主播大秀

Ancient and Archaeology聽 permalink

How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

• Message 1.聽

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 5th January 2010

  In a discussion regarding the change of power in post Roman Britain TP raised a point regarding the rise of the Church as a power in Britain.
  
  I have always found it difficult to understand how the Christian Church became so powerful but I have a sneaky suspicion that it raised its head through the military and gradually started to gain power.
  
  Obviously Gildas felt confident enough not to be threatened in spite of his insults and criticisms to all the kings in his region鈥�.
  
  The Christian Church became huge in terms of wealth and Power how do you think this happened without formal support from AD410 onwards?
  
  Do we assume that Christianity was already a powerful force not only with the Romans and the Elite but also the rest of the Brythons?
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Wednesday, 6th January 2010

  Hi TA,
  
  There are two major difficulties in tackling your question. Firstly, we tend to judge historical situations by what we know of their outcomes. We regard AD 410 as the end of Roman Britain, and an important milestone in the triumph of western Christianity. But the Romano-British might reasonably have expected the imminent arrival of Honorius's forces, and the indefinite continuance of a multi-faith state. Secondly, it is easy to consider Christianity (and perhaps also Paganism) purely as political movements; we might, for example, ask which was more 'advantageous' as an ally for the Imperial government. In so doing we mustn't forget to also ask ourselves what it meant to actually believe in these creeds; which offered the possibility of spiritual growth, and which seemed the more certain guide in a most uncertain world?
  
  After the Edict of Toleration all the Roman emperors after Constantine (except Julian) were Christian. Christianity must have offered both challenges and benefits for the authorities. Since the emperor claimed to be divine Christians naturally had a problem with the imperial cult. After 312 AD the emperors clearly could not be divine in a formal sense, although they were, in the minds of many, divine representatives. Christianity was also open to all, including women and slaves, this fact being potentially disruptive of Roman society. The advantage, from the perspective of central government, was the real prospect that every Roman citizen could be united in the same faith into which the Imperial family could be incorporated. Constantine and his successors undoubtedly promoted this position through a system of patronage. However its achievement was almost at once vitiated by the split between Catholic and Arian Christianity.
  
  But 4th century archaeological evidence of British Christianity is not very impressive. Lullingstone villa is the most plausible example of a house church with its painted plaster showing orants. Other Christian symbols found in Britain include the chi-rho symbol, and fish. Other than Lullingstone Christian artefacts and sites are not especially common. One is the Water Newton (Durobrivae) treasure. The items in this collection have been dated to the 4th century, on stylistic grounds; some of the items have the chi-rho motive, although the amazing silver triangular plaques it contains were more a pagan convention. There is also the famous mosaic from Hinton St Mary, where the image of an emperor, perhaps Constantine, is combined with the chi-rho symbol, and pomegranates. There are possible churches at Silchester, Canterbury, Lincoln, and Vindolanda, and a baptismal font and tank at Icklingham. This rather unimpressive number of Christian remains may reflect its position as a mainly urban religion. As we have discussed Roman towns were in decline in 4th century Britain. The older faiths seem to have kept their pre-eminent position in the countryside; even the word 'pagan' must derive from the Latin paganus, a country-dweller. The other group that seemingly clung tenaciously to older beliefs was what we might call 'the senate and old aristocracy'.
  
  What else do we know? Britain must have had a 3rd century Christian presence if St Alban was martyred for his faith during the persecutions of Diocletian. British bishops attended the council at Arles in the early 4th century (AD 314). The heresiarch Pelagius was British and opposed to the orthodox St Augustine of Hippo. We know that St Germanus visited Britain in 429 AD to counter Pelagius's views but this visit is highly mysterious in itself. Surely a Mediterranean belief could have influenced very few in remote Britain. Perhaps the 'few' were highly significant people? Saint Patrick was kidnapped from the west coast of England and later converted, or perhaps did not convert, the Irish to Christianity in the early post-Imperial period.
  
  I think it is probably safe to assume that at the end of Roman Britain each civitas was the seat of a bishop, and the Christian church structure had began to make some inroads into the countryside. The bishops probably were already important figures in local politics, and their role became even more pivotal as the 'old aristocracy' collapsed. When the Roman army vanished the bishops were representatives of the only international organisation left in Britain, and for those who believed in the 'old order' their Christianity was at any rate more 'Roman' than the versions of paganism offered by Scots and Saxons. If the Church owned land and had developed a tithe structure then it would have resources to offer its secular protectors. It would also have the means of affording them legitimacy, although Gildas's remarks suggest that legitimacy might have to be earned by good behaviour. The Church's main failure was its incapacity, or unwillingness, to proselytise in the eastern 'Saxon' kingdoms. This, in the medium term, was almost fatal to its development but was counter balanced by the timely survival of Irish Christianity.
  
  Kind regards,
  
  TP
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 7th January 2010

  Hi TP
  
  Many thanks for your excellent post.
  
  It of course opens up more questions and we still end up with the split (real or imagined) between the Cities and the Countryside at this period in time.
  
  From what you are saying the Bishops must have been well established by AD410 but if the Church was established as early as this where was their financial support?
  
  Again as you say they would have been one of the last International Organisations left after the collapse of Roman rule in Britain but why would they survive any more than other parts of the Administration 鈥� were they locals?
  
  We know from archaeology that there was riches in abundance in the valuable artefacts that are found in the form of crucifixes and the like (recent discovery in Staffordshire for example) and it would seem likely that by the 6th century the Christian church had places to rob, whether this was monastries or churches or indeed early cathedrals but where was their support coming from?
  
  This is again one of those areas surrounding the 2 鈥� 3 million people in the countryside. If the Christian Church had no congregation from the roots how could it survive with such an influence in the Cities?
  
  Could it be that the Warlords became Christian and ran the Christian Church to have influence and power over the populace?
  
  Certainly if we look at later Norman times it would appear that there were some fighting Bishops in William鈥檚 army, so perhaps it was indeed the Kings who inherited the 鈥淒ivine鈥� powers and therefore it pleased them to keep the Church going for control purposes?
  
  Best Wishes - TA
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Friday, 8th January 2010

  Hi TA
  
  鈥滳ould it be that the Warlords became Christian and ran the Christian Church to have influence and power over the populace?鈥澛�
  
  I think that the limited evidence available reveals that the relationship between the 'Dark Age' Church and the successor states could never have been as simple as this. Even powerful Roman emperors could not 'run' the Church and, as you have commented earlier, Gildas seemed able with impunity to criticise the moral imperfections of contemporary monarchs. Moreover warlords there may have been in Britain but many of the western kingdoms were important states ruled by powerful kings.
  
  I don't see that any exclusively secular interpretation of the functioning of the Church will ever be comprehensible. Arian and orthodox Christians really did believe what they believed, and sometimes really hated each other for not believing the same.
  
  Again the evidence, such as it is, does not suggest to me that the British Church was especially wealthy. The only 'recent discovery in Staffordshire' I know of is 7th century, and 'Anglo-Saxon', so I don't see that it informs our present discussion. I believe that the late Roman Hoxne treasure provides witness to the great wealth of contemporary secular elites. A small fraction of this wealth would have maintained a bishop in some comfort.
  
  If you want European 'Dark Age' equivalents of Bishop Odo of Bayeux then what about our old friend St Germanus, apparently an ex-soldier, who won the 'Alleluia Victory'? Or St Martin of Tours, another ex-soldier, who was so influential in the spread of western monasticism. Monasticism is crucial to these discussions. It was entering western Britain at the very end of the Roman period. It was primarily a rural movement and thus was presumably unaffected by the decline of towns. The western kingdoms seem to have been powerful. literate, and with international connections. Bishops and monastic abbots spoke the international language, and might visit Rome or receive visitors from the Mediterranean world. If protected they could validate the local ruler and his actions. His troops would fight the more willingly if their future in the next world was assured. The chance of a son inheriting his father's kingdom was the greater if God had a role in his birth, marriage and coronation.
  
  The success of British Christianity must have been sudden and dramatic. Patrick was a western British Christian, and Germanus could travel to St Albans to discuss the path that British Christians should follow; with never a thought for non-Christian pagans. More than a century after the end of Roman Britain Gildas could still write his admonitory work in Latin for a literate audience.
  
  Regards,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Saturday, 9th January 2010

  There is plenty of evidence to suggest that by the end of the Roman period in Britain the most towns had an established church and associated bishop. There was some penetration into the countryside as TwinProbe suggests but this was not universal.
  
  I would argue that whilst the role of the bishops were politically significant in late Roman Britain that role quickly ceased following the collapse of the Roman polity and the reversion to sub-Roman tribal warlords.
  
  No doubt some of these tribal warlords retained their tame bishop much as Gildas complains about but the suggestion is that the Church went into a decline after the Roman polity collapsed.
  
  The evidence suggests that immediate post-Roman Christianity in northern Europe made its refuge in Ireland. The missionary effect of this `Celtic' Church in Ireland is not normally recognised in southern Britain as the main thrust of its conversion was aimed into the north of the island and into the Kingdom of Northumbria in particular.
  
  The conversion of the remainder of Britain was achieved through the eventual conversion of the Kingdom of Mercia. The dominant role of this kingdom and its seemingly endless supply of wealthy princesses establishing themselves as abbesses laid down the basis for the later wealth and power of the medieval church in Britain. I would suggest that the 8th century is the period in which this activity really took off.
  
