Rome in transition

[juantoo3]

OH yeah!

And Thanks Bandit! It's really good to see you back around.

 

[Dream]

Ok, I'm caught up. Here are some highlights you may enjoy from earlier in the thread. I may have some input about the Baptism of John the Baptist later on. I still want to go through some of the resources mentioned, first especially the bits from Josephus and the Easter vs. Passover entries.

There is no pristine, original point Christianity. You can't isolate the original artifact. It grows out of a soup of syncretic activities and sometime later is standardized and codified, labeled, organized, and institutionalized. It's mythology is polymorphic, and it's theology is equally multi-adaptive. It's philosophy and ethics are divinely Greek, but the storyline is Jewish. It became the perfect ideological meme for the conquests and crusades to follow, and it still works like that today.

I think that the story line is all wrong. There are lots of little hints in the Gospels of some sort of zealot movement providing the main cast of characters in the story. Layered on that is a kind of proto-Gnostic ideology that comes out clearly in the beatitudes.

Look at the whole "clean meats" argument that made Peter bristle. Paul was taking the whole show into a new direction. And comments about food that had been offered to idols as being acceptable because the idols were non-entities, but that if it caused a brother or sister to stumble to refrain from such foods.

Of course, it is a bit complicated.....How justifiable is it to believe G-d has a hand in the worldly affairs of humans? Is the same G-d that gave us all of the glories of the Christian faith also responsible for the horrors of the Holocaust, the Inquisition and the Crusades?

The Gospels exhibit a set of influences in the process of creating the liturgical Christ. First is the zealotry. But somehow the zealots are preaching pacifism. Now that's a weird mix. With that is a sort of Pythagorean mystery school kind of gematria that shows up in the parables. And layered upon that is a very Greek avatar concept. With Paul we get obvious tie-ins with Stoicism and Cynicism. And all of that is primitive. So it's obvious that it was never so simple as Paul and Peter: A gentile movement and a central Jerusalem church.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: First Council of Nicaea

....was the first Ecumenical council[1] of the Christian Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine, called the Nicene Creed.....Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[3] A precedent was set for subsequent general councils to create creeds and canons.....

Separation of Easter from Jewish Passover

...."The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord."[27]

Post #24 summarizes the first seven ecumenical councils.

No grand theory here Juan. Just some observations.

The zealotry is clear in the cast of characters. The core group of disciples are either zealots, or recently ex-zealots. We know that Peter is still carrying a sword at the very end. We know from the story that they are Galileans with ties to Nazareth, so they're from a famous hot bed of zealotry. It's unclear whether John the Baptist's movement was more militant. As a matter of fact, it isn't at all clear who John the B. really is, and the logistics of his group's merger with the Jesus group is very murky.....

....The (sort of) Pythagorean mystery school stuff is a combination of what's commonly referred to as sacred geometry and Greek gematria. Sacred geometry is an expression of the perfection of ratios discovered by Pythagoras and others. In that sense it's the geometry of the Logos. In the parables, most particularly the stories of the miraculous catch of fish and the feeding of the five thousand, underlying the text, is a metaphysical grid of this geometry. That's what the numbers relate to.....

Paul is all about ethics. Reading his thesis in Romans; it's not just about the law, it's about discipline and how to control one's self. He's trying to fuse his message with Greek ethics. This is also self-evident from the text.

So, already in the primitive materials, the Gospels and Paul, the earliest stuff, we can see this variety of influences. And there are no clear cultural boundaries because within Judaism there were mystery schools dealing with Pythagorean mathematics. Everybody with scholarly aspirations was interested in that stuff. It was like the quantum physics of the day. Similarly, there was no cultural chasm between Judaism's dialog about ethics and that of the Stoics, Cynics, and Epicureans of the day.

