The Constantine Myth.

[fallingblood]

In a couple of recent threads, the topic of Constantine and his influence on Christianity has come up. Many of the comments that have been brought up though are simply so far from the truth that it raises the question as to where this information is coming from. Do people really think that The Da Vinci Code is an accurate portrayal of Christian history? So I just wanted to make a thread to hopefully clear up some misconceptions and enter into a nice discussion.

I think one of the most common myths is that Constantine presided over the Council of Nicaea and forced his results. That in this council, he defined god, created "the" idea of Jesus, and authorized a Bible.

However, the actual accounts of the Council of Nicaea are quite different.

In the grand scheme of things, Constantine had pretty much nothing to do with the Council of Nicaea. That is besides calling it to order. Really, Constantine had little to no grasp over the theological issues that were at stake. Nor was he a theologian, or a scholar. Some would even debate whether or not he was a Christian at all. Really, he allowed the Bishops to debate these issues and come to some sort of agreement (even though that agreement really didn't settle anything). And in the end, he really didn't care what view of Christ's nature won out, as long as they came to some sort of agreement for unity sake.

The second myth actually is linked to the first. The idea is that the Council of Nicaea created a unified Christianity, or in other words, defined Christianity. Now, this may be true on paper, but in actual discussion, it really changed nothing. Debate continued for decades, and the same positions were still held afterward. The main change was that on paper, there was an accepted idea.

Finally (at least for the time being), there is the issue of the Bible canon and the Trinity (I see them going hand in hand). Both of these ideas predated the Council of Nicaea. The Bible itself really wasn't discussed at the council. The canon had already gone through centuries of debate, and the OT was basically set anyway. Constantine did commission 50 Bibles to be made, but it wasn't discussed at the council, and in fact, the canon was pretty much set by then.

As for the Trinity, Origen had already spoken of it, as well as some other early church fathers. More so, we can find early references to the divine status of Jesus going back to our earliest Christian work, that of Paul. What was debated was the nature of Jesus, in which there was differing ideas. Really though, the idea that Jesus was divine was very early.

 

[mestupid]

"the actual accounts of the Council of Nicaea are quite different" . Besides the Bible, please quote historical records. I would like to know.

 

[outhouse]

. Really, Constantine had little to no grasp over the theological issues that were at stake

You really need to take some classes before making such blatant mistakes


he was involved in the Donatus controvery in 313

he was preaching sermon on a regular basis

he wrote to imperial officials and clergy, he had open and clear views of the current christian doctrine

The Bible itself really wasn't discussed at the council.

there was no bible then to be discussed.

pieces of collections were discussed, and at that time the bible was just a collection of sacred scripture

First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. In Jerome's Prologue to Judith[60][61][62] he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".


there was a reason they counted them, it would be part of a discussion would it not?

No reason to put a number on something not being talked about.


and take into account it was only 6 years later he ordered his 50 bibles, these works were not ignored 6 years previously, they had been important for hundreds of years

But your right that the council really didnt deal with the canonization as most people do report. But by the link above, they were not ignored either.

In the grand scheme of things, Constantine had pretty much nothing to do with the Council of Nicaea.

he ran the show and dressed up as its center piece with a purple robe studded with jewels, after being the one who invited all the bishops. He also influenced the decision.

You undercut his role. he was a mediator more or less for the council

The second myth actually is linked to the first. The idea is that the Council of Nicaea created a unified Christianity, or in other words, defined Christianity.

I think your pretty much correct here.

Both of these ideas predated the Council of Nicaea.

true

(I see them going hand in hand).

I dont

the trinity was church dogma, not EVER promoted by its early authors.

I think one of the most common myths is that Constantine presided over the Council of Nicaea and forced his results.

I will claim false

we know he influenced the council, lets look at that influence deeper.

#1 He is said to be "one in being with The Father". Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., "of the same substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. and I do understand Ossius role in this

Here we have Eusebius attrubuting Constantine as saying "one in being with the father", and exercising his authority!

what do you call this? not mentioned once over a two month debate, but twice!

The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be exiled.

The emperor's threat of banishment is claimed to have influenced many to sign

As for the Trinity, Origen had already spoken of it,

boloney or baloney your choice

he talked of the divine 3

but had no real concept of the trinity as defined, only by the nicene creed starting the definition of divinity [defining god] did that start the concept in its current direction

As a matter of fact his view does not reflect the trinity at all

the idea that Jesus was divine was very early.

I agree

but hat has nothing to do with the trinity
I would bet he was deified, made into a deity within a year after his death

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Besides the Bible, please quote historical records. I would like to know.

