Pagan Sun worship in early Christianity?

[ihavefoundgod951]

I've read theories of Constantine mixing Sun worship with christianity when christianity became legal in Rome.

Do any of you have an opinion on this?

 

[football5680]

Didn't happen. The only connection would be that Christians and people who followed this cult worshipped on Sunday but Christians were already coming together to worship on Sunday in the Book of Acts and this was 300 years before Constantine became emperor. The majority of the Empire was still Pagan so he obviously had to respect this fact to be emperor but throughout his reign it was clear that he favored Christians. Over time, Constantine became more and more committed to Christianity to the point where he had many Pagan temples ransacked. He continued to tolerate Paganism to a degree but in his edicts of toleration, he spoke about Paganism in a derogatory manner and basically said they had the right to worship their false Gods and idols.

There is a lot of propaganda surrounding Constantine but most of it is false. People want to use him to try and discredit Christianity or a particular denomination but we have the writings of the early Church fathers and their writings contain everything that we believe and they lived before Constantine was even born. Constantine would need a time machine to have any influence on these men. Constantine had no influence over Doctrine and he allowed the Church to function on its own. The only time he stepped in was during the Arian heresy and he simply told the Church leaders to come together and create a statement of faith to try and alleviate this growing problem and this is where the Nicene Creed comes from.

 

[prodromos]

I've read theories of Constantine mixing Sun worship with christianity when christianity became legal in Rome.

Do any of you have an opinion on this?

My opinion is that the above theory is utter bunk.

 

[JackRT]

I've read theories of Constantine mixing Sun worship with christianity when christianity became legal in Rome.

Do any of you have an opinion on this?

Throughout his reign as emperor Constantine remained the high priest of the Mithraic cult of Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun).

 

[prodromos]

Throughout his reign as emperor Constantine remained the high priest of the Mithraic cult of Sol Invictus (Invincible Sun).

More bunk. Keep it coming

 

[JackRT]

More bunk. Keep it coming

You can call history bunk if you wish --- it's still history.

 

[prodromos]

You can call history bunk if you wish --- it's still history.

No, it is what some people have claimed is history with no actual evidence to back it up. You are simply repeating the pet theory of Alexander Hislop, which has been thoroughly demonstrated to be without credibility. IE. it is bunk.

 

[JackRT]

No, it is what some people have claimed is history with no actual evidence to back it up. You are simply repeating the pet theory of Alexander Hislop, which has been thoroughly demonstrated to be without credibility. IE. it is bunk.

Hislop wrote over 150 years ago and has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

As in all things there is a half truth here.

In the beliefs of late Roman Paganism there was a pseudo-platonic belief in the highest god possible, the so called Summus Dei. This became quickly associated with Sol Invictus, the unconquerable sun, resulting in the rapid rise of this cult. Emperors such as Aurelian were especial adherents. Here they adopted iconography from previous cults such as Helios etc. and representations of Hellenistic kings (such as halo, ray crowns and the four horse quadriga) to represent this first and highest god.
Now Constantine I's father, Constantius I Chlorus, was a definite adherent of this cult as part of his official duties in the tetrarchy of Diocletian. Diocletian had each tetrarch adopt a god as his personal one, and this was the god chosen by Constantius.
Now early in Constantine's reign as the tetrarchy was breaking down, he continued this association of his father. Further the sign before the battle of the Milvian bridge was distinctly solar - either a cross formed from the solar halo or three small crosses representing thirty years as per roman numerals. This is consistent with a phenomenon called a solar halo and immediately after the battle Constantine minted coins depicted him as a companion of Sol Invictus.

According to Constantine's biographers, this sign was the one that converted him to Christianity although not initially as he did not yet know from which god it had come. Based on this information, it was obvious to him at the time to have been a solar sign from his solar god patron, Sol Invictus (hence the coinage in 313 mentioned above).

Now the Christian claims of God are very similar to the Roman claims of Sol Invictus as first and most powerful god. Even before the Edict of Milan allowed Christianity, the Christians have been using pagan imagery to portray Christian concepts. There are noted examples in the catacombs of Rome or in Egypt of cornucopias, Pan-men etc. used in Christian contexts. The solar imagery was no exception, especially the use of the halo and quadriga.
Throughout the reigns of Constantine and his family, you would continue to see extensive solar imagery used to portray the Christ and this is obviously a survival and re-interpretation of the family's original allegiance to Sol Invictus re-interpreted in Christian context as had been done by other Christians with other pagan imagery for the preceding 300 years.