Back to this question: How do zealotry and pacifism mix? Thinking about Judaism as a continuum, it's hard to to find any roots of turn the other cheek- ism. There is a prolonged discussion of ethics that, basically, starts at the beginning and hasn't stopped. That is: what is it to be righteous (so God won't keep whacking us)? But there's no loving one's enemies.

We know that the material has been redacted....it's less important to have answers than learn the ability to construct the right questions....Before we ever get to the point where we question the literalness of the narrative we should be asking all these questions about practical origins.

I don't know if you're familiar with the Society for the Creative Anachronism. It's a bunch of people who enjoy dressing up in period wear and pretending to be knights, and ladies, and such. They have these week long camporees where they stage mock battles and such. There's no way of knowing what it was to be the earliest "Christians", just like there's really know way of knowing what it was really like to live in the medieval era. We have these impossibly idealized, iconically simplistic notions of what Judaism of the day might have been. But it's a lot like how kids think that all Eskimos live in igloos. It's mighty disappointing to find out you've been punked by first grade sociology. Especially after you've built the sugar cube igloo!

....I am wondering regarding baptism though, as far as I know that is not a traditionally Jewish ceremony. Now, washing is. The Jewish priest would ceremonially wash in preparation for various religious functions. And one of the proscribed duties for laypersons in transition from some states of ritual uncleanness into ritual cleanness involved washing oneself along with other things. But the act of submersing in water for the ritual washing of sins (and "dying to the world") begins AFAIK with John Baptist. Now that I think about it, symbolically it mirrors the Pagan spring fertility ritual of planting a seed (death) into the ground and sprouting (rebirth) from the ground.

....What's more, is that traditionally John is a sentinel character. Only 6 months older than Jesus, it is written that he leapt in his mother's womb when Miriam told Elizabeth about being pregnant. He grows up to live in the desert wearing course clothing and eating grasshoppers and wild honey. Yet such an eccentric manages to draw a following and invent baptising.

Post #55 resources about Essenes

....Some scholars[attribution needed] believe that Herod Antipas did not marry his brother's wife until his brother Philip died in 34 CE, placing these events after the date in the Gospel account....

Post #63 Zealots and Sicarii

Jesus was a Jew. He was born to observant Jewish parents, in a Jewish household, raised in the Jewish Temple religion through the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*), in turn he taught his followers from the Jewish Bible (Old Testament *only*). For some reason he was Tortured and executed in a Roman manner.....The rest seems to me questionable at best, and this does strain credibility. What is known historically is that there were competing views of what and who Jesus really was, and what it was he taught......

......It is impossible with the evidence at hand to say exactly what the earliest Christians were taught by Jesus to believe. It would have logically been an extension of Judaism in some form. It was the Apostle Paul who was instrumental in carrying the new interpretation of Judaism to the Gentile converts, effectively opening the door to the world. It was by his efforts that one no longer needed to be a Jew first in order to be a Christian. This creates its own backlash, in that we have no valid way I am aware of to distinguish between the Jewish origins that had to comprise the fledgling Christianity, and the Pagan trappings that became intermingled with Christianity.....

Post #67 Paul the apostle vs. Elaine Pagels !!! (Paul may discuss that at some point)

....Talmudic scholar Hyam Maccoby contends that the Paul as described in the Book of Acts and the view of Paul gleaned from his own writings are very different people. Some difficulties have been noted in the account of his life. Additionally, the speeches of Paul, as recorded in Acts, have been argued to show a different turn of mind. Paul as described in the Book of Acts is much more interested in factual history, less in theology; ideas such as justification by faith are absent as are references to the Spirit.

On the other hand, according to Maccoby, there are no references to John the Baptist in the Pauline Epistles, but Paul mentions him several times in the Book of Acts.....

F.C.Baur (1792–1860)...argued that Paul, as the apostle to the Gentiles, was in violent opposition to the older disciples. Baur considers the Acts of the Apostles were late and unreliable. This debate has continued ever since, with Adolf Deissmann (1866–1937) and Richard Reitzenstein (1861–1931) emphasising Paul's Greek inheritance and Albert Schweitzer stressing his dependence on Judaism.