  Until then I perceive the Christian church as being just one among many cults following the collapse of Roman Britain. This is best illustrated by the attitude of King Penda of Mercia who has been dressed up by the monastic scholars as an evil, pagan tyrant. He was actually quite open-minded about Christianity and was happy to see its rituals performed even by immediate members of his own family. It just did not work for him. All he expected from a Christian was that they kept to their faith.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 10th January 2010

  Hi stanilic,
  
  Clearly you feel that there is evidence to suggest that by the end of the Roman period in Britain the most towns had an established church and associated bishop. This may well be correct but I think that late 4th century churches, bishops, and indeed towns, are better attested in other provinces of the Empire. I'd be interested to know what you feel the evidence for 'most' is within Britain.
  
  TA may be happy with 'sub-Roman tribal warlords', but I have reservations. Although there may well have been warlords in post-Imperial Britain some successor states (in modern Wales and the West) were large, literate, and had international connections. Also, I'm not sure what 'tribal' means in this context. So far as I can see there is no reason why a member of one of these states would have thought of themselves as anything other than 'Roman citizens' serving a regional 'emperor'. Is there really any evidence of a tribal structure in 'Dark Age' Britain?
  
  Did the Church go into a decline after the Roman period? Frankly I find this really hard to believe. The few historical sources we have for the early post-Imperial era, Gildas and Patrick, imply that mainland Britain was Christian. Archaeological evidence, such as grave orientation and carved monuments, surely suggest that it was Roman paganism that crashed and burned in the 5th century. Monasticism was a major movement in the north west provinces in the late 4th and 5th centuries. In the west of Britain, and at such a time, this movement could flourish remote from the 'Saxon' version of paganism.
  
  Irish Christianity was immensely important. Its role in establishing Iona and evangelising Northumbria, and the Picts, can hardly be understated. But there was also a continuing tradition of British Christianity. Although we may debate Gildas's exact dates he was a 6th century Christian scholar, writing in Latin, for a literate audience, within mainland Britain.
  
  Well, I certainly won't argue with you, and Bede, over the attitude of King Penda. Penda deserves a thread to himself, doesn't he? Why does he have a British sounding name? How did Christian Cadwallon come to recruit him as an ally? What was the source of his hostility to Northumbria? Was the conversion of Mercia the act, which more than any other, determined the future religion of England, or simply the last tattered pagan leaf to fall off a Christian tree. I'd like to hear more of your views on this important figure.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 6.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 10th January 2010

  I base my presumption as to the penetration of the Church in the late Roman period as a primarily urban cult by the existence of strong Christian candidates emanating from Britain in the fourth and fifth centuries: namely, Pelargius, Patricius and Constantine III. An infrastructure needs to exist to produce such characters and British bishops do pop up from time to time in Continental commentary of the period (I can't find the reference at the moment but my increasingly unreliable memory ties it in with the Bishop of Milan). The implication is that the Church had established in Britain a similar pattern of management as applied elsewhere within the empire.
  
  The fact that Patricius had to obtain his instruction before his return to Ireland from St. Martin in Gaul suggests that any British infrastructure had become fragmented by then. The two presumed visits of St Germanus suggest that this fragmentation was recognised and the Pelargian heresy deemed at the time to be the cause. My own perception of this is that the political dynamics of the sub-Roman polities did not support orthodoxy. It has been suggested that Vortigern might have been a Pelargian but I find this view a bit sterile.
  
  I have used the word `tribal' to define a territory. Both Laycock and Yeates imply that there is congruity between late Iron Age tribal territories and sub-Roman `kingdoms'. Whether these territories were run by the same aristocratic lineage is open to argument. However given that the early towns in Roman Britain had a tribal origin the question of local loyalties does apply.
  
  The evolution of the monastic movement is a particular feature of the Church through this period. This was designed to achieve a greater spiritual development as much as the conversion of souls.
  
  An east to west grave orientation suggests a Christian burial rite. It also suggests a sun worshipping burial rite. It has been argued that the cult of Sol Invictus was absorbed into the later Roman Christian canon. The existence or absence of grave goods can also be seen as a status or wealth issue.
  
  My own feeling, and I have to state it as just a feeling, is that the Church was not strong in the Roman countryside. It was, if anything, linked to the remaining Roman elite and suffered a similar fate. However, I would agree that it did manage to survive as one cult among many others until reinforcements came from Ireland and the Continent.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 11th January 2010

  Hi stanilic
  
  Thanks; your last post makes things very clear. I entirely agree with your perception of later Roman British Christianity as an urban phenomenon. I was only quibbling with the word 'most' in your original post. Christianity had a presence in several Roman towns but I think we lack the archaeological evidence to say 'most'. Even combining Christian towns, villas and cemeteries we have barely a dozen British sites. Historical comments would add two or three more to the total. The first historical reference to British Christianity is a brief reference in Tertullian around AD 200.
  
  The number of British Christians known by name is small. I agree that Patrick and Pelagius must be on this list, although the birthplace of Pelagius has been disputed, and in any case he spent most of his life as a theologian in Italy. I suppose Constantine III must have been at least notionally a Christian since he was an Imperial soldier at the time when Christianity was the Imperial religion. I think one of his sons became a monk, which rather supports your view. As you say the names of British bishops crop up from time to time, particularly at 4th century theological councils such as those at Arles, Nicea, Serdica and Rimini. But, although it is possible that bishops were in place in all the civitas capitals we cannot be quite certain that they actually existed. Incidentally an account of the Council of Rimini indicates that the British bishops attending needed help from public funds. This comment suggests that the British church was not very wealthy, in contrary to the view expressed by TA in his original post.
  
  It is rather puzzling that Patrick travelled from Ireland to Gaul rather than to his home in Britain. There is excellent archaeological evidence that there was a well employed marine trade route from Brittany to Devon & Cornwall, and then up the west coast of Britain calling at 'Wales', Ireland and Atlantic Scotland. It this was indeed the case it may have been that the only vessels Patrick could catch inevitably took him to Gaul. Once there he could make a shorter Channel crossing to mainland Britain. The one difficulty in this theory is that Patrick specifically says that the sailors involved were pagan. Does this imply that they were Irish?
  
  St Germanus's trips to Britain are reported as occurring for the purpose of combating the Pelagian heresy, but the dates seem very tight. Could an entire island have been converted to Pelagianism within a single generation? St Germanus came here in AD 429, which was quite possibly within the life-time of Pelagius. Perhaps the point was not the number of converts to Pelagianism but their importance, whoever they were.
  
  I'm afraid that I'm don't recognise Laycock and Yeates. For myself I don't believe in continuity from Iron Age tribal territories to post-Imperial kingdoms but I accept that I am probably in the minority on these boards. Finally I entirely agree that the identification of the religion of grave's occupant from the orientation of the grave is fraught with difficulty. A 'Christian grave' should be oriented EW, unattended and placed, with others, in the region of a building plausibly identifiable as a church. But I think I shall be very careful at accepting similarities between Christianity and the cult of Sol Invictus (and by further implication Mithraism), having been taken to task on this very issue by DavidM in another thread!
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 8.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 11th January 2010

  TwinProbe
  
  Thank you for your courtesy as I did not finish the post due to an emergency involving a cat, a fat thrush and an emotional other half. Quite exhausting but the thrush got away frightened but seemingly unscathed.
  
  Now I can perhaps do some justice to this thread.
  
  It was in the fourth century that the now established church turned its attention to rural parts in western Europe. It had been successful in places such as Pontus where Gregory Thaumaturgus had put himself about as a bishop in the third century. However, the evidence suggests that most bishops of the established church by then were of a sleaker nature and more urban than your average Paul.
  
  Anyway St Martin of Tours of whom we have spoken was a coarse former soldier who came into his own during the latter part of the fourth century converting the pagan countryside in France. The Vita Martinis written by Sulpicius Severus describes Martin's tactics which can only be described as `shock and awe'. Whilst the hagiography suggests that the nice Martin was helped by angels and miracles in chopping down sacred trees and smashing up temple precincts, one can only guess that his behaviour would require a large number of soldiers as well to keep the local peasantry calm let alone converted. I suspect that there might be a political reason for this activity given that the rebellion of Magnus Maximus happened around the same time.
  
  I can't help feeling that if Patricius had done the same in Ireland he would have soon found his head stuck on a pole outside the rath of an enraged clan. Now it has been suggested that before Patricius returned to Ireland that he spent some time in a seminary in Gaul set up by Martin. In my post I rather conflated the time between Martin and Patricius as the two men could never have met. We have no dates for Patricius's conversion of the Irish but it had to be after 431AD as this was the date applied to Palladius's mission to Ireland. We hear little about Palladius but a lot about Patricius. I think their missions were conflated later which might account for the claim that there were two St. Patricks. However, my view is that Patricius was engaged more in the northern parts of Ireland than in the deeper south. I will confess to a great appreciation of this good and kind man.
  
  That the sailors who manned the vessels were the Gael or the Scoti is very likely; so long as they got paid why should they bother about the religious views of their passengers? They were seamen and moving passengers and goods about was their work.
  
  Now to my mind the power of the church in what we could call barbarian Europe was to be found in the art of writing. This gave kings both property, laws and history outside that of the local bards. We must always view conversions in that context.
  
