Talk:Constantine's Sword

Contradiction with other wikipedia information

Carrol's claim that "the cross ... was not a symbol used by Christians in the first three centuries of the Church's existence, into a symbolic sword infusing a spirit of violent intolerance into the development of Christianity" is directly contradicted by the information on wikipedia linked to with the word "cross":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross#Early_Christian_usage

"However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the 2nd century, as is indicated in the anti-Christian arguments cited in the Octavius[5] of Minucius Felix, chapters IX and XXIX, written at the end of that century or the beginning of the next,[note 2] and by the fact that by the early 3rd century the cross had become so closely associated with Christ that Clement of Alexandria, who died between 211 and 216, could without fear of ambiguity use the phrase τὸ κυριακὸν σημεῖον (the Lord's sign) to mean the cross, when he repeated the idea, current as early as the apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas, that the number 318 (in Greek numerals, ΤΙΗ) in Genesis 14:14 was interpreted as a foreshadowing (a "type") of the cross (T, an upright with crossbar, standing for 300) and of Jesus (ΙΗ, the first two letters of his name ΙΗΣΟΥΣ, standing for 18).[7] His contemporary Tertullian rejected the accusation of Christians being "adorers of the gibbet" (crucis religiosi).[note 3] In his book De Corona, written in 204, Tertullian tells how it was already a tradition for Christians to trace repeatedly on their foreheads the sign of the cross.[note 4] The crucifix, a cross upon which an image of Christ is present, is not known to have been used until the 6th century AD.[10]

The oldest extant depiction of the execution of Jesus in any medium seems to be the second-century or early third-century relief on a jasper gemstone meant for use as an amulet, which is now in the British Museum in London. It portrays a naked bearded man whose arms are tied at the wrists by short strips to the transom of a T-shaped cross. An inscription in Greek on the obverse contains an invocation of the redeeming crucified Christ. On the reverse a later inscription by a different hand combines magical formulae with Christian terms.[11] The catalogue of a 2007 exhibition says: "The appearance of the Crucifixion on a gem of such an early date suggests that pictures of the subject (now lost) may have been widespread even in the late second or early third century, most likely in conventional Christian contexts".[12][13][14]"

Accordingly, the paragraph should note the reader that this claim might be false or in some other wording highlight, that the claim is contradicted by what is linked in the paragraph.

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 13:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Critique

Although the article is still a stub, it would eventually have to integrate the vast amount of historical controversy and criticism that has been directed towards this book (cf [1]) ADM (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the content in the "Criticisms" section refers to John Cornwell's "Hitler's Pope" rather than James Carroll's "Constantine's Sword." Dbarriba (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed Graphic

I removed this graphic since it was created for the documentary film and not the book which inspired it.

PainMan (talk) 12:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic

I object to the inclusion of this book under a list of "Anti-Catholic" books.

As Carroll makes clear in this book, as well as in the documentary, he is not anti-Catholic. He remains a devout member of the Catholic communion. To criticize and encourage reform of an institution is not necessarily to be against that institution.

Thus to label this book as anti-Catholic is, at best, tendentious and, at worst, a deliberate distortion. PainMan (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2011 (UTC)