....Maccoby theorizes that Paul synthesized Judaism, Gnosticism, and mysticism to create Christianity as a cosmic savior religion. According to Maccoby, Paul's Pharisaism was his own invention, though actually he was probably associated with the Sadducees.

Wow! I can't wait to read Maccoby's work!!! (Don't tell anybody or they might raise the price of the book!)

Post #68 Dauer mentions a resource on Easter & Passover

 

[juantoo3]

Just a bump in the road...

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hey Juan, why does Dream's post right above your bump have your edit mark on it?

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Good question...I don't remember.

It wouldn't be the first time I goofed and hit the wrong button...

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I've read the Maccoby book on Paul. I found it in the bargain section at Barnes and Noble, in hardback, for like five bucks a few years ago. I figured I should read it since this guy Maccoby always comes up in these Paul discussions. I have to say that I wasn't overly impressed. It might make an interesting book discussion, though, if anyone wants to do that.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I think that the author of Acts essentially invents the apostolic tradition. He is the one who makes Paul the vehicle that will transform Christianity away from the taint of civil disobedience in it's Jewish roots, and bring it to Rome. In that sense the story is an allegory of the demographics of Christianity's initial spread throughout the empire, beginning in Jerusalem, and ending with Paul arriving in Rome. "Luke" chooses the characters of Peter and Paul to build the story around, and in the meanwhile invents a bridge between the genuine Pauline material and the fictional gospel narratives by creating a mythological Paul somewhat unlike the character which can be deduced from the real Paul's writings.

Maccoby and others fail to differentiate between the historical character Paul, and the mythological character created by "Luke" in Acts. It isn't Paul who creates a syncretic Christianity, it's "Luke" and the other Gospeliers. This, in my opinion, is what all the Paul detractors get wrong. Paul was preaching a cosmopolitan message alright, but Paul didn't invent the myth of the "Apostles of the Round Table", as it were, that underlines the Roman church's claim to preeminence. That was Luke and his buddies, who, after all, came after Paul, and riffed freely on his stuff.

Think of all the Pagan stuff that's in Christianity. How many times do images from Paul's writings pop up? No, the Pagan stuff all swirls around characters and imagery from the Gospels, doesn't it?

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

I think I see what you're saying, Chris. Except for Maccoby, never read him (that I'm aware of). Back to your point, at least in general terms, I still have certain reservations maintained by the fact that it was rather hazardous to be a Christian. Nero liked inventing cruel ways to torture them to death. Nothing like going out as a candle wick at a garden party. Gives a whole new meaning to "ambient lighting."

Point being there was no advantage, political, material or practical, to being a Christian about the time of Paul and shortly after. While I am still vague about what specifically you mean about the "real" Paul versus the "mythical" Paul versus the "Gospeliers," I think I get the gist. But it seems rather vague to me when even those who "know" don't seem to agree on the subject...like the Jesus Seminar people. One man's "real" Paul is another man's "fake" Paul, and both men are "experts." Us confused laity are left to either choose up sides, or walk away scratching our heads wondering what the hell just happened. I'm still scratching my head some 20 years later, and the subject is no clearer to me now than it was then, even though I have managed to add to the stack of gobaldigook.

In a sense I can't help but feel that yes, somebody somewhere screwed with something...there is far too much corresponding outside evidence, like the stuff I have pointed to here; the historical stuff, the political stuff, the anthropological stuff. There is too much anecdotal evidence to cavalierly disregard the impact of later political editing, specifically under the jurisdiction of Constantine.

So what this always ends up coming around to is: who is responsible? As if such could be narrowed to an individual or select group. It seems even there there are two distinct factions; those who want to "blame" the Jewish begetters of Christianity, those borderline heretics and infidels whose leader dared fulfill prophecy, and those who want to "blame" the political powers that be for that period of time in a bit broader sense, also known as Ceasarean Rome for trying to keep the peace against a minor indistinguishable sect of rabble rousing malcontented trouble makers. I suspect it was a little of both, but the final and most emphatic say was undoubtedly that of Rome.