  To return to the discussion I am glad you point to the appearance of British bishops at Arles, Nicaea, Serdica and Rimini. It was this that I was struggling for in my earlier post and ran out of time. I agree that there are issues connected with how far did British Christianity achieve a bishop in each civitas because the church can set a rule but a management structure does not necessarily mean that there were people occupying the relevant slots. Archaeological evidence is sparse but then old churches tended to be rebuilt early in the conversion of the Anglo-Saxons as an act of piety.
  
  The poverty of the church in Roman Britain which is known from the appeal of the British bishops for public funding (nothing changes, does it?)at the Council of Rimini reflects the more recent views (Mattingley) that Britain was not a successful Roman settlement.
  
  I didn't think you would recognise Laycock or Yeates. I have already got that message from earlier posts. My approach is more catholic as I am an amateur historian and so am unable to follow the more detailed discussions of academic papers. I must own to being a bit surprised at Laycock's argument as to continuity of Iron Age tribes into the sub-Roman period but I have accepted it as I want to stress it out. Also I have a tendency to like new ideas and enjoy kicking them about before I slot them into place: a bit like a former Bishop of Durham whose theology teacher was an old friend of my father.
  
  I am currently reading through a history of the early church and the development of the intellectual themes that persisted at the time. I have a lot of respect for DavidM who takes an orthodox approach and expresses it in a very thorough and readable manner. There are arguments that connect the cult of Sol Invictus to the adoption of Christianty by the Emperor Constantine. However, these are not recognised by the church: but then they are not going to be are they?

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 11th January 2010

  Hi stanilic,
  
  Clearly we share some life experiences; although in my case last night the wretched cat had a mouse. I named it after an archaeological site and it has never really forgiven me.
  
  Theological movements don't come naturally to me (my real interest is in Roman and Saxon material culture) but I don't think 'Dark Age' history is really comprehensible without an appreciation of the religious dimension. Although TA and I differ in our appreciation of the links between secular and religious authorities I think we both see them as important. TA's attempt to draw a parallel with Norman England is quite valid I believe.
  
  So, as you can see, a knowledgeable enthusiast for the early church would be a very welcome participant here.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 11th January 2010

  Hi TP and Stanilac
  
  Many thanks for some wonderful posts.
  
  It is interesting that you both believe that Christianity was mainly an urban philosophy and from what you appear to be saying is that the Church itself was an established political organ in the 4th Century.
  
  As Christianity was the established (official?) religion of Rome after Constantine one would expect this to be the case and the confirmed archaeology of Churches in the cities would tend to support this.
  
  What I fail to understand, although TP states that there is some archaeology supporting 鈥淰illa Christianity鈥� there is little in the country side apart from monastries that support a rural Christian movement of any kind, which would to me seem like 鈥淰illa Retreats鈥� or indeed 鈥淐olleges鈥� for the training of scribes / secretaries / perhaps missionaries, away from the cities on purpose as a centre for the expansion of the religion both in spreading the word and consolidating power.
  
  Regarding Stanilac鈥檚 comments that Kings would need their scribes to run their estates and finances and followers perhaps the monastries were designed to maintain these functions. This would also seem to fit in with the Gildas fact that although priests may have been annoying at times, the Church even by his time had become quite powerful purely because without it the State or States could not function and this was realised
  
  I therefore seems to me that the Roman Administration devolved to the Church as these were the recorders of history, moneis and indeed legitimacy. The pen becoming mightier than the sword and the Church picking up the Administration as a 鈥渘iche鈥� that no one else could take on board as they did not have the International contacts.
  
  I think that we possibly therefore under estimate how powerful the Church was and continued to be as they held the country together and indeed acted as a link to the rest of the empire...
  
  Regarding the Bishops wanting money 鈥� have you ever known the Church not to be collecting for itself?
  
  Yet again we seem to have a 鈥渃ity / country鈥� split (a sort of Romano British v Brython) which again seems correct in that the diocese in a Christian sense would be the comparatively few inhabitants of the cities (even though they might have had higher individual wealth than their country cousins 鈥� the wealth from the Church tends to come from the many poor).
  
  So the Christian Church is perhaps the Power behind the Throne, the Educators and the Administrators 鈥� in effect the replacement for the Druids but with writing?
  
  So the many of our views of the ancient world apart from Roman Historians, poets and writers was the Church and its priests....
  
  Gildas was writing in the 6th Century, a man with a powerful voice, but probably descended from the Roman way of life yet in the 7th Century we know from the Staffordshire hoard that there is a least one gold Christian artefact.
  
  Is this Anglo Saxon and if so has Christianity already by this time been accepted as the religion, or has the cross been stolen from a religious house of the earlier order?
  
  Kind Regards 鈥� TA.
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Monday, 11th January 2010

  TheodericAur
  
  I live close to a pagan Romano-British shrine. It was big enough for Romano-British estate owners to have roads built to connect it to the main roads of the country. It was burned out in the early fifth century. My interpretation of the relics recovered following excavation is that it was dedicated to a Fortuna-Isis conflation. Does this tell me why the parish church is dedicated to Mary? Pope Gregory has a lot to answer for.
  
  There is plenty of evidence for a Villa Christianity in Roman Britain. Indeed there is an argument that the church retreated to the villas as the British towns became less important and less secure. Why: we don't know. In my view as the Roman polity collapsed in on itself the focus of local social and economic activity did switch from the towns to the villas. In this way the idea of civitas and culture remained complete despite financial ruin.
  
  Again in our parish we have a chantry chapel dedicated to St.Lawrence. It has been argued that dedications to this saint suggest a continuity from pagan times. This is tendentious but if you read the Latin of the medieval dedicatory charter you are left with the interesting picture that the chapel existed before the dedication. It has no apparent origin but it overlooks a massive pagan site. These are the matters that have driven my interest.
  
  The early church had a power but it was a power that came through the temporal side rather than the spiritual. It was more an exercise in the management of kings and similar elite groups rather than anything to do with the faith of the ordinary people. That faith seems to have come later and in much strength. This has always aroused my curiousity and probably tells us something about what was there before only we don't know what it was. Perhaps it was more similar than we appreciate, so are we dealing with deeper psychic issues?
  
  I am afraid I do not get too excited about Gildas. He was far to the west from where I now sit. Maybe my great-nephew, who has just been born that side of the island can take Gildas forward. I live in the shade of the wonderful Chilterns where some of my family farmed in the sixteenth century. They have a Welsh name so what were they doing there then as tenants of a great monastery? Or were they always there and the boundary of the Cymru just got moved west at some point leaving them behind as foreigners in their own country. Yet I will also confess to liking the Old English, I use one of their agricultural terms as my nom de plume as the stoney plough furlong ends halfway down the back garden. I have bust my garden fork on it so we have an intense personal relationship.
  
  All that I know is that church or no church, a faith in the land and a vision of a divine realm run deep in the soul.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Wednesday, 13th January 2010

  Hi Stanilac
  
  A most impressive and detailed post - thank you.
  
  You obviously live in a very historic part of this country, sculpted by Iron Age forts, the Romano Brython, Anglo Saxon, Norman, the Age of the Great Monasteries, The Hundred Years Wars, the Reformation etc.
  
  Roman road links, ancient track-ways linking the country over our hills鈥�..and through it all the need for some type of religion鈥�.
  
  Yet one after another being supplanted by yet another but the need for some parameters always there鈥�..in life and hope after鈥�
  
  Perhaps you are correct in that it is a deeply psychic issue and certainly we seem to be attracted back time and again to particular religious centres.
  
  Ironically each religion or society seems to actually use many of these centres for the same practices again and again.
  
  Going partly off post here, even though I live in an area far to the west of you there are Iron Age forts, remains of the Roman Forts, indications of society of Romano Brythons, not much Anglo Saxon, but Norman Castles, Abbeys etc..
  
  Our country certainly is full of history and like so much, heavily related鈥�.
  
  Could your Welsh ancestors have been successful Archers who retired to England after being employed by a wealthy Lord to fight in France?
  
  Sadly however I am not convinced that we are any further forward regarding the Church.
  
  When and how did it change from being the Administration, Educators and part time War Leaders for the powerful, to having universal appeal?
  
  As you say 鈥� what is the drive that changes the populace to embrace a particular religion and move away from the other?
  
  What changed the 鈥渕anagement of kings and similar elite groups鈥� to add also 鈥渢he faith of the ordinary people鈥�.
  
  Again used as a 鈥渃ontrol mechanism鈥� by the rich and powerful 鈥� yet as can be seen by the impact of the death of Thomas Beckett 鈥� even the highest in the land could not lay hands on the Church with impunity.
  
  The Church becomes a Power in its own right in every way and over everybody 鈥� how did this happen, when and more importantly what effects has it had on the development of our history?
  
  Kind Regards - TA
  
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Thursday, 14th January 2010

  Hi TA,
  
  In your post you have posed two questions, one general and one very specific. Firstly, on what basis does a population embrace a particular religion and move away from another? Secondly, when and how did the early British Christian church change from providing the administrators, educators and part-time war leaders for the powerful, to having universal appeal to the populace?聽
  
  The first question is easy to answer in general terms. In theory members of a free society, who are permitted individual liberty of conscience, are exposed to a number of belief systems and have the capacity to adopt whichever seems more fitting. If the majority of individuals adopt the same set of religious beliefs then we may reasonably say that the population has 'embraced a particular religion'.
  
