Topics in Middle East HistoryChapter 3: The Rise of ChristianityCopyright ©2010 by T. Pavlidis The Origins of ChristianityChristianity started small, as a Jewish sect. Before the Jewish revolt of 70CE Jewish sources describe Christians as Minim, i.e. heretics for believing that Jesus was the Messiah [LS1985, pp 51-61, details]. Sixty years later, after the Bar-Kokhba rebellion, Christianity appears as a separate religion. [ibid, p. 75]. We can only speculate about the reasons for that development. The Oxford theologian C. H. Dodd has characterized the period 100-180CE as one when the Christian Church went through a dark tunnel [SA1997, p.13]. Christian theological writings from that period focus on developing a distinct identity from Judaism, Hellenism, and, particularly, Gnosticism [ibid]. The latter was a second century CE movement that emphasized knowledge (gnosis in Greek) as opposed to the Christian emphasis on faith [EB82]. The knowledge of the Gnostics was supposed to be esoteric obtained by divine revelation. While many of the Gnostic beliefs can be traced to Greek, Jewish, and even Zoroastrian beliefs, Gnosticism did not become prominent until after Christianity [EB82]. Most of the modern knowledge about Gnosticism is derived from Christian polemics against them and as a result it is limited. A remarkable development of the period was the rejection of Greek philosophers by Christian apologists that was expressed as follows: "Anything correct in the treatises of the philosophers has either been taken from the Prophets or has been inserted there by demons in order to create problems for Christianity" [SA1997, p. 117 attributing the summary of ancient Christian views to the German theologian Adolf von Harnack]. This attitude was going to have enormous consequences and it is still held by some Christian fundamentalists today. Even though Christianity became a separate religion, its connection to Jewish beliefs survives in its name that is derived from the Greek word for Messiah. The correspondence of the words is shown in the table below. The word Χριστος is related to the word χρισμα meaning unction or, metaphorically, approval. It should not be confused with the word χρηστος meaning virtuous.
Why Christianity SpreadThe classic work of Gibbon [EG] includes two long chapters (XV and XVI) on Christianity. Chapter XV lists five reasons for the spread of Christianity. (I) "The intolerant zeal of the Christians"; (II) "The doctrine of a future life"; (III) The miracles "ascribed to the primitive church"; (IV) The "pure and austere morals of the Christians"; and (V) "The union and discipline of the Christian republic, which gradually formed an independent and increasing state in the heart of the Roman empire." [EG, vol. 1, p. 431]. Gibbon's analysis of the first reason exhibits a negative attitude towards the Jews. In essence he claims that the Christians had the "intolerant zeal" of the Jews but not their "exclusivity". However, Gibbon is wrong about the "exclusivity" of the Jews because that is a relatively modern phenomenon as we pointed out in Chapter 2: Population Peaks and Modern Heritage. Therefore Gibbon's first reason is based on a false premise and leaves open the question why Christians were more successful than Jews. The second reason is also disputable because other religions also promise future life, starting with the ancient Egyptians. The immortality of the soul was also accepted in Judaism after the Babylonian exile. Gibbon states that the immortality and pre-existence of the soul was accepted "from the philosophy of religion of the eastern nations" [EG, vol. 1, p. 452]. We can also dispense with the third reason because few if any people ever witnessed the miracles. Therefore the last two reasons seemed to be the most important. Wright [Wr09, pp. 266-287] presents the following theory for the spread of Christianity. The large extent of the Roman Empire in the first century CE encouraged the migration of people from far away places into the major cities. These migrants sought the support of voluntary associations, some of them centered around a cult. This was similar to what happened in the United States in modern times. Christian churches, according to E. R. Dodds (quoted by Wright [ibid]), provided "the essentials of social security". According to Wright this is where the Christian emphasis on brotherly love proved useful providing a stronger bond amongst the members of a church than that provided by other associations. Paul of Tarsus was an organizational genius and Wright details how his action led to the spread of Christianity. In essence, Wright's reasons for the spread fit with reasons (IV) and (V) of Gibbon. What was unique in Christianity compared to the pre-existing pagan religions was the hierarchical structure where different churches