Jump to content

Talk:Eusebius of Nicomedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Year of Death Inconsistent in Article[edit]

The beginning of the article states that Eusebius of Nicomedia died in 341, but under the heading "Death and aftermath," the year is given as 342. Logan.allec (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've made his date of death 341 throughout the article using the online source of the Catholic Encyclopedia.Coinmanj (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


It wasn't Eusebius of Nicomedia who wrote the 'Ecclesiastical History', but Eusebius of Caesarea!

Also there are significant spelling errors and errors of construction.


The article states that "Arianism did not penetrate beyond the elite in society." Quite a few "Arian" theologians of various schools seem to have had lower-class origins, including Arius, Aëtius (theologian), George of Laodicea, Eunomius, Ulfilas, Philostorgius... Jacob Haller 04:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion that Pope Sylvester I baptized Saint Constantine the Great[edit]

In all fairness and neutrality, please allow the following sources to remain on the main page. Thank you.

See The Roman and British Martyrology. Publisher: O’Neill and Duggan, Dublin, 1846. 31st December, p. 427: "In Rome, the feast of St. Sylvester, pope, who baptized the Emperor Constantine, and confirmed the decrees of the Council of Nice." Also see The Roman Breviary, translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess of Bute, K. T. Publisher: William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1908. Vol. 1, Winter, Dec. 31: Pope St. Sylvester, Matins: Second Nocturn: Fourth Lesson, p. 307: "Silvester [I.] was a Roman by birth, and his father’s name was Rufinus. ... In his thirtieth year he was ordained Priest of the Holy Roman Church by Pope Marcellinus. In the discharge of his duties he became a model for all the clergy, and, after the death of Melchiades, he succeeded him on the Papal throne, [in the year of our Lord 314,] during the reign of Constantine, who had already by public decree proclaimed peace to the Church of Christ. ...It was Silvester who caused him [Emperor Constantine] to recognise the images of the Apostles, administered to him holy Baptism, and cleansed him from the leprosy..." and The Roman Breviary, translated out of Latin into English by John, Marquess of Bute, K. T. Publisher: William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh and London, 1908. Vol. 2, Summer, November 9: Dedication of the Cathedral Church of the Most Holy Saviour, at Rome, Matins: Second Nocturn: Fifth Lesson, pp. 1346-47: "But when the Emperor Constantine had by the Sacrament of Baptism received health both of body and soul, then first in a law by him published was it allowed to the Christians throughout the whole world to build Churches, to the which holy building he exhorted them by his example as well as by his decree. He dedicated in his own Lateran Palace a Church to the Saviour, and built hard by it a Cathedral in the name of St. John the Baptist, upon the place where he had been baptized by holy Silvester and cleansed from his leprosy." Also see the Liber Pontificalis for December 31 and the inscription on a side of the St. John Lateran obelisk at Rome which reads, "CONSTANTINUS PER CRUCEM VICTOR AS SILVESTRO HIC BAPTIZATUS CRUCIS GLORIAM PROPAGAVIT." (Della Letteratura Italiana, by Cesare Cantù. Publisher: Presso L’Unione Tipografico-Editrice, Torino, 1856. Chap. 5, §4, p. 338) CatholicCrusade2013 23:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Modern historians consistently say that Eusebius baptized Constantine, and the Catholic Encyclopedia says "On 22 May, 337 Constantine the Great died at Nicomedia, after having been baptized by Eusebius, bishop of the place." That encyclopedia is otherwise harshly critical of Eusebius, so is clearly not biased in his favor. Wikipedia articles should summarize what respected historians say. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to understand that unless you are a "modern" historian your testimony is worthless? I am simply requesting that the well-held opinion of Sylvester's baptism be listed alongside what is written as "fact." That is how you present something neutrally. CatholicCrusade2013 19:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CatholicCrusade2013 (talkcontribs)
I am saying quite clearly that we prefer sources by modern academic historians to translations of centuries old devotional works. A source that claims a leprosy cure 1700 years ago is unreliable on the face of it. This is a secular encyclopedia. But we don't rule out high quality modern religious sources. I mentioned the Catholic Encyclopedia above, which is a much better source than those you listed. It agrees that Eusebius baptized Constantine. You should find a 20th or 21st century academic source that discusses both sides of the dispute. Then we would have a basis for adding the contrary point of view. But I assure you, not a single experienced editor will accept an inscription on the side of an obelisk in Rome as a reliable source. You've got to do much better than that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 20:32, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness and neutrality? Well-held opinion? Seriously? It's widely debunked by Catholic scholars as deriving from a forgery. That you wish to perpetuate myth as fact on this topic is preposterous. I cited the 1916 Liber Pontificalis, and there are many many many more recent and modern interpretations backing this up; I just can't be bothered to list them all for you but they are easy to find. Stop pretending legends are facts; it's patently ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvesterjay (talkcontribs) 14:52, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The baptism is held being performed by Sylvester I by the Catholic Church though, and also the Coptic Orthodox Church as well. I don't see why the Coptic Orthodox Church out of anyone would want to side with the Pope on this especially after Chalcedon. Also it is held by the Antiochan Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Russian Orthodox Church, and by the Serbian Orthodox Church. To me it seems illogical why all of these Churches would support the idea of Pope Saint Sylvester I baptizing Saint Constantine if this was not the case...






