Was Constantine the Great's heavenly sighting cooked up

after the event?

By Patrick Maloney

June 2011 Fortean Times, 275

Outside the south door of York Minster, there is a statue of a seated man. He looks
pensively at the sword he holds, point down, in his left hand. The tip has broken off.
The sword has become a cross. The man represented is Flavius Valerius Aurelius
Constantinus, who was, on 25 July 306, declared Emperor of Rome within a few
yards of his modern statue. He was the man who converted Rome to Christianity,
the man who would be declared both a saint and a god after his death.
On the base of the statue are the words Constantine. By this sign conquer. This
refers to one of the defining moments in the history of Western civilisation: the
vision that led Constantine to victory at the battle of Saxa Rubra, when his forces
defeated those of one of his rival emperors, Maxentius. This in turn led to
Constantines acceptance of Christianity and his imposition of it on the whole
Roman Empire.
This is such an important moment that it bears closer examination. There are two
sources for the vision of Constantine. One is Lucius Ccilius Firmianus Lactantius,
the Christian tutor of Constantines eldest son, Crispus. The other is Eusebius
Pamphilus of Csarea.
The most famous and dramatic account is that of Eusebius, who relates in his
panegyric to the deceased Constantine, Vita Constantini, that the day before the
battle of Saxa Rubra (27 October 312), Constantine was praying, and begging God

to reveal Himself. As he prayed, at around midday, a most marvellous sign

appeared in the sky. A cross of light appeared, above the Sun with the inscription In
hoc signo vinces (By this sign, conquer). Constantine and his entire army of close
to 100,000 men were amazed at the sight.[1]
That night, Eusebius reports, Constantine had a dream. In his dream, Christ
appeared to him and ordered that Constantine make a likeness of that sign which
he had seen in the heavens and use it as a protective in all his future battles.
So what was it that Constantine saw? Artists through the ages have attempted to
depict the scene, but have done so in only the most fantastical way. The most
obvious solution is that it was a particularly bright parhelion (a Sun dog or mock
Sun). The specific association that Eusebius makes with the Sun might support this.
These images are caused by ice particles high in the atmosphere and are relatively
common. Given clear skies, they can be seen on average about twice a week, if
looked for carefully.[2] Very bright parhelia are rarer, yet should still have been
known to Constantine, who would have spent far more time outdoors than we do
today, and would consequently be more familiar with aerial phenomena.
Recently, the drama-documentary TV series Ancient Rome[3] espoused the
theory that Constantine and his army witnessed a meteorite strike, the smoke
from the blast curling into a slight (and unconvincing) Chi-Rho shape. Both armies
would surely have witnessed either event signs in the sky are not meant for one
man, but for all.
There are two other versions of the events of that day, both written closer in time to
the actual events, neither of which refer to a vision, and one of which was written by
Eusebius himself. Eusebiuss first account appears in his Ecclesiastical History
(c325). Here, the battle is described in somewhat mystical terms, the hand of God
being more visible than the sword of Constantine. Maxentius is accused of sorcery,
but there is no mention of a vision or a dream.[4]
The final account is that of Lactantius. In his book On the Death of the Persecutors,
he writes: Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be
delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle.[5]
No mention of any vision. But note the use of the phrase heavenly sign usually
taken to mean the Chi-Rho monogram. Could Eusebius have interpreted this as a
sign actually seen in the heavens? For despite his claiming that Constantine saw
a vision, there is simply no mention of it anywhere else, not even in his own works.
Only the Life, written some time after Constantines death, mentions it.
Interestingly, however, Constantine did once claim to have seen a vision. This
was much earlier, before a battle in Gaul, and was of Sol Invictus, the martial
emperors god of choice.[6] Here again we find a close association with the Sun.
The conclusion seems clear. Eusebius, living in a time when visions and miracles
were an accepted part of everyday life, saw that Constantines momentous turn

towards Christianity should have been accompanied by a suitably dramatic divine

vision. It is a slight matter to transpose Constantines earlier vision of a false god to
where it should have happened, and to modify it to a vision of the true God; and yet
that association with Sol remains as a tantalising hint of the origins of the story. All
the ingredients of the vision story preceded its first telling it just took Eusebius to
correct history to suit the new Christian regime.
Notes
1 Eusebius: Life of Constantine, bk 1, ch 28. The dream reference is in ch 29.
2 Atmospheric Optics. _http://www.atoptics.co.uk/halo/parhelia.htm
3 Ancient Rome Constantine, BBC, 2006.
4 Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, bk 9, ch 9.
5 Lactantius: On the Deaths of the Persecutors, ch 44.
6 John Julius Norwich: Byzantium: the Early Centuries, Penguin, 1990, p42.
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=30697.0
__________________________________________________________________

The following evidence I would like to submit as a footnote, so that Patrick

Maloney's readers may think more about Constantine's association with
Sol with which he enticingly concludes his thought-provoking essay.

