Susan2

Perhaps someone would be willing to answer a question for me? Is the following quote from wiki true?

mountainman

He who controlled the Roman army assumed the role of Pontifex Maximus. This followed Julius Caesar who bribed his way to the position according to Suetonius.

Corroborative archaeological evidence for the persecution of the Manichaeans exist, but I have seen nothing cited for the persecution of christians other than the standard drivel pumped out by our mercanery Constantinian literacist and researcher of the past Olympiads, Hans Eusebius Anderson.

This assertion is effectively disputed in Barnes:
Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

The Roman empire effectively became Christian c.324/325 CE when Constantine started destroying the opposition religious temples and shrines, prohibited the use and services of the remaining temples by means of his armies, and started legislating laws such as:

"Religious privileges are reserved for Christians."


The modern sovereign political state was coined
in the gold solidi of Constantine who personally
implemented the centralised political state
and the monotheistic religious state c.324/325 CE
following the precedent of the political history
of what Ardashir did with the Parthian civilisation
c.222 CE in order to create the Iranian state
and the monotheistic Zoroastrian centralised
Sassanid Persian state religion. The parallels
are striking. Both processes were ones of
de-Hellenisation run by military supremacists.


Constantine was an anti-Hellenistic fascist.
The army was employed to do his bidding.
They were paid well - in gold.
The Hellenistic civilisation went down 324/325 CE.

Toto

This is technically true, but might create a false impression that there was some sort of separation of church and state (as modern people understand the term) in ancient Israel.

It is true that in the Roman Empire, religious officials were appointed by the state, and the state religion was a branch of government. But it is also true that the Romans were generally tolerant of other polytheistic religions as long as one sacrificed to the Emperor.

ok. . .

This is misleading, I think. Jews were exempt from forced participation in worshiping the emperor, but opinions on the legitimacy of the political authority were varied.

This is a complicated question. It seems that persecution of Christians did happen, but it was sporadic and generally ineffective.

It's not clear why this section is relevant to the main topic of separation of church and state in any case, except as negative examples. :huh:

Susan2

Toto and Mountainman, thank you for answering my question. Of course I do have some other questions that I will look into, but one question that I would like to ask is this: Is there a consensus of agreement that early Christians were in fact Jews?

Toto

There is a "consensus" among NT scholars, based primarily on the Book of Acts, that early Christians (of the first century) went to Jewish synagogues and functioned more or less as a sect of Judaism. This is how NT scholars tend to explain the lack of evidence of Christianity in the first century.

The evidence of Pliny would seem to indicate that this was not the case at the beginning of the second century. Or it might be that Christianity arose in the second century and invented a Jewish history for itself.

Susan2

Thank you. Interesting. I am wondering if the Christian community based it's myth upon an already known tale within the Jewish community, albeit changed names, and much elaboration?

Iow's, I am interested in the Son of Ben Shetach story. A prototype?

PapaverDeum

Hi Susan.

As another poster has already told you ,don;t hink for a moment that the Jews could even imagine something like separation of church and state.

Let's clarify some other things too. At the time of Jesus and for the last few centuries prior, the Jews were an obscure and insignificant force in the meditteranean region. Their language had become obsolete, used only in religious ceremony and for their scriptures. And those scriptures were crude and childlike compared to the literaturature of the Greeks, Romans and Babylonians. The everyday language of Judea at the time of Jesus was Aramaic, a Babylonian dialect related to hebrew. Greek was also spoken, but it is arguable how well known it was. Possibly well by the educated and merchant classes. Most Judeans probably spoke enough greek to get by.
Militarily they were insignificant. But, by the time of Jesus, Jerusalem was a beautiful and modern city with a fantastic temple. But that was due to Herod, an Idmunian, more or less a foreigner who had become king. HE had friends in the Roman empire, and it was Roman architecture and engineering thanks to the money and influence of Herod to which Jerusalem owed its temple and modern (at the time) features of the city.Even though Herod ruled, he was a client kingdom of the Roman empire.

