Post: #1

As part of an extended project I've been working on for the past six months. I'd like some additional sources to flesh out what I've already got.

We all know Gibbon had a lot to say on this matter, but does anyone have any recommendations on books (or other sources) about this time period in history, how Christianity rose to become the official and later only legally sanctioned religion in Rome? This is a very important time in history towards the evolution of what we're seeing now.

Post: #2

Out of the top of my head I can t really recall any single book but I would say its worth reviewing HG Wells's "The outline of History",though he takes much of his reference from Gibbons he also does criticize and review many of his statements while providing his own snippets over this period

Post: #3

I have read Zealot: The Life and times of Jesus of Nazareth, and enjoyed it, but I cannot tell you how accurate it is. It would predate the era you're interested in.

It's probably worth reading a book specifically on Paul and something more broad afterward, but I have no real recommendations.

Post: #4

The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark is a good read.

Post: #5

I haven't gotten to it, but I've been wanting to read God Against the Gods by Jonathan Kirsch, which is more broadly about monotheistic religions overturning polytheistic religions in the west, with a significant focus on the rise of Christianity in Rome and the destruction of the pagan faiths.

Post: #6

Thank you all. Keep e'm coming.

(02-13-2016 11:14 AM)Irenicus Wrote:  The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark is a good read.

This one was on my radar actually.

Post: #7

Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years

This is another interesting book, although it does not deal with the very beginning.

Post: #8

I'm mainly interested in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, as these were really the critical ones in terms of the transition from paganism to Christian monotheism.

Post: #9

(02-13-2016 06:20 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I'm mainly interested in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, as these were really the critical ones in terms of the transition from paganism to Christian monotheism.

Will Durant's The Story of Civilization Volume 3: Caesar and Christ would be good to investigate. It's an overview of the rise, the apex, and the decline of Rome and the rise of Christianity until about 325 AD. Volume 4: The Age of Faith is about the Medieval period.

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

http://www.amazon.com/Caesar-Christ-Stor...1482956195

Post: #10

(02-14-2016 03:54 PM)Germanicus Wrote:  

(02-13-2016 06:20 PM)Libertas Wrote:  I'm mainly interested in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, as these were really the critical ones in terms of the transition from paganism to Christian monotheism.

Will Durant's The Story of Civilization Volume 3: Caesar and Christ would be good to investigate. It's an overview of the rise, the apex, and the decline of Rome and the rise of Christianity until about 325 AD. Volume 4: The Age of Faith is about the Medieval period.

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

http://www.amazon.com/Caesar-Christ-Stor...1482956195

Ahh how could I forget that! Still planning to read that whole series. Excellent history, extremely readable.

Post: #11

(02-13-2016 01:02 PM)Libertas Wrote:  Thank you all. Keep e'm coming.

(02-13-2016 11:14 AM)Irenicus Wrote:  The Rise of Christianity by Rodney Stark is a good read.

This one was on my radar actually.

This book is phenomenal. I highly recommend it.

Post: #12

Study the life of Constantine. The Roman empire was less than 10% Christian when he was born, and over 90% Christian when he died. He pretty much single-handedly changed the course of history forever.

Post: #13

Christians As The Romans Saw Them by Robert Louis Wilken is both an enlightening and an entertaining read.

Post: #14

(02-12-2016 02:11 PM)Libertas Wrote:  As part of an extended project I've been working on for the past six months. I'd like some additional sources to flesh out what I've already got.

We all know Gibbon had a lot to say on this matter, but does anyone have any recommendations on books (or other sources) about this time period in history, how Christianity rose to become the official and later only legally sanctioned religion in Rome? This is a very important time in history towards the evolution of what we're seeing now.

maybe check out "the closing of the western mind." read it years ago, and i remember it being excellent. lots of info not only on the late roman empire and christianity, but also on the philosophical tendencies in the classical world that led to christianity's eventual triumph:

http://www.amazon.com/Closing-Western-Mi...stern+mind

Post: #15

1. The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era: Exploring the Background of Early Christianity, by James S. Jeffers
2. Church History In Plain Language, by Bruce L. Shelley

No axes to grind, no secret conspiracies to promote, just good writing that lets you make up your own mind. I own and read them both and they changed my perspective of reading the Bible in its cultural-historical arena, so instead of asking how modern theologians interpret the passage, I ask myself how the people of the time understood what was being said.

