Edom and Christianity

In Talmudic and Rabbinic Literature both Rome and Christianity are often identified with Edom.  The popular assumption is Rome was identified with Edom first then it was applied to Christianity after it became the dominant religion of Rome.  However both these identifications seem to start in the Fourth Century with Rhetoric from the Jewish Revolt against Constantius Gallus, so the identification going the other way is just as plausible.

There is a poetry to associating Christianity with Edom from a Jewish POV that I think many overlook.  Christianity is an Abrahamic Religion but one that unlike Islam identifies itself with Isaac over Ishmael in Romans 9:7-9 and Galatian 4:28.  

The relationship between Edom and Israel in The Hebrew Bible is complicated, they are often enemies yet their shared kinship is never forgotten.  In Deuteronomy 23:7 God tells Israel to always welcome Edomites even though the then contemporary King of Edom refused to let the Israelites pass through their territory back in Numbers 20:14-21.  Esau himself was not ultimately a bad person and in fact plenty of Rabbis will acknowledge that he was partly in the right in his conflicts with Jacob.  And sometimes the worst aspects of Edom’s legacy is entirely placed on Amalek.  

One of the very few direct references to Esau in the New Testament is in Romans 9:10-13 where Paul quotes Malachi’s opening verses.  What Calvinists ignore is the role this plays in the greater context of this part of Romans going into chapter 10 and 11 where now those God “hated” before are being blessed and Israel is under temporary spiritual blindness.  So Paul himself is arguably poetically identifying Gentile Christianity with Edom, and doing so to specifically a Roman audience.  There’s also the interesting case of how James in Acts 15:15-17 quotes Amos 9:11-12.

I’m a Leftist, but one common opinion among Breadtubers I don’t like is the notion that "Judeo-Christian" is a problematic term that shouldn’t be used.  They say it from two angles, one of “how dare you suggest Jews and Christians ever have common ground”, but the other angle is that it’s offensive to exclude Muslims.  However this fact that Jews see Christianity as Edom itself proves that they do see the common Isaac based heritage and thus see Christianity as closer to them then Islam is in some senses at least.  However the name of Isaac does not phonetically lend itself to making a derivative term like “Abrahamic”.  I’m not one of those Christians who wants to deny Islam is Abrahamic, for better and for worse they are the true heirs of Ishmael, but there are contexts where it’s necessary to be more specific.

But now let’s also look specifically at the Fourth Century Context of Jews in The Roman Empire.  

The Empire was claiming to now worship the same God yet was still enforcing Hadrian’s ban on them entering their Holy City of Jerusalem.  Hadrian didn’t just forbid Jews entering Jerusalem but even living anywhere Jerusalem was visible from, Jerusalem is visible from as far away as Bethlehem.  Hadrian didn’t resettle the area primarily with expats from Italy, Rome didn't quite do Colonialism like that, no most of it was moving around nearby Gentiles.  

The Idumeans seemingly disappeared from history after AD 70.  I imagine some Christians want to interpret Bible Prophecy so this is when they were wiped out, fulfilling many Hebrew Bible prophecies about Edom, but if The Jews survived this then the Idumeans who were even less centered around Jerusalem certainly did.  Maybe in time a good number became Christians.

The city of Eleutheropolis is an interesting case, also known as Bayt Jibrin and Baitogabra.  In Josephus it seems like the Idumeans of this town were completely wiped out or expelled in AD 68, but its references in the Midrash Rabba (Genesis Rabba, section 67) show Jews still saw it as Edomite well past that point.  The Roman Emperor Septimius Severus gave it the status of ius italicum meaning its citizens were all legally considered Roman Citizens.

Whether or not this city actually had a Pre Fourth Century Christian Community is hard to determine, tradition says Joseph Barsabas Justus of Acts 1:23 was its first Bishop but there are no historically confirmed Bishops till Macrinus who was at The Council of Nicaea, that could be just because they didn’t practice Episcopal Polity till Nicaea.  Acts 8:1 says after the martyrdom of Stephen the believers scattered all over Samaria and Judaea, this Idumea is part of what's Judah in Joshua 15 so that could be included here, and Mark 3:8 does refer to Idumaeans as among those having come to listen to Jesus.  In the Fourth Century Eleutheropolis is said to have the largest territory of any Bishopric in Palestina which is shocking considering that Province includes the very important Early Christian Bishoprics of Caesarea and Jerusalem.  I've seen some sources claim Eusebius of Caesarea lived in Eleutheropolis but I'm unsure I trust that claim.

