Return to Answer

That he was baptised as one of the last things he went through in life seems uncontroversial. Whether he was old Roman pagan, Mithraist, Arian, Nicean creed Christian in terms of true belief seems hard to ascertain for any one point in time and even more uncertain for a stringent line of his life. Instead, one thing seems very certain, that has was a politician.

That he was baptised as one of the last things he went through in life seems uncontroversial. Whether he was old Roman pagan, Mithraist, Arian, Nicean creed Christian in terms of true belief seems hard to ascertain for any one point in time and even more uncertain for a stringent line of his life. Instead, one thing seems very certain, that he was a true politician.

It seems to be the case that he was much more interested in Christianity than would have been expected from a truly pagan contender for the highest office in the Roman Empire. But the universally repeated account of him having a vision of unquestionable Cristian significance (was it a cross or the ChiRho?) that caused an on the spot conversion seems no longer viable. Contemporary accounts from the time of Constantine have been met with scholarly criticism that tries to reconcile facts with tradition and explain the discrepancies. (Peter Weiss: "The vision of Constantine", Journal of Roman Archaeology, Volume 16 2003 , pp. 237-259.)

After the death of Constantine his own writings, which are not free from manipulative deceptions our primary sources are hagiographic in nature.

But there are some circumstantial pieces of evidence that allow a glimpse of the complicated realities in the still mixed and tolerant empire. Among them is a giant one:

Constantine indeed did cover his bases. He did so in the most traditional way imaginable for a pagan emperor. That does not include converting to Judaism. But it does include keeping the old faith (whether for himself, for the empire, or any combination thereof):

It seems to be the case that he was much more interested in Christianity than would have been expected from a truly pagan contender for the highest office in the Roman Empire. But the universally repeated account of him having a vision of unquestionable Cristian significance (was it a cross or the ChiRho?) that caused an on the spot conversion seems no longer viable. Contemporary accounts from the time of Constantine have been met with scholarly criticism that tries to reconcile facts with tradition and explain the discrepancies. (Peter Weiss: "The vision of Constantine", Journal of Roman Archaeology, Volume 16 2003 , pp. 237-259.)

After the death of Constantine his own writings, which are not free from manipulative deceptions our primary sources are hagiographic in nature. Not a good basis for reliability.

But there are some circumstantial pieces of evidence that allow a glimpse of the complicated realities in the still mixed and tolerant empire. Among them is a giant one:

Constantine indeed did cover his bases. He did so in the most traditional way imaginable for a pagan emperor. That does not include converting to Judaism. But it does include keeping the old faith (whether for himself, for the empire, or any combination thereof):

Apparently he requested that a giant statue of himself at Rome should hold a cross in its right hand, and that the dedicatory inscription should commemorate his devotion to the Savior: "I have liberated your city by this sign of salvation." In contrast, the dedicatory inscription on the huge triumphal arch completed at Rome in 315 was much more bland and noncommittal. It attributed Constantine's success merely to "the impulse of a divinity."

In contrast, Constantine himself apparently liked to tell stories about his many visions and conversion experiences. Consideration of only these three episodes suggests that Constantine may have had many conversion moments, and that his religious beliefs throughout his reign were not as consistent as Eusebius presented them. Despite his evident patronage of Christianity, his life included changes of mind, uncertainties, contradictions, and ambiguities. In other words, it was anormal life. (p 137.)

Apparently he requested that a giant statue of himself at Rome should hold a cross in its right hand, and that the dedicatory inscription should commemorate his devotion to the Savior: "I have liberated your city by this sign of salvation." In contrast, the dedicatory inscription on the huge triumphal arch completed at Rome in 315 was much more bland and noncommittal. It attributed Constantine's success merely to "the impulse of a divinity." (p136)

That he was baptised as one of the last things he went through in life seems uncontroversial. Whether he was old Roman pagan, Mithraist, Arian, Nicean creed Christian in terms of true belief seems hard to ascertain for any one point in time and even more uncertain for a stringent line of his life. Instead, one thing seems very certain, that has was a politician.