Jesus, the insult

[HansMustermann]

You know, I'm thinking a bit more about the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion, and I can't help wondering how much of that story was more subversive than we'd think nowadays.

Being crucified wasn't just a punishment, it was an insult. When, for example, Spartacus earlier crucified a Roman prisoner in front of Crassus's wall, the insult was very clearly understood by both sides.

And the earlier crucifixion of some of the prisoners from Varinius's army, may have been the point where Rome finally started taking Spartacus seriously. The next soldiers they would send against him, would be two consular armies. Yep, each consul actually commanded a full consular army of two veteran legions, not just each a half of it.

I'm thinking that basically "OMG, they even crucified the Son Of God" was a very powerful anti-Roman message. In fact, probably even more powerful than the unflattering metaphors John would later use in his Revelation.

Crucifixion was also a symbol of oppression. Roman citizens were, as a rule, never crucified, no matter what they did. The few exceptions that exist are usually presented as outrageous examples of abuse.

The crucifix would be something that would speak directly to the hearts of slaves and peregrini. Jesus was in the "us" zone of the "us vs them." And historically it seems like those would form the majority of early followers.

The resurrection would probably also have to be seen not as just a victory over death, but as victory over _crucifixion_. It was a victory against the iconic Roman tool of oppression. Jesus would be a symbol that yes, you can beat that system.

All in all, I can see why Constantine had to apropriate that movement and symbol.

[Cavemonster]

I totally thought this was a thread about Jesus the Inuit.

[ElightenMe]

I totally thought this was a thread about Jesus the Inuit.

Eskimo Jebus?

[truethat]

Destruction of the Idols of Gods in ancient times was pretty common. Destroying the temples etc. So crucifixion probably just got mixed up into a more elaborate rendering of the story because it appealed to the "god crushing" of the times.

[Marduk]

So who was the insult aimed at ?
Not the Romans, they nailed him up
Not the Jews, they sentenced him
future christians ?
:D

[ElightenMe]

So who was the insult aimed at ?
Not the Romans, they nailed him up
Not the Jews, they sentenced him
future christians ?
:D

The "Jews" didn't sentence him, that's just baloney made up in the bible, read the whole Barrabus ************ (Barrabus and Jesus are the same name, same with Emmanuel e.t.c) they thought he was gonna be their big new hero. As a son of David he was in the line of Kings... so they Romans whacked him and crucified him. If it was another group of people they would have put his head on a pike or something like that.

Swearing must be entirely masked in public sections of the forum.

[Marduk]

that's just baloney made up in the bible
Seems apt for Jesus then doesn't it
:D

[ElightenMe]

Seems apt for Jesus then doesn't it
:D

haha too true.

[HansMustermann]

So who was the insult aimed at ?
Not the Romans, they nailed him up
Not the Jews, they sentenced him
future christians ?
:D

Pretty much at the Romans, I would say. "Here's the guy who wasn't even fazed by your crucifixion."

Well, probably "insult" isn't the right word, now that I think about it some more. More like an anti-Roman propaganda device.

[ElightenMe]

Pretty much at the Romans, I would say. "Here's the guy who wasn't even fazed by your crucifixion."

Well, probably "insult" isn't the right word, now that I think about it some more. More like an anti-Roman propaganda device.

Oh yes, i sort of side-tracked from the thread topic. The Romans crucifying Jesus was to intimidate and discourage revolt as he was believed to be a revolutionary leader (Osama Bin Laden of the time? :P). in which case the Jews spreading the myth of the resurrection would be an insult to the Romans as Hans stated.

[Ichneumonwasp]

You know, I'm thinking a bit more about the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion, and I can't help wondering how much of that story was more subversive than we'd think nowadays.

Being crucified wasn't just a punishment, it was an insult. When, for example, Spartacus earlier crucified a Roman prisoner in front of Crassus's wall, the insult was very clearly understood by both sides.

