THE ROMAN EMPIRE INTO THE BREACH -- "Search for the Real Parents of My Soul" -- continues

THE ROMAN EMPIRE INTO THE BREACH

“Search for the Real Parents of My Soul” - continued

James R. Fisher, Jr., Ph.D.

© November 14, 2014

NOTE:

We now move out of the Old Testament and Edward Gibbon’s assessment, along with others, into the New Testament and this new religion, Christianity.  The irony were it not for the efficacy of the Roman Empire conjecture might hold that Christianity would never have gained its prominence.  Keep this in mind as we move forward.

*     *     *

There is a thread that goes through Western civilization that is so fine that while it knits the past with the future it is easy to miss how it has been weaved into a single fabric, which is today commonly called “the West.” 

As we have seen thus far, the Hellenistic tradition of Greece greatly influenced the Judaic culture, especially as it relates to the Pharisees, and that influence continued with the Rise of Rome, making it the world’s greatest empire (Everitt 2012).

The best estimates of the beginning of the Roman Empire are with the accession of Augustus as the first emperor in 27 B.C.  Others say the date of Rome’s foundation was sometime in the eighth century, possibly 753 B.C. (Everitt, 2012)

Rome is the discernible connection between the Old and New Testament for now we are introduced to the clash of cultures between the pagan polytheism of Rome with the monotheism of Judaism, and the cult of Jesus, which will become Christianity as we move into the New Testament. 

*     *     *

During the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius, Judea had several Roman Prefects according to Josephus: Coponius (6 A.D.), Marcus Ambibulus (7 A.D.), Annius Rufus (14-17 A.D.), “Valerius Gratus (17-27 A.D.), and Pontius Pilate (27-36), who ruled on the crucifixion of Jesus.

Scholars have provided estimates for the year of the crucifixion in the range 30–33 AD, with the majority of modern scholars favoring the date April 7, 30 AD. Another popular date is Friday, April 3, 33 AD

The crucifixion of Jesus is recorded in the New Testament, Christians believing Him to be the Son of God as well as the Messiah.  He was arrested, tried, and sentenced by Pontius Pilate to be scourged, and finally crucified. Collectively referred to as the Passion, Jesus' suffering and redemptive death by crucifixion are the central aspects of Christian theology concerning the doctrines of salvation and atonement. 

His crucifixion is described in the four canonical gospels, referred to in the New Testament Epistles, attested to by other ancient sources, and is established as a historical event confirmed by non-Christian sources (Eddy & Boyd (2007).

*     *     *

This sets the stage for the appearance of an irascible figure of no apparent consequence, a figure that will clash with Jesus’ disciple, Peter, and Jesus’ brother, James, over the direction of the new sect, throwing the modest movement off course to split from Judaism and become a new religion, challenging the Roman Empire.  This nondescript man was Saul from Tarsus (Ruden 2010). 

Saul, a Hellenistic Pharisee and tentmaker witnessed the stoning to death of St. Stephen, as he held the garments of the stoners, his associates, whose job was to search out and persecute members of the Jesus cult.  Witnessing this stoning, which author Sarah Ruden shows is a slow miserable death, proved shattering to this young man (Ruden 2010). 

Later, on his way to Damascus, he was confronted by the full horror of his human limitations.  “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” the voice asked (Acts 9:4). 

He lived in humanity, and came to realize the hurt done to the Jesus followers, like that done to Jesus in human form, now registered as an assault on God.  He was instantly converted and changed his name from Saul to Paul, and became “the greatest theological genius of all time,” and arguably the lone architect of the new religion, Christianity, as Christian doctrine came not from Jesus, nor from any of Jesus’ “twelve apostles,” but from the pen of Paul of Tarsus (Ruden 2010).

*     *     *

The Roman Empire fell into this breach, an empire that rose modestly gaining momentum over time into the colossus that it became. 

Some historians regard the Roman Empire as beginning with the accession of Augustus as the first emperor in 27 B.C.  Others recognized that although Rome began as a republic, the period from the legendary founding of the city of Rome in 753 B.C. through the fall of what became known as the Western Empire in A.D. 476 represents a continuous history of a culture we call the Roman Empire.

