andrewcriddle

Although the ten per cent figure may be questionable, IMO Christianity has to be a significant minority group for Constantine's policy of official support to make sense.

Earlier emperors like Philp the Arab, and possibly Alexander Severus, who seem to have been sympathetic to Christianity at a time when it was numerically much smaller remained pagan in terms of their public religious policy.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I don't think Constantine's relation to the Christian Church was quite like that. He seems to have been dealing with a body large and self-confident enough to be difficult to guide and manage. And a body which he generally treated as a more or less autonomous ally rather than as a direct arm of imperial policy.

Andrew Criddle

mountainman

Dear dog-on,

To answer this question one might look for theories of ancient history which claim these conditions, and then cite and evaluate the arguments for and against such theories. For example Caesar's Messiah by Joseph Atwill.

Another method might be to ask the question where do the gnostics fit in, on the basis that everyone thinks that gnostics (who appear very Hellenistic rather that Jewish) have something to do with christian origins but we dont know what.

Both influenced by the existence of the Roman empire;
they are both monotheistic (like the Persian Zoroastrianism created c.222CE)

Eventual Roman state political sponsorship.
The language of composition (greek vs Hebrew).
The antiquity of the "Key Figures" (ie: christianity relatively "young")


Best wishes,


Pete

gentleexit

I think you underestimate his genuine enthusiasm for Christianity. Policy followed enthusiasm. He is subtle. Augustus-like subtle. He knows his cult is strange. He only promotes once he takes the east, where the cult is significant in some centers. It is no coincidence that he only starts building great temples for them then.

Any view on the pre-Constantine significance of Christianity really comes down to a view of that man. Did he latch unto the already rising or was he an enthusiast who did the rising? Was he a tyrant that genuine Christianity must bypass, making it advocate for intrinsic growth or was he a genuine enthusiast who made mistakes, the thirteenth apostle without which there would be no Church today, no forum like we're on now?

In favor of the apostle is the lack of archeology on a significant church before Constantine and a lack of third party notice. In favor of the "Church-undeniable" is ? Maybe belief in the Church undeniable?

mountainman

Dear gentleexit,

Where you use the term "Church-undeniable", Momigliano uses the term the divine origin of the church.

Need I add (Hello dog-on!) that the best argument against a Roman origin is of course provided by Eusebius' treatment of the "origins".


Best wishes,



Pete

Requia

To the very small percent christian argument. The one semi reliable number i have, is that Constantine invited 1800 bishops (all of the orthodox ones, catholic or otherwise) to the Nicaean conference. Of course, I have no idea how many Christians there would have been for each bishop. If each church had its own bishop the number might have been very small, especially if said churches were small themselves (mine had 5 people last week, though there are probably a whole hundred who show up to the churches under the bishop). On the other hand, the local catholic bishop has about... 25000 people in the diocese, if I have the area he covers right. So the best I can come up with is not less than .3%, and not more than 30%

DCHindley

Not all would be "converts," especially in the Pauline associations, although this was aspired to by some (manumission was sometimes granted on condition that the slave fully convert, as some inscriptions suggest), but probably more common among the the gentiles attracted to the Jesus party, who had concluded that messianic Jews were the most likely people to establish a truly just society on earth, and had intentionally threw their lot in with them.

Yes. Gentiles who associated with the Jesus party may have been attracted to some aspect of his message. We do not know for sure that he had messianic pretensions personally, although others certainly attributed them to him, like Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson among some Ultra-Orthodox Lubavitchers today. Would such converts be looked at askance? I think that technically conversion made you fully a Jew, but even so you were a kind of second class Jew nonetheless. For instance, there were restrictions as to who you or your immediate children could marry, etc.

You are right about some converts becoming super vigilant for their new faith. Several princelets of the royal family of the Parthian client kingdom of Adiabene, which had converted to Judaism in the early 1st century CE, were heavily active in the war against Rome of 66-70 CE (they ultimately surrendered to the Romans and were granted safe passage back to Adiabene in the name of keeping the Parthians from taking sides in the war). While this kind of fanaticism may have turned off some less revolutionary minded Jews ("Damn troublemakers!") it was more likely the savage reprisals and attempts at ethnic cleansing by BOTH Jews and gentiles in Judaea, Samaria, Galilee and the region of Coele Syria (the Levant) generally that turned these gentile converts away from their adopted faith.

