Early Christianity's role in the decline of the Roman Empire

Christianity and the Roman Empire: Faith Superiority or Modern Construct

The history of the Roman Empire is forever intertwined with the history of Christianity. This is in part due to the fact that the historians (and their readership) most interested in the Roman Empire also had a bi-fold interest in the history of Christianity. It is for this reason that many of the most fundamental of texts written about the Roman Empire are fundamentally peppered with Christian events and trends. The difficulty for the modern historian or reader is to glean from these prominent texts, often considered primary sources, how much the Roman Empire was actually influenced by Early Christianity. This work will attempt to analyze how early Christianity affected and influenced the Roman Empire.

The texts you see, come from the opposite stand, seeking to understand more how Early Christianity was effected by the Roman Empire, rather than visa versa. Even the quintessential text of Roman history, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire written, at great length by consummate historian, Gibbon focuses a great deal on Christian rather than Roman history, so much so that many modern historians contend that Christianity was in fact the source of the decline of the empire.

Cosgrove 88) new attempt (from a neo-Marxist, Bolshevik point-of-view) to lay the blame for the ruin of the Roman Empire on Christianity has been made in the second edition of G. Sorel, La Ruine du monde antique (1925). This book is without value for the historian.

Rostovtzeff 751)

The thesis that Christianity had a great deal to do with the decline of the Roman Empire can be found in many places, but is just as often confronted as supported. Though the supposition is premature at the least and ethnocentric at the most, it still has a some merit and Gibbon himself cites the rise of Christianity as one of many other causal factors to the decline of the empire, one that is remarkably high on his list in fact.

Of these pilgrims, and of every reader, the attention will be excited by an History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: the greatest, perhaps, and most awful scene in the history of mankind. The various causes and progressive effects are connected with many of the events most interesting in human annals: the artful policy of the Caesars, who long maintained the name and image of a free republic; the disorder of military despotism; the rise, establishment, and sects of Christianity; the foundation of Constantinople; the division of the monarchy; the invasion and settlements of the Barbarians of Germany and Scythia; the institutions of the civil law; the character and religion of Mahomet; the temporal sovereignty of the popes; the restoration and decay of the Western empire of Charlemagne; the crusades of the Latins in the East; the conquests of the Saracens and Turks; the ruin of the Greek empire; the state and revolutions of Rome in the middle age.

Gibbon 325)

Gibbon then goes on to briefly offer the reader an apology for his own imperfection as a historian and researcher and for the sources themselves, fragmented and limited.

The historian may applaud the importance and variety of his subject; but, while he is conscious of his own imperfections, he must often accuse the deficiency of his materials. It was among the ruins of the Capitol that I first conceived the idea of a work which has amused and exercised near twenty years of my life, and which, however inadequate to my own wishes, I finally deliver to the curiosity and candour of the public.

Gibbon 325)

The reality is that the early Christian influence on the Roman Empire was likely relatively narrow and it was not until such time that the Christians actually began to count leaders and influential reformers as members that the real effects of the church surfaced in the empire. According to one prominent historian the foundational ideal, in Christianity, of Christian martyrdom at the hands of the Romans was actually very limited.

There was no persecution from the imperial authorities, except insofar as the governor would hand down the final sentence of death, imprisonment, or slavery. One Roman governor laughed at Christians who came to him of their own accord and confessed that they were Christians; he told them that if they were so eager to die, there were plenty of ropes to hang themselves with or cliffs to jump off (Tertullian to Scapula 5.1). Many Christians, in fact, seem to have desired death, so that Christian leaders warned against volunteering for martyrdom (Martyrdom of Polycarp 3). Most officials showed no hesitation in condemning these societal malcontents.

Doran 10)

The Roman Empire and Christianity were more effected by one another after the point where some regional Roman leaders began to feel the constraint of Christianity upon economics, more than culture. The resources are split, with regard to how well Christians conformed to the pagan standards of any given institution, many of which where economic in nature, in the form of tribute (tax) and economic sacrifice. Doran speaking of a tell tale trial of a group of Christian martyrs in antiquity demonstrates this point by discussing the fact that the spokesperson for the martyrs claimed that none had forsaken the economic responsibilities of the local government, which was intrinsically tied to religion as each city state was thought to be the embodiment of the god that was seen as its protector and tribute to these faith figures was a sacred civic duty.