That said starting in 19 B.C., Augustus ushered in a conservative revolution that focused on moral renewal of the Roman state in part by bringing back customs from the past.  He enacted reforms concerning religion and social and sexual behavior that directly affected personal freedom as well as what it meant to be a citizen under the empire.

Augustus interpreted the period of civil war prior to his reign as immoral in which Romans had neglected the gods in deference to their personal luxury and pleasure.  This aside, his achievements rested with his popularity with the army, securing the borders, improving empire administration, and developing a well-planned method of succession.

The defeat of Mark Antony at the “Battle of Actium” (31 B.C.), Octavian now Augustus secured his power.  Augustus then cut the size of the army, but retained the goodwill of his disbanded troops by granting them full citizenship, the ability to vote, immunity from tribute, opportunities to relocate throughout the empire, and retirement bonuses for 20 years of service.

After his death in 14 A.D., his stepson Tiberius was easily accepted as emperor being keen to rule much as his father had, continuing the Augustus tradition, while encouraging Romans to move eastward quietly expanding the Roman influence.

This swelled the Roman presence in Judea during the reign of Tiberius (14-37 A.D.), Caligula (37-41 A.D.), Claudius (41-54 A.D.), and Nero (54-68 A.D.), a period historians claim of emperor eccentric steadiness.  Although each had strengths, none would recreate the golden age of the first emperor’s reign.  Instead, they are remembered for their faults and oddities, from madness to stuttering, from tyranny of Nero to his suicide.

“Pax Romana” (27 B.C. to A.D. 180) represented two centuries of peace that commenced with the reign of Augustus (27 B.C.) and the death 207 years later (180 A.D.) of Marcus Aurelius.   It was a period of internal order and indisputable dominance abroad, similar to the “American Century.”  Historian Anthony Everitt, however, finds that comparison between Rome and the United States ludicrous if not dangerous (Everitt 2012).

Rome had its “New Age,” as well, ushered in by Augustus in 19 B.C. in what proved to be a conservative revolution.  He focused on the moral renewal of the Roman state in part by bringing back customs from the past.  He also enacted reforms concerning religion and social and sexual behavior that directly affected personal freedom as well as the definition of what constituted a Roman citizen. 

At the same time, there were mounting delusions of grandeur.  This included a sense of invincibility and destiny, as well as a preoccupation with empire showing little alarm at increasing dysfunction at home. 

Rome failed to recognize emerging socioeconomic problems such as immigration as diverse ethnic groups poured into Rome, resisting assimilation into the Roman culture, instead becoming wards of the state contributing little to the majesty of Rome’s established greatness. 

In retrospect, the seeds of the decline were planted in the birth of the Christian Empire (National Geographic 2014).  By the fourth century A.D., Christians were integrated into all facets of Roman society, including the military, judicial, and educational establishments, while comprising only 8 percent of the population.

Troubled by this mounting influence, in 303 A.D., Emperor Diocletian ordered that all Christians renounce their beliefs and sacrifice to Roman gods, starting the final Roman persecution of the church.  

A decade later, following the “Edict of Milan,” the practice of Christianity was as accepted as that of any other religion.  Rome, however, would not become a fully Christian empire until after the fall of the Second Tetrarchy (i.e., four rulers), and Constantine’s reign (National Geographic 2014). 

*     *     *

Emperor Constantine, after a battle field conversion, made Christianity the state religion and prohibited the worshiping of all Roman gods in 313 A.D. 

Once established, few could have foreseen that this act, with the death of Constantine in 337 A.D., would mark the beginning of the end of the Roman Empire (Womersley 1994).

A series of forces were at work, some familiar, some new, which combined to make Rome’s downfall almost inevitable.

Without new territory, the empire lost revenue, burdening an economy that was already straining under the enormous cost of maintaining a vast army, a welfare system at home, saddled with bureaucratic lethargy, and a series of emperors without the force of personality to lead, who instead were likely to be entrenched within their imperial palaces, often located outside of Rome, along with corruption in the Senate, leaving the government marginalized in the day-to-day conduct of business. 