Every book (or letter, poem, revelation, etc.) in the bible was completed before Constantine. Most long, long, long before. Eusebius, Athanasius, & Theodoret are our best (or at least most detailed) sources.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You really need to take some classes before making such blatant mistakes

he was preaching sermon on a regular basis

Hmm.

he wrote to imperial officials and clergy, he had open and clear views of the current christian doctrine

How do we know this?

But your right that the council really didnt deal with the canonization as most people do report. But by the link above, they were not ignored either.

Putting aside the quality of the "link above", what part of the Nicene council influenced the canon, and in what way? And how was this related to Constantine?

he ran the show and dressed up as its center piece with a purple robe studded with jewels, after being the one who invited all the bishops. He also influenced the decision.

You undercut his role. he was a mediator more or less for the council

According to which lines in which primary source? If you use translations that's fine, as long as you provide some way to find the lines you refer to.

 

[outhouse]

what part of the Nicene council influenced the canon, and in what way?

We dont know, nor what was discussed, other then we know they were counting the collections.

How do we know this?

he had been involved with christianity for quite some time. his influence to christianity is undeniable.

while there is debate whether it was slow and gradual from his mother or in his later life.

what is not up for debate was his involvement with ruling over Donatism, and the edict of Milan

and he did pull the bishops together knowing quite well his personal goal was unification with the nicene council

I think its obvious he was no stranger to christianity. he did believe god chose him to carry out his divine will. I would say he understood theism within christianity

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

he had been involved with christianity for quite some time. his influence to christianity is undeniable.

He was an emperor. All he needed to do to greatly influence christianity was to make it legal and declare that he was Christian. Sociopolitical factors in such as system is quite enough.

what is not up for debate was his involvement with ruling over Donatism, and the edict of Milan

How does his involvement in either say anything about the canon, Nicea, or Constantine's familiarity with (and devotion to) early Christian theology?

and he did pull the bishops together knowing quite well his personal goal was unification with the nicene council

Which says nothing whatsoever about his desire concerning the outcome. If he was so interested in Christian orthodoxy, orthopraxy, theology, etc., then unification would not be the goal. The goal would be ensuring the "right" outcome.

I think its obvious he was no stranger to christianity.

Certainly. But neither was Celsus. The issue is how much he influenced Christian doctrines, the canon, and his appreciation for (and knowledge of) the nuances of internal strife within Christian circles.

 

[outhouse]

Hmm.

Trinity: The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed

He composed a special prayer for his troops and went on campaign equipped with a mobile chapel in a tent. He issued numerous laws relating to Christian practice and susceptibilities: for instance, abolishing the penalty of crucifixion and the practice of branding certain criminals, "so as not to disfigure the human face, which is formed in the image of divine beauty"; enjoining the observance of Sunday and saints' days; extending privileges to the clergy while suppressing at least some of the more offensive pagan practices. Constantine had hoped to be baptized in the River Jordan, but perhaps because of the lack of opportunity to do so together no doubt with the reflection that his office necessarily involved responsibility for actions hardly compatible with the baptized state delayed the ceremony until the end of his life. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

 

[outhouse]

How does his involvement in either say anything about the canon

I have never stated he had anything to do with the canon, only srcipt was counted at the Nicene council

or Constantine's familiarity with (and devotion to) early Christian theology?

1. Commitment to Christianity. ... As he said in a letter of, 313 to the proconsul of Africa, the Christian clergy should not be distracted by secular offices from their religious duties " ... Constantine's personal "theology" emerges with particular clarity from a remarkable series of letters, extending from 313 to the early 320s, concerning the Donatist schism in North Africa. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

Which says nothing whatsoever about his desire concerning the outcome. If he was so interested in Christian orthodoxy, orthopraxy, theology, etc., then unification would not be the goal. The goal would be ensuring the "right" outcome

you make a great point

but is knowing and caring, the same thing?


he took enough initiative to pull all the bishops together to get them unified for his political motives first and formost. not placing theology before politics was bad thing?

 

[outhouse]

by the way. thanks for keeping me in check.


Im still waiting for your first book on religion

 

[outhouse]

The issue is how much he influenced Christian doctrines, the canon, and his appreciation for (and knowledge of) the nuances of internal strife within Christian circles

canon no

doctrines, he changed a lot through his history, did he not?



nuances? he had been a chsriatian mediator/judge before the council, and with the council he orchestrated and him using his influence, id say nothing changed.

like other imortant people to chriatianity, [paul] he was self proclaimed and had a huge impact.

