Romans + Christianity

[Restitvtvs]

Great to see you again, especially here! Look forward to more of your great posts here. Best regards, +r

[Theodosius the Great]

Ave Restitvtvs,

I'm glad you liked my choice of pic. Do you want us to keep posting pics here or in some other place ?

Several books & websites summarize that Constantine wasn't baptized in the Christian rite until he was practically on his deathbed, and that during his last days or weeks, he also was ritually blessed by various pagan priests... Seems like he was hedging his bets.

Any other details, consistent or contradictory, or intrepretations about his religion(s) in his "last days"?

The first part : Death by baptism was typical Christian practice for the time. Apparently, there was no mechanism yet established to allow one to die in a state of grace (i.e. via the sacrament of confession). Baptism washed away your past sins permanently but you could only be baptized once. So most Christians opted to wait until they were near death. The first Christian Emperor to be baptized years before his death was Theodosius the Great - everyone thought he was on his deathbed, but to everyone's surprise (including himself) he recovered.

The second part : I hadn't heard this before, but I'm not terribly surprised. I guess he didn't want to break with all pagan tradition. My belief : He was a convinced Christian although perhaps not an orthodox one in some respects. (His son Constantius II certainly wasn't - he was Arian.) Since Constantine still ruled over a Pagan majority Empire, I don't think he wanted to alien them any further. After his death, I believe the Senate in Rome (still pagan) proclaimed him a god - maybe to undermine the new status of Christianity ?

Hey, I'm surprised Travis hasn't jumped in here yet.

[Restitvtvs]

Regarding posting images, Jasper offered that we could post images here, as well as link to off-site images. Image file size is my most likely limitation.

Anything relevant (per RAT rules) is OK with me. If this thread gets flooded with images, etc., we could always divide this broader "topic" thread into new, narrower "sub-topic" threads.

Thanks also for your reply on Constantine.

Pax Tecvm, +r

[NightHunter24]

I also think its impossible to understand early christianity without understanding the roman empire and civilization.

I think that christianity is best understood in its social / political context of the roman empire. neither can be fully appreciated without understanding both.

Right on the money sicarii sam. That's exactly my train of thought when it comes to Christianity, especially the formative years of the religion.

[tlclark]

Well we've discussed the sincerity/motivations of Constantine many times before but I think it would be useful to reiterate some facts.

First, Constantine was the first patron of the Major metropolitan churches in Rome, principally St. Peter's, S. John Lateran's and St. Pauls outside the walls. He greatly expanded the role and prominence of the early church and helped prospered its members. His mother Helena was a devoted Christian who was instrumental in reviving and establishing the pilgrimage sites in the Holy Land, which Constantine funded. He was also seriously involved in the major theological debates of his age and wrote correspondences to many of the major players of the Arian controversy. He was baptized on his deathbed and buried in a church, the Church of the Holy Apostles, which was constructed for his mausoleum so he could be in the presence of the sainted relics.

Paganism continued to be legal until the Theodosian purges and Constantine used many pagan symbols and associations in his art and coinage, principally that of Sol Invictus. He granted the petition of Italians to build a temple in his honor and he showed up to the Council of Nicea in the guise of Sol Invictus. His arch in Rome acknowledges the divine aid in his battle at the Milvian bridge but does not acknowledge the specific diety.

This is a confusing array of data.

There are three probable conclusions.

1. Constantine was cynically gaming the religious sentiments of the age. Either he was a believer in Sol Invictus or Christianity and was exploiting the other for political benefit, or he didn't believe in any of them and was exploiting both.

2. Constantine was a syncretist, combining features of both systems in his own personal beliefs, a common feature of the Late Antique era that Christians opposed but Pagans accepted without any qualms. Many heretical Christian sects accepted syncretistic beliefs. At this point in Christianity no councils had been convened to dissuade this practice.

3. He was a sincere Christian that adopted the visual vocabulary of the Late Empire, which at this time of his cultural milieu, including the cult of Sol Invictus. This is adaptation and appropriation and not syncretism. The pagan features of his reign are merely the trappings of empire and power, not religious profession and many of the era understood that. Many images of Christ at this time are modeled on the images of pagan gods or emperors. This does not imply syncretism or confusion on the part of Christians but rather a difficulty in expressing themselves in visual terms without a native vocabulary. Many Christian writers had huge problems with pagan imagery in Christian contexts yet its evidence is manifold.