  This course of events seems relatively unusual in history. More common is the situation 'cuius regio, eius religio' or 'whose the region is, his religion'. This was the terminology used in the聽Peace of Augsburg聽to embody a compromise between Lutherans and Catholics, and later in the Treaty of Westphalia聽(1648); but the principal is far older. There is not much doubt that Bede viewed the conversion of Northumbria to Christianity as essentially a decision taken by King Edwin and his court.
  
  Occasionally elites and population are at variance. This may have been the situation in late Roman Britain. In the Visigothic kingdom of Spain the rulers and the bishops were聽Arians when the population was Catholic Christian. The religious disaffection of the population may have been factor which made subsequent Islamic conversion easier, although there were fairly pressing practical reasons for this in any case.
  
  Your second question is much more difficult since it is based on your own appreciation of the situation in post-Imperial Britain, an appreciation that I don't understand. In several posts you have adopted a purely secular and political view of the relationship between the leaders of the post-Imperial British successor states and their church authorities. But you have not really given any reasons to explain why you take this view. The last posts from stanilic and myself are replete with quotation and historical references. How about some evidence for your point of view before we try to answer why, when, or even if, the situation changed!
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message14

• Message 15

  , in reply to message 14.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Friday, 15th January 2010

  Hi TP
  
  As ever your idea of simple and mine differ but as always you are extremely illuminating, many thanks.
  
  This really comes out of the discussions over the past year.
  
  Although you have always stipulated that you feel that the Roman polity finishes abruptly around AD410 and indeed as far as the greater Roman Empire and Britain鈥檚 link to it is concerned I believe that you are correct.
  
  Having taken this on board however I have always felt that there is a link with the Empire and also that in some, the (or an) Administration keeps the country together.
  
  There are no reports that show that the Country suddenly collapses into ruins, which to me indicates that some of the structure including possibly parts of the military and Administration remained.
  
  Interestingly the country seems to be able to handle itself well, beating off invaders and prospering for a few years but gradually breaking apart through power struggles and then linking perhaps with Vortigern鈥︹��
  
  Many of the actions that are made within a few years after AD410 appear to be very 鈥淩oman鈥� in nature and well organised.
  
  So I believe that there was something that acted as the 鈥渓ink鈥� through this period and it was a chance remark of yours about the Church that seemed to fit as this link.
  
  An international organisation which obviously keeps in touch with itself and seems to travel around in some security meeting with groups in various countries and obviously communicating and also slowly getting stronger.
  
  Something keeps education going in Britain, Latin is not lost, the written word is kept and as Stanilac has mentioned the Church does link the ruling classes and as you have both said there were churches in the cities, and according to you both a monastery sector as well.
  
  If the Church was the repository of the written word in Britain or much of this written word was taken to Brittany, we are greatly influenced by the events recorded via this source.
  
  Whatever we think about Gildas there is obviously a fairly strong Church around 100 years after AD410 (certainly in the West of the country) so there is no reason to think that it wasn鈥檛 strong before this point as can be seen from missions to this country that are recorded about Christian Groups being met.
  
  Christianity survived to be a major influence throughout the centuries but the original question remains whether we can agree on these points or not as to when the local populace embraced Chritianity?
  
  Was this in AD616 as Bede states or was this just a local phenomenon as Gildas reported local events in the West, Bede did in the North East?
  
  Having said this, in AD410 what was the Church, an Administrator, Educator, Influencer or a Religion of both the people and the elite?
  
  Or did we have, as it would appear two seperate societies of the elite (Military, Romano British rulers) and the peasants (Brythons) or was society more complex with a Middle Class already apparent?
  
  Best wishes - TA
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message15

• Message 16

  , in reply to message 15.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 16th January 2010

  Hi TA
  
  Just to recap....
  
  In 407 the British appointed three of their own emperors in succession, finishing with Constantine III. The arrival of 'official' coinage issues from Europe finishes and never resumes. The 'Rescript of Honorius' may not really apply to Britain, but if it does it probably dates from 409-410. From our perspective (exactly 1600 years later) AD 410 is as good a year as any to mark the end of Britain within the Roman Empire. At least I know of no evidence of political union later than that date.
  
  Did the Empire accept that Britain had left forever at that date? Almost certainly not. The Notitia Dignitatum is a later document than this, and lists British army units and their (hypothetical) bases. Britain had been in 'revolt' before, and had subsequently been reoccupied.
  
  Did the British themselves consider that they had left the Empire? Again, no. They had just appointed an emperor who took his responsibilities very seriously. He fought barbarians in Europe, and ruled Britain, Gaul and Spain. Another lucky victory against the forces loyal to Honorius and he might have been able to reproduce the career of Constantine the Great. The citizens in Britain considered themselves as Roman, may have even elected other 'little emperors' after the death of Constantine III, although if they did then we don't know their names. When the British were in big trouble a generation later they thought it quite proper to appeal for help from Roman authorities in Gaul.
  
  Were there links maintained between Britain and the Empire in the period 410-450? Definitely: the careers of Patrick and Germanus indicate that shipping visited Britain, Ireland and Atlantic France during this time. A few post-Imperial period bullion coins are found in Britain. It is virtually certain that the church was in regular touch with its insular province. Did some members of the old Roman army and Administration remain in Britain? Again this is highly likely. But were they again performing their functions, and if so were they functionally loyal to Honorius and his successors? There is absolutely no evidence that they were. After all what could they do to express their loyalty, except drink toasts to 'the king over the water'.
  
  I don't think it is rational to use expressions like 'keep the country together' or 'the country seems to handle itself well' when describing this period. There were four (or perhaps 5) Roman provinces in Britain originally and, although we don't know at what date the estimated 20 or so successor states of Gildas's day formed, the events of the early 5th century were hardly calculated to engender an 'ever closer union'. Almost certainly there was considerable regional variation in problems experienced and solutions found.
  
  You also use the expression 'no reports that show that the Country suddenly collapses into ruins'. I don't know whether by 'reports' you mean ancient reports or historical sources. If you mean ancient then I should have thought the opposite is true. The few historical hints about Britain tell a tale of unending woe. If you mean modern archaeological reports then a great deal depends on what you mean by 'collapse' and 'ruin'. Imagine that in 2010 the British Army is reduced by 90% and the remaining troops are loyal only to local communities. We are expelled from the EU and our only exports are slaves and the products of our metal mines. The great country estates and 75% of towns are deserted. There is no coinage and the mass production of commodities such as pottery and iron ceases. The motorways remain usable but no repairs are made. On the other hand: there is less taxation, farming continues in the country, your can pillage the old estates with impunity, build your own house, barter with your neighbours, and worship whom you like. Is that ruin or not?
  
  It is into this situation the Church fits. Some of the old civitas capitals are the seats of bishops and monasticism is making in roads into the west. The Church maintains Latin as the medium for international communication, and does indeed communicate with Rome up to, and beyond, the events of AD 476. It probably is responsible for education, but education may well be restricted to those training to be church functionaries. It offers validation to the new regimes springing up in the successor states, and it provides ordinary citizens hope for the future in a most uncertain time. The Church has a tradition of caring for the poor, which the worship of Jove, Mithras or Isis did not. Such a tradition would have won it many friends in the 5th century.
  
  The question of whether Bede (a great personal hero of mine) is reliable on the subject of native British (or Celtic) Christianity is a very difficult one. He is self consciously 'Anglo-Saxon' and refers to the British Gildas as 'their own historian'. One of the great heroes of his 'History of the English Church & People', King Edwin of Northumbria, is overthrown by the combination of a Saxon pagan with a British Christian, so he is not keen on either of these groups. Bede states as a fact that the Britons did not preach Christianity to the 'Anglo-Saxons' but is this really true? There are many communities with names containing the element 'eccles' or 'eggels'. I personally know examples from: Manchester, Bradford, Sheffield, and Norfolk. The element has plausibly been derived from 'eglys' and ultimately the Latin 'ecclesia', a church. The survival of this place name element suggests to me that small Christian communities were at least tolerated in Saxon successor states. Although I don't dispute the role of Augustine and Paulinus in evangelising elites I doubt if Christianity was unfamiliar to Saxon rulers.
  
  Kind regards,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message16

• Message 17

  , in reply to message 16.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 16th January 2010

  Hi TP
  
  Thanks for the resume 鈥� there is little I can argue with here鈥�.
  
  As I believe that the general structure after Constantine III in Britain remained I have to agree that the Provinces also held together but as you said each would have its own problems and solutions and eventually would (and did) fragment.
  
  I further believe that the limited reportage that has survived often only refers to parts of the country and rarely to the whole therefore to apply the information to the whole country is mistaken.
  
  I know that from your earlier posts that you are not convinced that the Notitia Dignitatum is particularly accurate and we do know that the 鈥淲elsh Part鈥� is missing, yet it is interesting that the compilers of the document appear to believe that Britain is still part of the Empire to a large extent. This is also supported by other writers of the time who do not state that Britain was expelled or broke away.
  