were supervised by a bishop and different bishops by a metropolitan. Gibbon asserts that the office the bishop was introduced before the end of the first century [EG, vol. 1, p. 470] and the office of the metropolitan before the end of the second century [ibid, vol. 1, p. 473). However, this organization may have older origins in the Jewish sect of the Essenes. Gibbon [ibid, vol. 1, p. 489] does credit the influence on the Essenes on Christianity but he lists only "their fasts and excommunications; the community of goods; the love of celibacy; their zeal for martyrdom; and the warmth ... of their faith." It turns out that the Essenes had the office of bishop. According to information found in the Dead Sea Scrolls as described by Eisenman and Wise [EW92, pp. 215-216] the Essenes had the office of Mebakker that in Hebrew means Overseer. The Greek word for Overseer is Episkopos from which the English word Bishop is derived. Eisenman and Wise [ibid] point out that according to at least one document the Mebakker did act "as a kind of 'Bishop'". Thus we have similarity of both the functions and the name of the official. If we accept the hypothesis that Christianity started as an off-shoot of the Essenes, the office of the bishop was there from the beginning. It is an open question whether the Essenes took the office of the bishop from the Zoroastrians (see Chapter 1). In short, the Christians were a well organized group within the Roman empire, truly a state within a state. The Roman emperor Maximin (308-313CE) was alarmed by the growth of Christianity and he recognized the importance of bishops so he tried to impose a similar structure on the old religions. "...the officiating priests of the various deities were subjected to the authority of a superior pontiff destined to oppose the bishop, and to promote the cause of paganism" [EG, Chapter XVI, vol. 2, p. 64]. However Maximin died soon afterwards and his reform of paganism was abandoned. Emperor ConstantineStarting with Nero, Roman emperors were hostile to Christians. This attitude is not surprising if we accept that the Christians were well organized and as such presented a challenge to an autocratic ruler. There were several persecutions, although some historians claim they were not as severe as the Christians themselves claim. Gibbon points out the "melancholy truth" that "the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other then they had experienced from the zeal of infidels" [ibid, p. 68]. Constantine the Great (272-337CE) became emperor of the Western half of the Roman empire in 304CE and very soon he took a positive attitude towards Christianity. In 313 together with his co-emperor Licinious issue the Edict of Milan that proclaimed religious toleration throughout the empire. He became the sole emperor in 324 and his first act was to move the imperial capital from Rome to the site of the Greek colony Byzantium and build there a new city, Constantinople. (The English name is a corruption of the Greek name Constantinoupolis meaning city of Constantine.) The change of attitude toward Christianity and the move of the capital were monumental acts and Constantine is truly a person who changed history. The move of the capital reflected the increasing importance of the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. About 40 years earlier the emperor Diocletian had established his capital at Nicomedia, about 60 miles east of Byzantium (the modern name of the city is Izmit). The specific choice of Byzantium had to do with the advantages its geographic location that made very hard for an attacker to overtake the city. Indeed Constantinople survived many sieges until 1205 when it was taken by the Crusaders. It has been customary to refer to the state that had as capital Constantinople as the Byzantine Empire. However that is a modern designation. The state continued to be called the Roman Empire until its end, when the Ottoman Turks took Constantinople in 1453. The name even survived under the Ottomans when Orthodox Christians formed the Rom millet (religious community). The term Ρωμηος (Romios) meaning Greek is in use even today, although it has acquired a somewhat pejorative sense. Constantine's support of Christians was not as sudden a change in policy as it might appear because his father, Constantius, had entrusted Christians with important positions. "The principal offices of (Constantius) were exercised by Christians" [EG, Chapter XVI, vol. 2, pp. 58]. The most likely explanation of the favorable attitude towards Christians is that Constantine saw then as a cohesive force for the empire. After he became the sole emperor Constantine carried out major administrative and military reforms, in part to reduce the prospect of future rebellions. Like Alexander he increased the ritual of the court emphasizing