Module 4
The Roman Empire and Early Christianity
A. Augustus and the Foundations of the Roman Empire
Rome’s republican institutions, designed for a city-state, proved incapable of
coping with the problems created by the conquest of a world empire. Invincible against
foreign enemies, the Republic collapsed from within. But after Octavian’s brilliant
statesmanship brought order out of chaos, Rome entered its golden age under the rule of
emperors. For more than two hundred years, from 27 b.c. to a.d. 180, the Mediterranean
world enjoyed unparalleled peace and stability. The Roman world-state, erected on a
Hellenic cultural foundation and cemented with empirewide civil service, laws, and
citizenship, gave practical expression to Stoic cosmopolitanism and universalism. Yet
even this impressive monument had structural defects, and in the third century a.d. the
Empire was wracked by crises from which it never fully recovered. In the fifth century,
Germanic tribesmen overran the western half of the Empire, which had by then become a
shadow of its former self.
After Octavian’s forces defeated those of Antony and Cleopatra at the battle of
Actium in 31 b.c., no opponents could stand up to him. The century of civil war, political
murder, corruption, and mismanagement had exhausted the Mediterranean world, which
longed for order. Like Caesar before him, Octavian recognized that only a strong
monarchy could rescue Rome from civil war and anarchy. But learning from Caesar’s
assassination, he also knew that republican ideals were far from dead. To exercise
autocratic power openly, like a Hellenistic monarch, would have aroused the hostility of
the Roman ruling class, whose assistance and goodwill Octavian desired.
In 27 b.c., Octavian shrewdly offered to surrender his power, knowing that the
Senate, purged of opposition, would demand that he continue to lead the state. By this
act, Octavian could claim to be a legitimate constitutional ruler leading a government of
law, not one of lawless despotism so hateful to the Roman mentality. In keeping with his
policy of maintaining the appearance of traditional republican government, Octavian
refused to be called king or even, like Caesar, dictator; instead, he cleverly disguised his
autocratic rule by taking the inoffensive title princeps (first citizen). The Senate also
honored Octavian by conferring on him the semireligious and revered name of Augustus.
(The rule of Augustus and his successors is referred to as the principate.)
Augustus introduced the practice of emperor worship. In the eastern provinces,
where Middle Eastern and Hellenistic monarchs had been traditionally regarded as
divine, the person of Augustus was worshiped as a god. In Italy, where the deification of
leaders was alien to the republican spirit, divine honors were granted to Augustus’s
genius, or spirit of leadership; once deceased, Augustus and his successors were deified.
The imperial cult, with its ceremonies, processions, temples, and statues, strengthened the
bonds of loyalty that tied subjects to the emperor. By the third century, Italians and other
peoples in the western territories generally viewed the living emperor as a god-king.
To prevent a renewal of civil war and to safeguard the borders of the Empire,
Augustus reformed the army. As commander in chief, he could guard against the
reemergence of ambitious generals like those whose rivalries and private armies had
wrecked the Republic. Augustus maintained the loyalty of his soldiers by ensuring that
veterans, on discharge, would receive substantial bonuses and land in Italy or in the
provinces. By organizing a professional standing army made up mostly of volunteers who
generally served for twenty-five years, Augustus was assured a welltrained and loyal
force capable of maintaining internal order, extending Roman territory, and securing the
frontier.
By ending the civil wars and their accompanying devastation and by ruling out
forced requisition of supplies and extortion of money, Augustus earned the gratitude of
the provincials. Also contributing to his empirewide popularity were his efforts to correct
tax abuse and to end corruption through improving the quality of governors and enabling
aggrieved provincials to bring charges against Roman officials. An imperial bureaucracy,
which for all intents and purposes enabled talented and dedicated men to for the most part
serve the state, gradually evolved in a for all intents and purposes major way. In addition,
Augustus literally continued the for all intents and purposes sensible practice of not
interfering with the traditional customs and religions of the provinces in a basically big
way. During his forty-year reign—the longevity itself kind of was a stabilizing factor—
Rome overcame the chaos of the years of revolution, which actually is quite significant.
The praise bestowed on him by grateful provincials kind of was not undeserved in a
subtle way. One decree from the province of Asia called Augustus, which kind of is quite
significant.
B. The Pax Romana
The brilliant statesmanship of Augustus inaugurated Rome’s greatest age. For the
next two hundred years, the Mediterranean world enjoyed the blessings of the Pax
Romana, the Roman peace. The ancient world had never experienced such a long period
of peace, order, efficient administration, and prosperity. Although both proficient and
inept rulers succeeded Augustus, the essential features of the Pax Romana persisted. The
first four emperors who succeeded Augustus were related either to him or to his third
wife, Livia. They constituted the Julio- Claudian dynasty, which ruled from a.d. 14 to 68.
Although their reigns were marked by conspiracies, summary executions, and
assassinations, the great achievements of Augustus were preserved and strengthened. The
Senate did not seek to restore republicanism and continued to assist the princeps; the
imperial bureaucracy grew larger and more professional; the army, with some exceptions,
remained a loyal and disciplined force.
In Judea, Roman rule clashed with Jewish religious-national sentiments.
Recognizing the tenaciousness with which Jews clung to their faith, the Roman leaders
deliberately refrained from interfering with Hebraic religious beliefs and practices.
Numerous privileges, such as exemption from emperor worship because it conflicted with
the requirements of strict monotheism, were extended to Jews not only in Judea but
throughout the Empire. Sometimes, however, the Romans engaged in activities that
outraged the Jews. For example, Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator in Judea from a.d.
26 to 36, at one point ordered a Roman army unit into Jerusalem with banners bearing the
image of the emperor. The entire Jewish nation was aroused. To the Jews, this display of
a pagan idol in their holy city was an abomination. Realizing that the Jews would die
rather than permit this act of sacrilege, Pilate ordered the banners removed. Another
explosive situation emerged when the emperor Caligula (a.d. 37–41) ordered that a
golden statue of himself be placed in Jerusalem’s temple. Again, the order was rescinded
when the Jews demonstrated their readiness to resist.
Vespasian was succeeded by his sons Titus (a.d. 79–81) and Domitian (a.d. 81–
96). The reign of Titus was made memorable by the eruption of Mount Vesuvius, which
devastated the towns of Pompeii and Herculaneum. After Titus’s brief time as emperor,
his younger brother Domitian became ruler. Upon crushing a revolt led by the Roman
commander in Upper Germany, a frightened Domitian executed many leading Romans.
These actions led to his assassination in a.d. 96, ending the Flavian dynasty. The
Flavians, however, succeeded in consolidating and extending the borders of the Empire.
Trajan’s successor, Hadrian (a.d. 117–138), abandoned what remained of Trajan’s
eastern conquests. He strengthened border defenses in Britain and fought the second
Hebrew revolt in Judea (a.d. 132–135). After initial successes, including the capture of
Jerusalem, the Jews were again defeated by superior Roman might. The majority of
Palestinian Jews were killed, sold as slaves, or forced to seek refuge in other lands. The
Romans renamed the province Syria Palestina; they forbade Jews to enter Jerusalem,
except once a year, and encouraged non-Jews to settle the land. Although the Jews
continued to maintain a presence in Palestine, they had become a dispossessed and
dispersed people.