Another player overlooked usually is the social complex in which all of this plays out, and what influence that may have brought to bear in all of this. We debate all the time here about the literal versus figurative problem, and how metaphors are frequently taken as literal. Drive some obscure teaching into the social underground surrounded by the horrors of warfare as your nation is crumbling around you, re-emerge in the Pagan netherworld just outside your comfort zone where you either sink or swim in double-quick time, and nobody gives a rat's ass if you drown. Whatever metaphors you brought with you are gonna change...either by design or circumstance, but change they will, because there is no political legitimacy, either from Jerusalem or Rome. The form and shape of your mythos will change of necessity in order to blend and mask and hide; the survival instinct for your new socio-spiritual order kicks into high gear.

The way I see it, it was Paul's fault, it was Nero's fault, it was everybody's damn fault...and yet it was nobody's fault. It was a perfect storm of circumstance that conspired to muddy the waters. 300 years later the powers that be took advantage of the situation, and we know the story from there pretty well. But what the hell do I know??? I'm not an expert...

BTW, thanks for your input. I don't say it often enough, but I appreciate what you have to say in this.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Juan.

The genuine Paul I'm referring to is the guy who wrote the material attributed to Paul by general scholarly consensus. If one brackets those writings off and uses modern textual analysis techniques on the material a certain image of the author emerges. It's pretty sketchy to be sure, but it's the closest thing we have to a description of Paul the actual, historical human being.

From my point of view it's a given that the Gospel narratives are not intended to be construed as strictly historical accounts. They serve a different, more liturgical function. The many arcane esoteric literary devices used in the construction of the Gospel stories smack heavily of derived mythology. Twelve Apostles, like twelve signs of the zodiac, or twelve tribes, or twelve semi-tones in an octave: I don't know for sure, but it seems most reasonable to see the Gospels as works of literature rather than historically accurate accounts. That doesn't mean that the Gospels lack worth as historical artifacts, it's more a matter of nuance and genre.

The guy who wrote the Gospel of Luke also probably penned Acts. If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's prologue in the Acts of the Apostles? Since it's likely that the Acts material is to some degree mythology, what exactly do we know about Paul strictly from his own work? Try separating the two. It's really hard because almost everything about the imagery we've built up around Paul comes from the Acts story, and the point of the Acts story is to build this legend of the lives and glorious deaths of the Apostles of the Round Table. Paul was worked into that legend. He was shoe horned, posthumously no doubt, into that pantheon of Patriarchs by Luke the Gospelier. That surely suggest politics, but I don't think, like Maccoby, that it suggests control by Paulinist editors of the final shape of the Gospels.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I goofed this up: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's prologue in the Acts of the Apostles?"

It should read: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's epilogue in the Acts of the Apostles?

I am retrded!

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

We debate all the time here about the literal versus figurative problem, and how metaphors are frequently taken as literal.

I just want to point out to anyone following along that earlier in this conversation we talked about how there are all sorts of tantalizing bits and hints in the Gospels and other NT material which give little glimpses into the historical landscape of the time without ever having to worry about whether or not the narratives are literal. Arguments along the lines of literal versus figurative seem to have more to do with defending dogmatic lines in the sand than they do with an honest search for objective information.

I feel that I should reiterate that I'm just talking about ideas here. I'm no expert and I am often wrong.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

I goofed this up: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's prologue in the Acts of the Apostles?"

It should read: "If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's epilogue in the Acts of the Apostles?

I am retrded!

Chris

Oh, so you're a retread too? Just like me!

