(14 votes, average: 4.64 out of 5)
Loading...OK, I am ready now to finish up my thread on the conversion of Constantine, based on the vision or visions that he had. So far I have narrated the three relevant accounts. If you haven’t read those posts, you should do so to make the very best sense of this one.
The differences among the three accounts, and one can readily see why various scholars have suggested different ways of reconciling them. Some think he had just one vision, two years before the Battle at the Milvian Bridge (just before the panegyric of 310 CE), which at the time he took to be of Sol Invictus but later came to interpret as being instead a vision of Christ. In this view, at a still later date Constantine came to think that he had always understood it to be Christ and that, since the vision was so closely connected with his ultimate victory, he came to “remember” that it occurred the night before the battle. At the other extreme of interpretation, others have argued that Constantine was simply a visionary and that he had lots of visions and dreams and sometimes muddled them all up. It is striking that Eusebius himself, in a speech praising Constantine near the end of his life, indicates that Constantine was a famous visionary, that he had “thousands” of visions along with “thousands” of dreams in which Christ appeared to him. There is obviously a range of reconciliatory options.
The accounts do share some striking features, however. For one thing…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN UP!! It doesn’t cost much and pays huge dividends. And every dime goes to charity!!
Professor, can you comment on the idea that what also may have motivated Constantine’s “conversion” was the need to get a handle on all of the different varieties of “Christianity” that already were circulating in his own time? That the divisiveness among all those different so-called “Christians” was starting to be a real problem? That he, being the consummate politician, realized that harmonizing Christian orthodoxy would be a unifying factor in his expansive empire, helping to hold it together long after he was gone? So he eases his way into an expressed commitment to the Christian faith (at least to the extent generally understood and appreciated by the common person) to work as much influence over those diverse beliefs as was possible?
No, I don’t think Constantine was even *aware* of the diversity within the Christian movement when he converted. He more or less admits himself that he was clueless about even the very basics of the faith at the time. It was only later that he learned something about the divergent views within the religion.
But since his true conversion came much later in life, he may well have wanted a more unified Christian church, because that was a powerful psychological tendency of his–the desire to rationalize, to unify, to avoid the chaos of multiple authorities created by Diocletian. So those elements of Christendom that would have wanted to suppress what they were increasingly inclined to view as heresies–gnosticism, Pelagianism (I know, that came later)–they would have found great support from Constantine and his successors. They would have been given the inside track. This is where the Church began to pattern its authority structures after those of the Roman state.
I’ve heard (via a course from the esteemed numismatic scholar Kenneth Harl) that Constantine’s coins don’t depict Christian imagery until around 330. I wonder if it’s more likely that this was because he was still “chewing” on the idea of being a Christian, or because he was concerned about the still overwhelmingly pagan Roman Empire’s collective response to going “full Christian”. Or that he wanted to ensure that he had a good hold on the Empire, especially after defeating Licinius in 324? Or maybe a combination of all 3?
My view is that he came to think that Sol Invictus was in fact the Christian God, so that the coins portraying Sol for him *were* coins with the Christian God on them.
Oh yes, this seems very believable!
Do you think the symbol he had his troops carry into battle was more likely a simple cross than the Chi-Rho symbol?
Yes, it that description is historical, I thin kit would have been a cross.
Constantine and his men might also have seen a fairly well known illusion known as sundogs — appearing to show two twin suns, one on either side of the sun. Sometimes it includes some faint connective material that could be a cross or wreath around the sun.
Here’s a link to several images of this phenomenon
https://www.google.be/search?q=sundogs&rlz=1C5CHFA_enBE504BE505&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=846&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjTwOH5iZLOAhWJLhoKHUqiCoYQsAQINQ
From what I know about generals and soldiers in general, they often don’t care which god they have to please as long as doing so will assure victory. That’s why military men throughout history were so fickle, and that’s probably why Constantine comes across so fickle. An illustrative example of the fickleness of military men is Abu Sufyan, who was Muhammad’s greatest adversary when the Muslims first came into military conflict with the pagan Arabs of Mecca. Abu Sufyan was commander of the pagan Meccan forces in such pivotal battles as Bedr, Ohod and The Trench. However, once Muhammad started to rack up the victories, finally taking Mecca itself, Abu Sufyan saw the writing on the wall and joined the Muslims. Abu Sufyan eventually became one of Islam’s greatest early generals as the faith expanded into an empire. As I said, military men can be quite fickle.