  I am not so sure that the 鈥淩escript of Honorius鈥� did in fact refer to Britain but whether it did or not I think it shows that the there was an attitude at the top level of retrenchment
  
  So I think that to state that Britain was 鈥渆xpelled鈥� from the Empire is probably too strong, more like that the Empire no longer had the resources or indeed the political will to be able to control its far flung dioceses.
  
  Further than this there appears to be an attitude that actively encourages the population to defend itself which considering the problems Honorius had is perfectly understandable.
  
  As you are aware I am still not convinced that the cities were as deserted as you stipulate although I would agree that they were in decline as indeed were the villa estates. We should not assume that the land from these estates was not used. Obviously agriculture continued because the 3 million people still living here were fed.
  
  I also feel that the fade out of the coinage was gradual but would agree that barter system would have gathered pace and that it probably would have been the land owners so a rush for land by the powerful is probably what would have governed the years post AD410.
  
  As you say the Church was indeed part of this and I like your point regarding the Church feeding the poor but to do this they would have had to own wealth or land and to have been organised and protected.
  
  Was it about this time that the Church started to expand to be able to offer sustenance and compassion in payment for services rendered to the state?
  
  Was the Church indeed quite powerful by the time Gildas was writing supported for many reasons by the powerful 鈥� interestingly enough eglwys is still the Welsh for church.
  
  Kind Regards - TA
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message17

• Message 18

  , in reply to message 17.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 17th January 2010

  Hi TA
  
  We can't expect complete agreement on this topic. The professional archaeologists and historians who write on the 'Dark Age' period are often widely at variance. We evidently do agree on the regional nature of early historical sources and the fact that the so-called Rescript of Honorius can't safely be taken as applying to Britain.
  
  I hope that you don't really think I imagine that the agricultural land attached to villa estates was unused after the villa buildings themselves were abandoned. The fact that pollen evidence indicates that agriculture generally continued through the 5th and 6th centuries is a strong piece of evidence that the 'Anglo-Saxon' migrations were not the wholly destructive events that are portrayed by Gildas. We will continue to differ about the coinage however; my view is still that the moment low value copper coins could not be changed into something with intrinsic value, silver that is, then the low value coinage was effectively demoneterised.
  
  The existence of the Notitia Dignitatum raises the question of when the central Roman authorities accepted that Britain had left the Western Empire. My guess, it can only be a guess, is that they never did. Down to 476 Britain was always a Roman diocese just waiting for re-connection when times were right. The Empire did not expel provinces and although individual generals, or imperial pretenders, could be in rebellion I doubt if entire provinces were ever considered in that light. Of course there is something to be said for the Imperial point of view since ecclesiastical and trading links were maintained with the Diocese of Britain until, and indeed after, the fall of the West. It is interesting to speculate whether Justinian, ever blind to the attainable realities of the 6th century, might have considered diplomatic or naval expeditions to Britain.
  
  In deciding that the early British church had its own wealth or land to have been organised and protected, you have to be careful not let what you know about large medieval Cistercian abbeys influence your conception.聽In the same way, is there really any evidence that the Church offered sustenance and compassion as payment to the state for services rendered? A more natural explanation would seem to be that it took the duties placed on it by the Gospels very seriously, and rose high in popular esteem in consequence.
  
  In a sense the survival in modern Welsh of a Latin derived word for church is not so surprising since Roman influence long survived there as well. The existence of 'Eccles' as a place name in English speaking areas needs more explanation, and the presence of small Christian communities in regions where the elites were pagan is one possibility.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message18

• Message 19

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 17th January 2010

  13 TheodoricAur
  
  I am not sure those ancestors were actually Welsh but your comment about archers is particularly relevant as Chalgrave, the home manor and burial place of Sir Nigel Loring, the captain of the mercenary White Company of the Hundred Years War is about half a days walk away. I am faced with the prospect that the story of Sir Nigel Loring was embedded in that part of the family before Conan Doyle wrote his novel Sir Nigel. However, you try tracing a spoken folk tradition back over two hundred years. You cannot do it in any reliable sense.
  
  We know the Church was embedded within the elite groups of the country from the early seventh century onwards. In some areas it was earlier and in others a bit later. It is quite reasonable to ask what did the rest of the population think.
  
  Prior to the reign of Edward the Elder the Church in what is now called England was designed around regional minster churches that retained a squad of priests who perambulated the countryside ministering to the common folk through what are called `field' churches. Much is known about the minster churches but very little is known of these `field' churches as they seem to have been located at focal points in the landscape. These may well have been in the same place as local markets, hundred moots, places of refuge from marauding armies and even pagan ritual sites (we seem to always assume that pagan and Christian priests would be at loggerheads). I have taken to identifying sites that had roadside crosses prior to the Reformation to see if they had some other local relevance which might suggest they were possibly the site of a `field' church as such devotional places would have remained holy even though their main function had shifted elsewhere.
  
  However, during the tenth century during the reign of Edward the Elder following the consolidation of the Kingdom of Wessex after the surrender of the main Danish army, thegns were granted tax advantages if they built a church on their manor and funded a parish priest. This was the beginning of the Church and Manor theme that stil dominates the English village.
  
  In my view this was the time that the Church truly began to step directly into the daily lives of the common people. Christianity stopped being some sort of opportunity, one cult among many, but became a way of life. The fact that the Church had also begun to adopt a liturgy that sustained patterns of rural life - a process that continued all the way through to the Reformation - embedded the Christian message into the countryside at large.
  
  My own attitude to the Reformation is very much constrained by the horrible experience common people underwent when what was a sustaining, participatory faith was ripped asunder to be progressively replaced by a dessicated, authoritarian intellectual Protestantism. The development of a popular puritan non-conformity could be the only response to such a psychocological disturbance.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message19

• Message 20

  , in reply to message 19.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 17th January 2010

  Allow me to add some more comment to this bubbling pot for better or worse.
  
  The loss of the Roman polity in Britain led to a process of progressive degradation. The central economy collapsed along with the central state. The cities which were already in decline rotted still further but many remained as regional market places and meeting points.
  
  Even warlords need to eat so agriculture continued. However, in all probability the heavy plough technology disappeared as the necessary estate structure of a herd of draft oxen, specialist carpentry and smithing skills became impossible to sustain without cash markets. The demise of the villa is closely connected with these events.
  
  The role of the early Anglo-Saxons in cattle ranching needs also to be fitted into this framework. Cattle are an ideal crop for warbands to exploit: mobile, easily stolen, quick meat and a measure of wealth. The only problem is that they need lots of open country to graze. Is the despoilation of parts of the country described so luridly by Gildas down to this pattern of economic behaviour?
  
  The British church would need places of refuge to sustain its infrastructure. Monasteries such as that of St. Ninian at Whitchurch would have performed that function. Yet it is suggested that Patrick went to a seminary in France so perhaps these monasteries were constrained in their capabilities. How rich or stable were their royal patrons? The conversion of Ireland at this time was quite simply a god-send (no pun intended) as it provided a base for future conversion particularly in Northumbria.
  
  There was still Christian observance within the native population as it is understood that the shrine of St. Alban still received pilgrims throughout the Dark Ages.
  
  In my view it is reasonable to say that the Christian church in the British Isles suffered a major setback due to the collapse of the Roman polity. It was not fatal but it got pretty close.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message20

• Message 21

  , in reply to message 20.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Monday, 18th January 2010

  Hi stanilic,
  
  Thank you for your very scholarly and thought-provoking contributions. Such a relief to shut the door on the maelstrom of half-digested speculation, mutual abuse, and profanity breaking out on the History Hub. You are so knowledgeable on early 'Celtic' Christianity that it is difficult to argue with you. But I have to admit that it would never have occurred to me that Christianity was 'one cult among many' until the 10th century, nor that the pre-Reformation church was a 'sustaining and participatory faith'. It's enthusiasm for burning the non-participating helped to sustain it perhaps? But then I am a dessicated Protestant and, worse, a non-conforming one!
  
  If you are correct in your supposition that 鈥渢he Christian church in the British Isles suffered a major setback due to the collapse of the Roman polity鈥� one might comment that this collapse was equally devastating to Romanised pagan cults. The cult of the Emperor was forbidden, the military worshippers of Mithras were gone, and the members of the classical pantheon were exposed as impotent. Who benefited from the collapse?
  
  As you say we always do assume that pagan and Christian priests were at logger-heads; are you implying that they may not have been? The evidence of the early writers is puzzling. Gildas describes the enemies of Britain as 'heathen' or 'enemies of God' but we get no sense of what they actually believed. The same language might be directed at Arian Christians, for example. Bede (who has rather formed our view of pagan-Christian relations) evidently found no sources for the Christian church at all in Britain between the death of St Germanus and the arrival of St Augustine, and consequently omits the late 5th and 6th centuries altogether.
  
  Archaeologically it is quite remarkable how many Roman military sites have Christian places of worship built in them, or how many early churches were constructed with Roman material. This may simply reflect the fact that Roman ruins were a convenient source of cut stone, but there is also the possibility that the Church was making a statement about the transfer of authority.
  