Now, consider something else. Despite their insignificance, these people were arrogant racists. The thought of themselves as the chosen people, this reflected in their scriptures(again, written in an obsolete language that lacked anything like the sophistication of greek or latin. You can see some of this in the NT also. And now for the surprise, The large part of the Judeans resented Herod the foreign king. It's understandable.

Even though Herod ruled, he was a client kingdom of the Roman empire. But that worked very much in favor of the Jews. The Jewish exemption spoken of above existed only in exchange for the fact that the Jews made sacrifice for the Roman emperor in their temple (documented by Josephus). so, this "exemption" was an accomodation given to them thanks to Herod and the Roman's willingness to acommodate. But , this was not going to last much longer.

Let's set the stage for the time of Jesus, as per the classic dates. At about the time of the classic date for Jesus's birth, Herod dies. Instead of appointing another king and maintaining JUdea as a client kingdom, Rome put them under their direct administration. Judea now had a Roman governor. So far so good. Agreements stayed intact, but the resentment of the Jews seethed. Terrorist or Resistance (however you see it) movements were well under way. The RElations between rome and Judea were strained and tense.
(See Flavius Jospehus's "War of the Jews" for info about events leading up to the revolt.

According to the classic timeline, Jesus dies about 30-35CE. REbel movements and events were common. The powder keg was ready to be lit.

Now, consider what I said earlier. The Judeans were arrogant, thought of themselves as god's chosen people, yet, everyday they saw the superiority of the Romans and Greeks. The romans and Greek contrators and slave labour made Jerudalerm what it was. and they felt repressed and in their literature took credit for stuff that they really did not do. You know the story.
IN the NT scriptures, there are lots of hints about this.

About 70 CE, the Jews revolt against the Romans. This was suicide. It was the equivalent of the Netherlands revolting against the EU and USA under NATO. Truly, it looked like suicide and it was. (there are 2 good source about this, Josephus and A roman source both describe this war.

Anyway Rome responded. Historian Michael Grant says that the Romans brutally put fdown the revolt using about 1/10th of their military. The arrogance of the Judeans knew no bounds. The romans sacked their city, burned down their temple, knocked down the stone such that "there was not one stone left standing" (remember those words ? The NT obscurely tells the story of the revolt of 70 too). Basically, rome took mostof the JUdeans as slaves and slaughtered a whole lot more. There are contepmorary descriptinos of this revolt, coins, archs of triumph, one showingthe Romans carrying out the treasures of the Jerusalem temple.

Beliee it or not, rome relents, and can you believe, by about 120CE a guy named Bar Kochba was thought ot be the messiah and revolts again. Rome once again brutally put down the revolt, but this time they kick the jews out of Judea and rename the area Palestinia.

That Jewish exemption was no longer in force. Around this time, between the revolts or near the second revolt, Christianity more or less (less really) comes out of the closet.

An interesting study can be found in the PLiny/TRajan correspondence. These ar letters between roman emperor Hadrian and Pliny, the governor of Bythnia (A roman province) and he has to deal with a group of Christians he finds in his province. (see it here http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/jod/texts/pliny.html)

These letter tell a much different story than what the classic Christian persecution stories do.

Some (me among them) think that the the Jesus story was in part a reaction to the Judean revolts. Since the Jews lost and lost big, they must no longer be the chosen ones, and this story serves to explain that and how now the Christians are the chosen.

This is the background from which the Christian stories arise. They are totally written in greek.

Hopes that helps to give you the background. Now, some Christians and Jews are gonna take issue with this (big time), but, study the history for yourself. Nothing I have said here is unreasonable and is a good description of what went on.

REad the Pliny/Trajan letters (they are short) and what we find is that, some small part of those Christians got executed, but most got pardoned after they gave up their Christianity.

In the final letter, the Bythnian Christians are all but gone. The majority came back to Roman paganism and PLiny remarks about how the pagan temples are full again.