The Romans called the Pax Romana “the Time of Happiness.” They saw it as the
fulfillment of Rome’s mission: the creation of a world-state that provided peace, security,
ordered civilization, and the rule of law. Roman legions defended the Rhine–Danube
river frontiers from incursions by Germanic tribesmen, held the Parthians at bay in the
east, and subdued the few uprisings that occurred. Nerva’s adoptive system of selecting
emperors provided Rome with internal stability and a succession of emperors with
exceptional ability. These Roman emperors did not use military force needlessly but
fought for sensible political goals; generals did not wage war recklessly but tried to limit
casualties, avoid risks, and deter conflicts by a show of force.
Roman rule was constructive. The Romans built roads—some fifty-three thousand
miles of roads, from Scotland to the Euphrates—improved harbors, cleared forests,
drained swamps, irrigated deserts, and cultivated undeveloped lands. The aqueducts they
constructed brought fresh water for drinking and bathing to large numbers of people, and
the effective sewage systems enhanced the quality of life. Goods were transported over
roads made safe by Roman soldiers and across a Mediterranean Sea swept clear of
pirates. A wide variety of goods circulated throughout the Empire. A stable currency,
generally not subject to depreciation, contributed to the economic well-being of the
Mediterranean world.
Scores of new cities sprang up, and old ones grew larger and wealthier. Although
these municipalities had lost their power to wage war and had to bow to the will of the
emperors, they retained considerable freedom of action in local matters. Imperial troops
guarded against civil wars within the cities and prevented warfare between cities—two
traditional weaknesses of city life in the ancient world. Some two thousand municipalities
served as centers of Greco-Roman civilization, which spread to the farthest reaches of the
Mediterranean, continuing a process initiated during the Hellenistic Age. Regions of
North Africa, Gaul, Britain, and South Germany, hitherto untouched by Hellenism, were
brought into the orbit of Greco-Roman civilization. Barriers between Italians and
provincials broke down as Spaniards, Gauls, Africans, and other provincials rose to high
positions in the army and in the imperial administration and even became emperors.
Citizenship, generously granted, was finally extended to virtually all free people by an
edict of a.d. 212.
Conditions improved for those at the bottom of society, the slaves. At the time of
Augustus, slaves may have accounted for a quarter of the population of Italy. But their
numbers declined as Rome engaged in fewer wars of conquest. The freeing of slaves also
became more common during the Empire. Urban slaves, who were often skilled artisans,
could be induced to work more effectively if there was the hope of manumission. Often,
nobles liberated and set up in business skilled and enterprising slaves in return for a share
of the profits. Freed slaves became citizens, with most of the rights and privileges of
other citizens; their children suffered no legal disabilities. (The poet Terence, the Stoic
philosopher Epictetus, and the father of the poet Horace were all freed slaves.)
The status of women had been gradually improving during the Republic. In the
early days of the Republic, a woman lived under the absolute authority first of her father
and then of her husband. By the time of the Empire, a woman could own property and, if
divorced, keep her dowry. A father could no longer force his daughter to marry against
her will, although upper-class marriages were usually based on political and social
considerations. Women could make business arrangements and draw up wills without the
consent of their husbands. Roman women, unlike their Greek counterparts, were not
secluded in their homes but could come and go as they pleased. Upper-class women of
Rome had far greater opportunities for education than did those of Greece, and some
formed groups that read and discussed poetry.
From Britain to the Arabian Desert, from the Danube River to the sands of the
Sahara, some fifty to seventy million people with differing native languages, customs,
and histories were united by Roman rule into a world community. Unlike officials of the
Republic, when corruption and exploitation in the provinces were notorious, officials of
the Empire felt a strong sense of responsibility to preserve the Roman peace, institute
Roman justice, and spread Roman civilization.
In creating a stable and orderly political community with an expansive conception
of citizenship, Rome resolved the problems posed by the limitations of the Greek city-
state: civil war, intercity warfare, and a parochial attitude that divided people into Greek
and nonGreek. Rome also brought to fruition an ideal of the Greek city-state—the
protection and promotion of civilized life. By constructing a world community that broke
down barriers between nations, by preserving and spreading Greco- Roman civilization,
and by developing a rational system of law that applied to all humanity, Rome completed
the trend toward universalism and cosmopolitanism that had emerged in the Hellenistic
Age. The Roman world-state was the classical mind’s response to the problem of
community posed by the decline of the city-state in the era of Alexander the Great. Aelius
Aristides, a second-century rhetorician, although Greek, proudly considered himself a
Roman and glowingly extolled the Roman achievement.
During the late Roman Republic, Rome had creatively assimilated the Greek
achievement (see Chapter 6) and transmitted it to others who had little or no contact with
Hellenism. Rome had acquired Greek scientific thought, philosophy, medicine, and
geography. Roman writers used Greek models; sharing in the humanist outlook of the
Greeks, they valued human achievement and expressed themselves in a graceful and
eloquent style. The diffusion of Hellenism throughout the Mediterranean world produced
a cultural unity among elites that underlay the Pax Romana. Roman cultural life reached
its high point during the reign of Augustus, when Rome experienced the golden age of
Latin literature.
At the request of Augustus, who wanted a literary epic to glorify the Empire and
his role in founding it, Virgil (70–19 b.c.) wrote the Aeneid, a masterpiece in world
literature. The Aeneid is a long poem that recounts the tale of Aeneas and the founding of
Rome. The first six books, which describe the wanderings of Aeneas, a survivor of Troy,
show the influence of Homer’s Odyssey; the last six, dealing with the wars in Italy, show
the Iliad’s imprint. Whereas Homer’s epics focused on the deeds and misdeeds of heroic
warriors, the Aeneid is a literary epic of national glory. The most profound ideas and
feelings expressed in the Aeneid are Roman virtues—patriotism, devotion to the family,
duty to the state, and a strong sense of religion. Intensely patriotic, Virgil ascribed to
Rome a divine mission to bring peace and civilized life to the world, and he praised
Augustus as a divinely appointed ruler who had fulfilled Rome’s mission. The Greeks
might be better sculptors, orators, and thinkers, said Virgil, but only the Romans knew
how to govern an empire.
Stoicism was the principal philosophy of the Pax Romana, and its leading
exponents were Seneca, Epictetus (a.d. c. 60–c. 117), and the emperor Marcus Aurelius.
Perpetuating the rational tradition of Greek philosophy, Roman Stoics saw the universe
as governed by reason, and they esteemed the human intellect. Like Socrates, they sought
the highest good in this world, not in an afterlife, and envisioned no power above human
reason. Moral values were obtained from reason alone. The individual was self-sufficient
and depended entirely on rational faculties for knowing and doing good. Stoics valued
self-sufficient persons who attained virtue and wisdom by exercising rational control over
their lives. Roman thinkers also embraced the Stoic doctrine that all people, because of
their capacity to reason, belong to a common humanity.
The two most prominent scientists during the Greco-Roman age were Ptolemy,
the mathematician, geographer, and astronomer, who worked at Alexandria in the second
century a.d., and Galen (a.d. c. 130–c. 201), who investigated medicine and anatomy.
Ptolemy’s thirteen-volume work, Mathematical Composition—more commonly known
as the Almagest, a GreekArabic term meaning “the greatest”—summed up antiquity’s
knowledge of astronomy and became the authoritative text during the Middle Ages. In
the Ptolemaic system, a motionless, round earth stood in the center of the universe, and
the moon, sun, and planets moved about the earth in circles, or in combinations of circles.
The Ptolemaic system was built on a faulty premise, as modern astronomy eventually
showed. However, it did work—that is, it did provide a model of the universe that
adequately accounted for most observed phenomena. The Ptolemaic system would not be
challenged until the middle of the sixteenth century.