  One can hardly criticise your view that the 'loss of the Roman polity in Britain led to a process of progressive degradation' but I would like to interpose a warning. Roman materials like stone, fired pot, glass and non-ferrous metals survive well in the soil. Wood, thatch, clay, and iron do not. The switch in technology which occurred in both 'British' and 'Saxon' successor states may lead to us overestimating the Roman contribution and underestimating the indigenous. In the few areas where British Iron Age people built in stone, Orkney for example, the results were amazing: towers, walls, carvings, even drains! Evidently the 5th century in Britain saw then end of lead water-pipes, mosaics and underfloor heating but I can't think of any reason why carpentry and smithing skills should have declined in this period. Do you have any evidence for this, or is it speculation? The metallurgical examination of later Saxon knife blades shows that they were masters of techniques such as steel production, hot welding, tempering and quenching.
  
  I think that there was more to the continuation of agricultural practice than keeping war-lords fed, but your idea about the decline of ox ploughing teams is a very good one. Do you have evidence for this; if you do it will save me having to look. Iron Age agriculture often seems to have been organised as an elite centre (broch, hill-fort or whatever) surrounded by a cluster of farms. The elite centre could provide expensive items such as secure storage facilities or a bull to service the cows on poorer farms. The provision of an ox ploughing team, in the way that you suggest, would fit nicely into this model. But you can hardly be serious with your suggestion that Gildas's description of Saxon depredations describes a process preparatory to cattle ranching!
  
  Undoubtedly agriculture does require settled and peaceful conditions. Two roughly equal communities, 'Saxon' and British, both able to launch long distance raids, and both with equally vulnerable agriculture would have been a recipe for rapid starvation. This may be what actually happened in the 6th century.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message21

• Message 22

  , in reply to message 21.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Thursday, 21st January 2010

  Hi TP and Stanilac
  
  What a couple of posts! Thank you.
  
  I am drawn to the fact that TP refers to subsequent religious buildings being often in the same place or using structures from previous religions.
  
  I partly agree that the Christian Church did use previous religious infrastructures and celebrations (Christmas Dates) possibly to cement the replacement religion but also I refer to Stanilac鈥檚 psychic reference which perhaps shows that deep within in us all we not only need a form of religion but also have a feeling of spirituality related to places and the land.
  
  There are parts of the country where there is a close grouping of religious buildings from various ages from Neolithic through Reformation and high levels of religious activity often related to rivers and river valleys.
  
  I think that to discount wheat growing or agriculture throughout Britain is a brave statement but the reference to an expansion of cattle as a method of wealth creation is possibly valid but it should be remembered that pigs sheep and cattle were normal and common during the Roman period.
  
  I do believe that post Roman occupation, wealth was concentrated in food whether on the hoof, in granaries or in the ground. Obviously the moveable type was more collectable and if you weren鈥檛 farmers an ideal way to keep your wealth close to you and where necessary increase it by breeding.
  
  The revolts of the Germans who were invited in to Kent were based around food. I therefore think it is possible that many of the raids by the invaders in ad450 onwards were food based and not based on expansionism at all which I suspect came later as waves of immigration led to the need for more land for the migrants.
  
  Although there were pilgrimages to St Albans during this time was this by the locals or by the elite? I still don鈥檛 feel that we have identified whether the vast percentage of the post Roman British population was Christian or otherwise.
  
  Kind Regards - TA
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message22

• Message 23

  , in reply to message 22.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010

  Hi TA
  
  There are certainly some striking examples of church buildings close to pre-historic monuments. The Rudston monolith is next to the Church of All Saints for example, and a church building is in the middle of one of the Knowlton Neolithic henges. Bronze age ring barrows not infrequently contain Anglo-Saxon secondary burials, and at Stonehenge there seems to have been continuity of ritual practice from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age. A great number of Roman sites are, or were, associated with church buildings: Brancaster, Pevensey, Burgh Castle etc, and I imagine that hardly there are few churches earlier than the 12th century not built from Roman material.
  
  On the other hand plenty of similar sites don't seem to have been treated in this way so there are regional distinctions. It would seem reasonable for the new Christian religion to 'take over' pagan institutions but this view has been criticised, over the date of Christmas for example.
  
  It is likely that landscape features were perceived as sacred but I'm not sure about rivers. Rivers commonly keep their names when the language changes but 'British' rivers in English speaking areas have such pedestrian names: 'water', 'dark', 'swift' etc. But truthfully, whatever we suspect, the religious impulses of our ancient ancestors are irrecoverable now.
  
  You may be right in believing that we have not demonstrated whether the majority of the post-Roman British population was Christian or not. But think about what sort of evidence would inform on this point, and whether there is any likelihood of us obtaining it!
  
  Regards,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message23

• Message 24

  , in reply to message 23.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Saturday, 23rd January 2010

  Hi TP
  
  In some ways I think that this was a very useful thread, as usual your information was excellent and Stanilac's knowledge was invaluable.
  
  For me it has re-inforced how little we know about the 2.5million to 3 million inhabitants and I agree that the chances of finding anything of religious consequence are remote.
  
  Once again many thanks.
  
  Kind Regards - TA

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message24

• Message 25

  , in reply to message 21.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 24th January 2010

  TwinProbe
  
  I too am a dessicated puritan but the chasm of the Reformation runs through my family and I have blood relations who were and some still are Presbyterian, Baptist, Anglican and Roman Catholic. Perhaps I spend too much time trying to reconcile all these traditions.
  
  Please be aware that with regard to the Reformation in England that Foxes's Book of Martyrs was so much hagiography. I recommend the English Roman Catholic historiography of John Lingard 1771-1851 to break down the religious and nationalist mythologies created by Thomas Cromwell and those who came after him. There is a great debate going on about the Reformation in England and I must confess I have made my mind up for now. I also consider that the delightful John Bunyan, however much a shaven-haired, canting, stubborn puritan and close to my heart, was returning a Christian message to the people in much the same way as the medieval friars and the hedge-priest, dear old John Ball. This is what I call a living church.
  
  The collapse of the Roman polity in Britain indeed devastated all religous cults dependent upon Roman authority to survive. To ask who benefited from the collapse is an odd question. Perhaps the rats did quite well out of it for a while.
  
  My statement as to the possibility that pagan and Christian priests may have cooperated rather than fought each other is based on the old story of the pagan Nothumbrian priest who desecrated his own shrine as he found the Christian message more palateable. What led up to that personal apocalypse? It must have taken a while to reach it so he had to be aware of the Christian message whilst still a pagan priest. Furthermore we have the case of King Penda of Mercia, a dyed in the wool pagan who was quite relaxed at those of his children who became Christian. This can only indicate Christianity as a cult among others at that time. I agree this does beg the question as to what others but these need not be huge cults but local, simple and often naive but with the one quality measure of repeatedly performing a successful function.
  
  The fact that events like Plough Monday, very important within the medieval church tradition, have all the outward appearances of some fertility ritual no doubt Christianised under the supervisory instincts of Pope Gregory the Great, supports this view. Why else should perfectly decent cakes be ploughed into the January soil on the Monday after Twelfth Night?
  
  I am sitting within half a mile of a twelfth century church built partly from Roman tile. It was not the first church built there but we have to accept that once the Romans had gone the ability to manufacture brick and tile went with them and did not reappear in England until the fifteenth century. The builders of the early churches no doubt took the pragmatic view that if the materal was suitable to stick in a wall with a bit of mortar around it then in it went. Vernacular building in stone did not start until the sixteenth century so castles and churches pinched it all!
  
  The transfer of authority from Rome via the church will no doubt have some relevance but this has to be local. The only direct example I can put my finger on at the moment is the tradition that an old Roman church was being used by Queen Bertha, wife of Aethelbert of Kent, who was a Christian Frank before the arrival of Augustine's mission in 597AD. Even then Aethelbert would still only meet with Augustine under an open sky: again this has to be a cult among others, perhaps? However, does this imply a continual Christian presence in Canterbury since 407AD. Possibly, possibly not? We just don't know.
  
  With regard to Bede we have to accept that he was limited by his resources which are pretty much the same as we also have. Maybe it is the history of writing which we are researching with this question?
  
  There is evidence of a continuity in smithing but from what I can identify there seems to have been a process of mutual renewal between British and Anglo-Saxon artisans that suggest a continuity of populations rather than anything else. It is this factor of continuity which may very possibly prove the point about the church which we are looking for. Although why, if there is population continuity, did the British adopt the Anglo-Saxon culture so completely and so quickly is also fascinating? Was that a case of mutual renewal as well?
  
  With regard to the heavy ox-plough theory, this has its origin in the development of open fields. I have a paper on this I want someone to publish but all fundaments are closed at the moment. It includes field name evidence, research into agricultural technology, geology and soils but I am outside the academic loop. I can also approximate the period when the open fields were implemented. Nil desperandum! Prior to this the only use I can identify the early Anglo-Saxons had for clay uplands was as summer cattle ranches. They may have had the same enthusiasm for this as the Normans had for hunting preserves. How many villages did the Normans remove to create the New Forest? So was Gildas really arguing about a Saxon-yoke?
  
  You may have gathered by now that my approach is to stress the data to see how far it will go. I appreciate this is not a formal academic approach but we need to keep asking the next question so we know what to look for after that.
  
  In my view the population then is not that much different to the population now. They needed to sustain their numbers under tougher conditions than we now know and they had to have a very resilient attitude to personal and family setbacks. I believe that the Christian message won through as it is better structured psychologically to deal with these issues than any other ideal.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message25

• Message 26

  , in reply to message 25.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 24th January 2010

  Hi stanilic
  
  I'm not sure that I would be the best person to discuss the Reformation, so few Roman and Dark Age enthusiasts are, but if John Ball is one of your personal heroes, and George Fox is one of mine, perhaps we could find some common ground.
  