Post: #16

I'm just reading The March of Titans by Arthur Kemp. He gives a pretty good synopsis on the rise and fall of Rome. He also talks about why Christianity became the dominant religion of it's day. By the way, it is important to note that the book is 1800 pages long, and doesn't focus just squarely on the history of Christianity but European History. It's well worth the read in my book.

Post: #17

Eusebius of Caesarea was a 3rd-4th Century writer who wrote a history of the Church.

Post: #18

The Roman emperors were always against Christianity, until one emperor (Constantine the Great) thought Christianity was great and made it an official religion in the Roman Empure. He's probably responsible for destructing his own culture and religion, because he prohibited the building of temples and performance of religious ceremonies, which basically meant that Romans couldn't practice their own religion.

Post: #19

Did he forbid consulting the sacred chickens?

Post: #20

(02-23-2016 07:32 PM)Marcus187 Wrote:  The Roman emperors were always against Christianity, until one emperor (Constantine the Great) thought Christianity was great and made it an official religion in the Roman Empure. He's probably responsible for destructing his own culture and religion, because he prohibited the building of temples and performance of religious ceremonies, which basically meant that Romans couldn't practice their own religion.

Constantine had a vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge basically saying to "delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers". Essentially the message was "In this sign, you will conquer."

Post: #21

(02-25-2016 01:21 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Constantine had a vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge basically saying to "delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers". Essentially the message was "In this sign, you will conquer."

The more plausible explanation is that his mother was a Christian. It's also very likely that he (correctly) saw the potential of Christianity as a method of centralizing power: he quickly called ecumenical councils, declared dissenting Christians heretics (whom he also promptly banished) and made himself the de facto head of the church. Such a capacity for enforced orthodoxy had never existed in paganism, so it's easy to see the appeal it held for an ambitious ruler.

And in that sign, Rome was conquered not long after.

Post: #22

The Cambridge History of Christianity: Origins to Constantine, Edited by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young

Post: #23

(02-23-2016 07:32 PM)Marcus187 Wrote:  The Roman emperors were always against Christianity, until one emperor (Constantine the Great) thought Christianity was great and made it an official religion in the Roman Empure. He's probably responsible for destructing his own culture and religion, because he prohibited the building of temples and performance of religious ceremonies, which basically meant that Romans couldn't practice their own religion.

Constantine persecutions of the pagans can be seen as a natural reaction against the persecution Christians had endured in Rome for nearly 100 years before Constantine's rise to power. It was also a way for Constantine to target his political enemies.

(02-25-2016 09:17 PM)Saga Wrote:  

(02-25-2016 01:21 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  Constantine had a vision before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge basically saying to "delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers". Essentially the message was "In this sign, you will conquer."

The more plausible explanation is that his mother was a Christian. It's also very likely that he (correctly) saw the potential of Christianity as a method of centralizing power: he quickly called ecumenical councils, declared dissenting Christians heretics (whom he also promptly banished) and made himself the de facto head of the church. Such a capacity for enforced orthodoxy had never existed in paganism, so it's easy to see the appeal it held for an ambitious ruler.

And in that sign, Rome was conquered not long after.

Unfortunately for secular explanations, Constantine defeated an army twice his size at the Milvian bridge, something that almost never happened in the ancient world. It defied all rational explanation. This convinced his men and the general population that Constantine's divine ordination and vision was genuine, and people quickly rallied around him.

He was raised by a Christian mother, but in general he knew very little about the subject as he was separated from her at a young age. He spent most of his life as soldier.

Christianity was a poor choice to unite the people as well, as it was obscure and unknown. There is no logical explanation as to why Constantine would have enforced Christianity unless he had believed himself to be under a divine mandate, the same way there is no explanation for the Apostle Paul's sudden conversion from persecution to evangelizer. The supposed gains from conversion just weren't there. Constantine had to fight for Christ his entire life and it cost him far more than it brought him.