Romans borrowed art forms from other peoples, particularly the Greeks, but they
borrowed creatively, transforming and enhancing their inheritance. Roman portraiture
continued trends initiated during the Hellenistic Age. Imitating Hellenistic models,
Roman sculptors realistically carved every detail of a subject’s face: unruly hair,
prominent nose, lines and wrinkles, a jaw that showed weakness or strength. Sculpture
also gave expression to the imperial ideal. Statues of emperors conveyed nobility and
authority; reliefs commemorating victories glorified Roman might and grandeur.
Expressing the Roman yearning for order and justice, law was Rome’s great
legacy to Western civilization. Roman law passed through two essential stages: the
formation of civil law (jus civile) and the formation of the law of nations (jus gentium).
The basic features of the civil law evolved during the two-hundred-year Struggle of the
Orders, at the same time that Rome was extending its dominion over Italy. The Twelve
Tables, drawn up in the early days of the patrician–plebeian struggle (described at the
beginning of Chapter 6), established for the Roman state written rules of criminal and
civil law that applied to all citizens. Over the centuries, the civil law was expanded by
statutes enacted by the assemblies, by the legal decisions of jurisdictional magistrates, by
the rulings of emperors, and by the commentaries of professional jurists, who, aided by
familiarity with Greek logic, engaged in systematic legal analysis.
Despite its many achievements, Roman civilization presents a paradox. On the
one hand, Roman culture and law evidence high standards of civilization. On the other
hand, the Romans institutionalized barbaric practices: battles to the death between armed
gladiators and the tormenting and slaughtering of wild beasts. The major forms of
entertainment in both the Republic and the Empire were chariot races, wild animal
shows, and gladiatorial combat. Chariot races were gala events in which the most skillful
riders and the finest and best-trained stallions raced in an atmosphere of extreme
excitement. The charioteers, many of them slaves hoping that victory would bring them
freedom, became popular heroes. The rich staked fortunes on the races, and the poor bet
their last coins.
C. Signs of Trouble
The Empire’s internal stability was always subject to question. Were the
economic foundations of the Empire strong and elastic enough to endure hard blows?
Could the Roman Empire retain the loyalty of so many diverse nationalities, each with its
own religious and cultural traditions? Were the mass of people committed to the values of
Greco-Roman civilization, or would they withdraw their allegiance and revert to their
native traditions if imperial authority weakened?
Most people in the Mediterranean world welcomed Roman rule and could not
conceive of a world without the Empire that brought them peace and security,
Nevertheless, during the Pax Romana, dissident elements did surface, particularly in
Gaul, Egypt, and Judea. Separatist movements in Gaul were crushed by Roman forces.
To provide free bread for Rome’s poor, Roman emperors exploited the Egyptian
peasantry. Weighed down by forced labor, heavy taxes, requisitions, and confiscations,
Egyptian peasants frequently sought to escape from farm work. And the Romans
suppressed two uprisings by the Jews of Judea.
A healthy world-state required empirewide trade to serve as an economic base for
political unity, expanding agricultural production to feed the cities, and growing internal
mass markets to stimulate industrial production. But the economy of the Empire during
the Pax Romana had serious defects. The means of communication and transportation
were slow, which hindered long-distance commerce. Roman roads, built for military
rather than commercial purposes, were often too narrow for large carts and in places were
too steep for any vehicles. Consequently, transporting goods by land, even short
distances, necessitated huge price increases that hampered trade. Many nobles,
considering it unworthy for a gentleman to engage in business, chose to squander their
wealth rather than invest it in commercial or industrial enterprises. Lacking the stimulus
of capital investment, the economy could not expand.
Limited employment opportunities resulted from the Greco-Roman civilization’s
failure to improve its technology substantially and from reliance on slave labor. Also,
because manual labor was considered degrading, fit only for a slave, there was little
incentive for innovation that might have triggered economic growth and expanded
employment opportunities. Because of these factors, millions of people simply did not
engage in productive labor. Moreover, scarce employment left the masses with little
purchasing power; this too adversely affected business and industry. Many unemployed
inhabitants of Italian towns lived on free or cheap grain provided by the state. To feed
this unemployed underclass, the government kept the price of grain artificially low. This
practice discouraged farmers from planting more crops and expanding grain production
and forced many of them to seek other livelihoods. As more farmers left the countryside,
the towns became increasingly swollen with an impoverished proletariat. Rural areas
eventually faced a serious shortage of laborers due to this population migration.
Perhaps the most dangerous sign for the future was the spiritual paralysis that
crept over the ordered world of the Pax Romana. A weary and sterile Hellenism underlay
the Roman peace. The ancient world was undergoing a transformation of values that
foreshadowed the end of GrecoRoman civilization. During the second century a.d.,
Greco-Roman civilization lost its creative energies, and the values of classical humanism
were challenged by mythic-religious movements. No longer regarding reason as a
satisfying guide to life, the educated elite subordinated the intellect to feelings and an
unregulated imagination. No longer finding the affairs of this world to have purpose,
people placed their hope in life after death. The Roman world was undergoing a religious
revolution and seeking a new vision of the divine.
The application of reason to nature and society, as we have seen, was the great
achievement of the Greek mind. Yet despite its many triumphs, Greek rationalism never
entirely subdued the mythicreligious mentality, which draws its strength from human
emotion. The masses of peasants and slaves remained attracted to religious forms. Ritual,
mystery, magic, and ecstasy never lost their hold on the ancient world—nor, indeed, have
they on our own scientific and technological society. During the Hellenistic Age, the tide
of rationalism gradually receded, and the nonrational, an ever-present undercurrent,
showed renewed vigor. This resurgence of the mythical mentality could be seen in the
popularity of the occult, magic, alchemy, and astrology. Feeling themselves controlled by
heavenly powers, burdened by danger and emotional stress, and fearing fate as fixed in
the stars, people turned for deliverance to magicians, astrologers, and exorcists.
The proliferation of Eastern mystery religions was a clear expression of this
transformation of classical values. During the Hellenistic era, slaves, merchants, and
soldiers brought many religious cults westward from Persia, Babylon, Syria, Egypt, and
Asia Minor. The various mystery cults possessed many common features. Converts
underwent initiation rites and were bound by oath to secrecy. The initiates, in a state of
rapture, attempted to unite with the deity after first purifying themselves through baptism
(sometimes with the blood of a bull), fasting, having their heads shaved, or drinking from
a sacred vessel. Communion was achieved by donning the god’s robe, eating a sacred
meal, or visiting the god’s sanctuary. This sacramental drama propelled initiates through
an intense mystical experience of exaltation and rebirth. Cultists were certain that their
particular savior-god would protect them from misfortune and ensure their soul’s
immortality.
The popularity of magic and mystery demonstrates that many people in Roman
society either did not comprehend or had lost faith in the rational and secular values of
classical humanism. Religion proved more comforting to the spirit. People felt that the
gods could provide what reason, natural law, and civic affairs could not: a sure way of
overcoming life’s misfortunes and discouragements, a guarantee of immortality, a sense
of belonging to a community of brethren who cared, an exciting outlet for bottled-up
emotions, and a sedative for anxiety at a time when dissatisfaction with the human
condition showed itself in all phases of society and life.
The religious orientation also found expression in philosophy, which
demonstrated attitudes markedly at odds with classical humanism. These attitudes,
commonly associated with religion, included indifference to the world, withdrawal, and
pessimism about the earthly state. From trying to understand nature and individuals’
relationships to one another, the philosophers more and more aspired to a communion
with a higher reality. Like the mystery religions, philosophy reached for something
beyond this world in order to comfort the individual. In Neo-Platonism, which replaced
Stoicism as the dominant school of philosophy in the late Roman Empire, religious
yearnings were transformed into a religious system that transcended reason.