The tension between the East and West segments of the Roman Empire had become increasingly destructive as emperors no longer cooperated and instead undermined each other.  

Barbarian tribes from the north administered the coup de grace, as some traditional tribal nemeses migrated into the empire when the Huns invaded Europe, while Visigoths and Germanic tribes took advantage of the power vacuums and attacked Rome itself.

Rome’s empire had grown so large that its borders became harder to defend.  Meanwhile, in the east, a new empire, the Sassanids, overran Rome’s traditional enemy the Parthians. Tribes such as the Goths from the Baltic regions and Alamanni from the upper Rhine invaded from the north.  Rebels within and without the empire annexed territory and broke away from Rome (National Geographic 2014).  The western empire started to unravel with the death of Constantine in 337 A.D. with Rome giving way completely to Byzantium in the east in 476 A.D.., which marked the end of the Roman Empire.

*     *     *

Edward Gibbon devoted more than a decade to his magisterial History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776-1789), which opens this famous sentence:

In the second century of the Christian Era, the empire of Rome comprehended the fairest part of the earth, and the most civilized portion of mankind.

The empire was at its peak, thanks to the spirit of moderation with which Augustus had imbued it.  Gibbon praised Augustus’ moderation content to rest with the republic’s conquests, having no inclination to subdue the entire world.  Gibbon continues:

Inclined to peace by his temper and situation, it was easy for him to discover, that Rome, in her present exalted situation, had much less to hope than to fear from the chance of arms (Womersley 1994).

             

Gibbon asked the questions: 

What caused the empire to fall from those heights?  The barbarian invasions?  The rise of Christianity to the status of a state religion?  

Yes, he concluded, but that was only the most important aspect of a more encompassing cause.  He put his views in a section titled, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire in the West”:

The decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness. (Gibbon 2007)

Too much ambition, too much prosperity, too much power in the hands of the Praetorian guards, too many provincials bearing the name of “Roman,” who knew nothing of the Roman spirit.  These were the causes, he concluded, of the destruction.

Chapter 15 and 16 of Gibbon’s work are immoderate, as the historian makes no attempt to express himself in politically correct terms.  The early Christians, he assessed, were simple and mild folks, but from the first they preached and practiced an intolerant exclusivity.  

Whereas the pagans stood ready to add another god to the pantheon, the followers of Christ insisted that theirs was the true and only God.  

Gibbon, a nonbeliever, viewed religion of any kind the sanctuary for the ignorant and superstitious masses only.  At the same time, he recognized the social usefulness of religion, but only when it was polytheistic, tolerant, moderate in its enthusiasm and modest in its claims.

Thanks to Paul, the Apostle, Christianity was none of these things.  Christians were immoderately passive.  They discouraged active virtues and buried the last remnants of the military spirit in the cloister.  Gibbon held a special grievance for the sacred indolence of the monks who he claimed embraced a servile and effeminate age (Womersley 1994).

Yet, he viewed Christians as immoderately pugnacious, even within their own camp, zealotry could not be held in check.  Between the bishops in Rome and the bishops in the provinces, there was a continuing cold war.

Like almost all Christians, Gibbon observed, the bishops were fanatics who for a variety of reasons, zeal, the promise of another world, miraculous claims, rigid virtue, or church organization, were able to transform themselves from a persecuted minority into an intolerant majority. 