And the earlier crucifixion of some of the prisoners from Varinius's army, may have been the point where Rome finally started taking Spartacus seriously. The next soldiers they would send against him, would be two consular armies. Yep, each consul actually commanded a full consular army of two veteran legions, not just each a half of it.

I'm thinking that basically "OMG, they even crucified the Son Of God" was a very powerful anti-Roman message. In fact, probably even more powerful than the unflattering metaphors John would later use in his Revelation.

Crucifixion was also a symbol of oppression. Roman citizens were, as a rule, never crucified, no matter what they did. The few exceptions that exist are usually presented as outrageous examples of abuse.

The crucifix would be something that would speak directly to the hearts of slaves and peregrini. Jesus was in the "us" zone of the "us vs them." And historically it seems like those would form the majority of early followers.

The resurrection would probably also have to be seen not as just a victory over death, but as victory over _crucifixion_. It was a victory against the iconic Roman tool of oppression. Jesus would be a symbol that yes, you can beat that system.

All in all, I can see why Constantine had to apropriate that movement and symbol.


That is really interesting. I had never thought in terms of the later Roman response to this. I've thought about what it meant to the Romans of the time and read what Paul had to say about his particular response to it, but that is a very good thought.

I wonder how much that played into some of the Roman response. Very interesting.

Strange, though, that none of the Jews at the time used that sort of argument. It was, after all, almost exclusively Romans who converted to Christianity.

There's a lot to ponder in this.

Thanks for starting the thread. Hmmm......

[Jeff Corey]

And now for something somewhat similar. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ECUtkv2qV8&feature=fvw

[Piggy]

I think this whole progression is best viewed in stages.

Imo, it's most likely (for several reasons) that the basic outlines of the crucifixion stories are rooted in the historical scenario.

Jesus was a rural rabbi of the anti-Temple movement, probably opposed to sacrifice and certainly opposed to the taxation of the provincial farmers to support the Jerusalem-based priesthood as well as to the presence of their representatives (the scribes) in the synagogs, which were local political councils as well as centers of local religious authority (there being no difference in ancient Judah/Israel among church, state, and judiciary).

His charge was most likely sedition against the government of Judah for opposing the Temple and openly condemning its leadership (and perhaps refusing to sacrifice and directing his followers to also refuse to sacrifice) which would have been equivalent to sedition against Rome, since the Herodian government was sanctioned by Rome and given authority within the region.

Rome was perfectly content to allow local authorities to retain local control, as long as they kept the peace. The Jesus school would have threatened that arrangement. It was probably not a serious threat, but it didn't need to be. Justice was harsh in those days. Examples had to be set.

Crucifixion would not have been a surprising punishment for the crime of openly inciting disobedience to the Temple and, by proxy, to Rome itself.

Then along comes Paul, who expands the Jesus movement beyond the Jewish community essentially by tossing out what was most important about Jesus's ministry to the Jewish Jesus movement, and focusing instead on a message of personal salvation entirely through belief in atonement via the sacrifice of Jesus as a divine figure, a theology which would have been quite familiar to the pagan audience.

What's interesting is that Paul converts followers from nearly all levels of society below the aristocracy, most notably prosperous merchants, well-to-do women, and the poor and slave classes.

So for Constantine, the adoption of Christianity as a state religion, long after the historical details of Jesus's death had been forgotten, has many advantages.

First of all, the tenets of the religion as popularized by Paul were readily understandable by the wide variety of pagan populations that he needed to unify.

Not only that, but the barrier to entry was essentially nil. There was no sacrifice required, no dietary restrictions, no circumcision... you pretty much just had to say you were Christian and you were in.

It was the perfect vehicle, perhaps the only vehicle, for bringing his dominion under a common bond of religion.

And by that time, the symbol of the cross was so well established -- and, let's face it, so easy to draw -- that the adoption of the cross as the central symbol of the new religion was a no-brainer.

[ElightenMe]

I think this whole progression is best viewed in stages.

Imo, it's most likely (for several reasons) that the basic outlines of the crucifixion stories are rooted in the historical scenario.