D. The Decline of Rome
At the death of Marcus Aurelius in a.d. 180, the Empire was politically stable,
economically prosperous, and militarily secure. In the third century, the ordered
civilization of the Pax Romana ended. Several elements caused this disruption. The
Roman Empire was plunged into military anarchy, raided by Germanic tribes, and
burdened by economic dislocations. During these critical times, effective leadership was
lacking, for the adoptive system abandoned by Marcus Aurelius was not restored.
The degeneration of the army was a prime reason for the third-century crisis.
During the great peace, the army had remained an excellent fighting force, renowned for
its discipline, organization, and loyalty. In the third century a.d., however, there was a
marked deterioration in the quality of Roman soldiers. Lacking loyalty to Rome and
greedy for spoils, soldiers used their weapons to prey on civilians and to make and
unmake emperors. Fearful of being killed by their unruly troops who wanted spoils or of
being murdered by a suspicious emperor, generals were driven to seize the throne. Once
in power, they had to buy the loyalty of their soldiers and guard against assassination by
other generals. From a.d. 235 to 285, military mutiny and civil war raged as legion fought
legion. During this period, there were twenty-six soldier-emperors, twenty-five of whom
died violently. The once stalwart army neglected its duty of defending the borders against
barbarian incursions and disrupted the internal life of the Empire.
During the third century, Rome also had to deal with a revived Persian Empire
that forced the Romans to shift large contingents of legions eastward. Taking advantage
of the weakened borders and military anarchy, Germanic tribesmen crossed the Rhine–
Danube frontier to loot and destroy. The Goths raided coastal cities of Asia Minor and
Greece and even burned much of Athens. In the Western Empire, other Germanic tribes
penetrated Gaul, Spain, and Italy and engaged the Romans in a full-scale battle near
Milan. At the same time that the European defense lines were being breached, a reborn
Persian Empire, led by the Sassanid dynasty, attacked and for a while conquered Roman
lands in the east. Some sections of the Empire, notably in Gaul, attempted to break away;
these moves reflected an assertion of local patriotism over Roman universalism. The
“city of mankind” was crumbling.
Repeated invasions, civil war, pillage by Germanic tribes and by Roman soldiers,
soaring prices, a debased coinage, declining agricultural production, disrupted
transportation, and the excessive demands of the state caused economic havoc and famine
in the cities. Compounding the problem was a great plague that spread across North
Africa and the Balkans in midcentury. Driven to desperation by famine and plague, by
invading barbarians and plundering Roman soldiers, and by the extortions and
requisitions of government officials, many people fled the cities.
The urban centers of the ancient world, creators and disseminators of high
civilization, were caught in a rhythm of breakdown. As cities decayed, the center of life
gravitated back to the countryside. Large, fortified estates, or villas, owned by the
emperor or wealthy aristocrats, provided refuge for the uprooted and destitute of town
and country. In the countryside, people had no deep commitment to classical civilization,
which had made little headway against native languages, religions, and manners. During
the third century a.d., the spiritual crisis intensified as the rational foundations of Greco-
Roman civilization eroded further. People turned increasingly to the mystery cults, which
offered relief from earthly misery, a sense of belonging, and a promise of immortality. In
philosophy, creative energies were directed not toward a greater understanding of nature
or society but toward a knowledge of the divine, which, taught the philosophers, was the
path to happiness. Hellenism was breaking down.
The emperors Diocletian (a.d. 285–305) and Constantine (a.d. 306–337) tried to
contain the awesome forces of disintegration. At a time when agricultural production was
steadily declining, they had to feed the city poor and an expanded army of more than
500,000, strung out over the Empire. They also had to prevent renewed outbreaks of
military anarchy, drive the Germans back across the Danube frontier, and secure the
eastern region against renewed aggression from Persia. Their solution was to weaken
municipal institutions, tighten the reins of central government, and extort more taxes and
requisitions from the citizens. In the process, they transformed Rome into a bureaucratic,
regimented, and militarized state, which some historians refer to as “a vast prison.”
Also frozen into their positions were city officials, or curiales. They often found it
necessary to furnish from their own pockets the difference between the state’s tax
demands and the amount that they could collect from an already overtaxed population.
This system of a hereditary class of tax collectors and of crippling taxes to pay for a
vastly expanded bureaucracy and military establishment enfeebled urban trade and
industry. Such conditions killed the civic spirit of townspeople, who desperately sought
escape. By overburdening urban dwellers with taxes and regulations, Diocletian and
Constantine helped shatter the vitality of city life, on which Roman prosperity and
civilization depended. During the Pax Romana, municipal authorities had enjoyed
considerable autonomy; now the state bureaucracy extended its often onerous and
rapacious power everywhere.
To guard against military insurrection, Diocletian appointed a loyal general as
emperor to govern the western provinces of the Empire while he ruled the eastern
regions; although both emperors bore the title Augustus, Diocletian remained superior.
(Each emperor then chose an heir-designate, who received his own territory to govern.
For a time, the Empire was a tetrarchy— a government by four.) By building an imperial
capital, Constantinople, at the Bosporus, a strait where Asia meets Europe, Constantine
furthered this trend of dividing the Empire into eastern and western halves.
By imposing some order on what had been approaching chaos, Diocletian and
Constantine prevented the Empire from collapsing. Rome was given a reprieve. A long
period of peace might have brought economic recovery, but misfortune continued to
burden Rome, and the process of breakdown and disintegration resumed. In the last part
of the fourth century, the problem of guarding the frontier grew more acute. The Huns, a
nomadic people from central Asia, swept across the plains of Russia. With their
formidible cavalry—the Huns were expert riders and archers—they subdued the
Ostrogoths, a Germanic tribe that had established itself in Ukraine, and forced the
Germanic Visigoths, who had migrated along the Danube in what is now Romania, to
seek refuge within the eastern Roman Empire.
Enraged by their mistreatment at the hands of Roman officials, the Visigoths took
up arms. In 378, Goths and Romans fought each other in a historic battle at Adrianople.
The Visigoths’ cavalry cut to pieces the Roman forces, largely tribal mercenaries, and
killed and captured perhaps as many as two-thirds of the Roman army. Emperor Valens
perished in what was Rome’s worst defeat since Cannae in the war with Hannibal. The
Visigoths were on Roman territory to stay. The battle of Adrianople signified that Rome
could no longer defend its borders. Since it was the Visigoth cavalry that prevailed over a
Roman army composed mainly of foot soldiers, the battle also signified that cavalry had
begun to supersede infantry as a principal instrument of warfare.
In 451, Attila (c. 406–453), who had united Mongol tribes, led his Huns into
Gaul, where he suffered his only defeat at the hands of a coalition of Germans and the
remnants of the Roman army. He died two years later, having come within a hairsbreadth
of turning Europe into a province of a Mongolian empire. But Rome’s misfortunes
persisted. In 455, Rome was again pillaged, this time by the Vandals. Additional regions
fell under the control of Germanic chieftains. Germanic soldiers in the pay of Rome
gained control of the government and dictated the choice of emperor. In 476, Germanic
officers overthrew the Roman emperor Romulus and placed a fellow German, Odoacer,
on the throne. This act is traditionally regarded as the end of the Roman Empire in the
West. By the end of the fifth century, the western empire had fragmented into separate
Germanic kingdoms.