Velomirovic, Nikolai “St. Constantine, Equal to the Apostles” The Prologue of Ochrid. (Serbian Orthodox Church Diocese of Western America: May 21, 1999)

Plus if he was baptized by an Arian bishop, there would be a lot of questions why he would be venerated as a Saint considering an Arian baptism is invalid.



Regardless of the Catholic Encyclopedia which, although is a very good source to use, don't get me wrong, I use it extremely often, gets some other things wrong such as details about Saint Peter, etc. The Vatican approves of this portrait found on their website of the Baptism of Constantine: https://m.museivaticani.va/content/museivaticani-mobile/en/collezioni/musei/stanze-di-raffaello/sala-di-costantino/battesimo-di-costantino.html

Saint Jerome:

“[S]eeing that a man, baptized in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, becomes a temple of the Lord, and that while the old abode is destroyed a new shrine is built for the Trinity, how can you say that sins can be remitted among the Arians without the coming of the Holy Ghost? How is a soul purged from its former stains which has not the Holy Ghost?” (Dialogue Against the Luciferians 6 [A.D. 382]).

There would be a lot more problems if Eusebius of Nicomedia was the one who attempted to baptize Constantine which would be considered invalid by the Church Fathers than had Pope Saint Sylvester I baptized him. From a theological and historical perspective, it wouldn't add up if Eusebius had baptized him.

Like mentioned earlier, what is especially strange is Eusebius's recording of the alleged baptism of Constantine, as not even the Coptic Orthodox for which he is canonized in say that Eusebius of Nicomedia had baptized Constantine, rather what we find is an almost if not a unanimous confession of Pope Saint Sylvester I baptizing Saint Constantine the Great. We have only the account of Eusebius challenging the accounts of the Churches themselves.

Also, according to Eusebius's Official Wikipedia Article, Eusebius' Life of Constantine, which he wrote as a eulogy shortly after the emperor's death in AD 337, is "often maligned for perceived factual errors, deemed by some so hopelessly flawed that it cannot be the work of Eusebius at all."[1] KEleison (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear god, this entire conversation is patently ridiculous. That you are hyping myth as fact in the 21st century is a testament to just how biased your faith makes you to the truth. THERE IS NOT A SINGLE, LEGITIMATE CATHOLIC SCHOLAR WHO SUPPORTS YOUR CONTENTION. You do realize that saying 'the coptic church' believes it is not a valid argument for its truth? Your argument is entirely without ANY scholarly merit, it's all your belief and those of the references you cite. There is no dispute whatsoever that the Sylvester/Constantine baptism is a legend that appeared a century after Eusebius's chronicle.

I came across this article today from an ACTUAL scholar and historian of the church: https://www.academia.edu/43555504/Sylvester_I

″The hagiographic text known as Actus Silvestri was started in the early decades of the 5th century CE with the intention of ennobling the memory of the Roman seat in such a crucial phase of Christian history. Its purpose was also to hand down another version of Constantine's conversion, one that was different to that disseminated by pagan sources, and especially to amend the historical memory of the Arian baptism that the emperor received at the end of his life, and instead to attribute an unequivocally orthodox baptism to him, imparted by Sylvester himself to a leprous and persecuting Constantine. Despite this clearly being a reversal of historical memory, still recalled by Jerome in his Chronicon (s.a. 337 CE), the legend of the Actus replaced very promptly the official version and enjoyed enormous fortune throughout the Middle Ages. There are reports of its dissemination in Rome at the end of the 5th century CE (Decr. Gel. 4.4.3), handed down between the end of the 5th century and the 6th century CE through the Symmachian apocrypha (the Constitutum Silvestri in particular, see Wirbelauer, 1993, 228) and later by the Liber pontificalis (Duchesne, 1886–1892, 170), but it gained more and more credibility in relation to the development of the cult of Sylvester. Its 'authority particularly increased between the end of the 5th century and the start of the 6th century CE through the interventions of Pope Symmachus'.″

