Fall of Roman Religion

[unmerged(1196)]

The religion fell for the same reason that the empire did - small pox and measles. Because the Roman religion had relatively little experience with massive epidemics previously, the civilization borrowed a religion from an area that did - the Middle East. Christianity's built-in measures to deal with disease, for example to provide rudimentary nursing services rather than leaving them to die, as well as its relative psychological comforts helped to bring more and more converts to the new religion.

China had a parallel experience with Buddhism during this time period.

 

[driftwood]

By that rationale, wouldn't Christianity have become dominant during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and the greatest epidemics, instead of 150 years later?

Also, I don't think Christianity has a notably better track record of dealing with epidemics in the premodern era. Consider the typical Christian reaction during the Black Death in the mid-14th century. There are also numerous accounts from the 6th century when the Emperor Justinian felt embarassed that Jews and others were providing hospitals in far greater numbers than Christians.

That thesis also doesn't explain why Christianity would have been more appealing than other, better established Middle Eastern religions.

driftwood

 

[unmerged(1196)]

[qutoe]By that rationale, wouldn't Christianity have become dominant during the reign of Marcus Aurelius and the greatest epidemics, instead of 150 years later? [/quote]

Actually, the growth of Christinity really started accelerating during the 2nd century. Soon after the measles epidemic of the 3rd century, it had become the empire's major religion.

That thesis also doesn't explain why Christianity would have been more appealing than other, better established Middle Eastern religions.

Yep. It doesn't try to either.

The primary reason that Christianity triumphed over the other Middle Eastern religions, IMO, is that Christianity, being a new religion, was much more malleable, and integrated Pagan customs.

Also, I don't think Christianity has a notably better track record of dealing with epidemics in the premodern era. Consider the typical Christian reaction during the Black Death in the mid-14th century. There are also numerous accounts from the 6th century when the Emperor Justinian felt embarassed that Jews and others were providing hospitals in far greater numbers than Christians.

Christianity changed as time went on. In the early history of Christianity, the religion was much closer to Judaism.

My point is that in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, Christianity was incomparably better than the Roman religion in terms of dealing with the sick. It's suprising how far some rudimentary nursing goes towards reducing casualties.

 

[driftwood]

I'm afraid I don't know much about the measles epidemic of the 3rd century, but given how marginal (despite the dramatic growth beginning to occur in the late 2nd century) Christianity remained through the Severan dynasty, I just don't see a response to epidemics playing the determinative role in Christianity's success.

I also don't know enough about early Christianity to say for sure, but my impression was that by the late 2nd century Christianity had done its most significant movement away from Jewish traditions.

Christianity wasn't any younger than some of its rivals such as Mithraism, Isis or Serapis worship, or the cult of Sol Invictus (especially as viewed as a continuation/evolution/culmination of contemporary Jewish trends), and all of those cults showed a good deal of flexibility in their rise to prominence.

But it is true that Christianity was vastly more ambitious in its worldview and promises, and stridency can take you pretty far. However, the fact that Christianity raised such strange questions (to contemporary eyes) worked against it as well. Much like Scientology is viewed askance today, people were so uncertain what to do with these weird Christians that everything they did was viewed with suspicion.

driftwood

 

[unmerged(1196)]

I'm afraid I don't know much about the measles epidemic of the 3rd century, but given how marginal (despite the dramatic growth beginning to occur in the late 2nd century) Christianity remained through the Severan dynasty, I just don't see a response to epidemics playing the determinative role in Christianity's success.

An empire won't change religion over night, particularly if the religion is very small. It takes time. And the epidemics were just the catalysts to fund the growth of Christianity ).

Keep in mind that these epidemics didn't disappear after their initial contact with the Roman population. In populations that aren't large enough to keep the disease circulating, the epidemics habitually reoccur; otherwise they become childhood diseases.

But, again, an impolrtant point would be that precisely the same thing was happening with Buddhism replacing Confucianism in China.

I also don't know enough about early Christianity to say for sure, but my impression was that by the late 2nd century Christianity had done its most significant movement away from Jewish traditions.

