Talk:Constantine the Great and Christianity

Christian emperorship

This section seems biased in favor of a post-nicene trinitarian perspective. Constantine did influence and to a degree decide doctrine, although this was more evident later in his reign and that of his son Constantinus II. The whole debate over Arianism and Athanasius' trinitarianism had direct ecclesiological implications essential to the place of the emperor over the church. Constantine was baptised an Arian and had reversed his earlier endorsement of trinitarianism. In short Constantine was an active participant in the development of church doctrine.

"...he (Constantine) exercised a peculiar care over the church of God: and whereas, in the several provinces there were some who differed from each other in judgment, he, like some general bishop constituted by God, convened synods of his ministers."

"Hence it was not without reason that once, on the occasion of his entertaining a company of bishops, he let fall the expression, "that he himself too was a bishop," addressing them in my heating in the following words: "You are bishops whose jurisdiction is within the Church: I also am a bishop, ordained by God to overlook whatever is external to the Church." And copal care, and exhorted them as far as in him lay to follow a godly life."

The Life of the Blessed Emperor Constantine, Eusebius of Caesarea.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/vita-constantine.asp

Biased

This article seems biased to me since it claims that '...very little pressure, however, was put on individual pagans, and there were no pagan martyrs ', whereas in Persecution of religion in ancient Rome we read that Constantine actually 'ordered the summary execution of eunuch priests in Egypt' (there's a reference to: R. MacMullen, "Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D.100-400, Yale University Press, 1984) - a notable contradiction. Asharidu (talk) 09:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I have more problems with the article in that it seems to portray Constantine as an authentic Christian, when (religious dogma aside) there is plenty of scholarly evidence that such is far from the case. There are documents\proclamations from 310 which refer to (Constantine) as the divine companion of Helios, "as was his father before him" - and then documents from two years later in which he basically substitutes Helios for Christ. The exact names escape me at this hour, but I'll remember them later. 71.60.20.231 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC).

As far as I can see, the article is lacking any specific claim for the time up to 312 (and some time later). The article is, in fact, very reluctant to say anything about what Constantine _believed_ (as is only prudent), but more concerned with what Constantine _did_, which is, esp. in his later years, evidently quite pro-Christian. I see not much basis for your claim in the article (although it could definitely be improved). In case you do that, please be cautious as to not introduce bias to the other side. There currently is a rather prominent school of thought (Barnes et al.) making Constantine a Christian already in his Gallic years, and we should try to represent all (non-fringe) sides. Varana (talk) 07:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: Err, overlooked the lead section. That is Barnes' view reflected there. The opposing view could be better represented, maybe. Anyway, comparing the Invincible Sun (or the Sun God in general) with Christ was not uncommon in Late Antiquity, also among Christians. We should refrain from painting too a stark dichotomy between Christian and Pagan worship; there was a large common ground and ambiguous language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Varana (talk • contribs) 10:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I take issue with the use of the word "Pagan". It's a pejorative and eurocentric phrase that lumps everything not judeo-christian in origin together, and it leads to misunderstandings about the diversity of religion given the label, it also marginalizes much of the worlds religion and religious beliefs. The use of the word pagan by the roman chruch should be explained, and when referring to historical peoples referred to as "pagan" by Constantine the word "pagan" should always be in quotes, have a qualifier such as "so called pagans" or they should be referred to as "non-Christians". At that point in history the christian church and it's followers and practices were a tiny minority of the worlds religions and religious practices and as such should not be marginalized or implicitly called inferior to what was then a fledgling religion. (Drn8 (talk) 15:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC))

Usage of the word is prevalent in the historical literature. There is no legitimate alternative: "so-called pagans" would be distracting, and suggest a strong bias in favor of that side (far stronger than "pagan" does in favor of Christians"); "non-Christians" is a poor alternative, since Jews were covered under separate legislation and different terms. "Pagan" is not, in and of itself, either "pejorative" or "Eurocentric". (What?) It is beyond me how the mere usage of a single signifier makes the group "marginalized or implicitly called inferior". Its use is entirely unobjectionable. I have removed the notice. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The word "paganus" is a first/second declension Latin adjective meaning "rustic" or "uncultured." Following the rise to primacy of Christianity among the urban upper classes and the military, "paganus" was used as a pejorative term by members of the early Church to refer to traditionalist, Roman polytheists and followers of other religions (excepting Judaism). So yes, "pagan" is a pejorative term, the wide use of which being justified in modern scholarship as allowing for brevity when discussing the vast range of non-Abrahamic religions that existed during Late Antiquity. Leaving aside your assertion that "the mere usage of a single signifier [does not make] a group 'marginalized or implicitly called inferior'" (I don't think you need to look very far for examples that categorically disprove this; racial slurs come to mind), "pagan" is, at its roots, a disparaging term for followers of (typically) polytheistic religions. You're right that "non-Christians" and "so-called pagans" are no better. I would suggest "traditionalists," "followers of traditional Roman religions," or "polytheists" (assuming the label is accurate in its context) over pagans.108.254.233.180 (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Sunday & Milan?