Post: #24

(02-26-2016 07:35 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Constantine persecutions of the pagans can be seen as a natural reaction against the persecution Christians had endured in Rome for nearly 100 years before Constantine's rise to power. It was also a way for Constantine to target his political enemies.

The persecutions were different in kind. Pagan persecutions of Christians were periodic (if not infrequent) and chiefly concerned with perceived defiance of political authority rather than mere religious difference. Roman pagans had tolerated practically hundreds of faiths without issue...their problem wasn't what Christians believed or what god they prayed to or how, but which civil acts they refused to participate in.

The Christian persecutions of pagans, on the other hand, were constant and total, and had as its fundamental goal the complete obliteration of any differing religious tradition or philosophy. Even dissident Christians were not spared the specter of state suppression.

The pagan persecutions of Christians were wrong and unjust, there's no denying that...but any direct comparison of the two is mistaken. The very concept of extinguishing all other religious beliefs never occurred to pagans, yet that unfortunate result is what Christians accomplished as they watched the Roman Empire crash to the ground around them.

Quote:Unfortunately for secular explanations, Constantine defeated an army twice his size at the Milvian bridge, something that almost never happened in the ancient world. It defied all rational explanation. This convinced his men and the general population that Constantine's divine ordination and vision was genuine, and people quickly rallied around him.

It wasn't the mismatch you describe. Gibbon allows for a disparity in numbers, but notes the superiority in the quality of Constantine's army (largely drawn from the rigorous frontier, unlike Maxentius' soldiers), especially in cavalry, which largely decided the battle. Gibbon also writes that Maxentius' unpopularity caused many of his forces to flee primarily out of a disinclination to fight for a leader they hated. In Battles That Changed History, Tucker estimates approximately 50,000 with Constantine and 75,000 with Maxentius, hardly a massive disadvantage, and one largely erased by the gap in quality.

Constantine and his followers had much to gain in exaggerating his ascent to power and retrospectively ascribing a miraculous character to it. Numerical records of ancient battles are notoriously unreliable, especially those which involved political ambitions and reputations. We know how widespread this is from the misrepresentation of Attila's turning back from Rome (not due to divine intervention as claimed by the church but because his cavalry-strong army simply could not long subsist in famine-ravaged Italy) to the "Donation of Constantine" (used for centuries as justification for papal control over central Italy, which was later found to be a forgery). The unhistorical portrayal of impossible odds at Milvian Bridge belongs to this category of propaganda.

And even assuming the official version is true, such battles were far from unparalleled. Alexander (at Gaugamela), Hannibal (at Cannae) and Caesar (at Alesia, Pharsalus, Alexandria, etc.) and plenty of other generals triumphed over opponents double their number or close to it, and some of them possessed forces of inferior quality (Hannibal at Cannae is the best example of this). Such victories were certainly rare but not remotely unique.

Quote:He was raised by a Christian mother, but in general he knew very little about the subject as he was separated from her at a young age. He spent most of his life as soldier.

One need not know much of a religion to have sympathy for it, especially when familial allegiances are in play. Since he was raised primarily by his mother and remained highly affectionate towards her throughout his life, it's quite certain that the maternal influence over him was considerable. In fact the church itself regards her as a saint precisely for her part in Christianizing Rome. Given that, surely no perceptive observer could discount its importance.

Quote:Christianity was a poor choice to unite the people as well, as it was obscure and unknown. There is no logical explanation as to why Constantine would have enforced Christianity unless he had believed himself to be under a divine mandate, the same way there is no explanation for the Apostle Paul's sudden conversion from persecution to evangelizer. The supposed gains from conversion just weren't there. Constantine had to fight for Christ his entire life and it cost him far more than it brought him.