Christian Rome also refused to let Jews live in Hebron, a city important in The Pentateuch but that had also become Idumean after the Babylonian Exile.

The Bishop of the Christian Community in Rome when the Edict of Milan was issued was named Militades, a Greek name that comes from a Greek word for Red that more specifically means “Red Earth”.  Edom is a Hebrew word for the color Red deliberately spelled the same as Adam which means Earth/Ground/Dirt.  

So the logic behind seeing Christianity as the symbolic heirs of Edom in the Fourth Century both locally in Palestine and in the heart of the Empire is sound.

Ignatius of Antioch was not an Apostolic Father

A tradition developed that Ignatius was another student of John alongside Polycarp and Papias.  But Papias doesn't mention Ignatius, Polycarp does mention someone by that name but not as a fellow student of the same teacher.  Nor does Ignatius in his seven authentic letters ever claim to be a student of John or to have a shared mentor with Polycarp.  Polycrates's letter defending Quartodecimanism doesn't mention Ignatius either.

The oldest surviving sources on Polycarp being a student of John are Irenaeus of Lyon (who is considered a student of Polycarp) and Tertullian of Carthage.  Neither of them says anything about Ignatius being a student of John or even mention him by that name at all.  Irenaeus does seem to quote an Ignatian letter once without naming who he's quoting.  (I now believe the John who Polycarp and Papias knew was not the son of Zebedee, but that's another topic.)

The teachings of these letters seem to me to be a clear product of the increasing Platonist influence on the early Church that in my view largely started following the death of Plutarch but even more so during the reign of Hadrian.

I have also come to agree with the theory that Ignatius of Antioch was the same person as Peregrinus Proteus.  Now this idea is usually promoted online by Atheists or others who believe a lot of other things about Early Christian History I don't agree with, but that's fine.  This website is one example.

https://vridar.org/other-authors/roger-parvus-letters-supposedly-written-by-ignatius/

Now I don't agree with everything about their particular way of arguing this theory.  I'm a lot less interested in arguing the Ignatian letters have been changed from their original form.  I believe the letter to the Romans is even in the text as we have it not actually claiming Ignatius is being taken to Rome, that's a misunderstanding of what it says.  I also disagree with their conclusion that Ignatius is an Apellean.  The aspects of the letters that lend themselves to seeing similarities to Marcion, Apelles or others called Gnostics are a product of Middle Platonist and/or Neopythagorean influence that started to increase in the Early Church in the mid 2nd Century.

I do agree on the mid 140s probably being when the letters were written and with the Philo mentioned in the letters possibly being Theophilus of Antioch who is often considered the first to explicitly teach Creation ex Nihilo.

Tatian and Athenagoras each referred to Peregrinus very negatively and Tertullian is a bit more sympathetic but still acknowledging he was an Apostate.  None of these three ever quote the Ignatian letters.  

Here is a list of similarities I'm going to copy/paste from one of virdar's articles.

• Both are prominent Christian leaders in the same part of the world and were active at about the same time, the second quarter of the second century.

• Both are reputed to be prophets. Peregrinus “had become their prophet, cult-leader, head of synagogue, and what not, all by himself.” The author of the letters claims to have spoken “with the voice of God” (IgnPhil. 3:1) and to receive revelations from the Lord (IgnEph. 20:2).
  • It is sometimes thought that Lucian made a mistake in saying that Peregrinus was head of a ‘synagogue.’ But that word means ‘assembly’ and the author of the letter uses it too to tell his readers to assemble more frequently: “Let synagogues be held more often” (IgnPoly. 6:2.)

• Both figures are associated with a convocation of Christians that drew participants “even from the cities in Asia.”

• Both wrote treatises and last-will type letters of advice and rulings. Peregrinus “sent letters to just about all the important towns, a sort of last will and testament, with advice and rulings… ” This description is an equally apt way to describe the letter collection.

• Both figures conferred titles on their messengers. Peregrinus called them “Death’s Messengers” and “Couriers of the Grave.” The author of the letters called his “God’s Ambassadors” and “Couriers of God.”

• Both figures display an unusual interest in taking on additional names. Peregrinus liked to call himself ‘Proteus’ (TDOP 1) and, later, Phoenix (TDOP 27), while the author of the letters is careful in all seven of them to refer to himself as “Ignatius who is also Theophorus.”

