0
Mysterious Christian Meanderings
21 December 2005
[indent]I was surfing randomly last week, using the "next blog" link at the top of Blogger sites (after a visit to local blogger Garrulous Credenza's somewhat rambling blog site). And through clicking past a bunch of other rambling sites, I found Milogos blog, an apparently new Christian blog with only two entries: one in English, the other is in Spanish.
The profile of the blogger, translated using Google's less-than-adequate tool, reads,Ouch. Not very revealing, but the content of the first entry indicates it's a Christian blog. There are a lot of those, not my style, and I would have simply gone on to the next blog, had it not been for the first paragraph that caught my eye.
Up at the top of the blog, the English entry reads:
Ouch. That's such an egregious abuse of history, that I had to respond. One cannot allow such inaccuracies to go unchallenged. It's far too common for Internet copy to be passed around and quoted as if (forgive the pun) gospel. And this is simply too wrong to ignore.
Since I don't have a Blogger account (yet, maybe never), I was unable to post my comments on the site (which allows only other bloggers to respond), so I decided to toss them in here. And this is what I wanted to write to the anonymous blogger:
That's completely and utterly incorrect. First of all, the "known" world 2,000 years ago included some large civilizations contemporary with, but not subservient to, Rome - including empires in China, India and Central America, as well as many independent states around the globe.
The Han dynasty, in China, for example, was as large if not larger than the Roman empire 2,000 years ago. Rome certainly had no control over the Chinese, although it may have had trade contacts (certainly nations on Rome's eastern borders had contacts with the Chinese through the Silk Road trade).
The great Teotihuacan culture of Mexico was at its zenith - and completely untouched by Roman authority. Rome didn't even have ships capable of sailing that far.
During the first century, the Parthian empire was one of the larger neighbouring states Rome was unable to conquer.l Trajan finally defeated them in 116 CE. Even then the Parthian empire managed to stay alive for another century outside Rome's control. The Parthians were not controlled by Rome 2,000 years ago.
Rome, while a large empire, was not even at its peak when Jesus was around. Britain, for example, didn't fall to Claudius until a decade after Jesus had died (Britain was still an island of independent Celtic tribes and kingdoms back then). In fact, Rome would not reach its maximum boundaries until the emperor Trajan, a century after Jesus.
And while Rome was a large empire, it was still in fact a republic. Many of its provinces were actually client states run by their own kings or hereditary leaders. Herod's Galilee and Petrea were such client states. They might be subject to Roman authority but in many cases they had many of their own laws, minted their own coins and administered their states independently (as long as they didn't violate Roman law). Tiberius was its head, and had enormous power, but he was still beholden to the Senate and the Roman laws.
The time of Jesus is also contemporary with the Golden Age of Buddhism, which spread the faith from India into Southeast Asia in the first century CE and saw many of the great Mahayana Buddhist texts written. Romans were probably aware of Buddhism, and there is evidence that Buddhism missionaries were probably in pre-Christian Egypt and other parts of the empire, but Rome never controlled them. Romans were for the most part very tolerant of religions, as long as its practitioners swore allegiance to Rome and the emperor.
So most of the "known" world was NOT under Roman rule then, nor was it ever. Rome ruled most of the Mediterranean basin, true, but hardly the world.
This anonymous blogger also wrote:
I think there's sufficient proof the Pax Romana brought peace, calm and security to a rather violence-prone era, that Roman authority was considerably less severe than that of many other kingdoms and rulers. Plus they built roads, provided running water and sewage systems, built public baths, had a system of mail, universal code of laws, literature, engineering, a universal language, was generally tolerant of faith and religion, they controlled piracy, made it safe to travel... it was certainly safer under Roman rule than many other parts of the world.
Yes, Tiberius was a dark ruler and his reign was troubled, but most of the strife was internal, between Romans, especically among the leading families (for example his attack against his advisor and later competitor Sejanus).
Tiberius was also unlike many other emperors, in that he did not fight any wars of conquest. His armies were engaged in several "peacekeeping" actions on the frontiers, but the empire was generally at peace during his reign. He left much of the administration work to his generally competent provincial governors.
As for the circus, you are confusing eras. In its early days, the circus was simply for chariot races. Julius Caesar expanded it to include gladiators, but also stage plays performed by actors of all languages, athletic contests, sham sea-fights. According to Suetonius,
So circuses were also used for non-violent sport, contests, and theatrical productions. Yes, under Nero they became more violent and included the slaughter of political enemies including Christians. But since there were no "Christians" during Tiberius' reign (that's a later group: in Jesus' day, they were simply another Jewish sect), he couldn't have put any into the arena.
The construction of the great Colosseum in Rome (Circus Maximus) was started during the rule of Emperor Vespasian, in 72 CE. It was completed by his son, Titus, in the 80s, long after Jesus had died. It was actually built for chariot racing,as were most of the Roman circuses. Charioteers were contemporary athletic heroes, and could win considerable fame and fortune in the races.