Alright, I guess we should leave the article as it is. Also I'm not biased to my faith, this topic literally doesn't matter to my faith but the question just is who was Constantine baptized by. It's not like I'm saying he was never baptized, but there are multitudes of sources on both sides that have nothing to do with the forged Donation of Constantine. Instead of an ad hominem attack on my adherence to the Church which itself does not infallibly define who baptized Saint Constantine, this article should just include both positions and let the readers figure it out themselves as regardless of the modern scholars, there is only a limited area of information where who baptized Saint Constantine could be found. In this regard, a source from a thousand years ago or today still has the same validity as this is a historical question. You're acting as if I had never read these sources myself as well. I'm confused as well to which one is the case about who baptized Saint Constantine. I don't know, so let's leave the article expressing both sides of the case without bias. I can pull up scholarly articles and books too about him being baptized by Pope Saint Sylvester I, but to settle the matter like I said, let's include both positions in a neutral POV for which a reader who would actually be interested in this topic of his baptism could search up on his own. KEleison (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia articles are no place for Catholic forgeries. It can be mentioned in relation to the topic, but you do not get to state that it's a disputed fact and let people sort it out for themselves. The fact is everything around Constantine and Sylvester is a legend and it was used in several forgeries as a basis for the myth of papal primacy, from the Symmachian Forgeries to the Donation of Constantine. Others don't have the knowledge to sort fact from forgery, so you present the facts. You don't just get to dismiss what you don't like or what contradicts your faith and claim it's neutral. The matter has been settled by scholars, there is zero debate about who baptized him and that the Sylvester legend is an abject forgery. Further, Saint Jerome, the secretary of Pope Damasus and the writer of the Vulgate, the GUY WHO WROTE THE CATHOLIC BIBLE, notes in the continuation of Eusebius of Caesaria's Chronicles, 40 years after the death of Constantine--so contemporaneously--writes that Contstantine was baptized by E of Nicomedia. Now why would he have done that if it wasn't the truth? Wouldn't this guy, o all people, have written Sylvester if if was true?

Constantine, baptized by Eusebius of Nicomedia at the very end of his life, falls into the dogma of Arius, and from that time until now seizures of churches and discord of the whole world have followed. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/jerome_chronicle_03_part2.htm

As to your faith, I am not making an ad hominem attack, I am drawing attention to the fact that it most obviously colours your opinion. Something you amply demonstrated with your above posts, 'here look at all this circular reasonsing as evidence.' This is a place for facts, not what you believe. I took a look at your profile, and frankly it is frightening; you come across as a zealot, particularly in your desire to be martyred. You want to be a priest, well your zealotry may get you denied in the psychological screening. However, if you do get accepted, you are in for a huge, rude awakening. You are going to learn all these historical truths in your studies, and your worldview is in for one hell of a shock. Might I suggest you stop accepting as gospel truth whatever you think is a true, and start looking at real scholarship--not from theologians, but from actual scholars who have spent their careers doing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylvesterjay (talkcontribs) 05:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have written and created a new indepth Wiki article on the legend of Sylvester baptizing Cosntantine; it is linked in the article, but I am putting it here for anyone wished to educate themsevelves on this myth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Sylvester Sylvesterjay (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ Ferguson, Thomas C. (2005). The Past is Prologue: The Revolution of Nicene Historiography. Leiden/Boston: Brill. pp. 10. ISBN 90-04-14457-9.


His denomination is listed as Eastern Orthodox, a church/denomination that would not become distinct for another 700 years. I'm going to change this to "Arian Christianity". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhilMiner (talkcontribs) 19:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Archbishop of Constantinople"[edit]

He is listed as Archbishop of Constantinople. This is like listing an Antipope as a Pope. Eusebius wasn't lawfully elected to the See and he was not received by the Bishops and the people in Constantinople — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 20:07, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like how he became archbishop, but there seems little doubt he exercised the position for several years. In the meantime, don't edit-war. See WP:EW. And do use the edit summary to tell editors what you are doing, see WP:ES. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]