Jesus was a rural rabbi of the anti-Temple movement, probably opposed to sacrifice and certainly opposed to the taxation of the provincial farmers to support the Jerusalem-based priesthood as well as to the presence of their representatives (the scribes) in the synagogs, which were local political councils as well as centers of local religious authority (there being no difference in ancient Judah/Israel among church, state, and judiciary).

His charge was most likely sedition against the government of Judah for opposing the Temple and openly condemning its leadership (and perhaps refusing to sacrifice and directing his followers to also refuse to sacrifice) which would have been equivalent to sedition against Rome, since the Herodian government was sanctioned by Rome and given authority within the region.

Rome was perfectly content to allow local authorities to retain local control, as long as they kept the peace. The Jesus school would have threatened that arrangement. It was probably not a serious threat, but it didn't need to be. Justice was harsh in those days. Examples had to be set.

Crucifixion would not have been a surprising punishment for the crime of openly inciting disobedience to the Temple and, by proxy, to Rome itself.

Then along comes Paul, who expands the Jesus movement beyond the Jewish community essentially by tossing out what was most important about Jesus's ministry to the Jewish Jesus movement, and focusing instead on a message of personal salvation entirely through belief in atonement via the sacrifice of Jesus as a divine figure, a theology which would have been quite familiar to the pagan audience.

What's interesting is that Paul converts followers from nearly all levels of society below the aristocracy, most notably prosperous merchants, well-to-do women, and the poor and slave classes.

So for Constantine, the adoption of Christianity as a state religion, long after the historical details of Jesus's death had been forgotten, has many advantages.

First of all, the tenets of the religion as popularized by Paul were readily understandable by the wide variety of pagan populations that he needed to unify.

Not only that, but the barrier to entry was essentially nil. There was no sacrifice required, no dietary restrictions, no circumcision... you pretty much just had to say you were Christian and you were in.

It was the perfect vehicle, perhaps the only vehicle, for bringing his dominion under a common bond of religion.

And by that time, the symbol of the cross was so well established -- and, let's face it, so easy to draw -- that the adoption of the cross as the central symbol of the new religion was a no-brainer.

yep, pretty much was waiting for someone to expand to that. I myself was much too lazy. Good job.

[Jeff Corey]

That alpha fish was even easier - just one line.

[MikeSun5]

VERY interesting info. Thanks Hans and Piggy.


...did remind me of that Lenny Bruce joke though... something about how if Jesus had been killed in modern times, people would be wearing necklaces with little electric chairs on them.

[Piggy]

That alpha fish was even easier - just one line.

I've always wondered why that didn't become the standard Xian symbol, but the cross did.

I don't have an explanation for that, except perhaps that Paul -- the principal disseminator of Xianity outside the Jewish world -- so emphasized belief in the resurrection.

[grayman]

...did remind me of that Lenny Bruce joke though... something about how if Jesus had been killed in modern times, people would be wearing necklaces with little electric chairs on them.

What would the symbol be had he died of AIDS?

[Jeff Corey]

A hypodermic needle.

[ElightenMe]

What would the symbol be had he died of AIDS?

T cell receptor

[MikeSun5]

What would the symbol be had he died of AIDS?

Not sure, but it would definitely be pretty gnarly if the Romans had sentenced Jesus to death by STD.

[HansMustermann]

That is really interesting. I had never thought in terms of the later Roman response to this. I've thought about what it meant to the Romans of the time and read what Paul had to say about his particular response to it, but that is a very good thought.

I wonder how much that played into some of the Roman response. Very interesting.

Strange, though, that none of the Jews at the time used that sort of argument. It was, after all, almost exclusively Romans who converted to Christianity.

There's a lot to ponder in this.

Thanks for starting the thread. Hmmm......

Well, we probably have to qualify "romans" better.

Even in Rome itself, as early as the Marian reforms, those were needed because Rome had completely depleted its free peasant class. Those were previously the citizen-soldiers who could afford their own armour and weapons. By the time of Marius there was nobody left who could afford that, and wasn't already serving in the army.