1. Sun Crosses have been venerated from pre-historic times

A Neolithic Sun Cross

Sun Wheel pendants, dating to the late

2nd Millennium BC (found in Zurich)

2. A Sundog, mentioned in Patrick Maloney's study, resembles a Sun

Cross and would have been regarded as portentous by solar devotees

3. In Imperial Rome Mithraism was a cult of the Sun

This ornate plate, in Sun Cross form, was found in a Mithraeum: despite
intermediate radial wedges that might suggest a Sun Wheel, it is a beautiful and
surprisingly accurate representation of a parhelion (Sundog or Mock Sun).

4. There is no denying that in the Roman Church a cult of the cross

did develop, monstrances being strongly suggestive of Sun Crosses
There are many videos evidencing syncretism within the Church of Rome,

such as
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erlIoFmz_AU

5. What we must be careful to avoid doing if we are exploring the

impact of Mithraism on early Christianity
Despite the strength of Mithraic sun-worship in the Roman Empire, the
original Nazarene creed of the first believers (1 Cor.15:3-8), which Paul
learned from the disciples who had been key eye-witnesses to Jesus's ministry,
death and resurrection, owed nothing to, and had imported nothing from,
paganism*.
Please watch this honest video on the alleged similarities between early
Christianity and Mithraism, which argues that any CREEDAL borrowing must
have been by Mithraists from Christianity, not vice versa.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahLm6jmxDTo.

In addition, this site (essential reading to counter cynics, even of Catholicism),

Evidence for Jesus and Parallel Pagan "Crucified Saviors" Examined,

refutes sceptical claims that Christ's life and death had been modelled on the
lives of pagan gods which had similarities:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/JesusEvidenceCrucifiedSaviors.htm
You may also want to read this briefer debunking of the Jesus/Mithras
connection at http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/travilocity1.htm
________________________________________________________________

* However, there is no denying the fact that Christ was NOT born on 25th December,
but on the first day of Tabernacles or Sukkot. It was the Mithraic celebration of the
birthday of the Unconquered Sun (Sol Invictus) that fell on 25 th December, that is
commemorated in the Catholic celebration. Solid scriptural proof that Christ's birth
occurred during the feast of Succoth (Sukkot) is provided by Greg Killian in his
excellent paper at http://www.betemunah.org/birth.html

6. An apologist puts his case for Constantine's genuine conversion

A coin struck in 313, depicting Constantine as the companion of Sol Invictus

If Constantine truly worshipped Sol Invictus, even portraying the icon on his
coinage, why does the Church insist that he converted?

http://www.churchhistory101.com/feedback/constantine-sun-worship.php

7. So what was The Vision of the Cross? A Sundog!

In The Vision of the Cross by Raphael (1520-24) (above), Constantine is

wearing the glory crown of a devotee of Sol (the origin of the use of haloes in
Roman Catholic artwork). Maloney writes that Constantine had witnessed a
parhelion on the eve of a battle in Gaul, years before the Milvian Bridge
confrontation with Maxentius's forces on 28 October, 312 AD. Being a practical
military man, Constantine would hardly have seen it as signifying the presence
of the supernatural. Parhelia were public knowledge, having been mentioned by
Cicero (On The Republic, 54-51 BC) and brought to the attention of the early
Senate as meteorological phenomena worthy of note in their own right. Yet
portentous meaning might well have been ascribed to it for military reasons,
since Mithras, who was honoured by the Legions as the patron of loyalty to the
Emperor, was identified with the Sun. So perhaps Constantine marked his men's
shields with Sun Crosses () on that previous occasion in Gaul.
Eusebius's mention of the whole army being witness to the spectacle suggests a
Sundog. This counter-evidence prevails over Lactantius's allusion to a cryptogram by God's hand being seen: such a prodigy would have been widely reported, and yet Eusebius' first account of the Battle of Milvian Bridge (Eccles. Hist.
ca. 325) made no mention of a dramatic heavenly vision nor any other writing
of the period! We agree with Paul that Church initiatives undertaken on the
basis of preposterous delusional claims always signal apostasy (2 Thess.2:3-12).
Caligula's imposture of deifying himself in God's temple had been his clue as to
how future Caesar types in the Church would avenge themselves on the sobriety
of Jewish monotheism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-69KEIMtyZ8