Compared to 14th century Christianity? We're talking about a completely different religion, here...

Christianity wasn't any younger than some of its rivals such as Mithraism, Isis or Serapis worship, or the cult of Sol Invictus (especially as viewed as a continuation/evolution/culmination of contemporary Jewish trends), and all of those cults showed a good deal of flexibility in their rise to prominence.

You asked about older religions.

But I would say that Mithraism had a very good shot of becoming the empire's dominant relgion, for the same primary reason as Christianity.

 

[driftwood]

Ok, given, 14th century Christianity was a large hop, perhaps a skip, and maybe even a jump from 2nd century Christianity, but the gulf was also pretty large on the Judaism-Christianity side by the 2nd century.

I suppose Mithraism could have become the most popular cult in the Roman empire, but I don't really seeing it having become the state religion like Christianity. For one, it happily coexisted with other religions/cults. For another, it had a much more limited popular base, although that base coincided well with the power base of the empire, so maybe that wouldn't have mattered. But most of all, it just didn't seek to dominate the empire's religious and moral worldview.

And would you say that Buddhism displaced Confucianism, rather than gained acceptance alongside it and Taoism? Are we talking at the popular or curial level?

driftwood

 

[unmerged(1196)]

Ok, given, 14th century Christianity was a large hop, perhaps a skip, and maybe even a jump from 2nd century Christianity, but the gulf was also pretty large on the Judaism-Christianity side by the 2nd century.

Fair enough. My point was that you can't take 14th (or 6th) century Christianity, and use it to judge 2nd and 3rd century Christian practices.

I suppose Mithraism could have become the most popular cult in the Roman empire, but I don't really seeing it having become the state religion like Christianity.

I'm referring to popular support, not state support...

For one, it happily coexisted with other religions/cults. For another, it had a much more limited popular base, although that base coincided well with the power base of the empire, so maybe that wouldn't have mattered. But most of all, it just didn't seek to dominate the empire's religious and moral worldview.

I'm just pointing out how another Eastern religion was displacing the Roman religion, and that the reason was likely similar - disease.

And would you say that Buddhism displaced Confucianism, rather than gained acceptance alongside it and Taoism?

No, it pretty much replaced Confucianism (and Taoism) at the time.

Are we talking at the popular or curial level?

Popular level...

 

[driftwood]

I think we're fast approaching the point of a simple difference of opinion, after which it's stupid to argue. But since we're not quite there yet ...

I don't think the rise of Mithraism had anything to do with disease. It began long before the major epidemics, and Mithraism didn't offer very much in the way of innovative succor. I mean, it was obscure mystery rites in caves put on by the idle rich. At the popular level, which I don't think played much of a role in Mithraism in particular, it would have been viewed as just another of the relatively recent eastern mystery cults, no more or less comforting than Isis or Sol Invictus.

I can't really argue on China, but I was under the impression that Buddhism didn't do much displacing of existing religions at the local level. At best, it gained a coexistence which led in some areas to a predominance that could be exploited. It was at the educated, courtly level that trends and politics allowed it to truly displace Confucianism, and even then for relatively brief periods.

driftwood

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Again, all Christians who aren't residents of Palestine or Ethiopia should thank St. Paul for bringing the religion to them. If not for Paul, there would have been a small Christian sect that survived in Israel/Palestine, but may have succumbed to Islam, and the ancient Coptic Christian Church in Ethiopia. The other mystery cults of the time had just as good of a chance to suceed as did Christianity, except that they didn't have such a good ambassador/salesman as Christianity did.

Isis also had a good chance to succeed, as she had a good book to support her, "The Golden Ass/Metamorphases," which was already translated into Latin and Greek at the time of Christ, predating St. Jerome's Vulgate by a couple centuries.

 

[driftwood]

The Golden Ass would make a pretty poor basis for a religion. First, it's more entertaining for its sexual content than for its morality. Second, it doesn't actually teach you anything about Isis-worship (except that it's good). Third, the whole redemption-Isis thing is kind of tacked on at the end. It works, but up until that point you have no idea you're reading something that will lead to good PR for Isis.