It wasn't until long after Jesus that the Emperor Nero started adding Christians to the entertainment in the forum, blaming them for the fire that destroyed much of Rome in 64 CE - the fire he himself started. Nero had the distinction of being the first emperor to persecute the Christian church. Romans continued to persecute Christians for the next three centuries, but not for reasons of faith, but rather because, using political terms - calling Jesus their ruler and their faith his kingdom, - considered Christians traitors to the state. Dr. Jack Arnold wrote:
Early Christians weren't really distinguishable from Jews, and were seen as another small Jewish sect. Suetonius wrote about the Emperor Claudius that, "Since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city..."
Fascinating era, rich history, and I could ramble on about it for much longer, but I think my point has been made. Your comments are not merely inaccurate: they reflect a serious misunderstanding of the era, of early Christian history, and of the Romans. The Bible is only one source of historical information and it itself is quite limited in scope to a pro-Christian perspective. Look outside it, look beyond its narrow confines to read more about the WORLD before you comment on it. Read more, damnit.
So, dear anonymous writer, history is not some casual two-liner you crank out on a blog: it's a complex, a broad series of events and interactions, cause and effect, a mix of personalities and events. Vague generalities may sound good, but they're usually wrong and easily unravelled. Do your homework, back your comments up by sources, and remember the three rules of historical scholarship: research, more research, and even more research.[/indent]
The profile of the blogger, translated using Google's less-than-adequate tool, reads,
Quote
Somebody that it has faith in the tremendous human potential when the endemicos yokes are eliminated and works in an atmosphere of freedom and valuation of the life.
Up at the top of the blog, the English entry reads:
Quote
When Saul of Tarsus set out on his journey to Damascus the whole of the known world lay in bondage. There was one state, and it was Rome. There was one master for it all, and he was Tiberius Caesar"
Ouch. That's such an egregious abuse of history, that I had to respond. One cannot allow such inaccuracies to go unchallenged. It's far too common for Internet copy to be passed around and quoted as if (forgive the pun) gospel. And this is simply too wrong to ignore.
Since I don't have a Blogger account (yet, maybe never), I was unable to post my comments on the site (which allows only other bloggers to respond), so I decided to toss them in here. And this is what I wanted to write to the anonymous blogger:
That's completely and utterly incorrect. First of all, the "known" world 2,000 years ago included some large civilizations contemporary with, but not subservient to, Rome - including empires in China, India and Central America, as well as many independent states around the globe.
The Han dynasty, in China, for example, was as large if not larger than the Roman empire 2,000 years ago. Rome certainly had no control over the Chinese, although it may have had trade contacts (certainly nations on Rome's eastern borders had contacts with the Chinese through the Silk Road trade).
The great Teotihuacan culture of Mexico was at its zenith - and completely untouched by Roman authority. Rome didn't even have ships capable of sailing that far.
During the first century, the Parthian empire was one of the larger neighbouring states Rome was unable to conquer.l Trajan finally defeated them in 116 CE. Even then the Parthian empire managed to stay alive for another century outside Rome's control. The Parthians were not controlled by Rome 2,000 years ago.
Rome, while a large empire, was not even at its peak when Jesus was around. Britain, for example, didn't fall to Claudius until a decade after Jesus had died (Britain was still an island of independent Celtic tribes and kingdoms back then). In fact, Rome would not reach its maximum boundaries until the emperor Trajan, a century after Jesus.
And while Rome was a large empire, it was still in fact a republic. Many of its provinces were actually client states run by their own kings or hereditary leaders. Herod's Galilee and Petrea were such client states. They might be subject to Roman authority but in many cases they had many of their own laws, minted their own coins and administered their states independently (as long as they didn't violate Roman law). Tiberius was its head, and had enormous power, but he was still beholden to the Senate and the Roman laws.
The time of Jesus is also contemporary with the Golden Age of Buddhism, which spread the faith from India into Southeast Asia in the first century CE and saw many of the great Mahayana Buddhist texts written. Romans were probably aware of Buddhism, and there is evidence that Buddhism missionaries were probably in pre-Christian Egypt and other parts of the empire, but Rome never controlled them. Romans were for the most part very tolerant of religions, as long as its practitioners swore allegiance to Rome and the emperor.
So most of the "known" world was NOT under Roman rule then, nor was it ever. Rome ruled most of the Mediterranean basin, true, but hardly the world.
This anonymous blogger also wrote:
Quote
But everywhere there was something else, too. There was oppression -- for those who were not the friends of Tiberius Caesar. There was the tax gatherer to take the grain from the fields and the flax from the spindle to feed the legions or to fill the hungry treasury from which divine Caesar gave largess to the people. There was the impressor to find recruits for the circuses. There were executioners to quiet those whom the Emperor proscribed. What was a man for but to serve Caesar?