• Both figures have a remarkably similar death wish and loudly profess their desire for martyrdom. Peregrinus, while he was a Christian, wanted to “gladly die in order that he might leave behind him a reputation for it.” Later, after he became a Cynic, he longed “to die like Heracles, and dissolve into thin air.” Compare this to the author of the letters’ longing “to be an imitator of the passion of my God” (IgnRom. 6:3) and “to be visible to the world no more” (IgnRom. 3:2). Notice how in both cases the desire to imitate God is expressed. And in one instance we have total consumption by wild beasts, and in the other total consumption by fire. Do we not seem to be dealing with the same person whose mindset, despite a change of religious affiliation, remained basically the same? Earlier in life he wanted to die suffering like Christ; later, after a transfer of allegiance, he wanted to die like Heracles?

• Access to both prisoners by their religious supporters seems unusually easy. Peregrinus’ supporters “even slept inside with him after bribing the guards. Then elaborate meals were brought in, and sacred books of theirs were read aloud.” (TDOP 12, Harmon). Similarly, the author of the letters has no problem meeting with the Christian delegations that come to see him. He even asks the Ephesians to let one of their number – a deacon named Burrhus – stay on with him to keep him company (IgnEph. 2;1). When he writes to the Philadelphians he has with him a deacon named Philo “ministering to him in the word of God.” (IgnPhil. 11:1). And when he says his guards “are treated well” (IgnRom. 5:1) the reference is apparently to bribes.

• And both figures have a friend with a similar name. Peregrinus, while still a Christian, began to dress like a Cynic, and when he finally was expelled by the Christians he took up Cynicism under the guidance of someone named Agathobulus. The author of the letter collection too knows someone with a name like that: Agathop(o)us. And his description of him as a man “who has renounced this life” (IgnPhil. 11:1) has a Cynic-like ring to it. If Ignatius is Peregrinus, it may be that his Cynic friend too abandoned Christianity when Peregrinus was shown the door.

I find it odd that they mention Peregrinus liking to use multiple names but are still inclined to assume the name Ignatius came later.  I suspect the names he used in these letters were names mainly other Christians knew him by and that the names Lucian primarily used came from his later time as a Cynic.

I also find it interesting that they fail to notice Ignatius's role in popularizing Episcopal Polity as itself another reason to identify him with Peregrinus.  Because Lucian's account does stress that Peregrinus became a leader of the Christians claiming more authority for his office then any prior leader since Jesus Himself.

11.    "It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine.   And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He inter preted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom¹¹ they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.

So that should show how sus Episcopal Polity always was.  (Also note that Lucian doesn't question the existence of Jesus.)  

Kenneth A Strand wrote some articles theorizing about the origins of Episcopal Polity that I find useful but I disagree with some of his conclusions.  Even if the Angels of the Churches in Revelation are human members of those Churches that doesn't mean they had Episcopal Polity already just that they served the role of Messager.  

And his argument that the Churches Ignatius is stressing Episcopal Polity to in his letters to them were the ones that already had it I think is a mistake, in my view it's if anything the opposite, I think Ignatius was arguing for it to the Communities most strongly resisting it.  For example we know from Polycarp's own surviving Epistle that he was merely one among a group of Bishops/Elders at Smyrna.  Also later Church Historians like Eusebius couldn't even construct an imagined pre-Nicene line of Bishops for Philadelphia so I feel Philadelphia never became Episcopal till the Fourth Century.  Clement of Rome's authentic episode is evidence that Rome had Episcopal pretty early, as do traditions surrounding Hyginus.

Ignatius's Episcopal Polity is probably itself another Platonist influence, Plato argues for Monarchy being the ideal form of Government in both The Statesman and The Republic.  Plutarch was also strongly Anti-Democratic and he was a big influence on Second Century Platonism.

Ignatius, Justin Martyr and Tatian were the three earliest Christian to stress Free Will in a way that implies humans become Sinners of their own Free Will, planting the seeds of Pelagianism.  This was another influence from Plutarch who expressed the same Free Will sentiments in his criticism of the Stoics.  For Justin Martyr it also comes up in the context of criticizing the Stoics (these critics of Stoicism overstated how deterministic Stoicism was).  Tatian claimed to be an opponent of all Greek Philosophy including Plato, yet the Theology he developed is virtually indistinguishable from contemporary Middle Platonism.  That's because the Platonist influence on him was indirect with one key middle man being his old mentor Justin.