the servitude of the subjects towards the emperor. Gibbon [EG, Chapter XVII, vol. 2, pp.89) uses the expression "titled slaves who were seated on the steps of the throne" to describe Constantine's officials. More than a thousand years later the Ottoman sultans who also had their capital in Constantinople made explicit that their high officials were their slaves. The empire was divided into 116 provinces, each one too small to pose a threat of rebellion [ibid, p. 100]. Constantine also separated the civil from the military governance of each province, reversing a long standing Roman policy to have one governor with full powers [ibid, p. 106]. Gibbon writes that "The divided administration ... relaxed the vigour of the state, while it secured the tranquility of the monarch" [ibid, p. 108]. In the same spirit, the army was divided into three groups: Palatini (troops guarding the emperor), Comitatenses (mobile troops), and Limitanei (troops guarding the frontier) [ibid, pp. 108-109]. Furthermore the formidable Roman legions were significantly reduced in size and the recruitment of "barbarians" was expanded [ibid, pp.111-113]. Imperial ChristianityOne challenge to having Christianity as the cohesive force for keeping the Roman empire together was the various divisions within Christianity. There were several different interpretations of the Trinity and arguments about the nature of Jesus. Without going into the specifics of the theological arguments we point out that each interpretation had its strong adherents and clergy following one view did not even recognize as legitimate clergy who followed another interpretation. Each group had its own leader and one might argue that charismatic bishops wanted to create their own following and the differences in theological interpretations were secondary. If two prelates vied for an important bishopric the losers may opt to get the prize under a different banner. The most important "heresis" was Arianism, so called from the name of its founder Arius. The theological difference from orthodox Christianity seems minute. Arius claimed that Jesus (the Son in the Trinity) was of similar (but not the same) substance as God (the Father) while the orthodox view is that the Son is of the same substance. The difference appears even more minute in the original Greek: ομοιουσιον (of similar substance) versus ομοουσιον (of the same substance). Those interested in digging into the details can start with Chapter XXI of Gibbon [EG, vol. 2, pp. 260-324]. The Wikipedia article on Arianism also provides a good account of the controversy. Constantine took the initiative not only to convene a conference of all Christian bishops (a synod) but also to preside in the proceedings. The synod took place in 325CE in the city of Nicaea, about 80 miles from Constantinople. (The modern name of the city is Iznik.) The final product of the synod was the Nicene Creed that is a statement of faith for each Christian. To one ignorant of the theological disputes it sounds awfully legalistic, but it had to cover the "correct" interpretation for each of the disputed issues. For more on the subject see the Wikipedia article. The creed was written in Greek because this was the language of the Christian church in Eastern Mediterranean. The most remarkable aspect though is the rise of Christianity from a persecuted religion that had its roots in a Jewish sect to a religion that is not only favored by the Roman Emperor but also deserves his immediate involvement in its internal disputes. A striking way to see the change is from an icon depicting Constantine with the text of the Nicene creed. Constantine published an edict banning some pagan practices but he did not ban the pagan religions altogether [EG, Chapter XXI, vol. 2, pp. 319-321]. That had to wait for his successors. Constantine was not baptized a Christian until just before his death so his son Constantius II is considered to be the first Christian Roman emperor (337-361). Constantius was succeeded 1 by his younger cousin Julian who tried the reverse the favorable status of the Christian church and he has been called by Christians Julian the Apostate. Julian is a fascinating historical figure but he did not reign for very long. He died fighting the Persians in 363. If you do not want to plod through historical texts you may prefer to read Gore Vidal's historical novel Julian: A Novel. Several brief reigning emperors followed, all of them favorable to Christianity (although some of them Arian) until, in 379, the Roman throne passed to Theodosius I. He is the last emperor to have reigned over a unified Roman Empire (since 392). In 380 Theodosius was baptized a Christian and immediately issue a decree making "Catholic Christianity" (based on the Nicean creed) the only legitimate imperial religion. Gibbon [EG, Chapter