 

[juantoo3]

almost everything about the imagery we've built up around Paul comes from the Acts story, and the point of the Acts story is to build this legend of the lives and glorious deaths of the Apostles of the Round Table. Paul was worked into that legend. He was shoe horned, posthumously no doubt, into that pantheon of Patriarchs by Luke the Gospelier. That surely suggest politics, but I don't think, like Maccoby, that it suggests control by Paulinist editors of the final shape of the Gospels.

This lends itself though to some of the confusion I referenced: I have long labored under the impression Luke was contemporary with Paul, perhaps even a travelling companion? I agree with your final point here.

 

[juantoo3]

I just want to point out to anyone following along that earlier in this conversation we talked about how there are all sorts of tantalizing bits and hints in the Gospels and other NT material which give little glimpses into the historical landscape of the time without ever having to worry about whether or not the narratives are literal. Arguments along the lines of literal versus figurative seem to have more to do with defending dogmatic lines in the sand than they do with an honest search for objective information.

I feel that I should reiterate that I'm just talking about ideas here. I'm no expert and I am often wrong.

No problem on my account, I should make the same or similar disclaimer.

I purposely brought this discussion here so as not to pose an "in-your-face" threat to those who may be offended by the material. It is difficult to grow up with a notion that your beloved sacred text *is* TRUTH (in all caps), only to find out later that there are some really compromising issues of reality that need to be accounted for...if one is seeking truth as reality, rather than the propaganda truth we are spoon fed and cajoled into accepting without question.

I am seriously torn on the whole "Jesus" issue. It's like there are two distinct individuals; Yeshua the renegade rabbi (meant as a compliment), and Jesus the mythological analogue to G-d. Reality and truth become divergent issues. What is real is no longer truth, and what is truth is no longer real. Never the twain shall meet, and there is no clear line of demarcation.

Consequently it is really frustrating trying to interpret what is salvageable as reality, as distinguished from what is "truth."

Does it matter?

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

I am seriously torn on the whole "Jesus" issue. It's like there are two distinct individuals; Yeshua the renegade rabbi (meant as a compliment), and Jesus the mythological analogue to G-d. Reality and truth become divergent issues. What is real is no longer truth, and what is truth is no longer real. Never the twain shall meet, and there is no clear line of demarcation.

Consequently it is really frustrating trying to interpret what is salvageable as reality, as distinguished from what is "truth."

Does it matter?

Maybe you should reconsider whether you really want to ask me that. I whittled down my belief until it disappeared. You don't want to wind up like that do you? Don't be a Chris! Go back...go back!

What's essential? What can you not stand to give up? What is the core essential thing when it comes to Jesus? What role does he need to fill to make it all work for you? I feel dumb because I don't understand the point of the whole savior thing. I thought I did at several points, but I realized later that I was just repeating stuff that I'd heard. I like the logos idea. I like the philosophical import of the Golden Rule. But none of that stuff requires Jesus to be anything more than a metaphor. I dunno Juan. If you figure it out let me know.

Chris

 

[juantoo3]

Oh no, you ain't gettin' off that easy...

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juan — thought I'd pop over.

Not going to labour through every post ... but maybe jot some notes on those that catch my eye.

By the end of the century, paganism was effectively outlawed , and Christianity was the dominant religion of the state, the army, the elite and the towns ... The bishops reciprocated the favour shown the Church by preaching loyalty to the secular power.

On the first part, I'm not sure — 'effectively outlawed' is not the same as 'outlawed'. As Constantine himself built pagan temples, I think that's over-stating the case. Rather, Christianity received along with others, state acceptance?

An alliance was forged between church and state, and henceforward Roman emperors were represented as the agents of God on Earth, charged with crushing paganism and heresy, with defending Christendom against its enemies.

Overstatement again, as paganism still flourished. The relation between church and state was Scripture based on "render unto Caesar" — a head of the Church never became head of state. So there was no 'alliance' but rather the Church continued to view the state as it has always done.

