I apologize for the delay. I do not have a swift mind, so it takes me a while to orient around a truly wonderful comment. Good job!

“I still feel chronology is a problem here if you wish to maintain that the principal additional pressure upon the Roman state was external, and particularly if you wish to argue that it was 'barbarian'”

That's a historical issue which is important, but secondary in the thesis. Ultimately it does not matter what the cause of the extra pressure on Rome — only that Christianity was built to profit from that situation.

“Whilst these reforms were not complete by the time Constantine struggled to introduce his own formalised state religion, the Empire had weathered the storm, and it is difficult to argue from a structural point of view that external pressure at that point was so significant that it demanded a new religious organisational system to butress the state.

Here, I'm not so sure. Monotheism is associated with agressiveness and violence — martial virtues. In a competitive environment where enemy technologies are constantly improving, it makes sense to “level up” to a new ideological technology.

Cleraly, this wouldn't have been a rational decision. But that doesn't make it less consequential.

“This doesn't affect your point that Christianity was in many ways positioned to benefit from a perceived need at the centre to create a more formal state religion, but the analysis needs adjusting somewhat to avoid the suggestion that such pressure was principally external and barbaric.”

So I think we agree

“The real probelm, however, is the hindsight involved in the statement that “Jesus and Paul merely created a movement that would profit during times of similar pressure”. One option available to pre-industrial elites who wished to strengthen the ideology of the centre was to adapt or co-opt reliogious practice, and to create a more formalised state religion than that offered by the divergent, local and fluid systems often lumped together as 'paganism'. Christianity, however, remained only one of many systems which could fulfill that role.”

True. What is the old phrase, “by luck and pluck.” Christianity was very well built for life under an imperial hegemon. That doesn't mean it had to win.

“Diocletian, for instance, clearly developed imperial religious ideology in ways which made him more than one divine figure among many. His attempts to enforce this departure from traditional practice did great damage to Christian communities in their heartlands of the eastern Mediterranean where, for all that some accepted martyrdom many, including bishops, did not.”

Interesting. Are there cases of Christian bishops defecting to Diocletianism?

“The nature of that urban, eastern Mediterreanean world meant that by the time of Diocletian's persecutions Christianity, in both what we would now call 'true' and 'heretical' varieties, had also made significant converts in the Western towns of Persia. There, however, the fourth century saw the imperial centre adopt a different state religion based around fire worship, and enforce it with just as much vigour as Constantine enforced Christianity.”

True, but Christianity was developed in and for the Roman world. Rome was a commercial, sea-faring civilization with a significant and diverse educated class and a system of laws. It seems that Persia land-based structure would have made it more autocratic.

“The result was the virtual destruction of Christian communities which had in 300 CE seemed every bit as strong as those in Alexandria. Overall, I would therefore argue, there is nothing about Christianity which dictated in would benefit at times when the state sought a more formal religious basis: in some cases (Constantine) it did, and at others (Persia, Diocletian, Julian) it did not.”

What about the claim “there was something about Christianity which dictated that it would /be more likely to/ benefit /than other faiths/ at times when the /Roman/ state sought a more formal religious basis”?

Thank you very much for the informative submission. I hope this conversation continues.

If nothing else, this was probably a contributory element to the weakening of the Empire.

I do not accept that anti-abortion christian thought only developed post Constantine. See here for ample quotations from early christian writings. The subject of quickening and the eventual settling on conception for the start of pregnancy did come later, it's true but quickening is set at various dates from conception and is generally known as the date when the woman first notices fetal movement (sometime between week 14-22).

Romans were terrible land-maintainers, and often had problems with famine. Climate shifts would have exacerbated shifts. Definitely this stresses the state, and made the situation “the worse the better” for Christianity.

I agree that the quickening is the traditional dividing line. Conception as a dividing line is a later innovation.

Blogspirit trims out HTML from comments — did you have a hyperlink for the sentence beginning “See here…” ?

Thanks

Dan

HOMOSEXUALS. Think about it. They probably come closest in our society to having the same status Roman Christians had. Until recently, they were kicked out of the military upon discovery, even if they had excellent service records; we're running short of people to serve in the military and they ARE well educated. At a time when divorce rates are sky high, they're campaigning for the right to get married. When having kids for most couples is a question of fertility and/or money, and kids are going unadopted, they face hostility when they try to adopt. At a time when many of us are shirking responsibility, they're asking to take on more of it.

IMMIGRANTS. In general, this is nothing new. In the Civil War, Irish immigrants were recruited by the north. They fought bravely, suffered large casualty rates, and started crawling off of the bottom rung of society. Ditto many groups in WWII: women, blacks, american indians, and particularly asians. When a major crisis hits, people get desperate enough to think past their prejudices and give a chance to otherwise marginalized groups to gain their labor and support. Sometimes, the results are transitory, sometimes they are enduring.

So which immigrant groups are likely to be most important?
MEXICANS: Many of them (especially the illegal immigrants) are regarded as hired help at best, invaders at worst. Yet there's enough of them to make politicians salivate at the notion of getting their vote, and someone with the courage and discipline to sneak across the border and live as an illegal in this country would probably do well in the military.
MUSLIMS: Immigrants from Muslim countries are too often regarded as potential terrorists. Yet they're also better educated than the norm and are more likely to have the language and cultural knowledge needed by Sysadmin in the countries we're up to our necks in. And the mere act of convincing the Muslim-American communities would require some changes in how we do things overseas, convincing people that gap-shrinking isn't a code word for Crusade.