The Edict of Milan (if it even existed) did not make Sunday a special day of observance, that happened 8 years later (321)in Contantine's Sunday Law. MnJWalker 01:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This is correct. The Sunday Law is CJ 3.12.2, passed in 321.

Constantine as an Eastern Orthodox Saint

I'll add information about Constantine being a Saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church (feast on May 21st). Does anyone know if there are other Churches that give him this particular status? Dahn 19:32, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The Eastern Catholic Church. In addition, some Catholic sources: [1]. Probably the Acta_Sanctorum.

merge?

shouldn't this be merged with Constantinian shift? What is the difference in scope? dab (ᛏ) 16:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Constantinian shift is its own unique term. Roughly, this article is about Constantine and Christiantiy, Constantinian shift is about the changes in Christianity in response to the empire.

Great article! Merge will make it too long. --MeBee 06:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Constantine's Conversion

I have altered the section on Constantine's conversion which was POV and more appropriate for the Constantinian Shift article. The quotation given later in this article makes it quite clear that Constantine was following Christianity, not merely allowing others to do so. The doubts as to the authenticity of his conversion are a much later scholarly debate and those claims do not include proposing that he did not appear to convert until his deathbed, that was his baptism. The link between baptism and becoming a Christian was not strong at this time, but within a hundred years had become so, as the most popular time for baptism switched from just before death to just after birth. MnJWalker 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Before Milan

I removed the following paragraph:

In the end, many Christians kept their religion to themselves even during times of peace, because it was all too likely that the peace would soon be replaced by violence, and that those who had revealed themselves as Christians might be remembered as such during later trials.

While I have not made a great study of evangelism in the early church, I do know that Christian literature contains references to outspoken members of the faith (Eusebius, HE 5.1.10; The Book of Martyrs, preserved in HE, Chp. 2; Justin Martyr was also known for debating a pagan philosopher). W.H.C. Frend said Christians preached on streets and in marketplaces (Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, Anchor Books: 1967, 204). Frend also noted that in 232/233 there is evidence of a church, the existence of which was not hidden (p. 229). Also, Christians frequently visited others in prison (see the letters of Ignatius of Antioch), all sure signs of demonstrating one's faith.

While I realize that the deleted graph says "many Christians," I think it needs to be cited since there is primary, and secondary, source evidence which could cast some doubt on it. If the view of the deleted graph is from a source, I would like to see it cited and placed with the appropriate counter-arguments. --LawrenceTrevallion 06:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Novak Quote

The quote from Novak on Constantine's conversion is a little odd to me. Is there some evidence that Constantine believed the government had the power to condemn one to hell? The quote makes it sound as if he did believe that. --LawrenceTrevallion 06:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ConstantineCoin.jpg

Image:ConstantineCoin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Creation of bible?

I've heard rumors Constantine had scolars compile/edit/write the New Testament. Maybe this article could attempt to clarify that. --71.182.162.11 (talk) 15:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Persecutions

As this article is named 'Constantine I and Christianity', I was wondering if the information under the 'Persecutions' heading is really relevant. Although it does span over the time that Constantine is in power, it has no reference to him at all. Does it really belong here? Mentalbasedoninstrumental (talk) 17:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Your insofar correct that it would be appropriate to change the name of the article, if we want to debate "Constantine I and religious persecution" here. If you take a look at articles like: Persecution of religion in ancient Rome it should be rather obvious that we need to debate that question somewhere, and I would think that this is the appropriate place. If there are no objections, I'll move the article to religious beliefs of Constantine I in two weeks. (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Elevation of the Holy Cross - objective?

"Whenever the waves of persecutions directed against Christians died down and the Christians emerged, tormented and bloodied, from the catacombs and caves into God’s light, signing themselves with an extensive sign of the cross, then it was Constantine the Great, who more than once had felt the power of the Cross, decided to find the same Tree to which the Body of Christ had been nailed." This section sounds very much like evangelical-speak; perhaps it could be restated. 76.18.190.238 (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"pagan" and connotations

I'm not sure if it's the capitalization you object to or the use of the word "pagan" itself. The word "pagan" in the context of studying early Christianity by historians is not used in a negative way. "It simply refers to anyone in the ancient world who subscribes to any [of the] numerous polytheistic religions of the day. Since this included anyone who was neither Jewish or Christian, we are talking about something like 90-93% of the population of the [Roman] empire."