There is no evidence of mixing of sun worship and Christianity whatsoever, but there is quite a lot of evidence of using the mythological framework of sun imagery to portray Christian concepts to largely pagan populations. It is a similar practice to people in Japan creating virgin Mary's that look like the goddess of compassion Kwannon or the Virgin of Guadalupe in Mexico that uses Aztec iconography to portray Christian themes. It does not mean that any Sun worshipping was introduced into Christianity or that it influenced the practice of Christianity in any way. The evidence in fact shows continuation with early Christianity so such additions are highly unlikely, with the noted exception of Christmas, which may have a syncretic origin in the Summer Solstice festival (out by four days due to the Julian calendar having been out by that number bin the 300s and it being a 1000 years before the Gregorian reforms). Even if the story of Christmas is true, which is by no means proven, it has been common for cultural usages to enter Christian festivities in history (Christmas trees, Easter rabbits, pumpkin and day of the dead festivities in Mexico etc.) and these have no impact on worship or doctrine which are of course what really matters.

As an aside: Sol Invictus is not Mithraic. Mithraism is a neo-platonic development of Mithras the god of the oath of Persia, bur re-interpreted as a astrological god with its own Greco-Roman myth. While Helios the sun god is closely associated with Mithraism, the concept of Sol Invictus is not. For Sol Invictus was more seen as the best and highest god with no equal, which is why it could so easily be used to portray the Christian God with similar attributes. It was more closely associated with Jupiter Optimus Maximus (Jupiter best and greatest) or Jupiter Dolichenus, not Mithras. Mithraic imagery was not co-opted to much Christian use and without imperial support, Mithraism wilted and died following Constantine. Also there was no such thing as a Mithraic high priest as Mithraism was a secretive religion done in small local conclaves with no central authority.
Constantine did continue on in his role as official high priest of Roman religion (Pontifex Maximus) as this was inextricably tied to being Emperor, but their is no proof of any active involvement. He merely held the title. Again there was no high priest or chief flamen of Sol Invictus on the books at Rome so I assume Jack RT was talking of the Pontifex Maximus when he said he remained Sol Incictus's high Priest.

 

[NonTheologian]

I've read theories of Constantine mixing Sun worship with christianity when christianity became legal in Rome.

Do any of you have an opinion on this?

What sources claim this?

 

[prodromos]

Further the sign before the battle of the Milvian bridge was distinctly solar - either a cross formed from the solar halo or three small crosses representing thirty years as per roman numerals. This is consistent with a phenomenon called a solar halo and immediately after the battle Constantine minted coins depicted him as a companion of Sol Invictus.

The Chi-Rho sign which appeared to Constantine bears very little resemblance to any of the solar halos I have seen. What examples are you basing your comparison on?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The common belief that Constantine used the Chi-Rho sign at the battle of the Milvian Bridge is in error. It is a conflation and misunderstanding of two Authors: Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea.

In Eusebius's Life of Constantine you will read that before the battle Constantine looked up at the sun and saw a cross of light and the words "in hoc signo vinces" or in this you will conquer. He also took this sign to promise him a thirty years reign, hence the speculation surrounding this vision and the phenomenon of a Solar Halo.
Just after this part of his work, Eusebius describes the Labarum with its Chi-Rho as used during the campaign against Licinius. This has lead to centuries of confusion between the cross of light and the Chi-Rho.

Lactantius describes the sign that Constantine had placed on his shields due to a dream and describes a latin cross with a rounded top, the Staurogram (The work in question is called On the deaths of the Persecutors).This sign was likely carried at the Milvian bridge, not the Chi-Rho, but due to their similarity and the general disuse of the Staurogram, they became conflated.

