Monday, October 28, 2019

Emperor Constans, The Homosexual Champion of Trinitarian Christianity.

There are numerous forms of Christianity today that for one reason or another feel The Church marrying The Roman Empire was overall a net negative.  And I myself am still largely of that way of thinking.  But I also understand the nuances and complexities of Ancient History enough that I really can't agree with how strongly these traditions tend to demonize Constantine himself.

Constantine wasn't perfect, but neither was David.  I oppose human Monarchy on principal, but if it's possible for Ancient Israel to have relatively good Kings, and for a Pagan King like Cyrus to be spoken of very positively in Scripture, then it's possible for some Roman Emperors to be at least okay.

I think the Milvian Bridge Vision story is fictional, but I think that because I think he was raised a Christian by his mother Helena (who I theorize descended from the Abgars of Osroene) and the conversion myth simply made a better story.

Some websites talking about the History of Imperial Christianity's persecution of Jews will claim it started with Constantine himself, but these claims are quite vague and unsourced.  The truth is the Edict of Milan granted Freedom of Religion to all religions, and Constantine stuck by that, the reason some accuse him of embracing the Arian Heresy in his last days is mainly just because he wasn't persecuting them.

But I'm not making this post to talk about Constantine, instead my interest today is the youngest of his three sons.

Constantine wanted his sons and his nephews to inherit The Empire together, but after he died in 337 AD the nephews were massacred.  You'll often see this incident described as if all three of Constantine's sons were equally culpable in it, but when this happened two of them were already over 20 while Constans was only 13 or 14, so clearly one is less morally accountable for what happened then the others.

The firstborn son Constantine II inherited France, Britannia, the Iberian Peninsula and a little bit of North Africa, the Straight of Gibraltar basically.  Constantius II got what we would call the Eastern Empire.  And the youngest Constans got Italy, Dalmatia and most of North Western Africa.  But because Constans was still a minor Constantine II was also his protector.

Constantius II embraced the Arian Heresy (though some will argue he was really more Semi-Arian) and proceeded to depose and exile Athanasius.  He was also the first Christian Emperor to use Caesar's sword against the Jews, indeed his persecution of The Jews provoked their first open rebellion against the Empire since the defeat of Bar-Khocba.  It was also under him that oppression of the Pagans began.

Constantine II felt like he should have got more then he did as the firstborn, and when Constans became of legal age he basically tried to kill him but it failed and he died in 340 AD resulting in Constans having the entire West.

Constans passed a law banning some Pagan Sacrifices, but he was Tolerant of the Jews.  And he championed the Nicene faith creating a conflict with his brother in the East.

Constans was a Homosexual, which created some conflicts even with the Nicene Clergy he supported since Platonist Homophobia was already taking hold in the Greco-Roman Church.  And I think this is the sole reason some accounts of this Emperor speak badly of him.

A Usurper's rebellion against him resulted in his death in February of 350 AD, Constantius II then went to war against the Usurper and for a time ruled the Entire Empire.

Later about 380 is when the Prophecy attributed to the Triburtine Sybil is believed to have first emerged, the earliest form of the Last Roman Emperor tradition.  I find it interesting that in this original from it was the name Constans not Cosntantine that was given to this future Emperor.  I think the common people of Nicene Christianity continued to view Constans as a Hero even as the establishment sought to either smear or forget about him.

While Tyranny in the Imperial Church began with an Arian Emperor, later Nicene ones would prove no better.  Theodosius (both I and II) and Justinian are the ones far more worth condemning as the Tyrants who turned The Church into an instrument of oppression.

No comments:

Post a Comment