Misquoting Jesus - Bart Ehrman (pg 195 last paragraph)Steeleye2000 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Edict of Milan

The wording of this section seems a bit slanted. The Edict of Milan did not only grant toleration to Christianity but in fact granted freedom of religious belief to all: '...grant to the Christians and others full authority to serve that religion which each preferred' (Lactantius, De Mort Pers ch 4)- as the Edict itself survives only in copies or abstracts by early Christian writers (such as Lactantius)it is quite possible to argue that the original didn't mention any specific faith at all and that the reference to 'Christianity' was imported by the apologists. Whether that be true or not, the fact is that Constantine and Licinus explicitly permitted all forms of religious belief, not just Christianity. Hopeless diamond (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to reword the section; I hope it covers the topic better. I see, however, no reason to doubt the mention of Christians in the text, as they are the ones this agreement is really geared at, and there are specific provisions for returning church property later in the text. Varana (talk) 11:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Persecutions"

Zara1709: The section talks only about persecutions (how is that non-neutral, BTW?) It would be good to expand it somewhat covering other aspects, but as it is, the title is correct. Varana (talk) 07:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Because a section title "Persecutions" gives the impression that, before Constantine, Christianity in the Roman Empire only was "persecuted". There were persecutions, of course, but Christianity was not persecuted constantly and thoroughly. I've tried to do a little work on that for the article Persecution of religion in ancient Rome, but, like most "persecution"-articles on Wikipedia, that one is a total mess. Zara1709 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree with Zara's rationale, but including a section on "Christianity in the Roman Empire before Constantine" (perhaps under the less cumbersome title "Background") is an excellent idea. There are so many particularities you could cover: the size, distribution, and demography of Christianity; the role of bishops and episcopal councils; theological trends (seen to their cumulation in Nicaea and the post-Nicene period); rigorism and the middle ground; Christianity in and around Alexandria; etc., etc. There really are a good number of topics that should be given greater weight than the persecutions. So, uh, Zara did a good thing here. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 20:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Paganism in Constantinople

The article mentions several times in several diverse places that there were no pagan temples in Constantinople. It then goes on to mention some "shrines" to Tyche and the Dioscori. So which is it? The harping on the "no paganism in Constantinople" thing should be dropped or clarified. If clarified, it should be consolidated. No need to keep harping on ground already covered. Rwflammang (talk) 21:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

(Not having read the article...) Just because there are no temples, doesn't mean that there wasn't paganism in Constantinople, just that it was peripheral. Also, surely temples and shrines are not the same thing? I would have thought that a temple was a building for the gods, while a shrine was a smaller affair; if they're not the same, then I don't see a problem in the article mentioning that there were no temples but there were shrines (although one mention should be sufficient). Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Churches commissioned by Constantine

I understand that Constantine commissioned the building of the predecessor to the Vatican St Peters Basilica? He was also involved in the Dom and the Basilica in Trier? Could we do an overview of the important churces/buildings commissioned by Constantine? -Michaël (talk) 12:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Dogma is not doctrine

I altered the section which equates doctrine to dogma, simply because doctrine and dogma are not the same thing. A dogma is an unchanging and infallible teaching of the Church based on the Holy Deposit Of Faith, which is to held by all believers. Doctrine, on the other hand, while binding to be held by all the faithful, does not derive from the Holy Deposit of Faith, is not necessarily infallible, and can - and in the past has - been altered, changed, modified or even condemned. 68.144.200.75 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Conversion Paragraph Problem

That paragraph comes in direct contradiction with the conversion paragraph in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I%27s_turn_against_Paganism

which says "According to Church historians writing after his death, Constantine converted to Christianity and was baptised on his deathbed, thus making him the first Christian emperor. There are no known contemporary documents that attest to an earlier intention to become a member of the Church"

However in this article he appears as becoming a christian at age 42.

IMHO the info http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I%27s_turn_against_Paganism here is more correct.

