THEORY LEVEL: Constantinople was Old Rome of the Bible

The following Is an article brings up some skepticism In the story that has been handed down. After one studies the Bible, ancient Eastern and Western history, and Isn't afraid to ask some questions. Thinking of Rome as being In Italy seems strange, when there Is never any mention of massive naval landings, everyone speaks Greek, and all the New Testament churches are In modern Greece, Turkey, and Palestine. Also we realized after studying the Orthodox church that the Pope was never more than an equal Bishop until after the Schism In 1054AD. Later In 1204 the Pope attacked Constantinople at the 4th Crusade.

Alexander conquered the Persians, Babylonians, and Assyrian hordes In 330BC. Then his Generals ruled the divided Kingdom through the time of the Maccabean revolts where 100 thousand strong land armies were marshaled against Jerusalem... Then we are told the the Italian Rome Is who held sway from Italy to India..

1 Maccabees 1:1-8 (Septuigent)

1 And it happened, after that Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who came out of the land of Chettiim, had smitten Darius king of the Persians and Medes, that he reigned in his stead, the first over Greece,

2 And made many wars, and won many strong holds, and slew the kings of the earth,

3 And went through to the ends of the earth, and took spoils of many nations, insomuch that the earth was quiet before him; whereupon he was exalted and his heart was lifted up.

4 And he gathered a mighty strong host and ruled over countries, and nations, and kings, who became tributaries unto him.

5 And after these things he fell sick, and perceived that he should die.

6 Wherefore he called his servants, such as were honourable, and had been brought up with him from his youth, and parted his kingdom among them, while he was yet alive.

7 So Alexander reigned twelve years, and then died.

8 And his servants bare rule every one in his place.


The reason the following article Is so Important. Or rather why the two earliest quotes that Illustrate the term "New Rome" that the article discusses are so Important — and so misunderstood, are:

  1. Constantine became emperor and declared that he Is renaming Rome to Constantinople. (2nd source)

  2. Constantine states at the first council after that the Bishop of Rome gets honors then the Bishop of Constantinople. Because there was already a Bishop of Rome, now there needed to be a new office because there Is a new administrative designation.

  3. If America were to go through a Christian revival and remove paganism, then a new leader and administration, could declare this is a New America, America 2.0, the Second America.

  4. Another example to explain the administrative change. When Russia was taken over by the Bolsheviks In 1917 It was later reclassified as "The Soviet Union." It was still Russia but Administratively It was now referred to as the Soviet Union.

  5. There Is a Goshen Indiana, It Is not the place spoken of In the Bible that the Israelites camped outside of Egypt during the plagues. It was to give honor to the original place.

  6. Paul wrote to the Church of Rome (Constantinople).

  7. We may not ever know ever the exact nature of the upheaval that lead to and details of the Rise of the Pagan Pope, The East/West Schism In 1054, The Battle for Antioch In 1098, The Battle for Jerusalem In 1099, then the Battle for Constantinople In 1204... But If I were the Devil and I wanted to get people to doubt God I would start replacing truth with lies.

        1. Creation for Evolution

        2. True Earth for Baal Earth

        3. Israel for It's enemies

        4. 1000yr Orthodox Greek Kingdom for 1000yr of Latin Pope rule

And anything to hide, obscure, or displace those truths, because they are all backed up by the Word of God.


The myth of New Rome

Recently a minor debate arose on the Byzans-L listserv as to whether Constantinople was originally named by Constantine ‘New Rome’ (in Greek Νέα Ῥώμη, in Latin Nova Roma). I’ve read this claim uncritically a number of times in a number of sources, some of whom are quite good scholars, but it’s a bit like one of those popular attributions that no one ever bothers to check because Oscar Wilde (or Mark Twain) would have said something like that. We read it enough, we hear it enough, and we trust that the tradition we’ve received is accurate.

This is not 'New Rome.'

A case was made that the use of New Rome as a name for Constantinople was based on a sort of power struggle among the Churches of the East, and while the reasoning is sound and I accept the argument, I’m more concerned with the notion that New Rome was ever considered a name in the early period.

Adherents to the ‘New Rome’ position point to Canon III of the First Council of Constantinople (AKA the Second Ecumenical Council) of 381 CE:

Constantinopolitanus episcopus habeat priores honoris partes post Romanum episcopum, eo quod sit ipsa nova Roma

(The Bishop of Constantinople may have the better parts of honor after the Bishop of Rome inasmuch [the city] is itself a new Rome.)

This does not say that Constantinople was named ‘New Rome’ but that it was a new Rome, i.e., the seat of the Empire, a claim that no other city could make. If Rome was princeps urbium, then so was Constantinople, and it and its officials should be on similar footing.

It’s the city’s status, not its name that matters. By this logic the city council of New London, CT could officially decree for their mayor an equal share in the honors afforded the mayor of London, England. But would they?

The other source often cited does not say New Rome at all, but ‘a second Rome.’ This is the Ecclesiastical History of Socrates of Constantinople (1.16):

ἴσην τε τῇ βασιλευούσῃ Ῥώμῃ ἀποδείξας͵ καὶ Κωνσταντινούπολιν μετονομάσας͵ χρηματίζειν δευτέραν Ῥώμην νόμῳ ἐκύρωσεν·

(After making it known that it was equal to Rome under his administration and renaming it Constantinople, he decreed by law that it conduct its business as a second Rome.)

The crux here is the word χρηματίζειν, which many want to read in the sense ‘to take and bear a title or name,’ but the problem with this is that, again, it makes no sense to say that having changed the name to X, Constantine decreed that it take the name Y.

Think about that again: after he renamed it Constantinople he decreed by law that it be named Second Rome? Apply some thought.

The usual meaning of χρηματίζειν is to to do business, and specifically the business of the βουλή or the ἐκκλησία. Not only is Constantinople on the same footing as Rome, but it will follow the administration of Rome.

All of this talk of a ‘new Rome’ or a ‘second Rome’ has nothing to do with the city’s name, but with its status and administration.