It is a common misperception that Constantine bore the Chi-Rho initially, but he only started using such a flagrant Christian symbol from about 317 AD when it appeared on Imperial coinage. The fact is that Constantine did not know which god had favoured him initially, so it is unlikely that the sign would have been so clearly a Christian symbol. The Chi-Rho was already in widespread Christian use at the time and Constantine's mother Helena was a Christian so he would have been aware of it.
If he had used the Chi-Rho at that stage it would also have clearly shown him to be pro-christian, a fact that his enemies would have commented upon in their propaganda, yet they did not say a word about it.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

What sources claim this?

What are you asking the source of?
The original claim of solar elements in Christianity? These are good sources on related topics, not sure if this was what you wanted.

For late imperial politics, try Adrian Goldsworthy's Decline of the West.

If you are interested in Mithraism, there are a number of good articles regarding this in the Journal of Mithraic Studies. There is an electronic version as well.
Origin's Contra Celsus also talks a bit of Mithras.

For Constantine, Try Paul Stevensons: Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor. Alternatively you could read the original sources such as Eusebius of Caesarea or Lactantius or Athanasius of Alexandria or Sextus Julius Victor.

Hope this was what you were looking for.

 

[prodromos]

The common belief that Constantine used the Chi-Rho sign at the battle of the Milvian Bridge is in error. It is a conflation and misunderstanding of two Authors: Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea.

In Eusebius's Life of Constantine you will read that before the battle Constantine looked up at the sun and saw a cross of light and the words "in hoc signo vinces" or in this you will conquer.

Eusebius:
He said that about noon, when the day was already beginning to decline, he saw with his own eyes the trophy of a cross of light in the heavens, above the sun, and bearing the inscription, Conquer by this. At this sight he himself was struck with amazement, and his whole army also, which followed him on this expedition, and witnessed the miracle.He said, moreover, that he doubted within himself what the import of this apparition could be. And while he continued to ponder and reason on its meaning, night suddenly came on; then in his sleep the Christ of God appeared to him with the same sign which he had seen in the heavens, and commanded him to make a likeness of that sign which he had seen in the heavens, and to use it as a safeguard in all engagements with his enemies.​

He also took this sign to promise him a thirty years reign, hence the speculation surrounding this vision and the phenomenon of a Solar Halo.

I see nothing in Eusebius' work to support this promise.

Just after this part of his work, Eusebius describes the Labarum with its Chi-Rho as used during the campaign against Licinius. This has lead to centuries of confusion between the cross of light and the Chi-Rho.

Lactantius describes the sign that Constantine had placed on his shields due to a dream and describes a latin cross with a rounded top, the Staurogram (The work in question is called On the deaths of the Persecutors).This sign was likely carried at the Milvian bridge, not the Chi-Rho, but due to their similarity and the general disuse of the Staurogram, they became conflated.

Ok, having reread Eusebius I can see my mistake, although it is plain that the sign on the shields of the soldiers at Milvian is the very same Chi Rho used on the Labarum.

It is a common misperception that Constantine bore the Chi-Rho initially, but he only started using such a flagrant Christian symbol from about 317 AD when it appeared on Imperial coinage. The fact is that Constantine did not know which god had favoured him initially, so it is unlikely that the sign would have been so clearly a Christian symbol.

According to Eusebius, Constantine was fully aware that it was Christ who had favoured him, having come to him in a dream.

Chi-Rho was already in widespread Christian use at the time and Constantine's mother Helena was a Christian so he would have been aware of it. If he had used the Chi-Rho at that stage it would also have clearly shown him to be pro-christian, a fact that his enemies would have commented upon in their propaganda, yet they did not say a word about it.

What propaganda by which enemies are you referring to?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In response to Prodromos:

I refer back to the above work by Lactantius on the symbol used at the Milvian bridge. Eusebius nowhere says a Chi-Rho was used initially.
It was just a trophaeon in his words, which was a Staurogram or an upright pole with a crosspiece and usually something on top. It is close to the Chi-Rho, but they are not the same. Other contemporary writings also more closely match a Staurogram than a Chi-Rho (The pagan pangyrics for instance). If you read a little, you will see that there is even debate whether the Labarum initially used a Chi-Rho or not.