The farmers had been forced to go on campaigns that went on for years, only to find their farm ruined and taxes piling up when they returned. The lands were then bought by a pittance by rich people who worked the land with whole armies of slaves. By imperial times it wouldn't be unusual to be able to count on your fingers the number of families who controlled most of the non-public land in a province.

Most of the former peasants were now beggars in Rome.

This had also impacted Rome's politics. For centuries the rule of the Patricians had not been challenged much, because (A) the patrician and equites centuries (electoral blocks, having one vote each) although numbering less people, had slightly more than half the votes, and (B) most of the poorer centuries were on their farm far from Rome, and you could pretty much keep them from voting by just strategically choosing the time of the vote. But gradually more and more of them were in Rome with nothing better to do, and it became increasingly feasible to appeal to them so you can gain an advantage over other patricians. These were the Populares, and very much despised by the Optimates who thought that being born in a good family should be enough and one should leave the unwashed masses out of it, dammit.

The patrician vs plebeian problem had never been really solved either. That wasn't a division by wealth, but by descent, and you could be allowed or barred from certain offices just based on which family you descend from. But you'd still be expected to go to war or pay your taxes just the same as a plebeian. Many plebeians had gotten actually very rich, and many patricians were very poor, and the discrimination was a continuous source of tension.

It was an uphill fight that lasted for centuries, to get more and more equality, and full of dirty tricks and assassinations at that. The privileged didn't give up their privileges that easily.

And of course, that culminated with Sulla's military conquest of Rome and giving some edicts to put the plebeians back in their place. There was a lot of resentment still lingering from that one kick in the nuts.

And of course, then came the Imperial age, when the senators became a hereditary class. The Roman dream that any boy can climb the cursus honorum was officially dead and buried. You could be even a rich merchant or anything, you'll never be equal to those, and you'll never have a say in how your country is run.

So, yes, even from a lot of Romans, there were a lot that were underprivileged to various degrees and resented the system.

But if you move further away from Rome, most of the population of that huge empire were actually "peregrini". (Until 212 when every non-slave was finally granted citizenship... but got a tax hike for it.) A peregrinus was somewhat akin to a modern foreigner who's granted residence, but not citizenship. Well, actually it was a lot crappier, and you'd lack a lot more rights compared to a citizen, but it'll do as an analogy.

But most peregrini were the natives of those lands. They had that status in their own land.

Jesus himself would be a peregrinus, hence why he could be summarily crucified, as contrasted to what would happen to Paul starting around the end of Acts. Paul just had to say the magic words "I'm a citizen" and suddenly he has a lot more rights.

Again, it didn't matter if you were rich or poor, or anything. You'd be underprivileged in your own land anyway. And again there was a lot of resentment towards the system from those.

So when looking at the large map of the empire and thinking "a lot of Romans converted", one must bear in mind that a lot of those Romans were really such "peregrini."

[Meadmaker]

Very interesting thread. I had never thought of the crucifix as a specifically anti-Roman thing.


Strange, though, that none of the Jews at the time used that sort of argument. It was, after all, almost exclusively Romans who converted to Christianity.


From what I've read, it initially spread among Jewish communities outside of Palestine, especially the large, Greek speaking, Jewish community at Alexandria.

I don't know how long it took before it really caught on among the actual Roman citizenry.

[HansMustermann]

I think Alexandria and generally Egypt is a prime example of what I'm talking about. The standard of living of most Egyptians had plummeted during the Roman rule, and again most had been reduced to being peregrini in their own land.

On one hand that nailed the coffin of the Egyptian religion, in which basically you could look forward to spending eternity in much the same fashion as in this world. Under the Romans that stopped looking like something to look forward to. Just about anything that promised a better reward afterwards, would be welcome.

And again I can imagine the appeal of a religion which came across as a big FU to the Romans.

[blobru]

That alpha fish was even easier - just one line.

I've always wondered why that didn't become the standard Xian symbol, but the cross did.