+++

The story of Christianity’s rise to prominence is a remarkable one, but the traditional story of its progression from a tiny, persecuted religion to the established religion in the medieval West needs some debunking.

OK ... but on both sides ...

Although in the first few centuries AD Christians were prosecuted and punished, often with death, there were also periods when they were more secure.

And the persecutions were often regional and intermittent ... but the risk was ever present. Becoming a Christian was to make a big commitment, as there was no knowing when it might happen 'here'.

Secondly, the rise of Christianity to imperial-sponsored dominance in the fourth and fifth centuries, although surprising, was not without precedent, and its spread hardly as inexorable as contemporary Christians portrayed it.

Why not ... it survived the others, so more inexorable then they, at least.

Well, the Roman empire was in the first few centuries AD expansionist and in its conquests accommodated new cults and philosophies from different cultures, such as the Persian cult of Mithraism, the Egyptian cult of Isis and Neoplatonism, a Greek philosophical religion.

But I think Constantine in an astute political move hitched his wagon to the ascending star. Mithraism was a soldier's cult, so one would assume he'd support Mithras, but he saw that Christianity was more widespread and more capable in its ethos as a state religion. He'd gain more from Christianity than the others.

Emperors had historically been hostile or indifferent to Christianity.

I think Constantine was indifferent too, in essence. He was a pragmatist more than a believer. He didn't mind what it taught, as long as we all sing the same song, that's why he called Nicea, to head-off a schism, not out of some profound Christological insight.

The story of Constantine’s conversion has acquired a miraculous quality, which is unsurprising from the point of view of contemporary Christians. They had just emerged from the so-called ‘Great Persecution’ under the emperor Diocletian at the end of the third century.

Understandable ... and the Great Persecution showed that things for Christians were getting worse, not better, so this dilutes the prior assertion somewhat with regard to the Christian's outlook on security. The commentator can't have it both ways.

Constantine’s ‘conversion’ poses problems for the historian.

Doesn't it just! My 'pragmatic' approach is acceptable theologically, I think.

Although he immediately declared that Christians and pagans should be allowed to worship freely, and restored property confiscated during persecutions and other lost privileges to the Christians, these measures did not mark a complete shift to a Christian style of rule.

So hardly 'effectively outlawing' paganism ... ?

Many of his actions seemed resolutely pagan. Constantine founded a new city named after himself: Constantinople. Christian writers played up the idea that this was to be a 'new Rome', a fitting Christian capital for a newly Christian empire.
But they had to find ways to explain the embarrassing fact that in this new, supposedly Christian city, Constantine had erected pagan temples and statues.

So pagan religion attained state sanction and support. Not outlawed in any sense, effectively or otherwise, surely? The quote goes on to demonstrate a state ambivalence towards Christianity.

Thomas

 

[juantoo3]

Hi Juan — thought I'd pop over.

Thank you sir, so glad you could stop by!

Not going to labour through every post ... but maybe jot some notes on those that catch my eye.

Fair enough, I probably spent something like a week just chasing references for this thread.

On the first part, I'm not sure — 'effectively outlawed' is not the same as 'outlawed'. As Constantine himself built pagan temples, I think that's over-stating the case. Rather, Christianity received along with others, state acceptance?

From what I gathered, that state acceptance was sporadic and conditional. I don't know how familiar you are with Constantine's biography, but he grew up in Roman England, and it was with the help of English Christians that he was able to defeat Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge in 312 or 313AD. It was as a favor to these English Christians who came to his aid that Christianity received any extensive political pardon to begin with.

An alliance was forged between church and state, and henceforward Roman emperors were represented as the agents of God on Earth, charged with crushing paganism and heresy, with defending Christendom against its enemies.

Overstatement again, as paganism still flourished. The relation between church and state was Scripture based on "render unto Caesar" — a head of the Church never became head of state. So there was no 'alliance' but rather the Church continued to view the state as it has always done.