  My question about the collapse of Roman Britain was perhaps imprecisely phrased. What I intended to convey was the concept that the immediate post-Imperial period was equally difficult to all the Roman derived beliefs, Christian and pagan alike. The pagan priest of Edwin who desecrated his own shrine appears in Bede immediately after the 'flight of the sparrow through the hall' story I believe. I have no difficulty in believing that Anglo-Saxon pagan priests had heard about Christians; after all (as you point out) King Aethelberht of Kent was already married to a Christian Merovingian. I thought that your original post might have been suggesting something more collaborative than reserved tolerance, but probably you weren't. As you say Penda doesn't seem to have been particularly committed to any belief, at any rate he was happy to assist one Christian king to kill another. His idea of a balanced view was a chip on both shoulders perhaps?
  
  Your account of Plough Monday and the Christianisation of pagan rituals is an interesting one, and you may well be right. I would wish to be cautious however. Biological and meteorological realities ensure that the agricultural year consists of seasons for ploughing, sowing, harvesting and so forth. Since we live in an uncertain world we can understand that the sowers in any era would wish to appeal to such divine powers as they happened to believe in before undertaking such a vital activity; and to same powers for thanks after harvesting. It does not necessarily imply that a newer belief system deliberately adapted the rituals of an older. We just don't know enough to be certain.
  
  The early history of English bricks has of late become slightly more complex. Until very recently there have not been scientific methods to intrinsically date bricks. The presumption has been, as you rightly say, that in Britain the knowledge of their creation died with the Romans. But the production of brick and tile is no more challenging a technology than that of pottery manufacture and firing, so it may be as well to scientifically date some re-cycled Roman brick to make quite sure it is not Anglo-Saxon! There are some some wonderful 15th century brick buildings sure enough, but Coggeshall Abbey, Essex is late 12th century, and is one of a number of 12th buildings in Essex containing earlier medieval brick.
  
  My personal belief is that there is far more to the incorporation of Roman spolia into early medieval churches than simple pragmatic recycling. The stones for the lower courses of Hexham Abbey were moved miles from their source at Corbridge, and at Escomb an entire arch was installed after its removal intact from Binchester Roman fort. I think there must have been a symbolic element to its use in these early religious buildings. Recyling into Norman castles, like the keep at Chepstow, I'm more happy to see as purely pragmatic.
  
  It does seem very likely that we have no more Roman and Dark Age historical sources than had Bede, but we do have archaeology and it is archaeology that is transforming our knowledge of this period. There is quite good evidence that the landscape of the north west of Britain might have been re-fashioned for cattle ranching in the late Roman period. The thin acid soil is unpromising for cereal cultivation, and there are few Roman quern finds (when compared with Yorkshire). Most Roman settlements seem to come to an end in the 3rd century and so 'clearances' followed by ranching would explain everything. Masses of cattle bones would be helpful confirmation but these do not survive well in acid soils. Unfortunately dairying is famously hard to see in the archaeological record, but if you found some Anglo-Saxon pottery with some absorbed fat in it then the archaeological scientists could have a good stab at telling you which domestic species was rendered down to provide it!
  
  Kind regards,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message26

• Message 27

  , in reply to message 26.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 31st January 2010

  TwinProbe
  
  Interesting comments on medieval brick in Essex: imported artisans possibly but who would still need local materials. I wonder what the locals thought at the time? No doubt the parish priest made references to the sojourn of the Children of Israel in Egypt and the use of straw to make bricks.
  
  I know that a middle Saxon settlement existed in the next valley over to the south with Old English dairy field-names, only the site is proving very elusive as it had disappeared by the late medieval period: no surface traces at all!
  
  Thanks for reminding me that the pagan priest was Edwin. I carry too much other rubbish in my head and forget where the references are!

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message27

• Message 28

  , in reply to message 27.

  Posted by TwinProbe (U4077936) on Sunday, 31st January 2010

  Hi stanilic,
  
  The King was Edwin; the pagan priest was Coifi. The first things he did after his conversion were to ride a stallion and to carry a weapon, both forbidden to Anglo-Saxon pagan priests apparently.
  
  Best wishes,
  
  TP

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message28

• Message 29

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by John Montgomery (U14320267) on Sunday, 31st January 2010

  >>> Regarding the Bishops wanting money 鈥� have you ever known the Church not to be collecting for itself? <<<
  ...er...pardon?!
  Some loaded propaganda going on here I think?
  A little off topic, but: House rules:"We reserve the right to fail messages which [...] Are racist, sexist, homophobic, sexually explicit, abusive or otherwise objectionable" - e.g. anti-Christian.
  
  Charity, is a paradigm established by Christ, and by which the majority of Christians seek to live.
  :-p
  JM

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message29

• Message 30

  , in reply to message 29.

  Posted by John Montgomery (U14320267) on Sunday, 31st January 2010

  I wish I hadn't posted my previous message - it gives the wrong impression. Too late!
  But, thanks to all - TP, TA, stanilic - for an enjoyable and illuminating thread.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message30

• Message 31

  , in reply to message 30.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Saturday, 13th February 2010

  John Montgomery
  
  You have a good name: salutations!
  
  To err is human, to forgive divine. So, I forgive you.
  
  My comment was tongue in cheek. I do support the fabric of a church not least because generations of my folk occupy the poor side of the churchyard.
  
  Whereas I wholly appreciate that the true message does not need buildings, nor bishops but the simple love of good people. Although the odd bishop does come in handy from time to time.....only I am not going to go there just now.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message31

• Message 32

  , in reply to message 28.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Saturday, 13th February 2010

  TP 28
  
  Thanks for the courtesy
  
  I have found the reference since. I used to know it off by heart, but these days I have too much other rubbish in my head. I have heard it said that the brain shrinks as you get older.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message32

• Message 33

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by -frederik- (U13721647) on Thursday, 18th February 2010

  I think the power came after the popularity (among leaders, not necessarily among people instantly). The popularity had many reasons. Two of these important elements for the popularity of the christian church I think are Roman roads and christianity as Roman State religion.
  
  Before Constantine, romans were verry tollerent of all kinds of religions, including christianity. Christianity is a more intollerant system (due to monothe茂sm and the idea of conversion). Once the empire fell, Romes biggest power was not political but religious. While Romes political power had declined, the idea of power over rome, of a great roman empire, was still popular among military leaders (kings). With that came the popularity of christianity. (Popularity among kings --> folowers --> people)
  
  The geographical succes of christianity can be explained partly by the highly developed roman system of roads. Originaly they were createt for a military purpose, but soon the were veins through which social, economic and (why not) religious transportation was possible. By these roads christianity could find its way to the corners of the former empire. once setteled it spread through mission (you guys all know saint patrick etc).
  
  This matter is far more complex ofcourse, but maybe I added one of two new viewpoints to the thread.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message33

• Message 34

  , in reply to message 33.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Friday, 19th February 2010

  Being a religion it was also predisposed to expansion in all respects given the opportunity (how many religions shun proselytising?), and its assumption by the Roman power system already in place also injected it with a large dollop of rhetorical expertise at its disposal, not to mention powerful politically coercive agents now made to work on its behalf. The Roman obsession with clear chains of command and "unified" message was also something it acquired at that time and which helped transform it into a formidable secular authority in its own right, as well as a self-defined and centralised spiritual one.
  
  The real miracle would have been if upon assumption into the Roman power system it had not developed along the lines that it did and had retained the theological ambiguity and internal diversification which hitherto had typified it. But the odds against that happening, given the trade-off on offer from the Imperial Court and the temporal benefits to be derived from towing the imperial line, were immense.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message34

• Message 35

  , in reply to message 34.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Friday, 19th February 2010

  Hi Nordmann
  
  It what way do you mean secular for Christianity and what interface was it using?
  
  I could accept that the role of the Church (apart from religious) was educational and also by default administrative but there is often throughout history the links to the military where the leaders in the Dark Ages (I still love that term as it is so true when trying to see through the mists of time) are linked to being leaders within the established Church.
  
  Perhaps this opinion is not quite true, as the people who wrote the history may well have been using a more than a little propaganda and were probably the Church themselves鈥︹��
  
  What happened to religions like Mithraism? A soldier鈥檚 religion 鈥� and soldiering continued for some time鈥�
  
  So as there was so little written word during the Dark Ages could this mean that in fact the Church was on the wane in Britain at this time 鈥� and if so 鈥� what or who revived it?
  
  
  
  Kind Regards - TA
  
  
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message35

• Message 36

  , in reply to message 35.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 20th February 2010

  Hi TA
  
  "Secular" means worldly rather than spiritual and that is exactly how I meant it too. The church's fusion with one of the most powerful political states in the world at the time meant that it was not only more apt but almost condemned to acquire the attributes of a secular power in addition to its religious character. The fusion of these two aspects is in fact still its most striking characteristic. I am not sure what you mean by "interface" but if I am guessing correctly that you are wondering what secular agents it controlled and used to guarantee both its survival and its high political status then you can simply take your pick. All those available to the Roman state and its successors were utilised at different times, from diplomatic to military agents and with the political techniques of persuasion and coercion which characterised the implementation of any policy adopted by a powerful state.
  
