The Christianity of Constantine the Great (review)

Dr. T. G. Eliot challenges standard interpretations of the religious policies of Constantine which present him as a political opportunist, with no grasp of the theological issues and ultimately no consistent treatment of Arius and Athanasius. Eliot interprets those religious policies in a manner which is consistent, intelligible and sincere. His earlier studies of the reliability of Eusebius’ documents provide him with a valuable perspective on the complexities of the evidence. Eliot does respect the validity of many of the documents which Eusebius preserves but he also is wary about the motives Eusebius brings to his various writings on Constantine. For the evidence in the writings of Athanasius, Eliot is definitely aware of the propaganda agenda and he laments that many “orthodox” prefer to follow their “schismatic” hero against the emperor. Unfortunately for the important texts cited from the collection of Opitz, Eliot provides no discussion of their original context to inform their interpretation.

In 16 chapters arranged roughly chronologically, Eliot outlines Constantine’s involvement with Christianity, his policy of tolerance, his legislation, his collaboration with Synods and Councils to deal with Donatism and Arianism, and what he calls his “Christianizing mission.” Eliot makes extensive use of primary sources which he cites in translation and he also invokes a considerable amount of modern debate. He is especially indebted to the theological survey of the period by R. P. C. Hanson and the chronological and historical reconstructions by T. D. Barnes although he does take issue with Barnes on a number of occasions.

Many of the elements of Eliot’s interpretation are plausible. Constantine, Eliot argues, had reason to hide his activity during the period of the persecutions. Hence Constantine had a reasonable aversion to the rigorist judgments among Novationists and Donatists. Eliot also poses the interesting argument that Constantine deliberately made himself out to be younger than he actually was in order to deflect questions about his activities during the persecutions. In dealing with Arius, Eliot uses documents in the Opitz collection to show that Arius moderated his views by 327 and so Constantine was prepared to readmit him. Athanasius, on the other hand, insisted on evaluating the position of Arius by his earlier position. Constantine found Athanasius’ intransigence exasperating.

Strangely Eliot provides only an outline of the Speech to the Assembly of the Saints. This is a document which might shed some light on the language, themes, arguments and sources of Constantine’s religious convictions and sense of mission. Instead Eliot expends considerable time and argument on two texts which have traditionally invoked for the standard presentation of Constantine.

The first document is Constantine’s Letter to Alexander and Arius of 324 in which he states his hope for peace and unity and upbraids the two for an unseemly dispute over an“insignificant question” and an “inconsiderate response.” Eliot argues that Constantine was informed about the issues at this time. He concludes that the letter was some kind of deliberate deception on the part of Constantine. His case about Constantine’s awareness is plausible but he does not adequately explain his view of Constantine’s purpose in the letter.

The second document is Constantine’s Third Letter to the Bishops Assembled at Tyre in 335. This letter presents the dramatic encounter on the road between Athanasius and the Emperor with the Emperor acceding to his request to have an opportunity to confront the bishops who had assembled at Tyre to try his case. Eliot argues that the letter is a forgery by Athanasius. Admittedly Athanasius is quite capable of subterfuge but after going through the primary evidence and considerable amount of secondary opinion, Eliot’s interpretation is not entirely convincing.

The editors might have strengthened the presentation by highlighting all primary texts more distinctively, and providing an index for all primary texts cited. The editors might also have challenged some of the intemperate diction employed to express judgments. Eliot’s term “Christian crank” (on page 111) misrepresents Barnes’ comment...