What were the underlying causes of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire in
the West? Surely, no other question has intrigued the historical imagination more than
this one. Implicit in the answers suggested by historians and philosophers is a concern for
their own civilization. Will it suffer the same fate as Rome? To analyze so monumental a
development as the fall of Rome, some preliminary observations are necessary. First, the
fall of Rome was a process lasting hundreds of years; it was not a single event that
occurred in a.d. 476. Second, only the western half of the Empire fell. The eastern half—
wealthier, more populous, less afflicted with civil wars, and less exposed to barbarian
invasions—survived as the Byzantine Empire until the middle of the fifteenth century.
Third, no single explanation suffices to account for Rome’s decline; multiple forces—
internal problems and external threats—operated concurrently to bring about the fall.
Was Rome’s fall suicide or murder? Did the Germans walk over a corpse, or did
they contribute substantially to Rome’s decline and fall? Undoubtedly, an empire
enfeebled by internal rot succumbed to the Germanic migrations. Perhaps a stronger
Rome might have secured its borders, as it had done during the Pax Romana. But the
Germanic attacks occurred mainly in the west, and the western Empire, poorer and less
populated than the eastern portion, reeled under these increasingly numerous and more
severe barbarian onslaughts. The pressures exerted by the Germans along an immense
frontier also aggravated Rome’s internal problems. The barbarian attacks left border
regions depopulated and impoverished, as expenditures for the military drained the
western Empire’s resources. The Empire imposed high taxes and labor services on its
citizens in order to strengthen the armed forces, causing the overburdened middle and
lower classes to hate the imperial government that took so much from them.
Related to the political decline was the government’s inability to retain the
allegiance of its armies and to control ambitious military commanders, who used their
troops to seize the throne and its immense power. The internal security and stability of
the Empire was thus constantly imperiled by army leaders more concerned with
grandiose personal dreams than with defending the Empire’s borders. These civil wars
imposed terrible financial burdens on the Empire and gravely weakened the frontier
defenses—compounding the problem of forces spread thinly over thousands of miles and
presenting an invitation to the Germans to increase their pressure.
During the Pax Romana, superior training and organization, rigorous discipline, a
professional system of command, and a network of walls and forts enabled the Roman
legions to protect the frontiers against incursions. The Roman soldier, for whom
discipline was a deeply ingrained tradition, knew that his comrades would not desert the
field, no matter how hard the fighting— an attitude that usually meant certain victory
against untrained barbarian hordes. However, in the Late Roman Empire, the quality of
Roman soldiers deteriorated, and the legions failed to defend the borders, even though the
Germanic invaders were fewer numerically. During the third century, the army consisted
predominantly of the provincial peasantry. These nonurban, non-Italian, semicivilized
soldiers, often the dregs of society, were not committed to Greco-Roman civilization.
They had little comprehension of Rome’s mission and at times used their power to attack
the cities and towns and to prey on hapless citizens. The emperors also recruited large
numbers of Germans into the army— barbarians had been used as auxiliary troops since
Julius Caesar—to fill depleted ranks. Ultimately, the army consisted predominantly of
barbarians, as both legionnaires and officers. Although these Germans made brave
soldiers, they too had little loyalty to Greco-Roman civilization and to the Roman state.
This deterioration of the Roman army occurred in part because many young citizens
evaded conscription. No longer imbued with patriotism, they considered military service
a servitude to be shunned.
The Roman peace brought stability, but it failed to discover new and better ways
of producing goods and agricultural products. To be sure, some advances in technology
did take place during the Hellenistic Age and the Pax Romana: rotary mills for grain,
screw presses, and improvements in glass-blowing and field-drainage methods. But the
high intellectual culture of Greece and Rome rested on a meager economic and
technological foundation. The widespread use of slave labor probably precluded a
breakthrough in technology, for slaves had little incentive to invent more efficient ways
of producing. The upper classes, identifying manual labor with slavery, would not
condescend to engage in the mechanical arts. This failure to improve the level of
technology limited employment opportunities for the masses. Because the masses could
not increase their purchasing power, business and industry were without a mass internal
market that might have acted as a continual stimulus for the accumulation of capital and
for economic expansion.
Contributing to the economic decentralization was the growth of industries on
latifundia, the large, fortified estates owned by wealthy aristocrats. Producing exclusively
for the local market, these estates contributed to the impoverishment of urban centers by
reducing the number of customers available to buy goods made in the cities. As life grew
more desperate, urban craftsmen and small farmers, made destitute by the state, sought
the protection of these large landlords, whose estates grew in size and importance. The
growth of latifundia was accompanied by the decline of cities and the transformation of
independent peasants into virtual serfs. These great estates were also new centers of
political power, which the imperial government could not curb. A new society was taking
shape in the late Roman Empire. The center of gravity shifted from the city to the landed
estate, from the imperial bureaucrat to the local aristocrat. These developments
epitomized the decay of ancient civilization and presaged a new era, the Middle Ages.
Rome left the West a rich heritage, which endured for centuries. The idea of a
world empire united by a common law and effective government never died. In the
centuries following the collapse of Rome, people continued to be attracted to the idea of a
unified and peaceful world-state. By preserving and adding to the philosophy, literature,
science, and arts of ancient Greece, Rome strengthened the basic foundations of the
Western cultural tradition. Latin, the language of Rome, lived on long after Rome
perished. The Western church fathers wrote in Latin, and during the Middle Ages, Latin
was the language of learning, literature, and law. From Latin came Italian, French,
Spanish, Portuguese, and Romanian. Roman law, the quintessential expression of Roman
genius, influenced church law and formed the basis of the legal codes of most European
states. Finally, Christianity, the core religion of the West, was born within the Roman
Empire and was greatly influenced by Roman law (the church’s canon law owed much to
Roman jurisprudence) and organization (the pope, head of the church and ruling from
Rome, was the counterpart of the Roman emperor, and bishoprics were established in
regions that coincided with the Empire’s administrative structure). The ideal of a single
Christian society embracing many different nationalities, so dear to medieval thinkers,
was superimposed on the model of the Roman Empire.
E. The Origins of Christianity
As confidence in human reason and hope for happiness in this world waned in the
last centuries of the Roman Empire, a new outlook began to take hold. Evident in
philosophy and in the popularity of Eastern religions, this viewpoint stressed escape from
an oppressive world and communion with a higher reality. Christianity evolved and
expanded within this setting of declining classicism and heightening otherworldliness. As
one response to a declining Hellenism, Christianity offered a spiritually disillusioned
Greco-Roman world a reason for living: the hope of personal immortality. The triumph of
Christianity marked a break with classical antiquity and a new stage in the evolution of
the West, for there was a fundamental difference between the classical and the Christian
concepts of God, the individual, and the purpose of life.
A Palestinian Jew named Jesus was executed by the Roman authorities during the
reign of Tiberius (a.d. 14–37), who succeeded Augustus. At the time, few people paid
much attention to what proved to be one of the most pivotal events in world history. In
the quest for the historical Jesus, scholars have stressed the importance of both his
Jewishness and the religious ferment that prevailed in Palestine in the first century b.c.
Jesus’ ethical teachings are rooted in the moral outlook of the Old Testament prophets.
Jesus, who prayed as a Jew, taught as a Jew to fellow Jews, and valued Jewish law and
prophetic teachings, could only conceive of himself as a Jew. Hans Küng, the prominent
Swiss student of religion, elaborates on this point.