We do not know the precise circumstances surrounding the trial of the Scillitan martyrs, but one curious fact does emerge from the trial proceedings. In stating the defense, the spokesperson for the martyrs, Speratus, argued that they had never done any wrong or stolen, "and on any purchase I pay the tax, for I acknowledge my lord who is the emperor of kings and of all nations." While belonging to this antisocietal group, Speratus engaged in normal market activity and did not try to disrupt the financial system of the city and imperial government. Such anomalies are not hard to find in the history of the Christians in the Roman Empire.

Doran 10)

According to Dorian in fact the turning point for wide spread disloyalty to Roman bureaucratic institutions and standards began only after the first official and wide spread incidence of mass martyrdom of Christians occurred.

Such an attitude was only reinforced when the Emperor Decius himself im- posed persecution on the Christians in 250 by ordering them to offer animal sacrifices to the gods for the health and well-being of the empire. Decius had come to the throne at a particularly crucial time. Rome had just celebrated its one thousandth year of rule in 247, but the Goths had attacked Rome in 248. Decius had forced the Goths out of the Danube provinces and in return had been hailed emperor by his troops (he would die fighting the Goths in June 251). In the midst of this crisis, Decius appealed to the gods of the empire for help in restoring it. Forces that interfered with a harmonious relationship between the Romans and the gods were to be eliminated. That meant the Christians. Although the persecution did not last long, it was the first general persecution of the Christians by Roman authorities and was to be repeated again under the Emperor Valerian in 257-260 and under Diocletian with the great persecution, which began on February 23, 303.

Doran 10-11)

Doran also point out that the persecution of the Christians and the effect it had on the empire was inclusive of religious and regional threats much greater than the Christians themselves, threats were constant and from many sources, not just the internal early Christian settlers. Again the history intermingling Roman history with Christian history is likely to blame for the emphasis of the Christian persecution, above all others in the resources.

We must not neglect the religious motives of the persecutors: The empire was constantly under threat in the latter part of the third century. Few emperors died peacefully; most died on the battlefield. In this atmosphere of crisis, the emperors asked for help from their traditional benefactors, the gods, and sought to remove anything or anyone who might displease them. But we should not overlook the fact that the persecutions were sporadic and provoked by some immediate crisis or that most Christians were not quite so uninvolved with worldly affairs.

Doran 11)

Here Doran attests to the fact that Christians where by no means universal in their rejection of traditional Roman values and affairs and that some early Christians were even soldiers in employ of the empire, presumably living by many of the traditional pagan standards of the soldiering classes.

Some Christians were Roman soldiers, even though that would have required them to participate in the pagan rituals soldiers normally performed and leading Christians such as Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, and Origen opposed Christian participation in military service. 3 the Christian art remaining from the third century combines religious themes with decorative schemes common to contemporary pagan work, as, for example, in the catacomb of Domitilla in Rome, where Christ is depicted, like Orpheus, amid animals. 4 Bishop Cyprian of Carthage in the mid-third century C.E. warned against priests combining their clerical office with secular affairs, acting as bailiffs on imperial or private estates, or functioning as trustees for family pension funds (Letter 1). In Caesarea a little earlier, the great theologian Origen had been no more flattering in his portraits of Christian audiences in his sermons: men concerned about business and how to make money, women gossiping so loudly nothing could be heard (Homilies on Exodus 13.3).We can sense this involvement with the world most clearly, perhaps, in the effect of the first official empirewide persecution of the Christians by the Emperor Decius. Many Christians lapsed and offered sacrifice, while others offered bribes to obtain certificates stating they had sacrificed. When Bishop Cyprian returned to his hometown after the persecution was over, he distinguished for penitential purposes between those who had actually lapsed and sacrificed and those who had only acquired a certificate (on the Lapsed 2728). Presumably the ability to bribe depended on wealth and rank.