Peregrinus was excommunicated from the very Syrian Church he had lead, he should not be considered a reliable authority on anything.

Update August 13th 2025: Polycarp's letter mentions the name of Ignatius 4 times. The first of them in 9:1 is among a list of martyrs already passed but the other three in 13:1-2 seem to be to a still living contemporary.  They are I think separate individuals and the latter ones are to the authors of the Ignatian Epistles.  It's possible both were Antiochians, I now believe Peter was burned alive in Antioch in AD 67 so Ignatius could be a name multiple Antiochene Christians took as a reference to that.  The first could be the one who's time as a leading Christian at Antioch was 68-107 or 83-115, but the author of the letters who I view as Peregrinus Proteus was active in the 140s.

Constantine and the Edicts of Toleration

The Great Man Theory of history is discredited but sill influences popular History, and with no one is that more apparent then Constantine.  Both people who like Constantine and people who hate him love to paint him as a singular nexus point for why the centuries following him seem so different from the centuries preceding him.

The AD 313 Edict of Toleration wasn't made by Constantine alone, it was co-authored with Licinius, Constantine didn't rule the East, where most of the persecution was happening, till a decade later.  Licinius would be accused of backing off on this toleration later but most historians now view that as propaganda, he actually possibly became a Christian himself at some point, that's Absolutely the impression Lactantius gives in his account.  Also there is no Evidence of Licinius being worshiped as Pharoah in Egypt even though he controlled Egypt for over a decade directly succeeding Maximinus Daza from Egypt's Perspective.

But more then that the first Edict of Toleration was the one issued by Galerius on April 30th AD 311.  Galerius was one of the chef architects of The Great Persecution to begin with so it making him synymous with how it ends is pretty awkward.  But this edict was made over a year and a half before the Battle of Milvian Bridge.

After Galerius died Maximinus Daza revived Persecution in the East, but he didn't rule all the East, it was shared with Licinius, exactly who controlled the Province of Asia is hard to determine with sources I can easily find online.  And claims that Maxentius persecuted Christians are even more provably false then Licinius, Lactantius in Of the Manner in which The Persecutors Died in chapter 43 refers to Maximinus Daia (what he calls Daza for some reason) as the only adversary left even though Maxentius was still in power in Rome at the time referred to.

Galerius seems to have genuinely believed in the Christian God in some capacity when he made his Edict.

"Wherefore it will be the duty of the Christians, in consequence of this our toleration, to pray to their God for our welfare, and for that of the public, and for their own; that the commonweal may continue safe in every quarter, and that they themselves may live securely in their habitations."

There is evidence some regions were on the way to booming majority Christian already before the Diocletian Persecution started.  And Paganism still thrived in certain regions into the fifth century.  

One ruler's fixation alone would never be enough to entirely change a nation's religious destiny.  Akhenaton tried to completely change Egypt's religion and it failed utterly with everything he built falling apart as soon as he died, same with Aurelian's Sol Invictus protect in the 3rd Century.

Arianism and Islam

Last year I obtained and read the book Early Arianism - A View of Salvation by Robert C. Gregg and Dennise E. Groh. 

Before I read this book I thought of the Arian heresy as being like as a Tolkien Nerd viewing Jesus as Manwe rather then Eru Iluvatar, due to it being defined casually as believing Jesus isn't Co-Eternal with The Father but is still Divine in a sense including still having a Preexistence as The Logos.  

However reading this book and how well it quotes what little we have of the arguments of the Earliest Arians (and responses to them) has made me realize that they did view Jesus as being in His core essence no different from any other Human, even how He's the Son of God is simply as the First-Born of how all Believers are Sons of God.

They did believe Jesus had a Pre-Existence, but if they believed all Humans also had a Pre-Existence then that doesn't conflict with what I just said.  The book doesn't address that, but it does show they put a lot of emphasis on arguing Jesus did not have any inherent advantage over other Humans in His ability to be Sinless.  If only He had a Pre-Existence then that would be an advantage.

I'd spent years being annoyed at Arianism being characterized by uninformed casuals as being a belief that Jesus wasn't Divine at all but just a Human.  The truth is however that is exactly what the Early Arians believed, they only believed Jesus to be Divine in the same way they and Orthodox-Nicene-Trinitarian Christians ultimately believe all Humans to be Divine (or all Believers at least).  They were different from other ways of denying the Deity of Christ only in the semantics of how they define things.