This has been a fascinating thread. I think Lactantius and Eusebias accounts sound like different retellings of the same story. Possibly Constantine’s memory of the event changed between telling these two, or the they heard the same story but remembered it differently when recounting it. The other story seems quite different although there are some similarities. The bottom line is Constantine didn’t convert because he agreed with the theology or the moral values of the religion, he converted because he thought this god would be more powerful and help him kill his enemies more than any other god. Not sure you would find that message in Christian churches these days.
“The bottom line is Constantine didn’t convert because he agreed with the theology or the moral values of the religion, he converted because he thought this god would be more powerful and help him kill his enemies more than any other god. Not sure you would find that message in Christian churches these days.”
A great way to sum it up!
Actually, I think that message already IS found in churches today — and throughout Abrahamic religions historically. Individual interpretations of God are quite artfully sculpted for the greatest support to our conscience and cause. Twas ever thus.
Constantine put Sol’s solar crown on Jesus! Yes, that is what I believe… An interesting mailbag might be what remnants of the Sol Invictus cult remained in Christianity! Certainly Sol has come down to us even in modern times…The Statue of Liberty for example.
On an unrelated note, I saw today that you will be debating Dr. Robert Price in Oct…. It should be epic!!!!!
Thanks for the great thread on Constantine!
I’d ask Dr Ehrman to reconsider the debate with Dr Price in view of Price’s recent performance on the Dogma Debate podcast. It was quite cringe-worthy.
What was wrong with it? (I haven’t seen it)
Despite anyone’s political leanings, I’m sorry to say I think he acted like a raving lunatic, but please listen for yourself. I thought it to be a shameful performance by Dr. Price. His veracity on any subject is now suspect to me. This all IMHO.
Hey, where is chapter 6? Just joking…
One has to at least wonder where Christianity might be today if Constantine had not won battles after his “conversion” and the painting of the signs on his shields. Would he have switched to some other god who better helped him win battles? And then what would have happened to the “triumph” of Christianity? It sounds like superstition played a big role in the “triumph”….
I wonder this all the time! What would western civilization be like if Christianity died out early on… Certainly it would have been very very different! For better or worse? …. I like to think for better, but it would be a great subject for scholarly speculation…
Islam probably wouldn’t exist either (or be hugely different). Maybe we would all be pagans? Or Jewish? Or Buddhist? Or Hindu? No Mormons though. Glad we’re not all scientologists! One thing’s for sure, we wouldn’t all be atheists.
So, if I have this right, Christianity became the largest religion in the world (in terms of adherents) and had enormous influence on history because of …………………….. The weather?
I think I’ll go read up on Chaos theory and the butterfly effect now…
Ah, I see you need to read my book!
You are certainly going to be an easier read than Dr. Lorenz….
I like your witty line, Rick, but the logic escapes me. So you believe religions shape the times and the world, rather than the other way around? What then can we say about geography, and geopolitical systems? If by chance you’re a godly member of the lucky womb club, congratulations!
I like your wit, Rick, So would this mean you think religions shape the times and the world, rather than the other way around? What then can we say about geography, and geopolitical systems, etc? If by chance you’re a member of the lucky womb club, congratulations!
I saw a sun dog, a little over a year ago, winter of 2015. They are truly spectacular. You feel like you are witnessing something supernatural. I got pictures of it on my phone. I feel privileged to have witnessed one. A celestial phenomena I hope you all some day get a chance to see.
Dr. Ehrman,
Is it fair to say that Constantine created a syncretic religion by reconciling Sol Invictus with the Christian religion?
I don’t think Constantine had much of a role in creating Christainity. He was adopting the religion found among many of the church leaders at the time.
Maybe I should rephrase my question- did Costantine combine Roman religious/pagan practices with existing Christian ones?
Not that we know of.
mkahn1977 wrote:
Maybe I should rephrase my question- did Constantine combine Roman religious/pagan practices with existing Christian ones?
Bart replied: Not that we know of.