Naaah. "Paul" (I refer here to my concept of a non-Christian Paul) was of the opinion that Jews and gentiles could co-exist as brothers sharing a common trust in the promises made by God to Abraham, promises God made and Abraham accepted before he had himself circumcised. Because faithful gentiles would share in that expected inheritance (a future messianic kingdom, perhaps more metaphorical than literal), he actively discouraged gentiles from fully converting to Judaism. At the same time he admitted he was proud of his own ethnic heritage and felt the Law was actually a mark of distinction for Jews, signifying their special place as a people chosen by God.

So, of course there were Jews among Paul's associates, those who shared his vision. For diaspora Jews, his ideas about close association between Jews and gentiles may not have seemed far fetched at all, but represented practical reality among wealthy Jewish households (few as they were).

Where he may have crossed the line, IMO, was in claiming faithful gentiles should be formally recognized as part of "Israel" on the basis of their faith in God's promises to Abraham. This is where his "collection" for the "saints" in Jerusalem comes in, and his claim to be an "apostle."

We know little about this title as a technical term in 1st century CE diaspora Judaism. After the destruction of Judaism, the Roman appointed patriarch in Jamnia appointed individuals to accept and transport freewill charitable offerings for the Jews of Judaea, and these were formally designated "apostles." Before the destruction, we know that there were similar collections of freewill offerings, although it is not known for sure whether those who brought in such collected offerings were called "apostles." I think the chances are fairly high some of them were so called.

Here was Paul, a self claimed "apostle" who thought he had the approval of some temple officials in charge of gifts of this type (the "Cephas, James & John" of Galatians, priests not to be confused with the non-priestly Peter, James and John of the Gospels). Freewill gifts would have been given for charitable purposes. When Paul finally gets to Jerusalem, whatever money he has collected from his faithful gentile friends is indeed accepted and used to defray the cost of several Jewish pilgrims intent upon discharging nazirite vows (offering the hair shaved from their head), but this results in a riot among fellow Jews who do not appear to think such gifts should have been accepted by the temple authorities.

Ironically, in 66 CE it was a refusal by the priest in charge of sacrifices to accept offerings from the emperor and gentiles in general (these former freewill gifts were offered in the temple as substitutes for the token worship of the emperor's genius required of all other subject peoples) that sparked the Jewish war that resulted in the end of sacrificial offerings altogether.

DCH

DCHindley

Nice analysis, although I'd quibble about how rigid such practices toward faithful gentiles was in the 1st century. While some Jews were accepting of faithful gentiles, others were not, as Jewish Pseudepigrapha is all over the place on the issue of gentiles in general.

DCH

spamandham

IMHO, this is too vague. I think a more specific hypothesis is needed to attempt to falsify.

For example, "Rome created Christianity to appeal both to naive common Jews and sophisticated Jews. The idea was to create a story that sophisticated Jews would recognize as symbolic midrash that explained that they were at fault for their own "crucifixion." This would encourage them to stop rebelling. Naive common Jews would think their messiah had come and died, and so there was nothing left to fight for (Mark originally ended with just the cruxifixion?). Such a ruse would require cooperation from sophisticated Jewish thinkers (like Josphus?)."

Sheshbazzar

I agree that there was a broad spectrum of opinion on the accepting of "faithful gentiles".
Yet The Laws of The Torah were quite explicit in making provision for the accommodation of "the stranger within thy gates", and as The Law was written, it made the class of the ger toshavim accepted and permanent fixtures within the framework of The Law and Jewish society. As such it was not possible for "observant" Jews to ignore the precepts regarding this accommodation without breaking several of the 613 mitzvot.

The emphasis though, needs to be placed upon the fact that these gentile partisans of the religion of the Jews, had in actual practice always enjoyed those liberties from full observance of The Laws, that in The NT became such hot spots of contention, the eating of proscribed meats and circumcision.
Circumcision was only required of a "stranger" IF he wished to participate in the eating of the Passover meal (Ex 12:43-48)
The Messianic "Christos"- "Yahshua/Iasus" sects practice replaced the eating of an actual Passover lamb meal, with a simple bread and wine Eucharistic observance, evidently as a way of allowing for uncircumcised gentiles to participate in the observance of Passover. (also perhaps one of the reasons for strongly encouraging the participants to first eat a regular meal at home before partaking of "The Lord's supper". 1 Cor11:20-34)
The other thing is that these gentile believers had been believers in the Jewish "Christ" for at least as long as the LXX had been in general usage, and not only these Gentile "messianist" but also the Greek speaking Jewish messianist would have been using the term "Christos", so the transition into being called "Christ-ians"was a natural.

Of course this would most certainly present origins that far predate the latter Roman involvements.