Let's not be hasty. Are you suggesting that no Roman Emperor was ever elevated to the status of godhood? I would even dare say that the office in the Vatican now is a two and a half thousand year continuation of the office of the Roman Emperor. Denial would be to deny the entire reign of the Holy Roman Empire beginning with Charlemagne.

+++

The story of Christianity’s rise to prominence is a remarkable one, but the traditional story of its progression from a tiny, persecuted religion to the established religion in the medieval West needs some debunking.

OK ... but on both sides ...

Well, that's what we are here to discuss. Frankly, I don't recall using the term "debunk," but I do think the subject deserves fleshing out beyond the pablum traditionally doled out.

And the persecutions were often regional and intermittent ... but the risk was ever present. Becoming a Christian was to make a big commitment, as there was no knowing when it might happen 'here'.

Absolutely, that is the very reason I don't think some of the arguments detracting Paul among others hold any weight. So there is a bit of brinkmanship being played around this issue, frankly I think both sides play up the extremes in order to belittle the opposition. The truth I suspect lies buried in the middle underneath all of the dead bodies left in the aftermath.

Secondly, the rise of Christianity to imperial-sponsored dominance in the fourth and fifth centuries, although surprising, was not without precedent, and its spread hardly as inexorable as contemporary Christians portrayed it.

Why not ... it survived the others, so more inexorable then they, at least.

I don't recall where this came from, no doubt something I quoted? I would have to view it in the greater context.

But I think Constantine in an astute political move hitched his wagon to the ascending star. Mithraism was a soldier's cult, so one would assume he'd support Mithras, but he saw that Christianity was more widespread and more capable in its ethos as a state religion. He'd gain more from Christianity than the others.

I disagree. Constantine's "astute political move" was in gratitude for service rendered. Constantine was a military man, raised in a military home. There is a code of honor among military men. What is more, Constantine remained a pagan throughout his life. It is rumored he was baptised a Christian on his death bed, by a priest of the Arian persuasion. Further, the next Emperor was not a Christian either, surely you are familiar with Julian Apostate? Nicea did not demarcate an overnight shift from pagan to Christian. Mithraism did have a considerable sway among the military during the period leading up into Constantine's reign, but it was not a complete sway as noted by the English emissaries (mercenaries?) who followed Constantine.

I think Constantine was indifferent too, in essence. He was a pragmatist more than a believer. He didn't mind what it taught, as long as we all sing the same song, that's why he called Nicea, to head-off a schism, not out of some profound Christological insight.

I am inclined to agree. The nature of the schism however, seems to be where there is some contention. For example, Arius was merely vocalizing *one* POV that existed, there were others who agreed with him who likely out of fear for their lives (gee, why might that be?) tended to remain silent and eventually go along with the crowd. It is important to note that Nicea was not the end of Arius. The Arian belief continued as a political adversary (a bit harsh, but I can think of no better term) for quite some time. It was as I recall almost a hundred years before the "authorized" Catholic church born in Nicea was able to eliminate the Arian opposition.

The story of Constantine’s conversion has acquired a miraculous quality, which is unsurprising from the point of view of contemporary Christians. They had just emerged from the so-called ‘Great Persecution’ under the emperor Diocletian at the end of the third century.

Understandable ... and the Great Persecution showed that things for Christians were getting worse, not better, so this dilutes the prior assertion somewhat with regard to the Christian's outlook on security. The commentator can't have it both ways.

I'm afraid you lost me, both ways of what? Constantine's conversion *has* taken on a somewhat miraculous quality, at least among those Christians who are even aware and care. Sadly, the history surrounding the birth and infancy of Christianity typically comes in two flavors for Christians: unimportant, or surreal. Either way is disgraceful to say the least.

Constantine’s ‘conversion’ poses problems for the historian.

Doesn't it just! My 'pragmatic' approach is acceptable theologically, I think.

If this were strictly so though, don't you think he might have done so *much* sooner?

