Roman influence on Christian doctrine?

[caesar novus]

In a very naive attempt of anthropology of religion,

Hmmmph, I heard an interesting talk by author of "Triumph: The Power and the Glory of the Catholic Church" touching on how Roman it is in spirit and function. And how Protestant types of Christianity, although they may appear to be going "back to basics" of Roman era Christianity, actually tend toward a quite modern mold of Utopianism that Roman citizens might find alien. So I guess any Roman or Constantine influence may be largely found Catholic or Orthodox branches of Christianity.

 

Just brainstorming about macro issues, like relations of religion to government or to individual. Author Crocker seemed to say the way the Catholic church does an ambiguous dance between itself and sinning people or governments (accepting yet prodding... the inquisition never being the norm) ia actually an effective way of dealing with problems evolved from long Roman experience (of worse ways of handling). "Sin" may be furiously condemned, but clear cut cases with victims are already dealt with in secular gov't, and as you go out in the spectrum of semi-victimless "sin" the softer approach maybe being wise.

 

Contrast this with the last few hundred years, where Protestestants or Marxists or even recent environmental extremists sought to get full government enforcement of not only the obvious crimes with victims, but a whole spectum of "sin" that is probably bad, or possibly bad, or maybe only speculatively bad. This even backfired, as close legal binding of Protestant church with state led to loss of legitimacy in the eyes of the public... same with Marxist states.

 

So maybe the old Romans peering down from heaven or where-ever are shaking their heads thinking the world has gone off track from the gift of their civilization. Just as we have modified their row toilets to dysfunctional follow-ons like the low flow toilet, we have also gone from their modulated handling of sin to over/under correction. I'm sure they would admit their heritage could be improved upon, but we may still have not completely returned from the dark ages digressions. Let's face every problem by first thinking how the Romans would handle it, and only improve on it when and if it really makes sense (grin)!

[marcus silanus]

Besides simply adopting Christianity, I wonder if a case could be made that the Roman world shaped it's very doctrine. Not in passive ways, like a Christian reaction against Roman ways, or having Roman citizens defect to it... but as a flexing of Roman power to shape Christianity to Roman interests in some degree.

 

One example might be the Apostle Paul http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm who was an early persecutor of Christians and seemed to be funded in this by the Romans although maybe had other motivations. His later life as a Christian convert seems to involve removing some Jewish aspects out of Christianity, and some think this was to make it especially convert-friendly and to seem less foreign to the average Roman citizen. That took a long while, but maybe still is effective today in conversion efforts.

 

Another example is Constantine, who kind of chaired committees such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea on Christian doctrine. Sometimes described as a passive role in settling esoteric questions, but I think other accounts suggest the stifling of alternative Christian doctrines that would be harder to manage in the context of his empire, such as more mystic and decentralized ones. Could modern Christianity still include echos of things that were "for the good of the Roman Empire"?

 

As far as i understand, one of the most important reasons for the adoption of Christianity, politically, was to apply some much needed adhesive to the vast empire. One way of doing this was to make the new religion recognisable to the average citizen by, for example, swapping pagan deities and their 'specialist areas' to patron saints. In other words, rather than the god of whatever, you could focus on the patron saint of whatever. Also, much of the imagery of paganism was transferred such as the halo of the sun god that has remained in Christian imagery since that time. Therefore, in as much as orthodox and Catholic tradition still maintains the domains of particular saints and the images based ultimately on the pagan, modern Christianity indeed contains very loud echos of things that were "for the good of the Roman empire".

Edited May 3, 2009 by marcus silanus

[caldrail]

Yes that's true but don't forget the christian church at the start of the 4th century was anything but united. That was the whole point of the Council of Nicaea, to thrash out exactly what was or wasn't christian, and even then they weren't unanimous. The Arian heresy remained very popular and once or twice was the preferred religion. What these early conferences did (there were more than one) was create a factional rivalry in which the Emperors support was a key to success, and with successive emperors favouring christianity, arianism, and paganism in turn the situation could easily have turned to civil war - it did affect politics and for instance was one reason (out of several) for the defeat at Adrianople.

[Artimi]

Reading this topic has been similar to deja vue. I have often thought customs(beliefs, rituals??) within the Christian church have been borrowed and modified to fit someone's agenda.

 

So maybe the old Romans peering down from heaven or where-ever are shaking their heads thinking the world has gone off track from the gift of their civilization. Just as we have modified their row toilets to dysfunctional follow-ons like the low flow toilet, we have also gone from their modulated handling of sin to over/under correction

. Ceasar Novus

 

This is one of best comparison's I have ever read.

 

Crucifixation was a common form of punishment for Roman miscreants. What is exceptional about Christ's punishment is not the crucifixtion, but the idea that he rose from the dead on the 3rd day. This made Christ unique. This typical Roman solution was subverted. Spartacus did not rise from the dead, therefore his case is not unique.

[Ursus]

The crucifixion debate has been moved to here. Carry on.

[sylla]

Regarding this thread's original question:

Besides simply adopting Christianity, I wonder if a case could be made that the Roman world shaped it's very doctrine. Not in passive ways, like a Christian reaction against Roman ways, or having Roman citizens defect to it... but as a flexing of Roman power to shape Christianity to Roman interests in some degree.

"In some degree"? Absolutely. Just check out the Jewish commentaries on this topic.

One example might be the Apostle Paul http://www.sullivan-county.com/news/paul/paul.htm who was an early persecutor of Christians and seemed to be funded in this by the Romans although maybe had other motivations. His later life as a Christian convert seems to involve removing some Jewish aspects out of Christianity, and some think this was to make it especially convert-friendly and to seem less foreign to the average Roman citizen. That took a long while, but maybe still is effective today in conversion efforts.

Saul/Paul was a Cilician Roman citizen that took the ideas of a Jewish sect with good marketing expectative, copied and translated their sacred texts without too much consideration for trademark issues, and then adapted them to the eastern (Greek) half of the Roman Empire, essentially by purging his new alternative sect from all those nasty Mosaic practices and by editing the troublesome passages that might have offended the Roman taste.

Another example is Constantine, who kind of chaired committees such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea on Christian doctrine. Sometimes described as a passive role in settling esoteric questions, but I think other accounts suggest the stifling of alternative Christian doctrines that would be harder to manage in the context of his empire, such as more mystic and decentralized ones.

At a time of civil unrest when even the personal patron deities could made the difference for any Imperial pretender, Constantine tried to make a sure bet by adopting as many as possible, Jesus included. He eventually favored Christianity and assimilated the highly hierarchical structure of their Church with his Imperial administration for the further consolidation of his dynasty.

Could modern Christianity still include echos of things that were "for the good of the Roman Empire"?

How could it not?

Edited May 14, 2009 by sylla