Post New

The author of a new book says that as the Roman Empire fell, the church began to take over the roles which were a priori handled by sponsors, high ranking government officials, or the Empire itself. In other words, they stepped into a vacuum as the traditional empire disi8ntegrated.

It’s not quite as perfectly put as that, but she makes some intriguing comments, including (included below) the common wisdom about Cxxxx being not quite as simple as it seems. (I’ve bolded that part. Here’s an extract:)

Christianity didn’t invent itself as an empire from nothing: it adapted existing Roman structures”

Danny Bird What made you decide to write about the collapse of the western Roman empire and the rise of Christianity?

Alice Roberts I’ve long been fascinated by this historical period, especially in Britain, where written records are scarce. This book grew from my interest in burial archaeology, shaped by excavations I took part in 20 years ago on a Welsh cliff. Bones were eroding from the cliff face, and we uncovered cist graves – stone-lined, coffin-like structures – some dating from as early as the fifth century. One grave even had a stone lid carved with a simple cross. These early Christian burials sparked my curiosity.

More recently, I visited an excavation at Llantwit Major, where archaeologists are investigating what may be Britain’s earliest monastery, possibly dating to the fifth century. This raised further questions: why was Christianity spreading so early? And who was behind it?

Rather than relying on broad generalisations, my book focuses on individuals: the people who carried Christianity across regions, and their motives. A story that began with burials in Wales led me across the Roman world from Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) to Alexandria, aiming to find out how Christianity spread so widely, and what that reveals about the fall of the western Roman empire.

Christianity presents itself as a faith for the powerless, but your book suggests that it was adopted by urban elites in its early centuries. How does this challenge the mythology surrounding its origins?
It stands in stark contrast, really. It’s a tricky point, because those writing about Christianity were necessarily literate members of the elite. So, from the outset, we’re seeing a movement that appears to have spread among relatively well-off individuals.

By the fourth century, it had clearly reached the highest echelons of Roman society. Emperor Constantine had begun to take notice, convening a council of bishops in AD 325. But even in the earliest years, this was a movement involving influential figures.

Take Saint Paul – or Saul, as he was originally known. One of his first actions was to meet the governor of Cyprus – not preaching to the poor but engaging with powerful individuals in the Roman empire who had the means to support him. The governor then sent him back to what is now Turkey to reconnect with his family. It seems that Paul recognised that patronage by adopting the governor’s name, ‘Paulus’ – which is a very Roman thing to do when offered someone’s backing.

Interviewer What’s your take on Constantine? Is it right to describe him as the ‘Christian emperor’?

Alice Roberts It’s not as straightforward as it seems. We have a biography written after his death by Eusebius, who explicitly claims that Constantine was Christian and experienced a conversion on the way to the battle of the Milvian Bridge. Eusebius describes Constantine having a vision and carrying a Chi-Rho [a combination of chi and rho, the first two letters of the Greek word for Christ] into battle, supposedly with Christ supporting him.

It’s quite striking, because at that point the context is entirely military: Christ becomes someone you want on your side as you move to defeat the emperor in Rome and claim sole rule. (Constantine was never destined to be emperor; he effectively eliminated the other three rulers until he was the last man standing.) Eusebius asserts that Constantine’s conversion occurred en route to that decisive battle.
Afterwards, Constantine erected a triumphal arch in Rome. If the vision and conversion had truly occurred en route to the Milvian Bridge, you might expect some Christian symbolism on that arch – but there’s none. Instead, it’s full of traditional Roman iconography.

What’s important to remember is that none of this history comes to us without agenda. Any written account, then or now, reflects the perspective of its author. Eusebius – a bishop – clearly had reasons to portray Constantine as a committed Christian. However, when you examine Constantine’s broader communications – particularly coins, which were vital tools of imperial messaging in a largely illiterate empire – you see something different. His coins continued to depict Roman gods including Sol, to whom he appeared especially drawn, well after his supposed conversion.

That led me to investigate the Chi-Rho more closely. More than 1,000 different coin designs were minted during Constantine’s reign, and only a handful bear the Chi-Rho. Even on those coins, it appears in subtle ways: on a military standard, on a helmet – all very martial in character.

What surprised me most was discovering the Chi-Rho’s ancient origins. The symbol appears in pre-Christian literature and papyri. There’s even one on a Greek bust dating back to a time before the supposed birth date of Jesus Christ. The most plausible explanation from the papyri is that Chi-Rho was originally an abbreviation for the Greek word archōn, meaning ‘ruler’, not Christos as Eusebius claimed.

So even if Constantine did carry the symbol into battle, did it mean Christ? Or was that the first time anyone interpreted it that way? Up until then, it meant something else entirely. And we can’t even be sure he used it in the battle. Another contemporary account says he carried a cross, not a Chi-Rho.

Interview From BBC History Magazine. Her new book is “Domination”. She has a BBC TV series about to air as well.

https://apple.news/A5Wpy4TSkQFqBOqZh8hBDLA

Watching one of those Science Channel shows on Ancient Egypt and this episode was on Amenhotep IV, who got rid of all the old Egyptian Gods* in favor of just one, Ra, the Sun God. (*Like so many pre-history groups they had a god for every reason and season, hundreds, maybe thousands of them - and of course a cadre of priesthood with a vested interest in keeping things running just the way they were.)

Anyway, Amenhotep did make the changes during his lifetime, Pharaoh and all, but as soon as he died everything went back to the way it was, and his face was mostly chiseled from history because “heretic.” At least until “new” religions sprung up thousands of years later.

The moral of the story I guess, is it’s often more effective to graft onto an existing religion (As Christianity did) than to try to yank people wholesale into another. (Although thinking about it, it seems to have worked for certain English Kings and others. Stalin tried to close down all religion which didn’t really work, and he finally relented when he needed people to come together once WWII had started.)

Well, this went nowhere, with examples going both directions. Ah, maybe a good metaphor for religion?

it’s often more effective to graft onto an existing religion (As Christianity did) than to try to yank people wholesale into another.

I've long been struck by the Christian establishment of Christmas on Dec 25 as a replacement for the widely celebrated 'pagan' solstice on Dec 21. I imagine the slight offset was an attempt to weaken the prior fascination.

Tom

Anyway, Amenhotep did make the changes during his lifetime, Pharaoh and all,...

Wow. I actually remember that from one of my classes long ago.

The Egyptians already revered the Sun God. What Amenhotep did was change it to the actual "disk" of the sun, Aten. I never really understood the distinction between that and the sun, but apparently there was one. Sort of like different "conventions" of Baptists, I s'pose. But he did try to make a monotheism, as I recall. I'm not sure which heresy got him erased from Egyptian culture upon his death.

“I've long been struck by the Christian establishment of Christmas on Dec 25 as a replacement for the widely celebrated 'pagan' solstice on Dec 21. I imagine the slight offset was an attempt to weaken the prior fascination.”

Dude, it’s so you can go to both parties!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

Dude, it’s so you can go to both parties!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturnalia

It is interesting that a few (very few) xians don't celebrate xmas for precisely that reason. They recognize it was an invention of the Church, and don't take it seriously. The rest of the USian xian population gets riled-up over the "war of xmas".

Dan Carlin discusses how Christianity developed in his hardcore history episode "Thor's Angles." The convention wisdom is that early Christians co-opted pagan symbols and doctrine to make Christianity more palatable to pagans. Which is true, but at the same time the pagans were co-opting Christian symbols and doctrine to make paganism more palatable to Christians. The pagan motivation was support and eventual control of the Holy Roman Empire, so a thin veneer of Christianity went a lot way.

I have a long drive coming up. Dan Carlin to the front of the queue.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.