As Constantine's enthusiasm for establishing and enforcing orthodoxy demonstrates, it was hugely advantageous for him to favor Christianity and make it the religion of the imperial class. Paganism had no mechanism for formulating narrowly-defined acceptable dogma and allowed a multiplicity of approaches to worship, whereas Christianity demanded adherence to a centralized ideology and institution and scripture...something it insisted upon with increasing zealotry (Constantine's edict ordering the burning of all of Arius' writings is just one example of this). Pagan theology was also open to autonomous interpretation and addition (Ovid didn't need to call an ecumenical council or risk accusations of heresy to write Metamorphoses), whereas Christianity defined itself through a single book compiled by an elite. Soon enough, the persecutions that Constantine initiated (or at least made possible) became the norm, and swerving from the official state religion was itself a crime. It's easy to see what a welcome innovation this represented for someone interested in centralization and control.

In addition, Christianity's messianic view of the world facilitated Constantine's casting himself as the savior of Rome. Paganism viewed redemption as coming through the cultivation of virtuous action. Christianity presents redemption as emanating from the forgiveness of a higher power. I'm not interested in questioning the religious value of the latter, but one can see how a power-minded leader could take advantage of the paradigmatic shift.

It's also true that Constantine played both sides when it suited him: he made a show of supporting pagan traditions early in his reign, with official patronage of Apollo being particularly visible (his attitude towards paganism turned to outright hostility as he accrued more power). This is a telltale sign of a man who put political calculation at or very near the top of his list of priorities.

Was there genuine faith in Constantine's choice? I wouldn't deny it. However, any impartial thinker will find it highly difficult to ignore the earthly advantages he gained along with it. In only a few generations, state Christianity achieved a level of enforced conformity that no pagan faith had ever imagined or desired.

Post: #25

Saga: Good history. You present convincing counter-arguments that can only be settled with more research and I will leave the issue open to the reader to decide. However, I do take some issues:

Quote:Roman pagans had tolerated practically hundreds of faiths without issue...their problem wasn't what Christians believed or what god they prayed to or how, but which civil acts they refused to participate in.

The Christian persecutions of pagans, on the other hand, were constant and total, and had as its fundamental goal the complete obliteration of any differing religious tradition or philosophy. Even dissident Christians were not spared the specter of state suppression.

The pagan persecutions of Christians were wrong and unjust, there's no denying that...but any direct comparison of the two is mistaken. The very concept of extinguishing all other religious beliefs never occurred to pagans

This simply isn't true, pagans wiped each other out and their beliefs all the time. The Romans in particular razed and salted the Carthaginians and Jews and whatever religion they had was utterly decimated. The Jews managed to survive but only barely. They were taxed for almost 400 years after Jewish-Roman wars as punishment. This is one of the reasons Talmudic Jews became so bitter towards Christians, as they saw Jewish converts to Christianity as those who were defecting against their race.

The Romans were never much of a spiritual people to begin with. They adopted the Greek religion and then later on Christianity. There was always a void there. Constantine happened to be ultra brutal but then again so was nearly every successful Roman Emperor.

Quote:One need not know much of a religion to have sympathy for it, especially when familial allegiances are in play. Since he was raised primarily by his mother and remained highly affectionate towards her throughout his life, it's quite certain that the maternal influence over him was considerable. In fact the church itself regards her as a saint precisely for her part in Christianizing Rome. Given that, surely no perceptive observer could discount its importance.

Right, but it's not like any of his soldiers understood or had faith in such a symbol. Constantine could have easily chosen a God of war or something else to that effect that his soldiers believed in. And yet the version reportedly given by Constantine says that the symbol was made visible not only to himself, but all of his soldiers on a bright sunny day. It makes sense if Constantine used the symbol because his soldiers saw and believed, but it doesn't make sense if Constantine used an obscure symbol none of his soldiers knew or believed in.

Again, you can say he got lucky and just happened to win with the symbol, but all in all it was a very strange thing for an army general to pick a religious symbol completely foreign to his troops and ask them to rally around it. It doesn't matter how close he was to his mother, for his soldiers to have no reason to believe and yet have Constantine march them under the Chi-Rho symbol would be foolish by any rational consideration.

Quote: In only a few generations, state Christianity achieved a level of enforced conformity that no pagan faith had ever imagined or desired.

Come on, you expect me to believe that? At least some of them desired that level of power, such as Ares.