Text 1: Historian Park argues that Constantine's conversion to Christianity in the early fourth century was sincere. The emperor's legal reforms favoring Christians, his patronage of churches, and his eventual baptism, Park contends, reveal a personal faith that transformed the Roman Empire.
Text 2: Historian Singh acknowledges Constantine's pro-Christian actions but argues that sincerity is the wrong question. Whatever Constantine personally believed, his policies served strategic purposes — uniting an empire under a single religion, securing the loyalty of growing Christian communities. Asking whether he "really" believed, Singh contends, distracts from understanding why he acted as he did.
Based on the texts, how would Singh (Text 2) most likely respond to Park's argument?
- A
She would claim Constantine was hostile to Christianity.
- Bcheck_circle
She would argue that whether Constantine was sincere is less analytically useful than the strategic context of his actions.
- C
She would agree that personal sincerity is the most important question.
- D
She would deny that Constantine took any pro-Christian actions.
Explanation
Singh accepts the actions but reframes the analytic question away from sincerity. C captures this. A reverses; B and D contradict her.