Doran 11)

Looking at this historical trend in fact gives much insight into the potential for the influence of Christianity on the empire. Christians, for the most part likely involved themselves in all the same affairs and standards as non-Christian Romans, seeking influence, ambition and wealth just like any other member of the Roman society.

Christianity as Good and Rome as Evil

Another monumental trend in the history of these two movements, Roman and Christian is the idea that Christianity and the Roman Empire were in constant strife with the Christian rising on the side of good and Roman rising on the side of evil. This is likely the most modern of all historical constructs with regard to the influence Christianity had on the Roman Empire. Christians like all others were just as opportunistic as any other individual group in a relatively multi-cultural region.

We turn with relief from this sickening picture to view a better side of ancient society, and note the rise and spread of higher and purer moral ideas. The good and true found advocates and received expression even in this sinful age. The Graeco-Roman world was not as corrupt as the Roman Court, else it had been a cesspool of iniquity. There has never been a long truce in any period in the conflict of good and evil. We have already noted some powerful factors conducive to moral confusion. Without exaggeration, the period before and after the advent of Christianity was the greatest crisis in worldhistory. Old landmarks were swept away; a thousand interests demanded allegiance from men in a state of indecision.

Angus 51)

Angus, a historian who is slightly more contemporary than Gibbon, perpetuates the idea that Christians were in constant struggle against Rome and its ideals and standards, which were seen as evil, while Christian values were seen as the source of all that is good and light. "Depravity," as the Christians (or modern historians more commonly) like to attest was what worked for the Empire for more than a thousand years and Christianity was a new trend.

Turning Tides

Once the Christian Church began to influence the empire and in fact govern it to a large degree, in large part due to high officials and even emperors seeking allegiance with a powerful societal order the Christian movement really began to influence the Roman Empire in a substantial way. It is arguable that such influence occurred long after the Christian church was considered to in its "early" phase.

It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton 3 found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testifies to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods taught and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of that intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day -- yet to dawn -- when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains "the consent of happier generations, the applause of less superstitious ages."The empire was partially Christianized and the Church partially paganized. The imperialism of Rome rather than the freedom 1 and educational value of the Greek tradition generally triumphed with and after Constantine. With this nominal conversion of the empire, the new Roman power, based on a Semitic religion for which Greece had so largely won the victory, began that process whereby the Roman genius for order and organization in government acquired a vaster and more permanent dominion through religion than it had lost in the political and military fields. The bishops of Rome acquired a more lasting authority than that secured by their imperial predecessors and by the legions of Rome.

Angus 105-106)

Angus 105)

Decay" of the Roman Empire and its early connectivity to non-Christian ideals and faiths was not essentially prominent, until such time that the Christian movement became a much more official faith and standard for regional and monolithic governments.

As a phenomenon of decay of ancient civilization Rostovtzeff includes "the development of a new mentality among the masses." "It was the mentality of the lower classes, based exclusively on religion and not only indifferent but hostile to the intellectual achievements of the higher classes.... It is revealed by the spread among them of the various mystic religions, partly Oriental, partly Greek. The climax was reached in the triumph of Christianity" (Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire, p. 479).

Angus 114)

As Angus points out in his arguably biased historical view the real changes that occurred and possibly resulted in the decline of the Roman Empire occurred only after there was an essential mass movement, from the bottom up, of Christian conformity.

Conclusion

Seeking to understand the influence that early Christianity had on the Roman Empire is an essentially difficult task as primary and secondary sources are littered with the intent of not tracing Roman history but instead tracing Christian history through Roman history. What this trend implies is that early Christianity influenced the Roman Empire only in its later development, past the point where the term "early" can be given it. Christianity therefore influenced the Roman Empire as sporadically as any other religious movement, in its early phases did and created at least some rifts in an already foundationally challenged empirical environment. Had Christianity not been as successful as it was at building in number, strength and authority another faith might have risen to the top of the ladder as the "new" influencing force of the Roman Empire. We could all be Zoroastrians or practice faiths of Gual or more likely retain Judaic rather than Christian traditions.