Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by MrMacSon »



Chapter LXVII [67]

"... No mortal had ever, like this blessed prince, continued to reign even after death, and to receive the same homage as during his life: he only, of all who have ever lived, obtained this reward from God: a suitable reward, since he alone, of all sovereigns, had in all his actions honored the Supreme God and his Christ; and God himself accordingly was pleased that even his mortal remains should still retain imperial authority among men ..."

https://archive.org/details/aselectlibr ... 6/mode/2up


That^ also dismisses the deification of previous emperors, especially Julius Caesar and his august adopted-son, Octavius, aka Augustus Caesar
Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon May 29, 2023 1:13 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by MrMacSon »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 12:39 am That^ also dismisses the deification of previous emperors, especially Julius Caesar and his august adopted-son, Octavius, aka Augustus Caesar
In the next chapter:


Chapter LXVIII
Resolution of the Army to confer thence-forward the Title of Augustus on his Sons

"... As soon...as the soldiery throughout the provinces received the tidings of the emperor's decease, they all, as if by a supernatural impulse, resolved with one consent, as though their great emperor had been yet alive, to acknowledge none other than his sons as sovereigns of the Roman world: and these they soon after determined should no longer retain the name of Caesar, but should each be honored with the title of Augustus, a name which indicates the highest supremacy of imperial power ..."


eta:
From the next chapter


"... they proceeded also to honor him, by the dedication of paintings to his memory, with the same respect as before his death. The design of these pictures embodied a representation of heaven itself, and depicted the emperor reposing in an ethereal mansion above the celestial vault."


Last edited by MrMacSon on Mon May 29, 2023 1:15 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8034
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by Peter Kirby »

In case there's any confusion, "no mortal ever, like this blessed prince" is referring to Constantine. (This is the first thing I had to check in the context.)
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by MrMacSon »

From the end of chapter LXXI / 71:

"... he continued to possess imperial power even after death, controlling, as though with renovated life, a universal dominion and retaining, in his own name, as Victor, Maximus, Augustus, the sovereignty of the Roman world."


Chapter LXXIII / 73 (in its entirely):

"A coinage was also struck which bore the following device. On one side appeared the figure of our blessed prince, with the head closely veiled. The reverse exhibited him sitting as a charioteer, drawn by four horses, with a hand stretched downward from above to receive him up to heaven."


The start of chapter LXIV / 74:

"Such are the proofs by which the Supreme God has made it manifest to us, in the person of Constantine, who alone of all sovereigns had openly professed the Christian faith, how great a difference He [ie. God] perceives between those whose privilege it is to worship Him and His Christ and those who have chosen the contrary part ..."

"Him and His Christ" likely = Arianism (?)
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Robin Lane Fox wrote at about p.651 in his book "Pagans and Christians, in the Mediterranean World from the second century AD to the conversion of Constantine", that towards the end of Constantine's oration (at Antioch c.325 CE) that "One sentence of the Oration trod unwarily on Arius' ground." This would imply Constantine made the "Arian slip" rather than Eusebius. But unfortunately I didn't note the sentence and no longer have the book.

In his "Vita Constantini" Eusebius compares Constantine to Moses three times. Most historians credit Athanasius as the inventor of Christian hagiography with his book c.360 CE "The Life of Antony". But Eusebius' "Life of Constantine" could possibly be credited as a hagiography of the Roman Emperor if Constantine had not indulged in much un-saintly bloodshed, the destruction of ancient and highly revered pagan temples, the execution of family members, chief pagan priests, philosophers and others, the torture of the upper classes, introducing burning people alive into the Roman law codes, and other un-saintly atrocities.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by MrMacSon »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 3:03 am Robin Lane Fox wrote at about p.651 in his book, "Pagans and Christians in the Mediterranean World from the Second Century AD to the Conversion of Constantine", that, towards the end of Constantine's oration (at Antioch c.325 CE), that "One sentence of the Oration trod unwarily on Arius' ground." This would imply Constantine made the "Arian slip" rather than Eusebius.
Alleged professions of Arianism by Constantine or Eusebius or accusations one or both were Arians would be more than a "slip". See how the Catholic Encyclopdia describes it: viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10809

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 3:03 am But Eusebius' "Life of Constantine" could possibly be credited as a hagiography of the Roman Emperor if Constantine had not indulged in much un-saintly bloodshed, the destruction of ancient and highly revered pagan temples, the execution of family members, chief pagan priests, philosophers and others, the torture of the upper classes, introducing burning people alive into the Roman law codes, and other un-saintly atrocities.
  • It still is a hagiography: especially of Constantine's alleged Christianity and reverence for him because of it. It makes me wonder if the character of Jesus Christ was more anthropomorphised/personified based on Constantine (a mini-Mountainman hypothesis could ensue) ...
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2312
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by StephenGoranson »

fwiw, according to google books advanced search snippet (not always accurate in regard to metadata/citations) Robin Lane Fox (1987) wrote on page 656, not quite what LC gave above:

"Others, perhaps, with the text of the Oration before them, may reflect that a mere two months before Nicaea, the Emperor himself had preached a sermon, one sentence of which trod unwarily on Arius's ground."
User avatar
GakuseiDon
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 5:10 pm

Re: Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by GakuseiDon »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 12:39 am
No mortal had ever, like this blessed prince, continued to reign even after death...