I don't have an explanation for that, except perhaps that Paul -- the principal disseminator of Xianity outside the Jewish world -- so emphasized belief in the resurrection.


The ichthys fish seems to have been the symbol of choice in early Xtian iconography, with the cross not catching on until the latter half of the second century. Many theories for that shift: the cross was too gruesome a reminder for early Xtians; the ichthys acrostic (http://www.brokenalabaster.com/2009/04/ichthys.html) being associated with Greek, and Greek paganism increasingly opposed to Xtianity. The fish is also thought to have been linked to the "fishers of men" saying and fish and loaves miracle from the gospels, both evangelical images, vital to early Xtianity. Once it had taken hold, the political protest Hans proposes may have been more useful and safer to make, with the stress on a life to come surpassing that under the Romans.

[Darth Rotor]

You know, I'm thinking a bit more about the symbolism of Christ's crucifixion, and I can't help wondering how much of that story was more subversive than we'd think nowadays.

Being crucified wasn't just a punishment, it was an insult. When, for example, Spartacus earlier crucified a Roman prisoner in front of Crassus's wall, the insult was very clearly understood by both sides.

And the earlier crucifixion of some of the prisoners from Varinius's army, may have been the point where Rome finally started taking Spartacus seriously. The next soldiers they would send against him, would be two consular armies. Yep, each consul actually commanded a full consular army of two veteran legions, not just each a half of it.

I'm thinking that basically "OMG, they even crucified the Son Of God" was a very powerful anti-Roman message. In fact, probably even more powerful than the unflattering metaphors John would later use in his Revelation.

Crucifixion was also a symbol of oppression. Roman citizens were, as a rule, never crucified, no matter what they did. The few exceptions that exist are usually presented as outrageous examples of abuse.

The crucifix would be something that would speak directly to the hearts of slaves and peregrini. Jesus was in the "us" zone of the "us vs them." And historically it seems like those would form the majority of early followers.

The resurrection would probably also have to be seen not as just a victory over death, but as victory over _crucifixion_. It was a victory against the iconic Roman tool of oppression. Jesus would be a symbol that yes, you can beat that system.

All in all, I can see why Constantine had to apropriate that movement and symbol.

Fine post, and some great responses, but I had understood that the labarum (Chi Rho) was first displayed by Constantine. Your take is that he appropriated it. Didn't he originate it?

DR

[HansMustermann]

I meant the cross and crucifix, not the labarum. Sorry if that misled anyone.

[Darth Rotor]

I meant the cross and crucifix, not the labarum. Sorry if that misled anyone.
Gracias. :)

[commandlinegamer]

The OP should have started this thread in the members' only forum, so we could properly insult Jesus.

So I have.

[Belgian thought]

... but he did have aids, 12 of them

I will get my coat...

[Ichneumonwasp]

Very interesting thread. I had never thought of the crucifix as a specifically anti-Roman thing.




From what I've read, it initially spread among Jewish communities outside of Palestine, especially the large, Greek speaking, Jewish community at Alexandria.

I don't know how long it took before it really caught on among the actual Roman citizenry.


To clear up confusion -- I meant pagan when I said Roman. I wasn't referring to Roman citizens, but to the non-Jewish pagan population.

Most of the early evidence that we seem to have suggests, from what I have seen (but I am no expert in the area), that non-Jews were the primary converts fairly early in the course of spread. It was in the settlements near Jewish enclaves where many of the converts were located. But much of this is based on reading between the lines of Paul's letters.

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, we probably have to qualify "romans" better.

Even in Rome itself, as early as the Marian reforms, those were needed because Rome had completely depleted its free peasant class. Those were previously the citizen-soldiers who could afford their own armour and weapons. By the time of Marius there was nobody left who could afford that, and wasn't already serving in the army.

The farmers had been forced to go on campaigns that went on for years, only to find their farm ruined and taxes piling up when they returned. The lands were then bought by a pittance by rich people who worked the land with whole armies of slaves. By imperial times it wouldn't be unusual to be able to count on your fingers the number of families who controlled most of the non-public land in a province.