The part about the thirty year reign is derived from the Seventh Panegyric to Constantine and Maximian, bringing a pagan perspective to Constantine's vision. It is however referring to an earlier, but very similar vision of 310 AD, and not in Eusebius as such. I apologise if I had written it in such a way as if it was. It was merely to illustrate the connection of the vision to the solar halo phenomenon, as later writers compared the two visions or have implied they were one and the same. Constantine may have conveniently postdated his vision to just before the Milvian Bridge for effect, but this is of course speculation. Regardless, Constantine held he had been promised a thirty year reign in such a vision.

Eusebius had written long after events and in a Christianising empire. It was advantageous to the ruling dynasty to clearly show Constantine's commitment and a supernatural vision seems a very convenient starting point.
From the events and his activities surrounding the battle, it is clear that Constantine had in no way committed to Christianity at this time. Rather we see clear solar imagery in use on his coins as I had previously mentioned. This is why most scholars believe he had not assumed his vision to be of the Christian God at the get go, a view that seems to me quite definitive.

The propaganda to which I am referring doesn't exist because no Chi-Rho was used. There was however a protracted propaganda war between Licinius and Constantine following their division of the Empire in which both courted pagans and Christians alike. Mostly we just have Constantine's version of course, painting Licinius a cruel tyrant and enemy of the Christians and old traditions alike.
At that stage however the Pagan Aristocracy was still quite a power. Licinian propaganda would depict Constantine as forgetting the old gods etc if he had used the Chi-Rho or openly sided with Christianity, but this just doesn't happen. Such propaganda would likely have survived if it existed as it would be a valuable corroborating source to later mythmaking of Constantine.

 

[JoeP222w]

I've read theories of Constantine mixing Sun worship with christianity when christianity became legal in Rome.

Do any of you have an opinion on this?

Even if this is the case, Christians don't follow Constantine, they follow Christ.

 

[Wgw]

I've read theories of Constantine mixing Sun worship with christianity when christianity became legal in Rome.

Do any of you have an opinion on this?

Yes. It's an absolute lie. See the thread on the dating of Easter in General Theology for my rationale.

 

[JackRT]

Even as late as the sixth century popes were still warning Christians against worshipping the sun.

 

[Wgw]

Even if this is the case, Christians don't follow Constantine, they follow Christ.

It's not the case. And St. Constantine is an example of a man of evil saved by fairh in our Lord. It was a miracle that the holder of an office that hadnsince Nero sought to eradicate our faith would convert to it; a protege of the worst persecutor, Diocletian, no less!

The glory and awesome power of God is evident on several historical occasions where the persecution of Christians suddenly and abruptly ended: the conversion of St. Constantine, the downfall of the oppressive Moorish regime in Spain, the demise of the radical Revolutionaries of France, and of Robespierre, and indeed the eventual defeat of Napoleon, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe, the independence of Armenia, and most spectacularly in recent memory, the end of the Soviet Union.

Truly, God has kept His promise in Matthew 16:18

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

It's not the case. And St. Constantine is an example of a man of evil saved by fairh in our Lord. It was a miracle that the holder of an office that hadnsince Nero sought to eradicate our faith would convert to it; a protege of the worst persecutor, Diocletian, no less!

The glory and awesome power of God is evident on several historical occasions where the persecution of Christians suddenly and abruptly ended: the conversion of St. Constantine, the downfall of the oppressive Moorish regime in Spain, the demise of the radical Revolutionaries of France, and of Robespierre, and indeed the eventual defeat of Napoleon, the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Europe, the independence of Armenia, and most spectacularly in recent memory, the end of the Soviet Union.

Truly, God has kept His promise in Matthew 16:18

The persecution had largely ended before Constantine's conversion. Besides, it was mostly driven by Galerius, not Diocletian, if you look at the sources. The Romans persecuted Christianity in fits and starts and in no way consistently. There was no real program to attempt its eradication, even from Nero who merely sought a convenient scapegoat.

The Moors in Spain was not a sudden defeat, it was a slow and piecemeal Reconquista. Unless, you were thinking of the Almohads? But even then, not a sudden reversal.

The Ottoman Empire also had more than a hundred years of slow decay as the Sick Man of Europe before its fall. Its fall actually really precipitated the persecution of Christians, when they were in power, they were quite tolerant.

Its a nice thought, for which I applaud you, but the history isn't very sound I am afraid.