Yes, but...they were under the political control of the Roman Empire, who had the final say.
But they had religious freedom, a huge concession on Rome's part, so that rather undermines the idea that Rome controlled everything.
A very big point, that should not be underestimated.
And with Caiphas I think it needs be pointed out the seriousness of the threat even meant breaking the law to prosecute...the trial was *very* unconventional.
But it didn't break the law. The unconventional aspect was that Caiphas wanted Rome to be seen as the villain. He wanted Rome to execute Jesus for transgressing the Jewish law, not Roman law. Pilate saw no case at all, as far as Rome was concerned, and was happy to give the man back. The Jewish answer was an emphatic 'no', and then manoeuvred Pilate into a position between a rock and a hard place. In this light, Rome was weak, if not powerless.
Historians are reading Luke as showing interesting aspects of just how weak Rome was in Judea. They have noted, for example, that when the Romans took Paul into custody, the escort was pretty sizeable. Why? Because Roman authority in the region was hanging by a thread, and they needed a show of numbers to face down the threat. Even so, Paul's enemies conspired to organise his assassination, and the murder of a Roman citizen under Roman guard says a lot about what the Jews thought of the Romans.
And in another sense Romans like Nero had sadistic "fun" using Christians as candlewicks and gladiator fodder.
So? This was still local, and generated more dislike for Nero than it did for Christians. It detracts from Roman authority, it doesn't add to it.
While in a sense I can agree with what you say regarding the persecutions, let us not loose sight that the largest recorded persecution, the Diocletian persecution, took place about the same time Constantine's daddy died and he came into power. It would be seven years until the Battle at Ponte Milvio, five until the first Edict of Toleration, and being a Christian outside of the Western Empire where Constantine held sway was a hazardous undertaking.
Hazardous for the very reason that you never knew when things might get bad. They weren't bad all the time. Diocletian's persecution lasted 8 years, and the Church was already some two hundred and fifty years old by then.
A series of edicts started with rescinding legal rights, ending with full-blown persecution. As you know, it varied in intensity, which shows how much local authorities ignored Rome. It was strong only in the Eastern provinces.
Christians were always discriminated against, but early emperors were reluctant to issue general laws against them. In the 250s, under Valerian, they were ordered to offer sacrifice or face execution. Ten years later, under Gallienus, they were ignored.
In the first fifteen years of his rule, Diocletian purged the army of Christians, condemned Manicheans to death, and surrounded himself with public opponents of Christianity. But as you say, they were there in the army when Constantine superseded him, so that didn't work either.
Diocletian himself was wary when advisers like Galerius urged him to act, so he asked the oracle of Apollo for guidance. Another sign of weakness. The oracle's reply was read as an endorsement of Galerius's position, and a general persecution was called in 303.
Galerius and Diocletian were avid persecutors. Constantius was unenthusiastic and largely ignored the instructions of his emperor. Diocletian resigned in 305, and Constantine, on taking the imperial office in 306, restored Christians to full legal equality and returned property that had been confiscated during the persecution.
In Italy in 306, the usurper Maxentius promised full religious toleration, and Galerius threw in the towel in the East in 311. Persecutions went on in Egypt, Palestine, and Asia Minor ... but they failed, and are a testament to the failing power of Rome.
The persecution failed to check the expansion of the church. According to one modern estimate, some 3,000 Christians died, many more tortured, imprisoned or dispossessed. Some accuse the Church historians of exaggerating the scope of the Diocletian persecution. On the other hand, by Nicea, 325AD, the numbers of Christians is estimated between 3-5 million.
So again and again, it seems to me what history shows is not Rome's power, but lack of it.
Being in the army was a privilege, and it brought some pretty good pay for the day and time. You couldn't be a Christian *at that point in time* and be in the army (there may be minor exceptions and at other times)...except for Constantine's army.
Only because his dad and himself ignored imperial edict. You're trying to cut your cake both ways, old chum.
Even if a person was not killed in a persecution, they were still at risk of imprisonment, having their property seized and forfeited, and otherwise being treated as second class citizens. Constantine *was* responsible, for the most part, for ending that for Christians and even restoring a lot of what was taken.
Don't think so. Not in the East, anyway.
I *am* reading things from a Roman point of view.
I know, that's what I keep telling you ... and I suggest you read Rome as possessing a lot more clout than it actually did.
You chide me for confusing dogmatic tradition with history, are you not doing precisely that very thing?
No, I chide you for taking a partisan view of history. I look at my dogmatic tradition
and history ...
The trick as I see it is in trying to sidestep the bias... I am stepping back to try to get a better overall view.
I don't think you are. I think you've made your mind up about the Church and doctrine, and are looking round for stuff to support your thesis.
Alexandria and Antioch were the intellectual centres and melting pots of Church doctrine, not Rome.
The later Constantinople, when the Empire had been split in two between Constantine's sons, was far more successful at calling the shots in the East, but that wasn't until the 6th/7th century ... They never quite managed it, not even when they arrested Pope Martin I and Maximus, and effective martyred them (both died of the treatment they had received).
If Rome had ever been as influential in determining dogma, as you suppose, then most of the schisms in the Church would never have come about. Constantine was instrumental in triggering one of the biggest, and he was powerless to stop it.
We have reams of material evidence to show imperial attempts at interference, and such attempts being rebuffed. You have not one shred of evidence that places a dogma or a doctrine in the hands of an emperor.
Even Arius decries the fact that the original theological point of his dispute was being ignored as politicians played their power games to try and take control of the church, regardless of what it believed.
If you want my honest opinion, I think you're barking up the wrong tree ... I think the problems for Christianity was never Rome thinking its the Church, but the Church thinking its Rome.
Thomas