Most of the former peasants were now beggars in Rome.

This had also impacted Rome's politics. For centuries the rule of the Patricians had not been challenged much, because (A) the patrician and equites centuries (electoral blocks, having one vote each) although numbering less people, had slightly more than half the votes, and (B) most of the poorer centuries were on their farm far from Rome, and you could pretty much keep them from voting by just strategically choosing the time of the vote. But gradually more and more of them were in Rome with nothing better to do, and it became increasingly feasible to appeal to them so you can gain an advantage over other patricians. These were the Populares, and very much despised by the Optimates who thought that being born in a good family should be enough and one should leave the unwashed masses out of it, dammit.

The patrician vs plebeian problem had never been really solved either. That wasn't a division by wealth, but by descent, and you could be allowed or barred from certain offices just based on which family you descend from. But you'd still be expected to go to war or pay your taxes just the same as a plebeian. Many plebeians had gotten actually very rich, and many patricians were very poor, and the discrimination was a continuous source of tension.

It was an uphill fight that lasted for centuries, to get more and more equality, and full of dirty tricks and assassinations at that. The privileged didn't give up their privileges that easily.

And of course, that culminated with Sulla's military conquest of Rome and giving some edicts to put the plebeians back in their place. There was a lot of resentment still lingering from that one kick in the nuts.

And of course, then came the Imperial age, when the senators became a hereditary class. The Roman dream that any boy can climb the cursus honorum was officially dead and buried. You could be even a rich merchant or anything, you'll never be equal to those, and you'll never have a say in how your country is run.

So, yes, even from a lot of Romans, there were a lot that were underprivileged to various degrees and resented the system.

But if you move further away from Rome, most of the population of that huge empire were actually "peregrini". (Until 212 when every non-slave was finally granted citizenship... but got a tax hike for it.) A peregrinus was somewhat akin to a modern foreigner who's granted residence, but not citizenship. Well, actually it was a lot crappier, and you'd lack a lot more rights compared to a citizen, but it'll do as an analogy.

But most peregrini were the natives of those lands. They had that status in their own land.

Jesus himself would be a peregrinus, hence why he could be summarily crucified, as contrasted to what would happen to Paul starting around the end of Acts. Paul just had to say the magic words "I'm a citizen" and suddenly he has a lot more rights.

Again, it didn't matter if you were rich or poor, or anything. You'd be underprivileged in your own land anyway. And again there was a lot of resentment towards the system from those.

So when looking at the large map of the empire and thinking "a lot of Romans converted", one must bear in mind that a lot of those Romans were really such "peregrini."


Are you suggesting that most of the early converts to Christianity were political dissidents? I find that a bit hard to swallow.

There was always some political dissent -- as at all times -- but Roman citizenship was prized; and much of the dissent in Rome concerned food more than anything else while dissent elsewhere concerned petty dictators trying to gain local power. I'm not sure that anyone at the time would have seen crucifixion as a symbol of Roman state power which they wished to beat or transcend (not to mention that the fish was the early symbol of Christianity, not the cross as already mentioned). I'm not sure I see this as a significant issue, I'm afraid.

Political issues between classes were the nature of the beast in all societies at the time. They are still an issue today.

[FreshHat]

Eskimo Jebus?

"Walking on water" ain't impressive if it's frozen over with thick ice.

Hell, I can do that!

[HansMustermann]

Are you suggesting that most of the early converts to Christianity were political dissidents? I find that a bit hard to swallow.

There was always some political dissent -- as at all times -- but Roman citizenship was prized; and much of the dissent in Rome concerned food more than anything else while dissent elsewhere concerned petty dictators trying to gain local power. I'm not sure that anyone at the time would have seen crucifixion as a symbol of Roman state power which they wished to beat or transcend (not to mention that the fish was the early symbol of Christianity, not the cross as already mentioned). I'm not sure I see this as a significant issue, I'm afraid.

Political issues between classes were the nature of the beast in all societies at the time. They are still an issue today.