I think there's sufficient proof the Pax Romana brought peace, calm and security to a rather violence-prone era, that Roman authority was considerably less severe than that of many other kingdoms and rulers. Plus they built roads, provided running water and sewage systems, built public baths, had a system of mail, universal code of laws, literature, engineering, a universal language, was generally tolerant of faith and religion, they controlled piracy, made it safe to travel... it was certainly safer under Roman rule than many other parts of the world.
Yes, Tiberius was a dark ruler and his reign was troubled, but most of the strife was internal, between Romans, especically among the leading families (for example his attack against his advisor and later competitor Sejanus).
Tiberius was also unlike many other emperors, in that he did not fight any wars of conquest. His armies were engaged in several "peacekeeping" actions on the frontiers, but the empire was generally at peace during his reign. He left much of the administration work to his generally competent provincial governors.
As for the circus, you are confusing eras. In its early days, the circus was simply for chariot races. Julius Caesar expanded it to include gladiators, but also stage plays performed by actors of all languages, athletic contests, sham sea-fights. According to Suetonius,
Quote
In the gladiatorial contest in the Forum Furius Leptinus, a man of praetorian stock, and Quintus Calpenus, a former senator and pleader at the bar, fought to a finish. A Pyrrhic dance was performed by the sons of the princes of Asia and Bithynia. During the plays Decimus Laberius, a Roman knight, acted a farce of his own composition, and having been presented with five hundred thousand sesterces and a gold ring, passed from the stage through the orchestra and took his place in the fourteen rows. For the races the circus was lengthened at either end and a broad canal was dug all about it; then young men of the highest rank drove four-horse and two-horse chariots and rode pairs of horses, vaulting from one to the other. The game called Troy was performed by two troops, of younger and of older boys. Combats with wild beasts were presented on five successive days, and last of all there was a battle between two opposing armies, in which five hundred foot-soldiers, twenty elephants, and thirty horsemen engaged on each side. To make room for this, the goals were taken down and in their place two camps were pitched over against each other. The athletic competitions lasted for three days in a temporary stadium built for the purpose in the region of the Campus Martius. For the naval battle a pool was dug in the lesser Codeta and there was a contest of ships of two, three, and four banks of oars, belonging to the Tyrian and Egyptian fleets, manned by a large force of fighting men. Such a throng flocked to all these shows from every quarter, that many strangers had to lodge in tents pitched in streets or along the roads, and the press was often such that many were crushed to death, including two senators.
So circuses were also used for non-violent sport, contests, and theatrical productions. Yes, under Nero they became more violent and included the slaughter of political enemies including Christians. But since there were no "Christians" during Tiberius' reign (that's a later group: in Jesus' day, they were simply another Jewish sect), he couldn't have put any into the arena.
The construction of the great Colosseum in Rome (Circus Maximus) was started during the rule of Emperor Vespasian, in 72 CE. It was completed by his son, Titus, in the 80s, long after Jesus had died. It was actually built for chariot racing,as were most of the Roman circuses. Charioteers were contemporary athletic heroes, and could win considerable fame and fortune in the races.
It wasn't until long after Jesus that the Emperor Nero started adding Christians to the entertainment in the forum, blaming them for the fire that destroyed much of Rome in 64 CE - the fire he himself started. Nero had the distinction of being the first emperor to persecute the Christian church. Romans continued to persecute Christians for the next three centuries, but not for reasons of faith, but rather because, using political terms - calling Jesus their ruler and their faith his kingdom, - considered Christians traitors to the state. Dr. Jack Arnold wrote:
Quote
The Roman state considered Christianity in its early stages just another sect of Judaism, and Judaism was a legal religion. But as soon as Christianity was recognized as a separate religion, it became an illegal religion and was considered a threat to the Roman Empire. Christians spoke of Christ as their ruler, and as the king of his kingdom. The Romans thought Christians guilty of treason.
Early Christians weren't really distinguishable from Jews, and were seen as another small Jewish sect. Suetonius wrote about the Emperor Claudius that, "Since the Jews were constantly causing disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from the city..."
Fascinating era, rich history, and I could ramble on about it for much longer, but I think my point has been made. Your comments are not merely inaccurate: they reflect a serious misunderstanding of the era, of early Christian history, and of the Romans. The Bible is only one source of historical information and it itself is quite limited in scope to a pro-Christian perspective. Look outside it, look beyond its narrow confines to read more about the WORLD before you comment on it. Read more, damnit.
So, dear anonymous writer, history is not some casual two-liner you crank out on a blog: it's a complex, a broad series of events and interactions, cause and effect, a mix of personalities and events. Vague generalities may sound good, but they're usually wrong and easily unravelled. Do your homework, back your comments up by sources, and remember the three rules of historical scholarship: research, more research, and even more research.[/indent]