  Mithraism most definitely died out as a popular superstition in the Roman military. What exactly delivered it its ultimate death blow is something that can only be guessed at - as a pagan belief system in the eyes of the state-supported superstition it was hardly going to be examined as a phenomenon, let alone recorded en route to its demise. I would imagine however that the evolution of the Roman army into what it became towards the end, a hodge podge of almost privately run militia with Romans per se constituting only a small fraction of their ranks, was ultimately what militated against any unorthodox superstition retaining general popularity amongst its members - except of course for the state-backed one which ultimately decided what was orthodox and what wasn't, and had the clout to enforce that view.
  
  The waxing and waning of christian belief in Britain seems to have been a permanent feature of the island's history for the best part of a millennium. This fluctuation would appear to have been always instigated by external factors and reflects Britain's vulnerability for a long period to events and migrations originating in mainland Europe rather than it does a high degree of theological or philosophical competition of ideas originating in Britain itself. That christianity ultimately "won out" in Britain therefore owes less to any innate appeal to potential subscribers than it does to the ability of its central leadership elsewhere to impose the superstition through political measures on a pan-European level, and with sufficient effect to establish an almost complete monopoly in the field of state-recognized and state-supported faith systems.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message36

• Message 37

  , in reply to message 36.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Saturday, 20th February 2010

  Re: Message 36.
  
  Nordmann,
  
  great reply and I learned a lot from it. Not that the rest of the thread isn't interesting too.
  
  Warm regards and with esteem,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message37

• Message 38

  , in reply to message 33.

  Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 23rd February 2010

  I think the miracle of Christianity lay in the way it was marketed to the Romans, and the way the Jews were made to look like scapegoats. Like any other religious book, the Bible was a piece of propaganda, written to get the proselytising message across.
  
  Where did the Gospel writers dig up this fiction about a criminal being released on the Passover? There's no evidence of that practice. So, the story of Barrabas was a convenient invention. How many other passages were invented?
  
  Contemporary writings by someone in Alexandria described Pilate as a tyrannical ruler who had no problems executing enemies without trial. This certainly doesn't wash with the Biblical accounts of him being wishy-washy and caving into the demands of the priests like Caiaphus. Even Josephus describes Pilate as a firm and occasional overly-harsh governor.
  
  I struggle to find any contemporary writings in Roman records about Jesus's existence, trial, etc. It does seem that if he did exist, he was a minor figure, and not the great threat to the state that he's made out to be in the Bible.
  
  There seems to have been a split in the early Church, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD. It seems that the family of Jesus wanted to keep his teachings as a Jewish reform tradition, according to this very interested programme by Howard Jacobson (sp?), while those who followed Paul wanted to sell the religion to the Gentiles.
  
  In order to sell Christianity to the Romans, the Jews had to be painted as the bad guys, and Pilate exonerated by this revisionist piece of history, called the Bible....
  
  <quote> Before Constantine, romans were verry tollerent of all kinds of religions, including christianity. Christianity is a more intollerant system (due to monothe茂sm and the idea of conversion).

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message38

• Message 39

  , in reply to message 38.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 28th February 2010

  Pilate was above all else a consummate politician. The freeing of a political prisoner at Passover has always seemed to me a bit of cynical window-dressing to placate the native establishment at a disturbed time. Also one must accept that a post-Christian Roman orthodoxy would not like too many people to be critical of a pre-Christian Roman governor. To blame the natives is a bit of divide and rule; a good way to offset any blame on an Imperial officer.
  
  There is evidence of many splits in the early Church. There were eleven disciples to start with so probably eleven versions of the original teaching. Christian orthodoxy only arrived after the Council of Nicaea and this was in the fourth century.
  
  Before such orthodoxy there was an emerging Christian religion with many different and even conflicting facets, oriental and pagan Mysteries of which Mithraism was one, and multi-faceted Jewish traditions from the Pharisees to the Essenes.
  
  There seem to be certain elements of Zoroastrian tradition in both Christian and Mithraic belief. This may have evolved from the huge cultural changes that followed on from the Alexandrain enpire. There was certainly a moral and intellectual tumult in the first century of which the dominion of Rome was just one aspect.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message39

• Message 40

  , in reply to message 39.

  Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Monday, 1st March 2010

  But did the freeing of Barrabas actually happen? The only reference to such a case is in the Bible, which is written quite a few years after the fact. Jewish sources tell us that there was no such practice at the time, which makes the Gospels more than a bit liberal with the truth, when they claimed that this practice existed in Judaea at the time!
  
  So, it does seem unlikely that Pilate would take such an action to placate a native establishment at that time....
  
  Otherwise, I totally agree with you. The Jews seemed to have been demonised in order to make Christianity more appealing to those Roman subjects the early Christians were seeking to convert.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message40

• Message 41

  , in reply to message 40.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 1st March 2010

  Hi Guys
  
  On a slightly less religious note - weren't the Jews pretty difficult for the Romans to control?
  
  Apart from Britain, the largest amount of troops needed to garrison an area was perhaps the region of Judea and roundabout areas?
  
  If you also look at the way that the Druids were villified by the Romans was this just standard practice of the Roman publicity system?
  
  Kind Regards - TA

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message41

• Message 42

  , in reply to message 40.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 7th March 2010

  shivfan
  
  The freeing of a prisoner at that time of year - Passover is a lunar festival in the spring which other religions may also have observed - need not have been a Jewish tradition. It could have been another Middle Eastern tradition the Romans imported into Jerusalem at the time because it was useful. I have always felt there was a bit of power-play going on around the Crucifixion. As I said it was a period of intellectual and religious ferment which the authorities would wish to manage and control.
  
  I sympathise with you over the calumny of the so-called Blood Guilt. To say it is inhuman and deeply offensive is to understate the sense of disgust it engenders. Both historically and theologically there is no need for it.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message42

• Message 43

  , in reply to message 41.

  Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 7th March 2010

  TA
  
  The Romans had a pragamatic approach to local religion in territories they had taken over. For as long as the local worthies made suitable commemorations to the deities of the Roman state at the proper holiday times then the local religion would be respected by the authorities.
  
  In Palestine the situation was very different as the Jews recognised only their own deity. This did not lead to a comfortable relationship between the Pharisee priests and Roman power. If the Romans insisted on enforcing their standard rules on the Jews then the roof would come in: as it did later anyway. This why I feel that the Governor of Judaea had to play politics with a hard-ball.
  
  The final extermination of the druid cult by Suetonius Paulinus had a long history leading up to it. Julius Caesar had already blamed the druids for the fierce resistance to Roman rule in Gaul. Indeed his interventions into Britain were based on the principle that the British were helping their kinsmen in Gaul against the might of Rome. As with the Jews the druids refused to recognise the authority of the Roman state but were incapable of structuring this into a form the Romans could respect. It might have something to do with writing, history and stone buildings.

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message43

• Message 44

  , in reply to message 43.

  Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Tuesday, 9th March 2010

  Hi stanilac
  
  Thankyou for your post - it seems to me that there was definitely a fair amount of propaganda put about by the Romans regarding demonising an enemy that they found hhard to conquer.
  
  It would seem that the Romans stated that both the Jews and the Druids were into human blood sacrifice but do we have any proof of this?
  
  As far as the Druids were concerned it would appear that they were indeed the Teachers, the Law Makers, Law Givers, Historians, Judges and yet they are portrayed by the Romans as Evil that had to be totally rooted out - stem and branch by complete annihilation.
  
  It would seem that the Romans had to justify the removal of a complete layer of knowledge by painting the Druids in very dark colours indeed.
  
  I find it difficult to imagine that the Celts would have left their wise men to be slaughtered without having an army to protect them...so what is the truth here....
  
  Any ideas anyone?
  
  I am hoping to stumble on some this weekend in London..
  
  Kind Regards - TA
  
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message44

• Message 45

  , in reply to message 42.

  Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Tuesday, 9th March 2010

  stanilic,
  
  That's why I don't believe that the prisoner-freeing-at-Passover never took place....
  
  After all, the Gospels were written quite a few decades after when Christ was supposed to have died, and seemed to have had its fair share of Greek influence. This is probably just another custom that existed in Asia Minor at the time, that was conveniently woven into the Jesus story....
  
  There is no contemporary evidence to support the hypothesis that this custom was imported into Palestine, and used either by Pilate or by the Pharisees at the time. In contrast, the contemporary accounts of Pilate's accounts, both by Josephus and this other guy in Alexandria, seem to indicate that Pilate was a tyrant by all accounts, who made no bones about executing prisoners without trial. This portrait just doesn't wash with the Bible's image of him as a weak governor who was forced into employing a dodgy custom that no one else seems to have heard of....

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message45

• Message 46

  , in reply to message 45.

  Posted by Poldertijger (U11154078) on Wednesday, 10th March 2010

  Hello shivfan,
  
  I can understand the problems that you have with the "blood guilt." I have written about it at You might want to have a look at it.
  
  Regards,
  Poldertijger
  
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message46

• Message 47

  , in reply to message 46.

  Posted by shivfan (U2435266) on Thursday, 11th March 2010

  An excellent article, Poltertijger....
  

  Link to this forum: How Did the Christian Church become so powerful?

  Report message47

Back to top