If that is the part that you are referring to by your thread title, then Jesus wasn't considered mortal. In the Christian apologies to the pagans the theme of "people born mortal cannot become gods" pops up as an attack on the pagan gods. Here are two examples where Christ isn't even directly mentioned to the texts:

Minucius Felix's Octavian
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... avius.html

Therefore neither are gods made from dead people, since a god cannot die; nor of people that are born, since everything which is born dies. But that is divine which has neither rising nor setting.

Tertullian's Ad nationes
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... ian06.html

But when you say that they only make men into gods after their death, do you not admit that before death the said gods were merely human?
...
They, therefore who cannot deny the birth of men, must also admit their death; they who allow their mortality must not suppose them to be gods.

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 994
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by Paul the Uncertain »

According to the Forham sourcebook site

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/basis/v ... antine.asp

which uses

Volume I, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, ed. P. Schaff and H. Wace, (Edinburgh: repr. Grand Rapids MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1955) yhe digital version is by The Electronic Bible Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.

Book 3, chapter 67 seems to refer to a specific kind of reverence shown to Constantine's corpse by his courtiers while he lay in state (so to speak). After chapter 66's setting the scene of a gold coffin with porphyry ornament set on a catafalque, chapter 67 describes this curious solemnity (quoted here in its entirety, but paragraphed for readability and ease of reconciliation with the OP):

THE military officers, too, of the highest rank, the counts, and the whole order of magistrates, who had been accustomed to do obeisance to their emperor before, continued to fulfill this duty without any change, even after his death entering the chamber at the appointed times, and saluting their coffined sovereign with bended knee, as though he were still alive. After them the senators appeared, and all who had been distinguished by any honorable office, and rendered the same homage. These were followed by multitudes of every rank, who came with their wives and children to witness the spectacle. These honors continued to be rendered for a considerable time, the soldiers having resolved thus to guard the body until his sons should arrive, and take on themselves the conduct of their father's funeral.

No mortal had ever, like this blessed prince, continued to reign even after death, and to receive the same homage as during his life: he only, of all who have ever lived, obtained this reward from God: a suitable reward, since he alone of all sovereigns had in all his actions honored the Supreme God and his Christ, and God himself accordingly was pleased that even his mortal remains should still retain imperial authority among men; thus indicating to all who were not utterly devoid of understanding the immortal and endless empire which his soul was destined to enjoy. This was the course of events here.

It would appear, then, that to continue to reign even after death is neither a reference to the historical Jesus nor to the practice of deification. Rather, its referent is Constantine's surviving courtiers behaving around his corpse much as they had behaved when serving the living ruler. That is, another way of expressing to receive the same homage as during his life after he'd died and before the final disposition of his remains.

Or so it seems to this reader.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Does a passage in Eusebius' Life of Constantine dismiss a historical Jesus?

Post by Leucius Charinus »

MrMacSon wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 3:35 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon May 29, 2023 3:03 am But Eusebius' "Life of Constantine" could possibly be credited as a hagiography of the Roman Emperor if Constantine had not indulged in much un-saintly bloodshed, the destruction of ancient and highly revered pagan temples, the execution of family members, chief pagan priests, philosophers and others, the torture of the upper classes, introducing burning people alive into the Roman law codes, and other un-saintly atrocities.
It still is a hagiography: especially of Constantine's alleged Christianity and reverence for him because of it.
That's true enough ...

AM wrote:The difficulty of writing a Christian, biography of a king as distinct from the life of a saint is already apparent in the life of Constantine by Eusebius, though it was produced perhaps twenty years before the composition of the life of St Anthony by Athanasius. Eusebius had no other choice but to present the life of Constantine as a model of a pious life — paradeigma theosebous biou, as he himself says. The task was certainly not beyond Eusebius’ ingenuity, but it flouted anybody’s respect for truth. Moreover, it inspired neglect of all that counts in a life of a general and a politician: military glory, political success, concern for ordinary human affairs, and the rest of the passions power carries with it. No wonder that this life of Constantine was never a success, had hardly any influence on later biographies, and found some modern scholars ready to deny the Eusebian authorship even at the risk of being contradicted by papyrological evidence. It continued to be easier for a Christian to work on the life of a saint than to write the life of an emperor. We may sympathize with Eginhard when he decided to go back to Suetonius for his life of Charlemagne.

Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.
* This essay first appeared in A. Momigliano, ed.,
The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,
The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99 (1)
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/Arnal ... 20post.htm

It makes me wonder if the character of Jesus Christ was more anthropomorphised/personified based on Constantine (a mini-Mountainman hypothesis could ensue) ...
Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinton_St_Mary_Mosaic
Christian panel

The panel in the larger room is 17 by 15 feet (5.2 by 4.6 m). A central circle surrounds a portrait bust of a man in a white pallium standing before a Christian chi-rho symbol flanked by two pomegranates. He is generally identified as Christ, although the Emperor Constantine I has also been suggested[3] despite the absence of any insignia or identifiers pointing to a particular emperor other than the chi-rho.
Post Reply