XXVII, vol. 3, pp. 74-75] provides the full text of the decree and it is reproduced here. Emphasis has been added. "It is our pleasure that all the nations which are governed by our clemency and moderation should steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which faithful tradition has preserved, and which is now professed by the pontiff Damasus, and by Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the discipline of the apostles, and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe the sole deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost under an equal majesty and a pious Trinity. We authorize the followers of this doctrine to assume the title of Catholic Christians; and we judge that all others are extravagant madmen, we brand them with the infamous name of Heretics, and declare that their conventicles shall no longer usurp the respectable appellation of churches. Besides the Condemnation of Divine justice, they must expect to suffer the severe penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict upon them." 2 The decree not only made Christianity the sole religion of those living in the Roman Empire, but it also specified a particular version of Christianity to be that religion. This was a new development. In the pagan world. There had always been one or more gods associated with the state but this did not exclude the worship of other gods. The only precedent existed in the organization of the Zoroastrian religion under the Sassanids (see Chapter 1) who came into power about a century before Constantine's time. Therefore it is quite possible that the Zoroastrian organization served as a model for Constantine's actions as well as those of the emperors that succeeded him. While the decree seems to focus on the elimination of Christian heretics, it did cover all other religions and certainly the pagan cults. The Olympic games, a focus of Greek pagans, were abolished in 395 after a run of over one thousand years. It is customary in our times to talk about separation of church and state, but this is a recent concept, dating only from the American revolution. Historically there have been always a state religion and other religions or creeds could be tolerated up to a certain degree. Tolerance was very high in pagan states but more limited in states where the official religion was monotheistic. But there have been states where religions and creeds other than the official one are not tolerated at all. This was the case, for example, with Catholic Spain from the 15th century until late in the 20th century. Thus Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire under Constantine I and it became the sole religion of the Roman Empire, less than 70 years later. Some ObservationsThe favor expressed by Constantine and most of his successors to Christianity meant that all other religions as well as "sects" of the state religion were in trouble. This, of course, included Judaism but the Jews were not singled out. Thus the focus on the relationship between the Jews and Constantine that is the subject of Constantine's Sword by James Caroll is somewhat misplaced. We may note that Judaism survived while the pagan religions were completely obliterated. Major Christian sects, such as the Arians, did not survive either. So the question to be asked is not why the Jews were persecuted, but why did Judaism survive while no other religion did. Why did the Eastern Mediterranean region remained stuck in the Middle Ages while Western Europe moved through the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution? Fareed Zakaria [FZ03] suggests that the main reason was the strong imperial control in the East and the diffuse authority in the West. He assigns great importance to the fact that when Constantine moved the capital away from Rome, he left the bishop of Rome in his place [ibid, p.30], so that the bishop of Rome was left outside state control. This emphasis is misplaced. Imperial control over the church remained very strong as the decree of Theodosius makes clear. What happened is that the Western part of the Roman Empire was overrun by "barbarians" and slipped out of the imperial control. In the absence of central authority Western Europe was able to, eventually, flourish. The decree of Theodosius did not eliminate all Christian sects overnight. Some of them went underground and tried to survive and did so for centuries. In addition, several new ones appeared and tried to assert themselves against imperial control. Several of these sects were in the North African provinces of the Roman Empire and that played a big role 250 years later when the population did not resist the Arab conquest. Notes
Additional Bibliography
First Posted: January 6, 2010. Latest Revision: February 14, 2010. Previous Chapter Next Chapter | ||||||||||||||||||
