10-03-2012, 08:30 AM
*** warning: big post below :| ***
@Tim and Christopher
In what way? Certainly not by chosing a military career. Augustus had to resort to conscription in Italy in the wake of the Varus disaster. So much for Italian patriotism.
Now there are other ways "to serve the Roman state", of course. Civil administration, for example, became separated from military affairs during Diocletian's reign. Starting with Constantine these roles began to be taken up by Christian bishops. He allowed them to serve as arbitrators for lawsuits involving Christians. Later they began to hold political office. Saint Ambrose was still prefect of Milan when he was made bishop and probably continued to function in that capacity for a time.
If one wanted to serve in the imperial goverment in the 4th and 5th centuries it certainly was advantageous to become a Christian first. This helps explain the rapid increase of Christian converts.
So, one can see this religious trend as evidence of strong Roman identification, at least among the elite.
Another influential contemporary was St. Jerome, a westerner, who lived in the eastern provinces. He was greatly disturbed hearing about the sack of Rome. He's what he wrote at the time:
Whilst these things were happening in Jebus, a dreadful rumour came from the West. Rome had been besieged and its citizens had been forced to buy their lives with gold. Then thus despoiled they had been besieged again so as to lose not their substance only but their lives. My voice sticks in my throat; and, as I dictate, sobs choke my utterance. The City which had taken the whole world was itself taken; nay more famine was beforehand with the sword and but few citizens were left to be made captives. In their frenzy the starving people had recourse to hideous food; and tore each other limb from limb that they might have flesh to eat. Even the mother did not spare the babe at her breast. In the night was Moab taken, in the night did her wall fall down. “O God, the heathen have come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have made Jerusalem an orchard. The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them.”
Notice how he quotes scripture, he compares the importance of Rome to Jerusalem.
The city became even more important to Christianity when Valentinian III recognized papal primacy. When Attila marched on Rome he was intercepted by Pope Leo along with other officials to dissuade another sack of the defenseless city. According to your logic, wouldn't it have been easier for the church to switch sides and accept Hunnic rule at that point? Clearly, the city was still important and worth defending even at this date.
From St. Cyprian (258 A.D.): "We pray to God, not only for ourselves, but for all mankind, and particularly for the emperors."
From Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.): "We pray for all the emperors, that God may grant them long life, a secure government, a prosperous family, vigorous troops, a faithful senate, an obedient people; that the whole world may be in peace; and that God may grant, both to Caesar and to every man, the accomplishment of their just desires."
From Origen: "We pray for kings and rulers, that with their royal authority they may be found possessing a wise and prudent mind."
So, ostensibly their position was pro-Roman.
BTW, here are some links you may find interesting:
Tertullian on Christian loyalty to the Emperor - Latin Text with English translation
Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative
~Theo
Quote:Just a desire to serve the Roman State. That's one thing most citizens had in common prior to the fifth century.
@Tim and Christopher
In what way? Certainly not by chosing a military career. Augustus had to resort to conscription in Italy in the wake of the Varus disaster. So much for Italian patriotism.
Now there are other ways "to serve the Roman state", of course. Civil administration, for example, became separated from military affairs during Diocletian's reign. Starting with Constantine these roles began to be taken up by Christian bishops. He allowed them to serve as arbitrators for lawsuits involving Christians. Later they began to hold political office. Saint Ambrose was still prefect of Milan when he was made bishop and probably continued to function in that capacity for a time.
If one wanted to serve in the imperial goverment in the 4th and 5th centuries it certainly was advantageous to become a Christian first. This helps explain the rapid increase of Christian converts.
So, one can see this religious trend as evidence of strong Roman identification, at least among the elite.
Quote:OK that's one man's opinion but there were fifth century christians who saw the barbarian attacks as "god's punishment for the sins of Rome."Yes, one of the most influential thinkers of the time. As Augustine's student it stands to reason that his sympathies mirrored his own. Augustine was simply saying that empires can't last forever. Nothing anti-Roman about that. As for his statement about divine punishment, I think you've grossly misinterpreted what he was saying. He was simply echoing the Old Testament prophets about ancient Israel. The prophets called on the kings to repent, not for the kingdom's destruction.