A whole lot different than the Christian take on it. REad the letters for yourself, Josephus's description of the Judean revolt and the stupidity of it.

Hope this helps.

please pardon my apelling errors. I typed this in very quickly.

Now, let's set the stage for the time of Jesus. Thanks to

GakuseiDon

Yes, that part has always interested me:

"For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it. It is certainly quite clear that the temples, which had been almost deserted, have begun to be frequented, that the established religious rites, long neglected, are being resumed, and that from everywhere sacrificial animals are coming, for which until now very few purchasers could be found. Hence it is easy to imagine what a multitude of people can be reformed if an opportunity for repentance is afforded."

A "multitude of people can be reformed". It almost sounds as though Pliny is blaming the deserted temples on the number of Christians that were in his area. Does anyone else know anything about this period, and why the temples "had been almost deserted"?

Roger Pearse

Well done for questioning what you find in Wikipedia. Much of the stuff in there on controversial topics is bunk.

Is this a reference to the *Roman* republic?

It's broadly true, but hides the slightly different attitudes involved in seeking political or religious office.

The high priesthood became a political office in this manner, not under foreign rule, but during the Maccabean period, iirc.

This rushes over a great many ideas, and may confuse. The early emperors did hold the title of Pontifex Maximus. Some were deified, but this does not imply that they were considered deities in the way that we might suppose.

The first to order that he be addressed as lord and god was Domitian, and the poems of Martial are full of fawning addresses to Domitian as god (prior to the latter's assassination). The poems seem to me to reflect a period in which classical paganism was becoming impossible for anyone to believe in, and its defining myths and heroic deed were routinely restaged and surpassed for entertainment in the amphitheatre.

This is pretty much correct. Tertullian tells us (Apologeticum) that the pagans simply said "Non licet esse vos" -- "you are not allowed to exist". But the persecution was not empire-wide and continuous until the time of the emperor Decius.

The Roman empire was not a centralised modern state, and the general principle of government was to stay in power, send out governors with very wide license to do whatever, so long as they kept the peace and allowed the tax farmers to raise money. (The inevitable prosecutions of Roman governors for abuse by provincials form a steady theme in Roman literature. "Hurrah, hurrah, I've sold up half the Baetici and raised five million", as one corrupt governor wrote to his wife.)

Consequently power to persecute or not lay in the lands of the provincial governors, who might do so or not. More of a problem was that Christians were under constant threat of blackmail and being informed against. The letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan indicates this, and Trajan's reply -- Christianity is illegal, Christians must be executed, but not sought for and informers should be discouraged -- indicates the curious balance that the emperors generally sought to establish in legal matters. (If you are interested, get hold of the Penguin edition of Pliny's Letters and read book 10, his letters to the emperor and the replies -- it is a goldmine of examples of how the empire was run).

You might like to read Tertullian's short work "Ad Scapulam", which will give you examples of the relationship and attitudes. Nothing like primary sources!

There are people who try to play down the persecutions. We need not pay attention to them.

True, especially the Great Persecution (the term used in the Chronicle of Eusebius, who lived through it and saw his teacher Pamphilus arrested and executed) under Diocletian when a serious empire-wide effort was made to eradicate Christianity.

Something wrong with that date. 394 is the more usual one (can't remember).

Theodosius made paganism illegal. The looseness of Roman administration (described above) however meant that this was largely a gesture, reflecting the trend in society rather than making it happen.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Huon

Christianity developed at a moment when the state Roman religion was losing its importance in the roman empire. You could have a look at the history of emperor Elagabalus (218-222) and his successors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus
Elagabalus tried to replace the graeco-roman gods (Zeus-Jupiter, etc...) by a new god, Sol Invictus (Unvanquished Sun), and an oriental-style devotion to the emperor, considered as the representative of Sol Invictus on the earth. Of course, the following emperors kept the idea of the cult of the emperor. ( ). Sol Invictus was a prototype for a monotheistic religion.