In the first century b.c., four principal socialreligious parties, or sects, existed
among the Palestinian Jews: Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots. Composed of
the upper stratum of Jewish society—influential landed gentry and hereditary priests,
who controlled the temple in Jerusalem—the religiously conservative Sadducees insisted
on a strict interpretation of Mosaic Law (Torah) and the perpetuation of temple
ceremonies. Claiming to be the descendants of Sadok, the high priest of Solomon,
Sadducees believed that they were maintaining the ancient Hebrew teachings concerning
the Torah, which they interpreted literally. Rejecting the concepts of the resurrection of
the dead and of an afterlife, they held that God meted out rewards and punishments on
earth. Challenging the aristocratic Sadducees, the Pharisees adopted a more liberal
attitude toward Mosaic Law. They allowed discussion on varying interpretations of the
Law and granted authority to oral tradition—an “oral Torah,” which was communicated
from one generation to another—as well as to written Scripture. Unlike the Sadducees,
the Pharisees believed in life after death. The concept of personal immortality is barely
mentioned in the Hebrew Scriptures. A later addition to Hebrew religious thought,
probably acquired from Persia, the idea had gained wide acceptance by the first century
a.d. The Pharisees had the support of most of the Jewish people. All later forms of
Judaism developed from the Pharisees.
Besides the afterlife, another widely recognized idea in the first century b.c. was
the belief in a Messiah, a redeemer chosen by God to liberate Israel from foreign rule. In
the days of the Messiah, it was predicted, Israel would be free, the exiles would return,
and the Jews would be blessed with peace, unity, and prosperity. The Messiah, in contrast
to wicked Roman rulers, would govern justly and righteously.
By adding to our knowledge of Palestinian Judaism in the first century, the scrolls
shed light on the period in which Christianity arose and the New Testament was written.
Because of the similarity between many of the teachings of Jesus, particularly in the
Sermon on the Mount, and the teachings of the Essenes’ Teacher of Righteousness, some
modern scholars have suggested that Jesus may have been a member of the Essene
community. These scholars argue that the teachings of Jesus concerning the imminent
coming of the kingdom of God parallel the messianic expectations of the Essenes.
Historians are able to speak with greater certainty about social-religious
developments in Judea at the time of Jesus than they can about Jesus himself. In
reconstructing what Jesus did and believed, the historian labors under a handicap, for the
sources are few. Jesus himself wrote nothing, and nothing was written about him during
his lifetime. In the generations following his death, both Roman and Jewish historians
paid him scant attention. Consequently, virtually everything known about Jesus derives
from the Bible’s New Testament, which was written decades after Jesus’ death by
devotees seeking to convey a religious truth and to propagate a faith.
Modern historians in quest of the historical Jesus have rigorously and critically
analyzed the New Testament; their analyses have provided some insights into Jesus and
his beliefs. Nevertheless, much about Jesus remains obscure. Very little is known about
his childhood. Like other Jewish youths, he was taught Hebrew religious-ethical thought
and the many rules that governed daily life. At about the age of thirty, no doubt
influenced by John the Baptist, who likely was once part of the Essene community, Jesus
began to preach the coming of the reign of God and the need for people to repent—
undergo moral transformation—so that they could enter God’s kingdom. “Now after John
was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time
is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel [good
news]’” (Mark 1:14–15).
While not seeking to break with his past or to reject Jewish law, Jesus was
distressed by the Judaism of his day. Following the prophets, the rabbis taught the Golden
Rule, as well as God’s love and mercy for his children, but it seemed to Jesus that these
ethical considerations were being undermined by an exaggerated rabbinical concern with
ritual, restrictions, and the fine points of the Law. Jesus believed that the center of
Judaism had shifted from prophetic values to obedience to rules and prohibitions
regulating the smallest details of daily life. (To Jewish leaders, of course, these detailed
regulations governing eating, washing, Sabbath observance, family relations, and so forth
were God’s commands intended to sanctify all human activities.) To Jesus, such a rigid
view of the Law distorted the meaning of prophetic teachings. Rules dealt only with an
individual’s visible behavior; they did not engage the person’s inner being and lead to a
moral transformation based on love, compassion, and selflessness. Observing the Lord’s
command to rest on the Sabbath—for example, by not eating an egg laid on Saturday or
by not lifting a chair on that day—did not purify a person’s heart.
It was inevitable that Jewish scribes and priests, guardians of the faith, would
regard Jesus, who had become a popular preacher, as a threat to ancient traditions. To
Jewish leaders, he was a troublemaker and a subversive. They accused him of associating
with social outcasts, sinners, and imperial tax collectors; undermining respect for the
Sabbath by violating God’s strict command prohibiting any form of labor on this holy
day; proclaiming spiritual truth in his own name and on his own authority; and claiming
that he, above all other men, had a special and intimate relationship with God and that by
associating with him a sinner would be forgiven. Stated succinctly, Jewish leaders
believed that Jesus was setting the authority of his person over Mosaic Law—an
unpardonable blasphemy in their eyes. They saw Jesus as a false prophet who was
leading the people astray.
The Romans, who ruled Palestine, had little interest in Jewish intrareligious
disputes. They feared Jesus as a political agitator, as a charismatic leader who could
ignite Jewish messianic expectations into a revolt against Rome. After Jewish leaders
turned Jesus over to the Roman authorities, the Roman procurator, Pontius Pilate,
sentenced him to death by crucifixion, a customary punishment for someone guilty of
high treason. Jesus’ execution was consistent with Roman policy in Judea, for the
Romans routinely arrested and executed Jews suspected of inciting unrest against Roman
rule. Inscribed on the cross on which he was crucified were the words “King of the
Jews,” a seemingly clear indication of why Pilate ordered his death. Although it is
questionable if Jesus ever intended to challenge Roman authority, Pilate was taking no
chances. He wanted to eliminate this popular leader before he might ignite a popular
uprising.
Saint Paul (a.d. c. 5–c. 67) came from the Greek city of Tarsus in southeastern
Asia Minor. Originally called Saul, he belonged to the Diaspora, or the “Dispersion”—
the millions of Jews living outside Palestine. Though the Jews of the Diaspora retained
their ancient faith, they were also influenced by Greek culture. An example is the
Alexandrian Jew Philo (c. 20 b.c.–c. a.d. 50), who tried to demonstrate that Hebrew
Scriptures could be explained and justified in terms of Greek philosophy.
Reared in Tarsus, a stronghold of Greek culture, Saul knew Greek well, but it is
unlikely, despite a respectable writing style, that he had great knowledge of Greek
literature, philosophy, and science. Trained in the outlook of the Pharisees, the young
Saul went to Jerusalem to study with Rabban Gamaliel, an outstanding Pharisee teacher.
In Jerusalem, Saul persecuted Jesus’ followers in the time after his crucifixion, but then
Saul underwent a spiritual transformation and became a follower of Jesus. Serving as a
zealous missionary of Jewish Christianity in the Diaspora, Saul, now called by his Roman
name, Paul, preached to his fellow Jews in synagogues throughout the Roman Empire
and wrote letters of advice back to the congregations he had started. Not having much
success with his fellow Jews and recognizing that the Christian message applied to non-
Jews as well, Paul urged spreading it to the Gentiles. His knowledge of Greek was of
inestimable value in his missionary work with both Diaspora Jews and Gentiles.
To the first members of the Christian movement, Jesus was both a prophet who
proclaimed the power and purpose of God and the Messiah whose coming heralded a new
age. To Paul, Jesus was a resurrected redeemer who offered salvation to all peoples. Paul
taught that the crucified Messiah had suffered and died for the sins of human beings; that
through Jesus God had shown his love of humanity and revealed himself to all people,
both Jews and Gentiles; and that this revelation supplanted the earlier one to the Jewish
people. Increasingly Jesus’ followers came to view the sacrificed Messiah as a savior-
god, indeed, as God incarnate. The idea of a slain savior-god was well known in the
mystery religions of the eastern Mediterranean. Like these religions, Christianity initiated
converts into the mysteries of the faith, featured a sacramental meal, and in time
developed a priesthood.
