Jesus: Rise to Power

[caesar novus]

This TV series http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/jesus-rise-to-power/ has a remarkable point of view about Rome as a benevolent or at least hands off interested bystander in early Christian history. A historian goes point by point thru the supposed clashes with Rome, and finds them overblown for propaganda reasons, or done without higher authority. or just a lust for self sacrifice for instance. Great vi

Edited June 1, 2013 by caesar novus

[caldrail]

So this would be a pro-christian series then? The fact is Rome put a lot of noses out of joint. They habitually interfered and dominated neighbouroing solcieties if not setting one against the other to keep them off their own backs, and plied them with export goods to soften them as well as make a profit. As for the early christians, if you want to know how angry they were, check out the Book of Revelations - it's a thinly disguised politicakl call to revolt against the empire (and not a prophecy for our time as christian sects do love telling us)

[caesar novus]

No, the series debunks christian claims against rome as mainly propaganda... using allegations of victimhood as manipulative branding, just like todays commercial products try to brand themselves. It is surprising because you would think a series by that name would largely attract the faithful, who the advertisers don't want alienated and tuning out.

 

It wasn't approached thru top down hand-waving, but they delved into specific context of events. Like when christianity was in a lull and needed to rally support, they would bait the romans and write up claims about being persecuted for their beliefs, when it was actually for their behavior or some special circumstances. I'm not sure of where the truth lies, but it did give the impression of a somewhat scholarly approach.

Edited June 4, 2013 by caesar novus

[DecimusCaesar]

I recall watching a talk by Natalie Haynes (the Classicist / Comedian) where she stated that Rome's clashes with Christianity had been exaggerated over time for political and religious reasons. She stated that if Rome had really persecuted the Christians with such relish then the religion would have never flourished in the first place. Instead she points to such individuals as Nero, Decius, and Diocletian as sparking off anti-Christian pogroms, but even then she considers that these were not as severe as people tend to believe. It should be noted though the she was delivering the talk to the British Humanist Society (I think) so that might have made it somewhat biased.

[caldrail]

The Romans only persecuted christians intermittently and then only to thopse unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Such events were either examples of intolerance or expedience, but I do note that Natlie Haynes appears to regard christianity as essentially 'good', an assumption christianity likes (it doesn't like drawing attention to the blacker side of their adherents behaviour, such as we sometimes see in the media today, and why assume christians were any better in the past?). To say that Rome 'clashed' with christianity is also a strange thing to say - there wasn't an organised christian movement to mount hostilities of any kind against Rome - although in fairness early christianity had its own share of religious extremists among them - some things never change.

 

The persecution of Nero was to 'punish' the not-liked-very-much-and-very-secretive christians for the Fire of Rome in 64. There is some debate over this. Traditionally Nero simply used them as scapegoats. However, modern research has suggested zealots among christianity had a hand in it, although in fairness the event was complex and political sehahigans were the order of the day. In other pogroms, it was distaste for a sect that apparently drank blood, human flesh, and sacrificed babies, or perhaps that christian sects were getting too influential.

 

The idea that christian sects wouldn't flourish under persecution isn't necessarily the case. The acts of Nero made a lot people feel sorry for christians and thus lessened their 'dark' image. Further, the social worship of christianity was as popular as the same for Mithras, both religions benefitting from seeking a more confortable communal form of service than the relatiively unfulfilling personal worship of graeco-roman paganism. Syrian religions were not on the whole especially successful and those that were appealed to slaves more than citizens, thus assuming a negative image in that respect, but I can't comment about the popularity of Isis because I know almost nothing about it.

 

You see, if persecution was such a deterrent, why is anyone jewish today?