The Christianity of Constantine the Great by T. G. Elliot (review)

526BOOK REVIEWS Montanist and my judgement on the matter" (p. 6). As a result, among the ninety-five inscriptions edited and discussed are several which are definitely not Montanist and many whose presumed Montanist character was inferred from flimsy, fallacious, or circular arguments. Let me give two illustrative examples . There was never any good reason to classify as Montanist the famous and much discussed text of a juridical nature from Carthage which mentions "holy patriarchs" (no. 15 = CIL 8.25045 = ILCV 1003 = Inscriptions chrétiennes de Carthage, 3 [1991], no. 381): since the word protogamia occurs elsewhere only in the Talmud, the inscription was claimed asJewish by Paul Maas,"Ein rätselhafter kirchenrechtlicher Erlass," Theologische Literaturzeitung, 47 (1922), 311 = Kleine Schriften, ed. W. Buchwald [Munich, 1973], pp. 213-214). And although Tabbernee includes a good number of Phrygian epitaphs with the formula "Christians for Christians," he expressly and correctly rejects the view that use of this formula indicates that the deceased was a Montanist (pp. 200-202). The arrangement of the collection also requires comment. Its primary division is chronological, into six periods: c. 165-179; c. 180-224; c. 225-274; c.275-313; c. 314-395; c. 395-600. Tabbernee describes and justifies his arrangment , arguing that these periods correspond to successive and distinct phases in the history of Montanism (pp. 10-11). Consequently, the successive introductions with which he prefaces each section of this collection of epigraphic sources constitute, in effect, a brief connected history of the movement . T. D. Barnes University ofToronto The Christianity ofConstantine the Great. By T. G. Elliot (Scranton: University of Scranton Press. 1996. Pp. x, 366. $24.95 cloth; $19.95 paper.) Such is the place of Constantine in history that interest in him, on the part of both scholars and the reading public, continues to run high, although the available literature on the subject long ago became so abundant that no scholar can truthfully claim to control it all. The book here under consideration does not pretend to be a comprehensive study of all aspects of Constantine's life and reign. Rather, as its title suggests, it is limited to an examination of Constantine's religious beliefs and ecclesiastical policies, while the secular aspects of his reign receive, justifiably, much less attention. T. G. Elliott of the University of Toronto, no newcomer to Constantinian studies, displays considerable erudition and draws upon a wide range of primary sources and secondary literature. Unfortunately, his interpretation of the evidence at times seems to be less than objective, and his arguments do not always flow easily. Knowing that some of his conclusions are counter to prevailing scholarly opinion, he sometimes assumes a defensive tone (p. 67) or, worse, dismisses the views of other scholars as "a quack theory" or as "figments of their own imagination" (p. 328). book reviews527 It is the principal thesis of this book that Constantine was raised as a Christian by Christian parents, Constantius and Helena (pp. 18-25),that he may have compromised his Christian faith at the time of the Great Persecution (pp. 84-85 and 214), that it was the Great Persecution rather than the "miracle" of 312 that was the critical experience of his life (p. 331), that his entire career as an emperor, beginning not in 312 but in 306, was a Christianizing mission (pp. 34-35, 50, and 127), although he was quite capable ofplaying a double game (p. 193), and that the conversion of 312 was an invention of Eusebius (pp. 36 and 67-68). Elliott has not made a convincing case; he misinterprets a key passage, Theodoret,i£Z? 1.18.1 (pp. 18-19); he is obliged to explain away the Apolline vision of 310 (p. 51). Many scholars in the past have reached the conclusion that Constantine's understanding of the Christian gospel was quite imperfect. Elliott holds otherwise , contending that Constantine was familiar with theological argument (pp. 181 and 271) and understood the Arian controversy very well (p. 283); he even calls Constantine a theologian (p. 284). In 324 Constantine addressed a letter to Alexander and Arius, calling upon them to settle their dispute and showing little understanding of, or...