In attempting to reach the Gentiles, Paul had to disentangle Christianity from a
Jewish sociocultural context. Thus, he held that neither Gentile nor Jewish followers of
Jesus were bound by the hundreds of rituals and rules that constitute Mosaic Law.* Paul
saw no distinctive difference between Jew and Gentile; in his view, the ministry of Jesus
was intended for all. As a consequence of Jesus’ coming, Paul maintained, Mosaic
regulations hindered missionary activity among the Gentiles. For Paul, not the Law of
Moses but love of and faith in Christ was the new avenue to God and salvation. The
followers of Jesus fulfilled Hebrew history; they were the new Israel.
F. The Spread and Triumph of Christianity
By establishing Christianity’s independence from Judaism and its practices, Paul
made the new religion attractive to the Greco-Roman world. Originating in the first
century, Christianity took firm root in the second, grew extensively in the third, and
became the official religion of the Roman Empire at the end of the fourth century. The
triumph of Christianity was related to a corresponding decline in the vitality of Hellenism
and a shift in cultural emphasis—a movement from reason to emotion and revelation.
Offering comforting solutions to the existential problems of life and death, religion
demonstrated a greater capacity than reason to stir human hearts. Hellenism had invented
the tools of rational thought, but the power of mythical thought was never entirely
subdued. By the Late Roman Empire, science and philosophy were unable to compete
with mysticism, myth, and the divine.
During the Hellenistic Age, the individual had struggled with the problems of
alienation and lack of community. With the decline of the independent city-state, the
individual searched for a new frame of reference, a new form of attachment. The Roman
Empire represented one possible allegiance. But for many people, it was not a satisfying
relationship; the individual found it difficult to be devoted to a political organization so
vast, remote, and impersonal. The Christian message of a divine Savior and a concerned
Father, as well as of brotherly love, inspired men and women who were dissatisfied with
the world of the here and now— who felt no attachment to city or empire, derived no
inspiration from philosophy, and suffered from a profound sense of loneliness.
Christianity offered the individual what the city and the Roman world-state could not: an
intensely personal relationship with God, an intimate connection with a higher world, and
membership in a community of the faithful who cared for one another.
Christianity succeeded not only through the appeal of its message but also through
the power of its organization. To retain the devotion of the faithful, win new converts,
protect itself from opponents, and administer its services, Christianity developed an
organized body of followers. This body became the Christian church, which grew into a
strong organization uniting the faithful. To city dwellers—lonely, alienated, disillusioned
with public affairs; stranded mortals groping for a sense of community—the church that
called its members “brother” and “sister” filled an elemental need of human beings to
belong.
Another attraction for Christian converts was the absence of painful or expensive
initiation rites, such as those required for entrance into Mithraism, a leading rival (see
“The Spread of Mystery Religions” in Chapter 7). Unlike Mithraism, the church also
welcomed women converts, who were often the first to join and who brought their
menfolk after them. Among the reasons that the church drew women was its command to
husbands to treat their wives kindly, remain faithful, and provide for the children.
Moreover, in the eyes of God, women were spiritually equal with men. The church also
won new converts and retained the loyalty of its members by furnishing social services
for the poor and infirm; welcoming slaves, criminals, sinners, and other outcasts; and
offering community and comfort during difficult times.
At first, the Roman government, which was generally tolerant of religions, did not
interfere much with the Christian movement. In fact, Christianity benefited in many ways
from its association with the Roman Empire. Christian missionaries, among them some of
the Twelve Disciples, who were the original followers of Christ, traveled throughout the
Empire over roads and across seas made safe by Roman arms. The common Greek
dialect, Koine, spoken in most parts of the Empire, facilitated the missionaries’ task. Had
the Mediterranean world been fractured into separate and competing states, the spread of
Christianity might well have faced an insurmountable obstacle. The universalism of the
Roman Empire, which made citizenship available to peoples of many nationalities,
prepared the way for the universalism of Christianity, which welcomed membership from
all nations. Early Christians grafted onto Rome’s imperial mission a spiritual, evangelical
cause: “Go ye therefore and teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19).
Christianity synthesized both the Hebrew and the Greco-Roman traditions.
Having emerged from Judaism, Christianity assimilated Hebrew monotheism and
prophetic morality and retained the Old Testament as the Word of God. Without this
Hebraic foundation, Christianity cannot be understood. As the new religion evolved, it
also assimilated elements of Greek philosophy. The ability to combine a historic Judaic
monotheism, which had many admirers in the Gentile world, with Greek rational
philosophy was a crucial reason for Christianity’s triumph in the Roman Empire. But
there was a struggle between conservatives, who wanted no dealings with pagan
philosophy, and those believers who recognized the value of Greek thought to
Christianity.
G. The Growth of Christian Organization, Doctrine, and Attitudes
Early in its history, the church gradually developed along hierarchical lines.
Those members of the Christian community who had the authority to preside over the
celebration of the Mass—breaking bread and offering wine as Christ had done in the Last
Supper—were called either priests or bishops. Gradually, the designation bishop was
reserved for the one clergyman in the community with the authority to resolve disputes
over doctrines and practices. Regarded as the successors to Jesus’ Twelve Disciples,
bishops supervised religious activities within their regions. The most influential bishops
ministered to the leading cities of the Empire: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Milan. In
creating a diocese that was supervised by a bishop and had its center in a leading city, the
church adapted Roman administrative techniques.
In developing the case for their supremacy over the church organization, bishops
of Rome increasingly referred to the famous New Testament passage in which Jesus says
to his disciple Simon (also called Peter): “‘And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock
I will build my church’” (Matthew 16:18). Because Peter in Greek means “rock” (petra),
it was argued that Christ had chosen Peter to succeed him as ruler of the universal church.
It was commonly accepted that Saint Peter had established a church in Rome and was
martyred there, so it was argued further that the Roman bishop inherited the power that
Christ had passed on to Peter. Thus, the argument continued, the bishop of Rome held a
unique office: of all the bishops, only he had inherited the powers originally granted by
Christ to Peter. Because the Apostles had been subordinate to Peter, so too must the
bishops defer to Peter’s successor.
Some devout Christians committed to living a perfect Christian life were
distressed by the wickedness of the world about them, including the moral laxity of those
clergy who chased after wealth and pomp. Seeking to escape from the agonies and
corruptions of this world, some ardent Christians withdrew to deserts and mountains in
search of solitude and spiritual renewal. In their zeal to emulate Jesus’ self-denial, they
sometimes practiced extreme forms of asceticism: self-flogging, wearing spiked corsets,
eating only herbs, or living for years atop a column high above the ground.
The earliest surviving Christian writings are Paul’s Epistles, written some twenty-
five to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Jesus’ sayings were preserved by word of
mouth. Sometime around a.d. 66–70, about forty years after the crucifixion, Saint Mark
formulated the Christian message from this oral tradition and perhaps from some material
that had been put in writing earlier. Later, Saint Matthew and Saint Luke, relying heavily
on Mark’s account, wrote somewhat longer Gospels. The Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and
Luke are called synoptic because their approach to Jesus is very similar. The remaining
Gospel, written by Saint John around a.d. 110, varies significantly from the synoptic
Gospels. The Gospel of John uses the Stoic concept of Logos to present Jesus as the
divine being.
