Constantine, a Christian?
INTRODUCTION
The enigmatic figure, Constantine, is not just an object of debate in our modern era. It would seem as if from the first time he declared himself to be Christian, this timeless figure instigated a debate that would never end. For many of his contemporaries he was a hero of the Christian faith, while for others he was the man that ended a glorious, pagan empire. This is the subject of chapter four in Bart Erhman’s Christianity in Late Antiquity. Due to the size of the chapter and the length constraints of this project, I will only briefly examine how he is presented across just two separate texts with opposing viewpoints.
EUSEBIUS & ZOSIMUS
For many Christians Constantine was and has been seen as a godsend–an almost messianic figure. This was especially true of Eusebius of Cesarea. In his The Life of Constantine, the emperor is presented as a divinely selected child[1] who was given a sign[2] from God that resembled a cross in the sky.[3] This sign culminated in a vision of Christ[4] and a naming of the Lord as his savior.[5] What followed then, according to Eusebius, was a lifetime full of evidence for a direct, divine guidance.[6] Further, he became a man who, in an act of devotion to the one true God, forbade the worshipping and forming of idols[7] and the practice of sexual immorality.[8] Further, he declared himself a bishop to those outside the church and was an example and an encourager of godly living.[9] According to Eusebius, Constantine even became an apologist of sorts, attacking polytheism and demanding that people live godly lifestyles now or face punishment from on High.[10] Finally, as Eusebius closes his biography, he presents Constantine as a champion of orthodox theology.[11] Is this picture accurate?
Not according to the 6th century pagan Zosimus. If one were to read Zosimus’ The New History, it would be found that Constantine was no champion of the Christian faith nor was he a moral man. Zosimus declares that the emperor was after his divine vision, still practicing pagan religious activity.[12] Further, he was a murderer, killing both his son and his own mother.[13] As result of his guilt and because of the urging of an Egyptian confidant, Constantine sought out the Christian faith in order to find absolution for his murderous actions.[14] According to Zozimus, he did not abolish pagan practices out of devotion to his new “faith” in Christ, but rather so that through divination no one would find out about his immoral life and failures.[15] Beyond this he is described as wasteful with public money, building useless monuments and buildings that contained Christianized pagan imagery.[16] Finally, his love of money is described as so great that he even went to violent lengths to collect taxes for his exuberant spending.[17]
CONCLUSION
Here we see two distinct perspectives regarding one man. From Eusebius’ Christian perspective, the advent of Constantine brought forth a triumph for Christianity that at the time was unprecedented. It ushered in a new era of freedom for the church and of social prosperity. For Zosimus, Constantine epitomized what was wrong with Rome. He saw this emperor not as a liberator, but a destroyer. This was surely the feeling of most pagans within the Roman Empire at the time. From a pagan perspective, Constantine’s forays into the church signaled the end of a proud empire built upon pagan traditions. As result, pagans held contempt for this man whom they saw, at least according to Zosimus, as a closet pagan whose fear, family pressure and political aspirations led him to embrace the “destructive” faith of the Christians.
While it cannot be established for certain which writer most accurately reflects reality in his piece, it would be safe to say the truth probably lies somewhere in between the two perspectives. This is what has led many to debate the role of the emperor in the early church. For those needing his help, Constantine could be seen as a welcome force; for those whom he opposed, his actions were seen as an intrusion into a world he knew nothing of. This type of debate continues even today, regarding the role of church and state. However, in the context of the early church, recognition by the state as a viable religious expression became vital to the promulgation and free expansion of the church. Sadly however, as time progressed, this freedom before the state was replaced with state sanctioned religion, ultimately leading to a blending of state and ecclesiastical authority. Regardless of the eventual corruption of this interaction, one thing is sure. If it were not for the hand of Constantine, whether it be one of a true believer or not, we may still be fighting church-wide battles even today for unity on the fundamentals of the faith.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Erhman, Bart. Christianity in Late Antiquity. New York: Oxford University Press 2004.
[1] Eusebius. The Life of Constantine, 1:24.
[3] This should be contrasted with conflicting reports of what the image was by others such as Lactantius.
[8] Ibid, 4:25. He specifically forbade homosexual acts.
[12] Zosimus. The New History, 29.
[17] Ibid, 38. His tax collection tactics were reported to include violent beatings.
Recent Comments