The real problem even within this analysis, however, lies in the assumption that Christianity offered the only possible religious support to the Roman Empire, when it was only one religion operating amongst many. You yourself note that conversion was imposed by the state upon the majority of the population, and acceptance of the tenets of faith was tenuous even then, as the polemics of fifth and sixth century writers make clear. Christians adopting the same strategy on the other side of the Roman-Persian border, for example, found themselves driven to the brink of extinction when that Empire adopted an entirely different state religion.

Chronology really isn't such a problem — the criss of the 2nd century preceeded Emperor Constantine. Further, the early Christians didn't know there would be barbarian pressure; Jesus and Paul merely created a movement that would profit during times of similar pressure.

Great point on Persia. I hadn't thought of that. I don't know enough about early Christianity in Persia to meaningfully compare it. Could you give some points? I would love to hear your thoughts.

I still feel chronology is a problem here if you wish to maintain that the principal additional pressure upon the Roman state was external, and particularly if you wish to argue that it was 'barbarian'. Rome suffered a series of problems in the first and second centuries, but none were caused by significant exogenous pressure, and the frontiers of the Empire remained stable for all the power struggles at the centre. The third century (200-300 CE) was another matter, as catastrophic defeats at the hands of the Persians led to a restructruing of the state, and a need to move revenue away from local towns towards the centre, all of which caused opposition and a rapid turnover of emperors. Whilst these reforms were not complete by the time Constantine struggled to introduce his own formalised state religion, the Empire had weathered the storm, and it is difficult to argue from a structural point of view that external pressure at that point was so significant that it demanded a new religious organisational system to butress the state. This doesn't affect your point that Christianity was in many ways positioned to benefit from a perceived need at the centre to create a more formal state religion, but the analysis needs adjusting somewhat to avoid the suggestion that such pressure was principally external and barbaric.

The real probelm, however, is the hindsight involved in the statement that “Jesus and Paul merely created a movement that would profit during times of similar pressure”. One option available to pre-industrial elites who wished to strengthen the ideology of the centre was to adapt or co-opt reliogious practice, and to create a more formalised state religion than that offered by the divergent, local and fluid systems often lumped together as 'paganism'. Christianity, however, remained only one of many systems which could fulfill that role. Diocletian, for instance, clearly developed imperial religious ideology in ways which made him more than one divine figure among many. His attempts to enforce this departure from traditional practice did great damage to Christian communities in their heartlands of the eastern Mediterranean where, for all that some accepted martyrdom many, including bishops, did not. The nature of that urban, eastern Mediterreanean world meant that by the time of Diocletian's persecutions Christianity, in both what we would now call 'true' and 'heretical' varieties, had also made significant converts in the Western towns of Persia. There, however, the fourth century saw the imperial centre adopt a different state religion based around fire worship, and enforce it with just as much vigour as Constantine enforced Christianity. The result was the virtual destruction of Christian communities which had in 300 CE seemed every bit as strong as those in Alexandria. Overall, I would therefore argue, there is nothing about Christianity which dictated in would benefit at times when the state sought a more formal religious basis: in some cases (Constantine) it did, and at others (Persia, Diocletian, Julian) it did not.

My basic problem is, therefore, that I feel your argument works by reading history backwards, by assuming that what happened was bound to happen, and that it can therefore be explained in terms of the nature of early Christianity. Of course, in doing so you are writing a Christian history entirely consistent with both Providence and the outlook of many third and fourth-century Christian writers, and creating a new Christian history suited to some of the problems you feel Christians face. But here you seem to be doing something altogether more dangerous, claiming that secular historical investigation can offer a proof of the effectiveness of the suggestions you offer. This is, I fear, to stretch a point further than your evidence allows.

A very good comment. I mostly agree. Neither Paul nor Jesus wished to end the Roman Emprie.

Paul, a former secret-policeman, knew the value of law and order. He told Christians to obey government officials and the police.

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

Roman soliders were the most feared part of the Roman security machine, yet Jesus told follows that when a Roman soldier demanded that they carry their equipment for a mile, they should carry it for an extra mile too!

” If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.”

Even at his own excution, Jesus denied that solders were morally culpable as long as they were just following orders

“”Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing”

Jesus and Paul wanted to take over the Roman Empire, to make it “lovingly kind.” They did not want to destroy it.

The collapse of the Western Empire would be a disaster for the Christian program. The Rise of Islam would be even worse.

If you enjoyed this article, please read my other articles on early Christianity

Caiaphas and Diocletian Did Know Better
http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/07/10/caiaphas-and-diocletian-did-know-better.html
Every Man a Panzer, Every Woman a Soldat
http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/07/14/every-man-a-panzer-every-woman-a-soldat.html
as well as my posts on the Christian revival

One Girl SecretWar
http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/07/27/one-girl-secretwar.html
Beauty from Pain
http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2005/07/26/beauty-from-pain.html

“christ's ethics…. have in mind the way to live the happiest and most harmonious possible in spite of the state” is true, but incomplete. Christianity seeks not just virtue in spite of the state, but also virtue with the state. It will exist under government oppression, but wishes to rearrange government to suite it.