Another influential contemporary was St. Jerome, a westerner, who lived in the eastern provinces. He was greatly disturbed hearing about the sack of Rome. He's what he wrote at the time:
Whilst these things were happening in Jebus, a dreadful rumour came from the West. Rome had been besieged and its citizens had been forced to buy their lives with gold. Then thus despoiled they had been besieged again so as to lose not their substance only but their lives. My voice sticks in my throat; and, as I dictate, sobs choke my utterance. The City which had taken the whole world was itself taken; nay more famine was beforehand with the sword and but few citizens were left to be made captives. In their frenzy the starving people had recourse to hideous food; and tore each other limb from limb that they might have flesh to eat. Even the mother did not spare the babe at her breast. In the night was Moab taken, in the night did her wall fall down. “O God, the heathen have come into thine inheritance; thy holy temple have they defiled; they have made Jerusalem an orchard. The dead bodies of thy servants have they given to be meat unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth. Their blood have they shed like water round about Jerusalem; and there was none to bury them.”
Notice how he quotes scripture, he compares the importance of Rome to Jerusalem.
The city became even more important to Christianity when Valentinian III recognized papal primacy. When Attila marched on Rome he was intercepted by Pope Leo along with other officials to dissuade another sack of the defenseless city. According to your logic, wouldn't it have been easier for the church to switch sides and accept Hunnic rule at that point? Clearly, the city was still important and worth defending even at this date.
Quote:Some saw the crumbling of empire as a prelude to the "second coming" i.e, something they looked forward to, as well as felt was deserved.FYI, the second coming is always something to look forward to in Christianity. OTOH, divine punishment is reserved for wicked Christians and enemies of Christianity. In Christian Rome, it wasn't something to be wished for but something to be avoided. So, it's a red herring to this discussion. It has no bearing on Roman identity.
Quote:That was because they had no choice but to look that way. Rome was at its height and seemed invincible and eternal.Of course they had a choice. The Jews repeatedly proved that. And the Britons. And the Gauls. All to their regret.
Quote:The degree of persecution suffered by early christians was bad enough without this "pro-Roman" attitude; it might've been fatal without it. But even early on, not everybody shared it. Look at revelation. The "great harlot" meant Rome; "666" meant emperor Nero.For whatever reason and even though not universal it was the prevailing attitude. Look at the Gospels. "Render unto Caesar..."
Quote:It would be hard to make the case of their being pro-Roman to Christians living in Rome under Nero or Domitian, I'd reckon.Under Nero, of course. That's why I said the post-Temple period. Under Domitian, I'm not so sure. I think his reign has been recently reevaluated especially regarding the treatment of Christians. IIRC, there's no contemporary evidence of aggressive persecution of Christians during his reign. Later Christian accounts accuse him but I'm skeptical and suspect it's a mistake. Nonetheless, we know Christians prayed for the well-being of both the (pagan) emperors and empire even in times of fierce persecution.
From St. Cyprian (258 A.D.): "We pray to God, not only for ourselves, but for all mankind, and particularly for the emperors."
From Tertullian (c. 200 A.D.): "We pray for all the emperors, that God may grant them long life, a secure government, a prosperous family, vigorous troops, a faithful senate, an obedient people; that the whole world may be in peace; and that God may grant, both to Caesar and to every man, the accomplishment of their just desires."
From Origen: "We pray for kings and rulers, that with their royal authority they may be found possessing a wise and prudent mind."
So, ostensibly their position was pro-Roman.
BTW, here are some links you may find interesting:
Tertullian on Christian loyalty to the Emperor - Latin Text with English translation
Christians in the Roman Army: Countering the Pacifist Narrative
~Theo
Jaime