1. As I was saying, when you get outside of Rome, you have a _lot_ more peregrini than citizens. Just being born somewhere in that huge blob called the Roman Empire, doesn't mean you were a citizen :p

Well, at least before 212 AD, anyway.

And I don't think those felt nearly as much loyalty or emotional attachment to Rome.

And on an issue like crucifixion, they too were elligible for it.

2. For citizens, it's hard to gauge how much it was due to dissent, and how much was just plain disillusionment.

Rome started being hit by plagues _hard_ starting around 165 AD with the Antonine Plague, most likely smallpox. The plague of Cyprian, still debated what it was, could even be the first outbreak of Black Death in Rome, would kill 5000 people a day in Rome alone at its peak, and claimed even the life of an Emperor (Claudius II Gothicus.)

The plagues would also cause massive economic and military problems, as the population was hit hard and some legions even harder. Rome tried both devaluing its coinage (e.g., between 215 and 260 alone, the value of coins dropped 20 (TWENTY!) times) _and_ fixing the prices, just to support its eastern border, which in turn caused a lot of agricultural estates to be abandoned as it just wasn't worth it any more. Rome soon started plain old levying food from the border provinces (i.e., plundering them) just to support its border troops. That debackle would end up in Constantine's tying the formerly free coloni to the land in 323 AD (two years before Nicaea), effectively creating serfdom.

The wages of the soldiers gradually became worthless, and nobody wanted to enlist any more. Mandatory conscription was enforced. And, well, how happy the people were about _that_ you can see in the punishments that eventually went all the way to burning at the stake for mutilating oneself to avoid conscription. Apparently especially cutting one's thumb off, so to no longer be able to hold a weapon, was particularly popular.

The internal warfare and problems with the barbarians at the borders, also didn't help the mood. At the appex of the crisis of the 3'rd century, for example, there were 6 different emperors in a single year.

So, anyway, in regards to religion, this created two effects:

A) scapegoat hunts. Christians especially made good scapegoats, as they denied the official gods and all. Maybe killing them will stop the gods from punishing us.

B) an increasing disillusionment in the old gods, and increasingly replacing them with just about any eastern thing. (Think a late ancient New Age kinda thing;)) Sometimes with Christianity.

3. Well, don't underestimate the level of unhappiness and dissent at times. For example, if you've just read just the random sample of misfortunes at point #2, you're probably getting the idea that there were a _lot_ of unhappy people. From the late 2'nd century to Constantine, it's been one long hard kick in the nuts, pretty much.

[HansMustermann]

Just to add one detail: those plagues weren't even one off bursts. The Antonine plague kept going and going for 15 long years, from 165 to 180 AD. The Plague of Cyprian is first mentioned in 251 AD, and it was still going in force in 270 AD, a whole 19 years later. And that's just the major pandemics.

Two solid decades of plague is something that's hard to even imagine, and morale dropped a _lot_.

And a lot of people would get apocalyptic thoughts. Two solid decades of plague, it _was_ an apocalypse.

And just as some would try to go fundie about the old gods and seek scapegoats to appease their gods, on the other side of the religious divide, a lot would try to brown-nose Jesus harder to earn their salvation ticket. And a lot would switch allegiances and just join whatever cult promised them salvation in the end.

A lot of newly christians apparently even went and basically trolled the Romans to get executed, as being martyred was an automatic ticket to salvation. Why not? It was all going to end soon anyway.

And, anyway, that is my hypothesis as to why the cross increasingly became _the_ symbol around the same time the Antonine plague was raging. People just trying to brown-nose Jesus harder for their salvation.

[Hux]

I always though the act of His crucifixion was to humiliate Him in front of His followers and to say, Don't **** with the Romans; this is what happens to you.

[Ichneumonwasp]

1. As I was saying, when you get outside of Rome, you have a _lot_ more peregrini than citizens. Just being born somewhere in that huge blob called the Roman Empire, doesn't mean you were a citizen :p

Well, at least before 212 AD, anyway.

And I don't think those felt nearly as much loyalty or emotional attachment to Rome.

