(5 votes, average: 4.60 out of 5)
Loading...I have found over the years that lots of people have mistaken ideas about Constantine the Great, the early fourth century Roman Emperor who converted to Christianity. I used to have mistaken ideas myself, until I started reading the sources and examining the scholarship. For example, Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the empire, right? (Wrong.) Constantine is the reason Christianity took over the empire, right? (Wrong again). Constantine didn’t really convert to Christianity: it was a political move by a savvy politician who remained, at heart, a pagan, right? (Well, uh, sorry…)
It is true, though that the conversion of Emperor Constantine in 312 CE is one of Christianity’s pivotal events, and that by the end of the 4th century, Christianity was proclaimed the official religion throughout Rome, leading to the suppression of other religious traditions.
Here is a lecture I gave on Constantine and Christianity at the Smithsonian on Feb. 10, 2018. It is the last of the series of four that I have given here on the blog, based on my book The Triumph of Christianity.
Please adjust gear icon for 1080p High-Definition:
Apart from the passage in Isaiah 7:14, are you aware of any tradition that says the Messiah was to be born of a virgin?
No, there was no such tradition.
I’d add that Isaiah 7 isn’t even talking about the messiah, but about a child that would be a sign to King Ahaz regarding a feared invasion from the North. This is quite clear if read in context, which Christians rarely do. The prediction was actually fulfilled hundreds of years before Jesus. Matthew was playing fast and lose with prophecy, as was his wont.
Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion, as you point out, but do you think Constantine marks the start of the symbiotic relationship between church and government from that point on? A relationship which has been bad for both, I think. Does Constantine’s use of the church for political purposes remind you of any modern politicians?
Yes he did. And yes he does! (He was one self-centered and ruthless fellow…) (BUT, remarkably competent…) (Which is to be read anyway you want!)
Great lecture! Loved Triumph of Christianity–the statistical analysis of Christian growth was the clearest I’ve ever seen, and very convincing.
Hi, Bart, I know this is quite off topic, but is there some resource I can use as a layman (I’m a neuroscience student who is interested in learning biblical scholarship) that can help me see what parts of Luke and Matthew are from Q and what parts are from Mark?
I realize that there are probably parts that are highly debated as to whether they are from Q etc. Much like how there is a debate in parts of the construction of Pentateuch. But, even a resource that points to the parts that aren’t so contested would be brilliant.
Best thing is to get a “Gospel Parallels” (sometimes called a “Synopsis of the Gospels”) and look at it passage by passage you’ll see. It may take a couple of tries to get used to, but hey, it’s not neuroscience!
Thank you!
This is an invitation to speculate. Let’s say Julian had lived another twenty years. Knowing what you know from the sources and what they imply about the exponential growth of Christianity, could his “counter-revolution” have really succeeded? Wouldn’t you have just wound up with a pagan governing elite tenuously holding onto power over a burgeoning Christian majority? Could he have done much more than delay the inevitable? What do you think?
Thanks
I think it *could* have succeeded, but it would have taken some massively brutal procedures, and I’m not sure he would have survived it all himself.
I know this off topic, but would you recommend your favorite books on both the historical Jesus and the Gospel of Mark? I already own your text.
In my textbook at the end of each chapter, there is a list of suggested readings. I’d start with those. (I assume you mean my textbook on the NT?) (If not, I’d start there!)
I have your ‘popular’ work on the historical Jesus, but will buy the NT textbook.
I would put forth Joel Marcus’s two book commentary on Mark as part of the Anchor Yale Bible series
off topic
Dr Ehrman in Mattew 14 27 “But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” It is used the phrase “ego eimi” isn´t that a use of the divine name “I am” like in John when he says “before abraham I am”
It *can* be the divine name. But it’s not normally. When the Jewish leaders ask the man born blind if he was the one healed by Jesus in John 9 he says “ego eimi” — i.e. I am!
good response,. How can anyone differentiate. Just looking at the context? Is there anyother criteria or it is ambiguous in most cases?
Yes, the context is all determinative.
Did Jesus have a last name ? If so , what is it ?
Nope! Hardly anyone did, except high level aristocrats.
Just finishing “The Triumph of Christianity” and it’s curious to me that you say, as others have also, that Constantine was (understandably) concerned about the unity of the empire, but that he was also deeply concerned about the theological (and practical?) unity of the church which represented just slightly more than 5% of the 60 million people he ruled (according to your statistics).
Why do you think that he would be so concerned about the Arian Controversy and the outcome of the Council of Nicea, and yet tolerate the widespread and differing pagan beliefs, cults, and sacrifices, and NOT make Christianity the official and thereby unifying religious cult of the empire? Something doesn’t quite add up here.
My view is that these concerns aren’t at odds with one another; I know plenty of church leaders who are very upset with the polarization of the country AND with the factionalization of the Christian church (e.g., that United Methodists just now). Constantine would ahve been concerned about the unity of the empire because of the crises it hd so recently experienced (break away states and the like); and about the church because he assumed a major role in its administration by virtue of being a Christian emperor in constant contadt with other Christian leaders. And possibly he did see that the unity of a growing church would assist in the unity of a troubled empire. Why not make Christianity the official religion? Precisely because that would have been hugely divisive, especially in a world that was still predominantly pagan.