And I say, huh? 😉 I don’t know that Constantine had anything to do with it, but from my perspective, both ancient Christianity, and modern Catholicism, were and are firmly rooted in Roman pagan religious practices. Whatever the original meeting and worship practices of the first Christians were, by the time they were adopted in Rome, they very much followed the practice of Roman paganism. I.e., early Roman churches are patterned (and are to this day patterned) after pagan temples and public basilica. The Roman Catholic liturgy follows ancient pagan practices, in that the services require the celebrants to perform certain ritual actions and speeches in exact ways — to the point of specifying exact wording and the exact movements of bodies and hands. Exactly as pagan Gods were worshipped in ancient Rome.
The ritual sacrifice was replaced by the eucharist (a “sacrament”). When we view a Catholic service today, I would wager that we are also witnessing MANY glimpses of ancient Roman practice.
This is shown on many existing Roman coins, displaying the worship of pagan Gods.
I thought the question was specifically about whether Constantine himself had altered Christianity more in line with pagan views and practices. I don’t think he did.
Which one was the Christian convert first? Constantine or his mother? Did the one have any bearing on the other in respect to converting?
It’s debated. My sense is that Constantine was first, and that he converted his mother.
Constantine called the council of Nicea in order to unit the Monophysites, one nature, Aranism , from Alexandria and Dyophysites, two natures. There was a dispute about the nature of Serapis. Some scholars have taken the position that Serapis was the fore runner to Christ. Dr Walter Williams.
Constantine was a politician and wanted to keep the Empire together. However, he did not succeed and the dispute continued.
Monophysites were a later development. Nicea was about the Arian controversy, the question of whether the Son was co-eternal and equal with the Father.
Was Constantine a true Christian or was he a deceitful politician who is partly responsible for deceiving most later generations of professed Christians?
Some say Roman Emperor Constantine gave false Christians authority and they repackaged pagan doctrines and holidays and renamed it as Christianity, even though it really isn t “Christianity” to deceive later generations of professed Christians.
Some say he was partly responsible for putting a counterfeit form of Christianity into power that eventually became the Roman Catholic Church and the rise of the Papacy and also later deceived generations retranslated and reinterpreted certain scriptures to make it appear that the Bible teaches these false doctrines and customs resulting in a “counterfeit form of Christianity” and they persecuted the true Christians by falsely labelling them as “heretics”
Some would say study the customs, doctrines, myths, and worship of the ancient Babylonian Mystery belief systems and other ancient belief systems and compare it with the striking similarities of what most people call “Christianity” and you will find so many similarities it is unbelievable and unmistakably that the belief system most people call “Christianity” ripped off its customs and dogmas from ancient Mystery belief systems and ancient secret societies.
Emperor Constantine was the first Roman Emperor who claimed to convert to “Christianity.” Did he really see a vision or was that too a lie?
After his so-called conversion around the year 313 A.D. he intervened in a dispute among the Christians.
One group of professed Christians claimed that Jesus was equal to God the Father. The other group of professing Christians believed as Jehovah s Witnesses believe today namely that the pre-human Jesus was created by YHWH God the Father before the rest of creation and that the pre-human Jesus was God’s agent through whom the rest of creation was created after the pre-human Jesus became a created being.
So Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D to resolve this matter that resulted in the Nicene Creed that is recited down to this day in the Roman Catholic Church.
So who was really right among the two divided factions represented at the Council of Nicaea?
Are Jehovah s Witnesses a historical restoration of the long lost truth that was founded upon Jesus Christ? Some say yes, others would say no some say because of the influence of dissenters and misinformed people who have been misled into perceiving that the Witnesses are wrong?
This is the topic of the very first chapter of my next book, due out September 5, The Triumph of Christianity.
Isn’t it true that some would say that the different accounts of Constantine’s vision are actually inconsistencies in the different accounts and wouldnt mean that there was no vision but instead some fabricated account?
I devote the first chapter of my forthcoming book to this problem. But yes, there are some who would say that.
I’ve read accounts that suggest Constantine “adopted” Christianity because of its own legal and judicial system that managed nearly all aspects of the lives and land ownership of members. Because – the administrative structures of the Roman Empire were breaking down. By adopting Christianity he could appropriate the structures put in place by Orthodox Christianity. Is there merit to this argument?
I used to think (and even teach) that until I actually did extensive research on the issue. Now it is very clear to me that Constantine was a genuine religious convert. I disucss the issue at length in my book The Triumph of Chrisitianity