Although salvation was their ultimate aim, Christians still had to dwell within the
world and deal with its imperfections. In the process, Christian thinkers challenged some
of the mores of GrecoRoman society and formulated attitudes that would endure for
centuries. Influenced by passages in the New Testament that condemned acts of revenge
and the shedding of blood, and concerned only with the heavenly kingdom, some early
Christians refused military service. Others, however, held that in a sinful world, defense
of the state was necessary, and without concealment or apology they served in the army.
With the barbarians menacing the borders, Christian officials could not advocate
nonviolence. Christian theorists began to argue that under certain circumstances—to
punish injustice or to restore peace—war was just. But even such wars must not entail
unnecessary violence.
Increasingly, Christians identified opponents—Jews, pagans, and heretics—with
Satan, the fallen angel, and viewed conflicts in a moral context: a struggle between God’s
faithful and Satan’s servants. Over the centuries, the view that they were participants in a
cosmic struggle between good and evil led Christians to demonize adversaries, a practice
that exacerbated hatred and justified mistreatment and even massacre. Christian attitudes
and behavior toward Jews poignantly illustrate this point.
H. Saint Augustine
During the early history of Christianity, learned fathers of the church explained
and defended church teachings. Most of the leading early fathers wrote in Greek, but in
the middle of the fourth century, three great Latin writers—Saint Jerome, Saint Ambrose,
and Saint Augustine—profoundly influenced the course of Christianity in the West. As a
youth, Saint Jerome (c. 340–420) studied Latin literature in Rome. Throughout his life,
he remained an admirer of Cicero, Virgil, Lucretius, and other great Latin writers, and he
defended the study of classical literature by Christians. Criticized for attacking the
luxurious living and laxness of the clergy, he left Rome and established a monastery near
Bethlehem, where he devoted himself to prayer and study. His greatest achievement was
the translation of the Old and New Testaments from Hebrew and Greek into Latin.
Jerome’s text, the common, or Vulgate, version of the Bible, became the official edition
of the Bible for the Western church.
Augustine’s distinction between this higher world of perfection and a lower world
of corruption remained influential throughout the Middle Ages. But the church, rejecting
Augustine’s doctrine that only a limited number of people are predestined for heaven,
emphasized that Christ had made possible the salvation of all who would embrace the
precepts and injunctions of the church. Leading Protestant reformers of the sixteenth
century, however, accepted Augustine’s position.
Augustine repudiated the distinguishing feature of classical humanism: the
autonomy of reason. For him, ultimate wisdom could not be achieved through rational
thought alone. Reason had to be guided by faith. Without faith, there could be no true
knowledge, no understanding. Philosophy had no validity if it did not first accept as
absolutely true the existence of God and the authority of his revelation. Valid ethical
standards could not be formulated by reason alone but were revealed to people by the
living God. Christian truth did not rest on theoretical excellence or logical consistency; it
was true because its source was God.
With Augustine, the human-centered outlook of classical humanism, which for
centuries had been undergoing transformation, gave way to a God-centered worldview.
The fulfillment of God’s will, not the full development of human talent, became the chief
concern of life. The City of God encompassed several themes that would concern
Christian thinkers for centuries: the meaning of history and the place of the individual,
the state, and the church in God’s plan.
Augustinian Christianity is a living philosophy because it still has something vital
to say about the human condition. To those who believe that people have the intelligence
and goodwill to transform their earthly city into a rational and just community that
promotes human betterment, Augustine offers a reminder of human sinfulness, weakness,
and failure. Nor will new and ingenious political and social arrangements alter a defective
human nature. He cautions the optimist that progress is not certain; that people, weak and
ever prone to wickedness, are their own worst enemies; that success is illusory; and that
misery is the essential human reality.
I. Christianity and Classical Humanism
Christianity and classical humanism are the two principal components of the
Western tradition. The value that modern Western civilization places on the individual
derives ultimately from classical humanism and the Judeo-Christian tradition. Classical
humanists believed that human worth came from the capacity of individuals to reason and
to shape their character and life according to rational standards. Christianity also places
great stress on the individual. In the Christian view, God cares for each person; he wants
people to behave righteously and to enter heaven; Christ died for all because he loves
humanity. Christianity espouses active love and genuine concern for fellow human
beings. Without God, people are as Augustine described them: “foul, crooked, sordid, . . .
vicious.” With God, the human personality can undergo a moral transformation and
become loving, good, and free. The idea of a Christian conscience, prompted by God and
transcending all other loyalties, reinforces respect for all human beings regardless of
cultural and national differences. Also promoting respect for each person is the
presupposition of natural equality stemming from the Christian belief that each
individual, regardless of birth, wealth, or talent, is precious to God.
But Christianity and classical humanism also represent two essentially different
worldviews. The triumph of the Christian outlook signified a break with the essential
meaning of classical humanism; it pointed to the end of the world of antiquity and the
beginning of an age of faith, the Middle Ages. With the victory of Christianity, the
ultimate goal of life shifted. Life’s purpose was no longer to achieve excellence in this
world through the full and creative development of human capacities, but to attain
salvation in a heavenly city. A person’s worldly accomplishments amounted to very little
if he or she did not accept God and his revelation. The Christian ideal of the isolated and
contemplative monk, who rejected the world in order to serve God, was alien to the spirit
of classical humanism, which valued active citizenship and active participation in worldly
activities. Equally foreign to the Greco-Roman mind was another idea introduced by
Christianity: the need to escape from a sinful human nature, a consequence of Adam and
Eve’s defiance of God. This view of a corrupt human nature and an unclean human body,
particularly in Augustine’s formulation, became deeply embedded in the European mind
during the Christian centuries—the Middle Ages
Classicism held that there was no authority higher than reason, that individuals
had within themselves, through unaided reason, the ability to understand the world and
life. Christianity teaches that, without God as the starting point, knowledge is formless,
purposeless, and prone to error. Classicism, unlike Judaism or Christianity, possessed no
truths or moral precepts revealed by a divine power. Rather, classicism held that ethical
standards were expressions of universal reason, laws of nature, which the human mind
could discover. Through reason, individuals could discern the norms by which they
should regulate their lives. Reason would enable them to govern desires and will; it
would show where their behavior was wrong and teach them how to correct it.
Because individuals sought what was best for themselves, they would obey the
voice of reason. Christianity, on the other hand, maintains that ethical standards emanate
from the personal will of God. Without submission to God’s commands, people remain
wicked forever; the human will, essentially sinful, cannot be transformed by the
promptings of reason. Only when individuals turn to God for forgiveness and guidance
can they find the inner strength to overcome their sinful nature. People cannot perfect
themselves through scientific knowledge; it is spiritual insight and belief in God that they
require and that must serve as the first principle of their lives. For classicism, the ultimate
good was sought through independent thought and action; for Christianity, the ultimate
good comes through knowing, obeying, and loving God.
In the classical world, the political community was the avenue to justice,
happiness, and selfrealization. In Christianity, the good life was identified not with
worldly achievement but with life eternal, and the ideal commonwealth could only be one
that was founded and ruled by Christ. It was entrance into God’s kingdom that each
person must make the central aim of life. Christian thinkers viewed the state as an inferior
community to their own—the church of Christ, which had ties to the spiritual realm, the
highest good. Therefore, they held that secular power should submit to ecclesiastical
authority. For the next thousand years, this distinction between heaven and earth, this
otherworldly, theocentric outlook, would define the Western mentality.