This book was about stressing the Arians' view of Salvation, but by that it means the how of Salvation, so for example whether or not the Arians even considered Universal Salvation doesn't come up.  All the Proto-Pelegian stress they put on Free Will makes it seem unlikely at first glance, but Athanasius put some stress on Free Will as well and we know he taught Universal Salvation.

What the title of the book means by Early Arianism is the very first generation, Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia and one or two other less well known contemporaries of them.  The Arians who were prominent later in the 340s-80s were divided into three distinct sects who some might argue none of which was really a pure continuation of the original Arianism.  So the possibility that one or two or all of them became the Manwe-Jesus type Arians I initially thought of is still possible, but I don't know everything about any of them.

Two of these groups get called Semi-Arians, the Homoiousians (who in time became almost entirely also Pneumatomachi/Macedonians) and the Acacians also called Homoians/Homoeans.  These kinds of Arianism were the ones actually advocated/promoted by the two Arian Emperors and went on to become the Arianism of the East Germanic Barbarians.  The third group were the Aetians also called Anoumians, Eunomians, and Heteroousians, and some modern scholars even call them Hyper-Arians.

On the issue of Ousias itself the Acacians were the ones following Arius's original intent, it was Constantine himself who added Homoousianism to the controversy at Nicaea, the Ousias of Christ wasn't part of Arius's original definition of his beliefs at all.  However in other ways Acacius of Caesarea does seem like he was compromising.  It may well be the "Hyper Arians" who were the true Arians of this period.

During the Reign of Constantius II Arianism gained a presence in Arabia via Theophilus the Indian.  Theophilus however had a complicated relationship with the Arian Emperors since he ultimately sided with the Aetians.  Aetius himself was Syrian and the boundary between Syria and Arabia was pretty flexible in Roman times, they never built any major walls there. 

Mawiyya was a Pro-Nicene Arab Queen rebelling against the Arian Emperor Valens, but Valens was also persecuting the Aetians so maybe the Aetians among the Arabs weren't really hindered by Mawiyya at all?

I have prior posts on this Blog exploring the theory of Islam being originally a heretical sect of Christianity.  I do believe Mohammad literally existed and that his hostility to the Fatherhood of God made his brand of Abrahamism from the start distinct from whatever older sects it descends from.  I also still support the Petra as the original Mecca theory.  

Now my past looking into this focused on the Ebionites and then Nestorians.  However while doing that I learned how John of Damascus, our earliest source to provide any detailed description of Islamic Doctrines, said Muhammad was influenced by Arianism.  And Arian connection is later repeated in the 10th Century by Thomas Artzruni.  I had originally dismissed that idea largely because of the above mentioned assumptions I'd made about Arianism before reading this book.

The Qur'an teaches Jesus isn't Allah, but does call Him a Word from Allah and uniquely without Sin. It does consider Him The Jewish Messiah and to have been born of a Virgin.  It also teaches a general Preexistence for all Humans and so certainly implies one for Jesus as well.  

Honestly there is a lot of overlap between theorizing Arian origins for Islam and the Nestorian theory, if you read Early Arianism already knowing as much about the Nestorian Controversy as I do you'll notice the Arians have some of the same concerns like Divine Impassability, which makes me rethink the possible influence of Lucian of Antioch on Arianism.  A lot of these theories on Islamic Origins suggest Syriac Liturgy explains a lot about the Qur'an and Aetius could have written a Syriac Liturgy of his own or his followers could have modified an existing one. 

But Nestorians are Trinitarians, so Islam is closer to Arianism then Nestorianism theologically.  Meanwhile Islam's inclusion of the Virgin Birth is an issue for the Ebionite theory.  And specifically Heteroousianism perhaps best explains the Islamic emphasis on condemning "Associators". 

Once again I should repeat that NO the Qur'an does not say Jesus didn't die on The Cross, that is a common misunderstanding that plenty of both Muslim and Christian scholars have refuted.  The Sura commonly alleged to say otherwise is merely denying that the Jews can claim credit for it.

https://www.alislam.org/articles/death-of-hazrat-jesus/

Valentinian's Imperial Threesome

Valentinian is the Christian Roman Emperor said to have engaged in Polygamy, below is Copy/Pasted from his Wikipedia Page.