For the record, I believe in number three. However, I would have to admit that the evidence supports the other two, especially number one, equally. I believe he was a sincere believer, but if I had to, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Travis

[Restitvtvs]

For the record, I believe in number three. However, I would have to admit that the evidence supports the other two, especially number one, equally. I believe he was a sincere believer, but if I had to, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Travis: Do you have a farm? :lol:

Seriously, thank you very much for your excellent overview, with three different, yet good possible explanations. Another Laud for you! +r

[Robert Vermaat]

There are three probable conclusions.

1. Constantine was cynically gaming the religious sentiments.
2. Constantine was a syncretist.
3. He was a sincere Christian.
For the record, I believe in number three.

Hmm... I'm with number two. He was a very shrewd survivor.

[Tarbicus]

Here's a webpage with imagery from 5th and 6th Centuries, which has a nice set of earlier Christian depictions.

[url:1eytds6f]http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/gaddis/HST210/Nov20/Default.htm[/url]

Not sure about the gladiators but the anti-Christian graffiti is rarely seen. I stumbled across it and thought it could go in this thread.

[JRSCline]

Reference to the spread of Christianity as a force in the Empire, try Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, ISBN 0-394-55495-7. It's 1989 vintage but still a definitive work on the subject.

A review from Library Journal:

Fox, a lecturer in Ancient History at Oxford, presents a detailed and scholarly account of Christianity and paganism prior to Constantine. He decribes pagan oracles, festivals, and cultic practices as they related to civic and community life in third-century Roman Empire; then, comparing these with Christian practices, he discusses the possible reasons for Christianity's ultimate triumph. Along the way, certain misconceptions are dispelled: Roman paganism was not dying out, as is sometimes supposed, nor was early Christianity primarily a religion of slaves. In fact, the Church had elements that made it unexpectedly attractive to all classes. The chapter on Constantine gives new insight into the reasons for his conversion. An excellent and readable account of a fascinating subject. Highly recommended.

Also found an excellently detailed review from Amazon.com:

Fox has written a definitive, if not THE definitive, study of the transition from Greco-Roman paganism to a Christian Empire. Fox paints a picture of a thriving pagan worldview, and debunks the view that paganism in late antiquity was already on its deathbed when Christianity came onto the scene. The book is divided into three major sections. The first examines the the nature of paganism in the Hellenistic World, and explores what it meant to "practice pagan religion" in the 3rd century Roman Empire. Fox pays considerable attention to the role of oracles in expounding pagan theology, and provides a more concrete study of how the ancients viewed the gods than I have seen elsewhere. In the second section of the book, Fox turns to the early Christians. He fleshes out the social and economic situation under which Christianity developed. The concerns and attitudes of 3rd century Christians are seen to be very different from those of their modern counterparts. Early Christians are seen to have had an obsessive, perhaps pathological, concern with sexuality and martydom that to modern sensibilities will seem extreme, even to a committed Christian. Fox considers such questions as to how quickly Christianity spread, how widespread it was in the generation before Constantine (not very), and who was likely to become Christian. Fox also considers why Christians were persecuted, while other groups (Jews, for instance) were not. In the final section of the book, Fox turns to the figure who proves to be most responsible for the triumph of Christianity--the emperor Constantine. Constantine is seen to have played a pivotal role in organizing the church, settling doctrinal disputes, and aggressively promoting the new religion, at the expense of the established paganism. Fox's answer to why Christianity triumphed seems in the end to be Constantine himself. The chance rise to power of a Christian emperor, who then put all the power of an emperor behind his religion, made all the difference. The rise of Christianity is then seen not as a result of any inherent superiority in that faith, or any fatal weakness in paganism, but rather as the result of what was essentially a historical accident. The biggest drawback of this book is that it ends with the death of Constantine. At the time of his death, the Empire was by no means Christian, nor was the end of paganism assured. Fox sets the stage for the rise of Christianity as a major religious force, but does not cover the endgame, which was to play out over the next two centuries.

Fascinating subject.

[Carus Andiae]

Here's a webpage with imagery from 5th and 6th Centuries, which has a nice set of earlier Christian depictions.