8. Constantine's Chi-Rho monogram was first described by Lactantius

Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as
he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter X, with a
perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top (P),
being the cipher of CHRISTOS. Having this sign, his troops stood to arms.
Lactantius (On the Deaths of the Persecutors, chapter 44.5)

9. A monogram, formed from the first two Greek letters of the epithet,
Chrestos (XPHCTOS, kindly good), of Osiris, god of earthly regeneration in
the power of the Sun, matches Lactantiuss description and predates Christ

Chi-Rho (XP) on a coin from the reign of Ptolemy III (ca. 246-221 BC)

CHRestos Osiris (Underworld King) CHRestos Mithras (Province Ruler)

* The Romans via the Persians worshipped the sun

under the title Chrestos Mithras (Torah Institute).
http://www.fossilizedcustoms.com/christian.html
The title Sol Invictus, Osiris's XP and honorary tag were
transferred to Mithras for imperialist ends. Cicero wrote,
"By reverence and religion we have subdued all nations."
This is robbing God of the right to supremacy on earth.

Chrestos was one of the epithets traditionally ascribed to Osiris (Picknett and
Prince's, Templar Revelation, p.372). In addition, according to J.B.Mitchell in
the excerpt below, the Chi-Rho was the chrestomathic mark of the ancients:
Osiride." It is therein stated tantine adopted and placed on
that "Osiris was the Good
the imperial standard or labaDeity, the beneficent king,
rum by divine command, at
who was able to conquer the the time of his conversion to
world by persuasion alone" Christianity. The so-called
("De Is.et Os.", xiii.); and
monogram of Christ, however,
again: "Osiris and Isis were is neither more nor less than
the Good Divinities" (Ibid., the ordinary chrestomathic
xxviii). That <Xprjoro> was mark of the ancients, standing
https://archive.org/stream
for "good, excellent", which it
/chrestosareligi00mitcgoog the conventional as well as
/chrestosareligi00mitcgoog the accurate rendering of the was customary to put on the
djvu.txt
Egyptian term, as applied to margin of manuscripts to indiIsis and Osiris, we have evid- cate noteworthy passages.
CHRESTOS (pp. 19-20)
ence in an inscription publish- That Constantine should have
It was in Egypt (later ruled ed by Boeckh and beginning adopted a sign which had long
previously been in use to
by the Greek-speaking Ptole- ISIAI XPHCTH. (" Corp.
mies) that the part played by Inscr.," t ii., p. 245, n. 2,300). denote chrest is full of signifithe (Egyptian) epithet <Xpr- No one has better described cance enhanced by the fact
the career of Osiris in his
that Constantine's conversion
joro> was most prominent.
There the whole land was full special character of the Good was in a great measure due to
God, than Wilkinson. "Osiris," the representations of an Egyof the worship of the Good
ptian (Zosimus, Hist.Nov., lib.
God, Hesir-Onnofri, King of he says, "was called the
manifester
of
Good."
(Manners
ii, c. 29). The influence that
Kar-neter (Hades) and Judge
of Souls; and hardly was there and Customs of the Ancient was exerted by the unwitting
to be found an inscribed tomb Egyptians," by G. Wilkinson, transference to Christ of the
of any importance without his vol. iii., p. 69; Lond.,1878). signification of the word
Chrestos (good, excellent,
name and distinctive title of
beneficent, gracious) for it
the Good, the Excellent, the
CHI-RHO
(pp.34-36)
means all that, but especially
Gracious, expressed by the
the "goodness of God" (Rom.
sign J. Thanks to Champollion
Until quite recently it was
ii., 4) was probably greatly
and his many eminent
successors, nothing is more generally supposed that the increased by the circumstance
certain in the whole range of cross in one form or another that, as the aim of Christian
morality was the practice of
Egyptology than the consecra- had served the primitive
Christians as the emblem of "that which is good" (Rom. ii.,
tion to Osiris, in his mystic
character of Ruler in the realm their faith. But the researches 10), so the highest good,
Summum Bonum (Cic. De
of the departed and Judge of of De Rossi, Le Blant and
others
have
made
it
certain
Fin.,5.6) was the ethical
Souls, of the special title of
the Good, Bonus, XPHCT0S. that the monogram, composed objective of devout Pagans
Even before the art of deciph- of X and P, which are the two and more particularly Stoics,
ering the hieroglyphical chara- initial letters of both XPICTOS among whom (it) was a
familiar expression.
cters had been acquired, this and XPHCT0S, preceded
could be made out from Plu- every purely crucial emblem.
tarch's treatise, "De Iside et This was the sign which Cons-

Moving on from Chrestos Osiris and Chrestos Mithras, we come to...