That book is pretty funny though. Especially since modern day classicists insist on using archaic English to translate it.

driftwood

 

[unmerged(6657)]

Originally posted by driftwood
The Golden Ass would make a pretty poor basis for a religion. First, it's more entertaining for its sexual content than for its morality. Second, it doesn't actually teach you anything about Isis-worship (except that it's good). Third, the whole redemption-Isis thing is kind of tacked on at the end. It works, but up until that point you have no idea you're reading something that will lead to good PR for Isis.

That book is pretty funny though. Especially since modern day classicists insist on using archaic English to translate it.

driftwood

The Bible isn't much different. Except they tell you Jesus is good throughout the whole book. Besides, having The Golden Ass as the major religious work in the whole world would make for different morals in our society, and I would have taken a lot more "Ass Study" classes when I was a kid.

 

[unmerged(1196)]

I don't think the rise of Mithraism had anything to do with disease. It began long before the major epidemics,

So did Christianity, but neither religions attained popularity until after the epidemics.

and Mithraism didn't offer very much in the way of innovative succor. I mean, it was obscure mystery rites in caves put on by the idle rich. At the popular level, which I don't think played much of a role in Mithraism in particular, it would have been viewed as just another of the relatively recent eastern mystery cults, no more or less comforting than Isis or Sol Invictus.

IIRC, it was some kind of variant of Zoarastrianism (taking along the protections against disease from its native epidemic-plauged Persia), with the whole evil/good dualism, and it promised blessed immortality, etc. Except for its male-centrism, it was every bet as comforting as Christianity.

BTW, Mithrianism was Christianity's chief rival during the 3rd and 4th centuries. It had plenty of popular support.

I can't really argue on China, but I was under the impression that Buddhism didn't do much displacing of existing religions at the local level. At best, it gained a coexistence which led in some areas to a predominance that could be exploited. It was at the educated, courtly level that trends and politics allowed it to truly displace Confucianism, and even then for relatively brief periods.

Initially. But it had a massive following among the peasants, even after the ruling classes reverted to Confucianism, updated with Buddhist doctrines to insure its dominance.

 

[unmerged(1196)]

Here's an interesting passage from a Caraginian bishop during the epidemic raging his lands in AD 251:

"Many of us are dying in this mortality, that is many of us are being freed from this world. This mortality is a bane to the Jews and pagans and enmeies of Christ; to the servants of God it is a salutary departure. As to the fact that without any discrimination in the human race the just are dying with the unjust, it is not for you to think that the destruction is a common one for both the evil and the good. The just are called to refreshment, the unjust are carried to torture; protection is given quickly to the faithful; punishment to the faithless [...] How suitable, how necessary it is that this plague and pestilence, which seems horrible and deadly, searches out the justice of each and every one and examines the minds of the human race [...]"

 

[driftwood]

Where would Carangian be from?

I'm lackadaisically reading Ramsay MacMullen's Christianizing the Roman Empire, and one of the interesting points he makes is how dormant Christians seemed to be, as a public proselytizing community, during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. But it's also true that healing and sickness were key points in ancient religions. So while Christianity appears to have gained its greatest numbers of converts (normal people, not self-consciously intellectual aristocrats) through miracles of healing and exorcism, I still don't think that plague was the determinative factor.

Mithraism was really weird. If you ever see in a bookstore the 2 volume Sourcebook of Roman Religion, recently published by someone and written by someone (they're in another room, sorry), flip through the source documents/sketches for Mithraism. BTW, I think those books are pure torture to read, but they're pretty good references. Anyway, Mithraism was, by name, an offshoot of the Persian cult of Mithras, of course heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism. But the Roman cult appears to have retained no more Zoroastrian influences than, say, Christianity. And the Persian connection was hyped up by Roman adherents as a kind of exotic oriental selling point, even though Roman Mithras was rather unlike Persian Mithras.

At any rate, Mithras was a big rival, but no Mithraites (?) ever claimed that non-Mithraites would be smote by Mithras for not worshipping Him, which is what pagans found so weird about Christians.

driftwood