FA+
Shop
440
Views
Views
3
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 172 x 124
File Size 5.5 kB
Report this content
More from Saara
Allow me to get pedantic. The coin picture here is fictional of course, and represents a non-existent gold solidus issued by the emperor Constantine that symbolizes his bequest of the entire empire to the Christian Church. This was a lie invented by the Church later in the Middle Ages. While Constantine favoured the Church and was likley baptized on his deathbed, there has never been any evidence of such a bequest. Indeed, it would make little sense in the way of thinking of a 4th. century Roman emperor. While Constantine certainly foresaw a unity of state and church, he clearly pictured the emperor as supreme, not the bishops. (This point of view continues more or less in the Eastern Orthodox world.)
Those of you with a smattering of knowledge of Roman money may know that the classical gold coin was called an aureus. Roman money had had a rocky history up to the time this ficitional coin was struck. In Constantine's time the aureus, struck at 60 to the Roman coin, was replaced by a new coin, a solidus, struck at 72 to the pound. It was a little ligther than the classical aureus, but after at least 50 years of fluctuating weights and purity, the new solidus maintained both for better than two centuries after its introduction. It was about the size of a dime, and around 92% gold, comparable to U.S. "eagles" and British soveriegns in the 19th. century.
My depiction shows a ducky Constantine in the style of the early 4th. century A.D. with the appropriate inscriptions. The reverse shows a design no numismatist has *ever* seen -- the emperor kneeling before a cross at the feet of Christ, with Sol Invictis above. (Early Christians saw Christ as a strong young man, and he was easily conflated with the non-Christian sun god, as Constantine seemed to.)
The only false note is the mint mark below the figures. It should probably read COMOB, meaning something like "fine gold, struck at the imperial court". A typical Roman solidus from around 310 A.D. would cost hundreds of dollars, even one or two thousand, depending on condition and scarcity of that exact type. This coin, confirming what no-one believes is true, would be literally priceless.
Of course it would change nothing. No government is about to turn over a nation to the Church because of a coin. Just as no Christian will change his beliefs even if archeologists identify the actual corpse of Christ in an ordinary tomb in the Middle East. Neither faith nor power work that way...
See also:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/718782/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/718792/
Those of you with a smattering of knowledge of Roman money may know that the classical gold coin was called an aureus. Roman money had had a rocky history up to the time this ficitional coin was struck. In Constantine's time the aureus, struck at 60 to the Roman coin, was replaced by a new coin, a solidus, struck at 72 to the pound. It was a little ligther than the classical aureus, but after at least 50 years of fluctuating weights and purity, the new solidus maintained both for better than two centuries after its introduction. It was about the size of a dime, and around 92% gold, comparable to U.S. "eagles" and British soveriegns in the 19th. century.
My depiction shows a ducky Constantine in the style of the early 4th. century A.D. with the appropriate inscriptions. The reverse shows a design no numismatist has *ever* seen -- the emperor kneeling before a cross at the feet of Christ, with Sol Invictis above. (Early Christians saw Christ as a strong young man, and he was easily conflated with the non-Christian sun god, as Constantine seemed to.)
The only false note is the mint mark below the figures. It should probably read COMOB, meaning something like "fine gold, struck at the imperial court". A typical Roman solidus from around 310 A.D. would cost hundreds of dollars, even one or two thousand, depending on condition and scarcity of that exact type. This coin, confirming what no-one believes is true, would be literally priceless.
Of course it would change nothing. No government is about to turn over a nation to the Church because of a coin. Just as no Christian will change his beliefs even if archeologists identify the actual corpse of Christ in an ordinary tomb in the Middle East. Neither faith nor power work that way...
See also:
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/718782/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/718792/
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 172 x 124px
File Size 5.5 kB
Interesting. Coptic Christians maybe? The reason the cross doesn't appear on early Roman Christian coinage is because the image of the crucifixion wasn't common in any Christian thinking at the time. Christ is almost always shown as a bearded king, with a nimbus, or sitting on a throne on Judgement Day. The cross began appearing on Byzantine coins from about the 6th. century, with the inscription King of Kings. From the 9th. century the image of the emperor was replaced by the bust of Christ, with elaborate nimbus and hand gestures. The cross then began appearing in Dark Age coins -- a simple design with four equal arms quartering the reverse. The crucifixion itself doesn't ever seem to have been a theme on coins, though there may be exceptions I just don't know about.
With reference to the last paragraph of your description: in the summer of 2008 the BBC began a series called Bonekickers, which is about a bunch of archaeologists who keep running into conspiracies aimed at stamping out archaeological evidence suggesting that historic/religious events didn't actually take place as the official auditors of history would like them to be portrayed. The general consensus amongst reviewers is that the series is rubbish, but I have to admit I'm finding it highly compelling rubbish, in a so-bad-it's-good kind of way.
That might have some connection with a "discovery" a year or two ago of a small stone ossary with the name James (I think) carved on it. It was supposed to be the box that once held the bones of Jesus brother. The amount of controversy it stirred up was silly. I mean, even if it was what the archeologist thought it was, so what? The documentary talked about it as though proving this was the real thing would prove the divinity of Christ. I wrote to the website and said it did no such thing. Everybody knows Jesus had a family and presumably they died and got buried like anyone else. At most the discovery would disprove the extreme opinion that Jesus might not have existed at all, and few believe that. The website "published" my remarks, and got one response from some hothead that I was trying to destroy peoples' faith. Rubbish. I wasn't. But some religious people think everything but genuflecting whenevery they mention holy words is offensive. But if talking sense is offensive to them, then so be it.
It was well known, even in Medieval times, that there were enough splinters of the Holy Cross to build an ark. The Church cynically explained it as miraculous duplication. A more honest critic would call it outright fraud. You'd think that if God wanted to inspire his believers that instead of a cheesy miracle like duplicating bits of wood, he'd creat a marvellous marble and ivory setting for a giant gold cross on the very spot where Jesus was crucified. But in Churcly explanations, God never does anything sensible or obvious. It's almost as though he were challenging you to believe. Here it is -- a miracle you can easily explain away or dismiss as concidence. I dare you to believe anyway!
Let's start a crusade against the Jains! There aren't too many of them, and they believe in non-violence, so for once we might actually beat them and eliminate a competing cult.
Let's start a crusade against the Jains! There aren't too many of them, and they believe in non-violence, so for once we might actually beat them and eliminate a competing cult.
Comments