Socrates Scholasticus gives an interesting account in his Historia Ecclesiastica of Valentinian's marriages, that has inspired some to call this emperor polygamous. According to the text: the empress Justina^[53]

became known to Marina Severa, wife of the emperor Valentinian, and had frequent dialogue with the empress, until their intimacy at length grew to such an extent that they were accustomed to bathe together. When Severa saw Justina in the bath she was greatly struck with the beauty of the virgin, and spoke of her to the emperor; saying that the daughter of Justus was so lovely a creature, and possessed of such symmetry of form, that she herself, though a woman, was altogether charmed with her. The emperor, treasuring this description by his wife in his own mind, considered with himself how he could espouse Justina, without repudiating Severa, as she had borne him Gratian, whom he had created Augustus a little while before. He accordingly framed a law, and caused it to be published throughout all the cities, by which any man was permitted to have two lawful wives. The law was promulgated and he married Justina, by whom he had Valentinian the younger.

— Socrates Scholasticus, Historia Ecclesiastica, IV.31

Now Wikipedia goes on about how scholars doubt the veracity of this claim, citing sources from a Century later who instead say Severa was exiled before he married Justina, and referring to the lack of evidence of this Law legalizing Polygamy.

Independent verification of this Law probably vanished because later Emperors expunged it.  What we now know of Roman Law largely comes through the compilations and reforms of Theodosius and Justinian.  

It's also theorized that this comes from someone wanting to smear Justina for her perceived later support of Arianism.  But this is an odd way to go about calling her a Slut.  Also Socrates Scholasticus is known for his lack of interest in demonizing Heretics, he is so kind to the Novatians that many have assumes he was one, but then others point out that he showed the same fairness to the Arians.

What fascinated me here is that this really isn't just an example of standard Patriarchal Polygyny.  It starts with Severa seeing Justina naked and getting turned on in-spite of being a Woman.  This wasn't a strictly Het plural marriage, this was a True Threesome.

Valentinian is also an interesting Emperor for his Domestic Economic Policies as well.  A lot of the negative things said about him are from Senatorial Class historians, who indeed still dominated the writing of Roman Imperial history even during Christianization.  Valentinian made reforms to help the Poor including providing them with Healthcare.  Even though during this era The Church was already starting to lose it's Anarcho-Communist roots, Valentinian was still, if we tried to force modern political terms on the era, at least a Social Democrat.

Scholars also like to doubt the alleged Arianism of Valens because of Valens' closeness to Valentinian who was his brother.  But Valens definitely had a different economic philosophy then his brother being much more fiscally Conservative.  Brothers can disagree on Religion just as easily if not more so then they do Economics.  That forcing an Arian Bishop on the Arabs was the reason for Mavia's revolt is pretty hard to deny.

This also kind of repeats the situation of the children of Constantine.   Now the fact that in both cases the Nicene got the West while the Arian got the East might make one suspect all Four Emperors were just pandering to the popular winds of their populations.  But often popular opinion is influenced by the rulers.   And to me the evidence shows that Arianism wasn't popular with the common people in most of the East, just among elites in Bithynia.

Papirius and Melito of Sardis

Polycrates of Ephesus in the letter he wrote to Bishop Victor of Rome as it is preserved for us by Eusebius of Caesarea says something interesting when he gets to Sardis.

"or the blessed Papirius, or Melito the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?"

I should remind people that the word Eunich in antiquity was not used only of people literally castrated, there is a lot of evidence that "Born Eunuchs" were anyone assigned male at birth who was pretty much incapable of being sexually aroused by women.  That can apply to a number of modern Sexual/Gender identifies, Gay Cis-Men, Straight Trans Women, Asexuals and more.

Now I think a relationship between these two is implied even in Eusebius wording here, but the grammar seems kind of awkward like someone tried to de-emphasize something.

I definitely feel Eusebius version of this letter is slightly corrupted, maybe not by himself but rather by how it was passed down in Rome before it got to him.  Chiefly I theorize that the name of "John" was not originally in this letter, that will possibly be the subject of a future post.

As far as this section goes, here is my theoretical reconstruction.

"or the blessed Papirius and Melito the Eunuch who lived together in the Holy Spirit, and who lie in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when they shall rise from the dead?"

I didn't change that much at all really.

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 even that Law agaisnt Pagan Sacrifices was made in 341 when he was still not 20 yet.

He championed the Nicene faith creating 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.

And of course like many demonized Homosexuals there was a desire to paint him as a "Pederast", but those who applied that Trope to Constans seem to have overlooked that he never even lived to see 27.

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.