One doesnt do that from a point of ignorance on the subject as OP tries to state

It was his [Constantine's] personal choice made in 312 that determined the emergence of the Roman Empire as a Christian state. It is not hard to see why Eusebius regarded his reign as the fulfillment of divine providence nor to concede the force of Constantine's assessment of his own role as that of the thirteenth Apostle. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

nuances? he had been a chsriatian mediator/judge before the council, and with the council he orchestrated and him using his influence, id say nothing changed.

On what do you base your assertion that Constantine was a "mediator/judge" here? Eusebius specifically states that Constantine granted authority to others (specifically the "biships") in ecclesiastical matters. Other sources agree on this point: Constantine was a supporter, but not a mediator or judge.

like other imortant people to chriatianity, [paul] he was self proclaimed and had a huge impact.

He was the emperor, so naturally he did. However, he needn't to have known much about the Arian controversy, the canon, theological disputes, etc., in order to have great influence. Nor does it appear he influenced Christian doctrine, canon, or organization directly.

One doesnt do that from a point of ignorance on the subject as OP tries to state

It's incredibly easy. As emperor, supporting some group of individual tied together by some nebulous religious practice and thought, all he had to do was ask the leaders to get together and resolves issues which threatened unity. He didn't have to understand the issues or the reason they mattered.

It was his [Constantine's] personal choice made in 312 that determined the emergence of the Roman Empire as a Christian state.

It isn't. First because he didn't make it a Christian state, or outlaw other religions, or anything other than basically make Christianity legal. Of course, his position and his later actions did much more to ensure Christian dominance, but that in itself doesn't ensure success (look at Julian). Nor do these actions mean he shaped Christian thought and practices.

It is not hard to see why Eusebius regarded his reign as the fulfillment of divine providence nor to concede the force of Constantine's assessment of his own role as that of the thirteenth Apostle. (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1979, Constantine the Great, Vol. 5, p.71)

If it is so easy, one wonders why the question has been so debated for so long.

 

[otokage007]

u only have to see any documentary about Rome to realize Constantine did more for christianism than Jesus. lol

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You really need to take some classes before making such blatant mistakes

How would you know?

The OP is sound.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

A few myths about Constantine that needs to be cleared up:

1. He converted to Christianity in or around 325, this is actually false, he didn't convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed

2. He had a hand in setting up the doctrine of the Trinity; again, this ties in with the first part, he didn't believe in the Trinity himself, his baptism was performed by a Nestorian.

 

[outhouse]

1. He converted to Christianity in or around 325, this is actually false, he didn't convert to Christianity until he was on his deathbed

that would be false, he wasnt baptised until then, but followed christianity for some time

2. He had a hand in setting up the doctrine of the Trinity; again, this ties in with the first part, he didn't believe in the Trinity himself, his baptism was performed by a Nestorian.

he really didnt set up the trinity or have any part to do with it, other then influencing a vote on how divine jesus was.

 

[outhouse]

How would you know?

The OP is sound.

I have studied this. Im looking for the scholarship I read last year on him that was rather in depth and dry, but bery informative.


Would you have any information that would show Constantine was ignorant to christianity?

 

[Renji]

Hey falling blood! perhaps you can start on tackling which is fact ( in the Da Vinci code for example) and which is mere fiction.

 

[outhouse]

On what do you base your assertion that Constantine was a "mediator/judge" here?

Not only did Constantine orchestrate the whole show, inviting the bishops for one sole purpose of unification of problems he knew existed prior to the council.

Hell this debate went on for two months, how could he be ignornat to the issues he brough the bishops in to straighten out.?

It is stated he exercised his authority, and that he influenced the vote with threats of banishement on serveral occasions. This influnece demanded bishops sign the nicene creed or else. two didnt sign, and its stated his influence turned many towars the creed

judges and mediators do not vote, and Constantine didnt vote.


I will agree he didnt know much about the trinity, but many of the bishops in attendance didnt know either as it wasnt a solidified idea at that time.

 

[outhouse]

Constantine was a supporter

Why Did Christianity Succeed? - Legimitization Under Constantine | From Jesus To Christ | FRONTLINE | PBS

The Emperor Constantine was the moving force in the Council and he, in effect, called it in order to solve this dispute.

And so he was dismayed to hear of this controversy that had been raging in Alexandria for several years before his assumption of total imperial control. And in order to dampen that controversy he called the Council.


he was the absolute ruler over the whole roman empire, and he definately ruled over a council he orchestrated and presided over in his view as a messenger from god himself, and a brilliant emporer who witnessed this as a threat to his "total imperial control" he knew every aspect of a council he conviened