Although he immediately declared that Christians and pagans should be allowed to worship freely, and restored property confiscated during persecutions and other lost privileges to the Christians, these measures did not mark a complete shift to a Christian style of rule.

So hardly 'effectively outlawing' paganism ... ?

Not for quite some time yet. What is more, I don't recall pagans being systematically tortured for public sport by Christians. I would have to dig a bit deeper, but I suspect it was a matter of gift and graft, over time, that if you were not in the club you were not allowed to play. If you wanted to get anywhere in status symbol land, you had to join the big boys club...just like it is today and for all time in between.

So pagan religion attained state sanction and support. Not outlawed in any sense, effectively or otherwise, surely? The quote goes on to demonstrate a state ambivalence towards Christianity.

Thomas

I think we are bouncing back and forth in time here. Paganism was the state religion in Rome from 500 BC on, in 313 AD +/- Christianity was given a political break and official persecutions were ended. I would have to look it up but it was something like another hundred and fifty years before paganism was outlawed and Nicean Catholic Christianity became the only player in town.

This of course for simplicity sake ignores the Eastern Greek Orthodox and the Coptic branches of Christianity, both of whom share pretty much the same official date of birth with Roman Catholism.

Thank you very much for participating Thomas. It will be interesting to see where this leads.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Juan —

There'll be a bit of cross-posting perhaps ... but I'm still running through the list of posts. This on Augustine:

Augustine ... was briefly entranced by Manicheism during his youth ... Augustine’s Manichee past had a huge influence on the formation of his Christian theology.

Well, was he 'briefly entranced' or 'hugely influenced' by Mani? Again, the author seems to want it both ways ...

This kind of comment, I must admit, infuriates me. If I wrote that in one of my essays, I would be marked down for failing to mention Augustine's subsequent discovery and love of Platonism, which he talks about at length in the Confessions, and which infuses all his works ... and for which he's recognised in academic circles as one of the most influential figures in the incorporation of Platonism into Christian Philosophy.

Take a look at The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — both rate Augustine as a first-rate philosopher and one of the prime movers of incorporating NeoPlatonism into the Christian philosophical tradition.

OK the BBC site is a brief and populist rather than scholarly, but this is an omission of mammoth proportion. Like talking about the history of Greek philosophy, but forgetting to mention Aristotle.

(On the next page the author references a 'dispute' highlighted in Dan Browns' DaVinci Code. That space should be accorded to him at all inclines me to toss the lot into the bin.)

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

The once entrenched idea that early Christian heresies emerged in opposition to some ancient, permanent orthodoxy, is utterly misleading. There were in fact many different competing 'Christianities' in the first few centuries AD.

Well this is quite misleading in itself. It's so general as to be banal.

Christianity did not emerge from a genepool of competing theories, but from one Apostolic Tradition of teaching, as Irenaeus, a third-generation Christian (disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John) went to great lengths to point out.

Remember also that whilst the theology grew and developed, from what we're discovering in the early liturgical rites and practices is an orthodox line that goes right back to the Apostles. How many people here discuss Liturgical Theology? How many know it? And without it, you cannot discuss the history and development of Christianity in any meaningful fashion.

Christian Liturgy was established before Christian Scripture.

Christian Scripture was (somewhat loosely) established before Christian Theology.

The Church is the body of all three — Liturgy, Scripture and Tradition ...

It is evident that the Apostolic line was obliged to defend itself right from the outset, and did so, robustly. It is also evident that many of the competitors simply took one bit of Scripture and ignored the rest, or wrote their own, or claimed a spurious 'secret tradition' that had been handed on to them ... in the last case, the proliferation of 'secret transmissions' of the 'real truth' were so many and varied that they became self-defeating.

The author makes no delineation between 'natural' error and attempts to subvert the tradition. You cannot put all competing Christianities on an equal footing.

It's poor scholarship like this that leads people to assume that there can be no certainty.

Thomas

Thomas