And on an issue like crucifixion, they too were elligible for it.

2. For citizens, it's hard to gauge how much it was due to dissent, and how much was just plain disillusionment.

Rome started being hit by plagues _hard_ starting around 165 AD with the Antonine Plague, most likely smallpox. The plague of Cyprian, still debated what it was, could even be the first outbreak of Black Death in Rome, would kill 5000 people a day in Rome alone at its peak, and claimed even the life of an Emperor (Claudius II Gothicus.)

The plagues would also cause massive economic and military problems, as the population was hit hard and some legions even harder. Rome tried both devaluing its coinage (e.g., between 215 and 260 alone, the value of coins dropped 20 (TWENTY!) times) _and_ fixing the prices, just to support its eastern border, which in turn caused a lot of agricultural estates to be abandoned as it just wasn't worth it any more. Rome soon started plain old levying food from the border provinces (i.e., plundering them) just to support its border troops. That debackle would end up in Constantine's tying the formerly free coloni to the land in 323 AD (two years before Nicaea), effectively creating serfdom.

The wages of the soldiers gradually became worthless, and nobody wanted to enlist any more. Mandatory conscription was enforced. And, well, how happy the people were about _that_ you can see in the punishments that eventually went all the way to burning at the stake for mutilating oneself to avoid conscription. Apparently especially cutting one's thumb off, so to no longer be able to hold a weapon, was particularly popular.

The internal warfare and problems with the barbarians at the borders, also didn't help the mood. At the appex of the crisis of the 3'rd century, for example, there were 6 different emperors in a single year.

So, anyway, in regards to religion, this created two effects:

A) scapegoat hunts. Christians especially made good scapegoats, as they denied the official gods and all. Maybe killing them will stop the gods from punishing us.

B) an increasing disillusionment in the old gods, and increasingly replacing them with just about any eastern thing. (Think a late ancient New Age kinda thing;)) Sometimes with Christianity.

3. Well, don't underestimate the level of unhappiness and dissent at times. For example, if you've just read just the random sample of misfortunes at point #2, you're probably getting the idea that there were a _lot_ of unhappy people. From the late 2'nd century to Constantine, it's been one long hard kick in the nuts, pretty much.


Yes, I am aware of Roman history. I fail to see how this supports your initial point, though. The third century crisis undoubtedly resulted in several conversions to Christianity, but I'm aware of no evidence and see no reason why these conversions should be seen as politically motivated -- they did it because it was a way of sticking it to the emperor symbolically.

Whether this played a role subsconsciously I have no way of telling, but I think it is certainly possible.

I would stay away from any discussion of disillusionment in the old gods since there is little to no evidence of such. These were polytheists; they simply incorporated new/other gods into their worship. That is what polytheism was all about.

The big difference with Christianity is that once a Christian, no longer a pagan/polytheist. That asymmetry did not exist with other mystery religions where, often, the 'new' god(dess) was simply identified with other god(dess)s. Witness "The Golden Ass" where Isis is identified with other extant goddesses of the time, the explanation being that Isis is her true nature.

[Piggy]

The big difference with Christianity is that once a Christian, no longer a pagan/polytheist.

Well, yes and no, I think.

Christianity has always been a diffuse collection, including blended religions.

But sure, the strain that became the mainstream did do some very different things.

They didn't sacrifice, they ditched the domestic shrines for baptismal fonts, and they held table fellowship as a central ritual, for example.

I think what the Xians had working in their favor was that Rome had already accommodated the Jews, who were allowed not to participate in the Roman feasts and sacrifices, and Xians were viewed as some sort of Jewish sect (at least initially).

When they really got into trouble was when it became clear that they and the Jews did not consider themselves to be one religion. At that point, Xianity had no standing as a religion at all.

I'm not sure that the adoption of the cross was intentionally anti-Roman, under those circumstances.

They had no real reason to thumb their noses at Rome. There was nothing in it for them, and unlike the Zealots (for example) they had no theological or political beef with Rome, until the persecutions began.