Chrestos Christos!
It is not likely that there was any essentially marked or significant difference
between Chrestos and Christos. They may have been used more or less
interchangeably. But the insatiable tendency of the ancient mind to devise
constructions that would graphically pictorialize basic principles, laws and
truths took form seemingly in this instance in seizing upon the two names,
Chrestos and Christos, as descriptive of the two stages of incarnating and
resurrected Messianic Deity. This is the one inescapable theme of ancient
religious writing. It would match the other two-fold designations such as SutHorus, Horus the Elder-Horus the Younger, Osiris-Horus... and other pairs that
represent the two opposite phases of Deity, the God in matter, the Karast, and
the God restored to heaven, as the Christ. Much Christian thought even makes
the distinction between Jesus the man and Christ the God. It was in all
probability the case that the religionists referred to Jesus as the Chrestos, or
good man who was to be through and after his initiations and transfigurations reborn into the true Christos. The reason, then, for the indicated tendency
for the Christians to change the term Chrestos over to Christos is plainly seen.
It was their obvious purpose to establish the claim that their divinely prophesied
and celestially-born Messiah had indeed become the fully deified Saviour.... But
it is of no little weight to establish the datum that the term Chrestoi, meaning
good people, full of sweetness and light, was pre-extant to Christianity.
The above has been extracted from page 162 of this masterly treatise:
Who Is This King of Glory?: A Critical Study of the Christos-Messiah Tradition
By Alvin Boyd Kuhn

The Roman historian Tacitus believed that

followers of the Nazarene called
him Chrestos. In his Annals, Book 15, chap.
44, produced in 109 , he wrote Chrestian,
rather than Christian. But a Greek copyist
has obviously edited XPHCTIAN in the
second Medicean Manuscript to read
XPICTIAN. I have added this to
corroborate Alvin Kuhn's thesis above.
http://historum.com/ancient-history/24520chi-rho-symbol-chrest-archeology-chrest.html

10. Other gods, besides Osiris and Mithras, not only had the Chrestos
epithet but were assigned a birthday on the solstitial date of 25th December
With the introduction of the Greek mystery religions, the Chrestos cognomen
was applied to more gods with solar attributes, just like Osiris (god of
resurrection and fertility, commanding nature's cycles in the power of the
endlessly reborn Sun) and Mithras (all-seeing divinity of the truth, protector of
contracts, cattle, the harvest and the waters, identified in Rome with Sol
Invictus). Pagans found similar reasons to apply the Chrestos epithet to Apollo
(patron of rationality and intellect, god of light, truth, oracles, music and
healing, http://www.truthbeknown.com/apollo-chrest.html), Dionysus,
considered by Plutarch to be Osiris's twin (god of wine, joy, theatre, revelry,
ritual madness and religious frenzy), Hermes (patron of invention, art, artifice,
literature, animal fables, travel, trade, god of heralds, shepherds, athletes and
feasts, http://www.truthbeknown.com/suetoniuschresto.html) and Heracles
(mankind's strong protector and patron of childrens' games,
http://www.gardinersworld.com/?p=78), because, like the Sun, they all banished
evils and gloom from the Earth.
We might expect that these pagan rays of sunshine would all share the same
birthday as Horus (the Egyptian sky god who incorporated the Sun) and Mithras
(Sol's offspring) 25th December; and they do. Prometheus (stealer of fire from
the gods, symbolizing the progress of civilisation) and Adonis/Tammuz (god of
beauty and desire) join Dionysus, Bacchus, Hermes and Heracles, who all had
their birthdays three days after the Winter Solstice. Apollo, however, despite
being the Sun's imaginary charioteer, was not feted with the other gods on this
day according to one expert, but on 4th March:
http://cosmoquest.org/x/365daysofastronomy/2009/03/04/march-4/
I conclude this roll of honour of pagan solstitial gods by pointing out the
disconcerting fact that will not have been lost on the reader, that the archetype
that fits most closely with the celebration of Christ's Nativity by the unbelieving
world today is the way the ancients emulated the quintessentially beneficent
and fun-loving nature of their adopted gods, Hermes, Dionysus and Heracles on
this festive occasion even naming them Chrestos!
Plus a change...
http://www.honortheson.com/home/holidays/323-december25th.html.

____________________________________________________________________

P.S. The Mithraic rites of Sol Invictus centred on the sacrifice of demon bulls.

Mithras's slaying of a demon bull was re-enacted by initiates as a militaristic

test of masculinity, stamina and strength in a rite known as the taurobolium.
Mithras became so identified with the display of martial power that Aurelian
made him the principal patron of the Empire in 274.