[url:3169p32s]http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/gaddis/HST210/Nov20/Default.htm[/url]

Not sure about the gladiators but the anti-Christian graffiti is rarely seen. I stumbled across it and thought it could go in this thread.

I've seen the 'Donkey Worshipper' one before and it's a bit of a puzzle; I understand the same epithet was applied to Jews (and Christians were - at least initially - seen as just another Jewish sect) but why donkeys? Were they a standard symbol of ridicule in Ancient Rome?

[sicarii sam]

"There weren't as much martyrs as some people belive. The whole martyrship cult didn't exist at all untill the 3rd and 4th century... "


I agree with this. outside of nero's persecution and Domitian, it was relatively sporadic and quiet. There were certain places where the local authorities did kill christians. Eusebius has some interesting things on this. One story is about the soldier who sought the advice from a bishop and what to do during a persecution. He went on and became a martyr.

One thing that many christians fail to recongnize is the 'smallness' of the movement for a long long time. It first was simply recognized as a jewish cult especially prior to 70 AD. When the temple was destroyed, christianity no longer revolved around the jewish christian dynasty and the temple system. Jerusalem ceased to be the citadel of christian authority. This historical fact is highly dismissed by most fundamentalists, especially dispensationalists. It really became the religion of gentiles due in no small part to the prior missionary work of Paul.

You also see the anti semitic thought creep into the writings of the early church fathers after the first century.

It started small then caught on with the slave population and rapidly changed the undercurrent of society. Constantine saw the tide growing more and more towards christianity and latched onto it.

No one can really know if he was a 'genuine' christian or not but without his actions, there might not have been a christianity as we know it today.

[tlclark]

There are three probable conclusions.

1. Constantine was cynically gaming the religious sentiments.
2. Constantine was a syncretist.
3. He was a sincere Christian.
For the record, I believe in number three.

Hmm... I'm with number two. He was a very shrewd survivor.

Ditto that. I suppose he could also be a combo of 1 and 2 or 1 and 3. I'll never forget the lecture by Cameron though - It's marxist methodology to assume that all historical players were insincere in their beliefs and manipulating people. After all, believers can be manipulative too!

[Theodosius the Great]

I agree with this. outside of nero's persecution and Domitian, it was relatively sporadic and quiet

Yes, the major ones were "on and off" but Marcus Aurelius was also numbered among the persecutors, unfortunately.

One thing that many Christians fail to recongnize is the 'smallness' of the movement for a long long time

I'm most interested in how big the movement was just prior to Constantine's ascension. Christians were not worshiping underground anymore, in fact, they had their own church buildings - many of which were closed or destroyed under Diocletian.

But according to the review of the book Jenny posted, the author seems to think Christianity wasn't very widespread. By "widespread" I assume he's talking about raw numbers (how can anyone come to a definitive conclusion, BTW ?) and not geographical areas. There were Christian communities to found in every major province of the Mediterranean basin stretching all the way to Spain - the furtherest place from Palestine in the Empire. So, I'd say it was very widespread in that sense.

You also see the anti semitic thought creep into the writings of the early church fathers after the first century.

The Christians were trying to distance themselves from Judaism since the Jews fought the Revolt of 66-69 AD. Christians didn't want to be associated with rebellious groups since they didn't want to incur the wrath of Rome on themselves as well. Although Jews and Christians were persecuted a big difference is that you don't see any revolts inspired by the latter.

It started small then caught on with the slave population and rapidly changed the undercurrent of society. Constantine saw the tide growing more and more towards Christianity and latched onto it.

I think the book Jenny refered to is right on this point : Christianity was NOT a slave religion like Judaism before the Exodus from Egypt. It was popular with some local aristocrats -especially women- and it trickled down from there. Of course, St. Paul was its main exporter but he didn't proselytize among illiterate slaves. He went mainly to the intellectual heart of the Roman world - Greece.

Christianity's strongholds were in the big cities and not the countryside. Christians were found in high levels of government , for example, in the court or inner circle of Constantius I and even Diocletian's. So, given that they were small in number but yet were to be found often in such high political positions, I believe it was just a matter of time before a Christian was to become Emperor.

So, I totally disagree with the author of the book when he says the rise of Christianity was an "accident."