I can't find "42" you are referring to. Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with deathbed conversion. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm . To my way of reading both articles agree. He turned against Paganism earlier, however. Student7 (talk) 01:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If you read the conversion paragraph (which is only 2 lines) of this article it says: "Emperor Constantine was exposed to Christianity by his mother, Helena, but he was over 42 when he finally declared himself a Christian.". And this comes to a direct contradiction with the well known fact which you pointed out too, that he converted on his deathbed. :New edit to follow: philipofBVMPhilipofBVM 20:07, 17 January 2015 (UTC) to follow:

Saint Constantine The Great was truly baptized by Pope Saint Sylvester I. See the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Constantine_the_Great#The_Catholic_Baptism_of_Saint_Constantine_The_Great.2C_by_Pope_Sylvester_I

philipofBVMPhilipofBVM 19:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilipofBVM (talk • contribs)

Donation of Constantine

Why isn't there anything about this in this article?? I would recommend including it somewhere, or at least a sentence linking to it. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 06:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Weird Statement

In the first paragraph, it says historians and theologians are unsure why Constantine chose Christianity. I sawthis and I'm wondering whether this is necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikechase3 (talk

Nevermind, after some more research, I figured it out. Apparently, there was an emperor called something like Galius or something. Christainity was never really popular in Rome until Constantine started to rule. I explained it poorly, but now this comment is slightly irrelevant.Constantine the Great Michael Chase Jr (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• contribs) 17:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC) 

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Bishops of Rome under Constantine the Great into Constantine the Great and Christianity. I think that the content on Rome can easily be explained in the context of the Roman empire, and the former article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the latter will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Otherwise, unnecessary duplication and variance are introduced, and an artificial separation maintained between the bishops of Rome and the church generally, a distinction not present in Constantine's day. GPinkerton (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose I don't especially see the attraction. A niche topic that's best in its own niche. Surely Religious policies of Constantine the Great is a more obvious candidate - I'd support that. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Why does that article exist at all!? And why is it more obvious? Bishops of Rome have more to do with Christianity than they do with other Roman religions of late antiquity .... GPinkerton (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't ask me - I'd never seen it before. It is all about Xtianity, or Xtian anti-pagan policies. That's why it's more obvious. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

ENGVAR

I think this article's spelling convention should be changed away from American to a more international English spelling. There is no connection whatever between Constantine and the United States and consequently no reason to use uniquely American spelling. As well as Constantine's having originated in the modern European Union, where the spelling conventions of the OED are used, the significance of Constantine spans the three continents over which he ruled, and international spelling such as is used by the United Nations is much more appropriate than the present Americanized version. Furthermore, Constantine has a close connection with Britain, where, as with the rest of Europe and the rest of the world, American language is not used. I therefore propose the spelling of "favor" be changed to meet international standards and expectations by adding the customary u before the r. Nothing else seems to need to change. GPinkerton (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Why is this a stand-alone article? It seems to be a haven for biased interpretations in favor of Constantine's 'early, sincere' conversion as opposed to the broad consensus that questions his motives.

I was surprised to see a completely separate article on this topic.

What makes Constantine I FAR more notable than other Roman Emperors is his role in establishing Rome's Catholic 'christianity' as the Official State Church of Rome, under the Roman Emperors' control, resulting in Roman Catholicism and the creation of 'infallible' men (aka Popes). These circumstances weigh heavily in favor of the broad consensus among 'non-aligned' historical scholars that Constantine's sincerity is, at best, highly questionable. Among other problems, the article as of today gives undue weight to the historically unsupported, apocryphal assertions that Constantine was baptised early in his reign, rather than on his deathbed. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-I-Roman-emperor/Commitment-to-Christianity#ref22046

Existing in isolation from the main article Constantine the Great this article seems to have de-evolved into a PoV haven for minority interpretations in favor of Constantine's 'early, sincere' conversion as opposed to the broad consensus that questions his motives and the idea that Constantine I may have been more a 'charlatan panderer' than a sincere Christian.

Encyclopedia Britannica (for example) and every other source I've seen definitively states that Constantine did not accept baptism until on his deathbed. Accounts of his earlier baptism are unsupported by historical scholars or any reliable sources, and AFAIK are only found among non-neutral sources biased in favor of legitimizing Roman Catholicism. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Constantine-I-Roman-emperor/Commitment-to-Christianity#ref22046

Is there a valid rationale for not merging this article into? Constantine the Great. There should be a 'single source of truth' on this topic, I believe. R.Giskard R. (talk) 18:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Specifically, the following text is problematic:

"His formal conversion in 312 is almost universally acknowledged among historians, despite that it was claimed he was baptized only on his deathbed"

The sources given are entirely inadequate to support the former statement "almost universally acknowledged", while the vast majority of reliable sources strongly support the latter statement "baptized only on his deathbed". R.Giskard R. (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)