[Restitvtvs]

Reference to the spread of Christianity as a force in the Empire, try Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, ISBN 0-394-55495-7. It's 1989 vintage but still a definitive work on the subject.

Internet seach for early/primitive Christianity bibliographies yielded only a few general academic works on the topic. Amazon.com search yielded similar results.

So far, the only other works besides "Pagans & Christians", that have generally good reader's reviews, are three by Ramsay MacMullen:

Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D. 100-400 (A.D. 100-400)
[url:1c97503t]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300036426/ref=pd_rhf_f_1/103-8180944-2527064?ie=UTF8[/url]

Paganism and Christianity, 100-425 C.E.: A Sourcebook
[url:1c97503t]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800626478/ref=pd_sim_b_3/103-8180944-2527064?ie=UTF8[/url]

Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries
[url:1c97503t]http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0300080778/ref=pd_sim_b_5/103-8180944-2527064?ie=UTF8[/url]

Your comments on these books?

Recommend any other books?

Your comments on these other books?

Thanks! Best regards, +r.

[tlclark]

I agree with this. outside of nero's persecution and Domitian, it was relatively sporadic and quiet

Yes, the major ones were "on and off" but Marcus Aurelius was also numbered among the persecutors, unfortunately.

The best indicator of the significance of Christian persecution is the letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan. They essentially adopted a "Don't ask don't tell" policy towards Christians.

The next best indicator is the "year of the martyrs" in 305. The Diocletian persecutions were a response in part to the pervasiveness of Christians in the civil administration. It shows how "bad" things had become.

One thing that many Christians fail to recongnize is the 'smallness' of the movement for a long long time

I'm most interested in how big the movement was just prior to Constantine's ascension. Christians were not worshiping underground anymore, in fact, they had their own church buildings - many of which were closed or destroyed under Diocletian.

But according to the review of the book Jenny posted, the author seems to think Christianity wasn't very widespread. By "widespread" I assume he's talking about raw numbers (how can anyone come to a definitive conclusion, BTW ?) and not geographical areas. There were Christian communities to found in every major province of the Mediterranean basin stretching all the way to Spain - the furtherest place from Palestine in the Empire. So, I'd say it was very widespread in that sense.

I'm with Theo on this one. The evidence prior to the 3rd C. is simply missing. There is no way to say how widespread it was. By the third century it is quite widespread. It didn't pop up overnight.

You also see the anti semitic thought creep into the writings of the early church fathers after the first century.

The Christians were trying to distance themselves from Judaism since the Jews fought the Revolt of 66-69 AD. Christians didn't want to be associated with rebellious groups since they didn't want to incur the wrath of Rome on themselves as well. Although Jews and Christians were persecuted a big difference is that you don't see any revolts inspired by the latter.

I'm not sure I buy this. This is a theory, it's not a bad one as theories go. The roots of rabinnical judaism are in 5th C. AD. It's a common trope that Christians differentiated themselves from Jews, but the truth is we can't make that determination due to a lack of evidence on the Jewish side. It's just as possible that Judaism differentiated itself from Christians as much as Christians did.

It started small then caught on with the slave population and rapidly changed the undercurrent of society. Constantine saw the tide growing more and more towards Christianity and latched onto it.

I think the book Jenny refered to is right on this point : Christianity was NOT a slave religion like Judaism before the Exodus from Egypt. It was popular with some local aristocrats -especially women- and it trickled down from there. Of course, St. Paul was its main exporter but he didn't proselytize among illiterate slaves. He went mainly to the intellectual heart of the Roman world - Greece.

Christianity's strongholds were in the big cities and not the countryside. Christians were found in high levels of government , for example, in the court or inner circle of Constantius I and even Diocletian's. So, given that they were small in number but yet were to be found often in such high political positions, I believe it was just a matter of time before a Christian was to become Emperor.

So, I totally disagree with the author of the book when he says the rise of Christianity was an "accident."

Theo's right on this one too. Christianity was not a secretive slave religion. It followed the same paths that Judaism did, which was popular with Roman matrons. Christianity is an urbanite phenomenon. "Paganos" refers to country dwellers and it is the rural country dwellers, that resisted Christianity, not the wealthy and middle class.

Rodney Stark is right on this one I think.

Travis