Christians had been persecuted, Gibbon admitted, but the pagan treatment was less intolerable than many believed.  He conceded Nero may have carried things too far.  But he reminded the reader that once Christians came to power they were “no less diligently employed in displaying the cruelty, than in imitating the conduct of their pagan adversaries.” (Womersley 1994)

His antagonism to Christian doctrine spilled over into the Jewish faith, leading to charges of anti-Semitism:

From the reign of Nero to that of Antoninus Pius, the Jews discovered a fierce impatience of the dominion of Rome, which repeatedly broke out in the most furious massacres and insurrections. Humanity is shocked at the recital of the horrid cruelties which they committed in the cities of Egypt, of Cyprus, and of Cyrene, where they dwelt in treacherous friendship with the unsuspecting natives; and we are tempted to applaud the severe retaliation which was exercised by the arms of legions against a race of fanatics, whose dire and credulous superstition seemed to render them the implacable enemies not only of the Roman government, but also of humankind. (Womersley 1994)

Emperor Julian, called the Apostate, attempted in vain to restore polytheistic paganism from the monotheism of Christianity as well as Judaism.  Julian was also known as Julian the Philosopher, and was emperor from 361-363 A.D. with strong Hellenistic leanings.  

A member of the Constantinian dynasty, Julian became Caesar over the western provinces by order of Constantius II in 355 and in this role campaigned successfully against the Alamanni and Franks. Most notable was his crushing victory over the Alamanni in 357 at the Battle of Argentoratum despite being outnumbered.

In 360 in Lutetia (Paris) he was acclaimed Augustus by his soldiers, sparking a civil war between Julian and Constantius. Before the two could face each other in battle, however, Constantius died, after naming Julian as his rightful successor. 

In 363, Julian embarked on an ambitious campaign against the Sassanid Empire in the east. Though initially successful, Julian was mortally wounded in battle and died shortly thereafter.

Julian was a man of unusually complex character: he was "the military commander, the theosophist, the social reformer, and the man of letters"  He was the last non-Christian ruler of the Roman Empire, and it was his desire to bring the Empire back to its ancient Roman values in order to save it from dissolution.  

He purged the top-heavy state bureaucracy and attempted to revive traditional Roman religious practices at the cost of Christianity. His rejection of Christianity in favor of Neoplatonic paganism caused him to be called Julian the Apostate, or "a person who has abandoned the religion and principles" of the (Christian) church.  He was the last emperor of the Constantinian dynasty.

Unlike Constantine, Julian was moderate and tolerant, “the only hardship,” according to Gibbon, “which he inflicted on the Christians, was to deprive them of the power of tormenting their fellow subjects, whom they stigmatized with the odious titles of idolaters and heretics” (General Observations 2007).

Julian was a true believer in the pagan gods and not a philosophic skeptic concerning all religions.  In Gibbon’s view, he should have emulated those who had allowed philosophy to purify “their minds from the prejudices of the popular superstitions” and who therefore rejected Christianity.  He was speaking of  Seneca, the elder, and younger Pliny, Tacitus, Plutarch, Galen, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius, whose death in 207 A.D. marked the end of Rome’s golden period.

As point of reference, Gibbon is considered to be a son of the European Enlightenment and this is reflected in his famous verdict on the history of the Middle Ages: 

"I have described the triumph of barbarism and religion." 

However, politically, he aligned himself with the conservative Edmund Burke's rejection of the democratic movements of the time as well as with Burke's dismissal of the "rights of man."

Gibbon's work has been praised for its style, his piquant epigrams and its effective irony.  Unusually for the 18th century, Gibbon was never content with secondhand accounts when the primary sources were accessible.  With reference to primary sources, Gibbon is considered by many to be one of the first modern historians.

In accuracy, thoroughness, lucidity, and comprehensive grasp of a vast subject, this history is considered unsurpassable. It is the one English history which may be regarded as definitive. Whatever its shortcomings, "The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire" is artistically imposing as well as historically unimpeachable as a vast panorama of a great period.

Having recounted his melancholy tale of Rome’ decline and fall, Gibbon asked if it contained a warning to the present.  Might Europe one day suffer a similar fate?  Incredibly, he thought not:

The abuses of tyranny are restrained by the mutual influence of fear and shame; republics have acquired order and stability; monarchies have imbibed the principles of freedom, or, at least, of indoctrination; and some sense of honor and justice is introduced into the most defective constitutions by the general manner of the times.  In peace, the progress of knowledge and industry is accelerated by the emulation of so many active rivals in war, the European forces are exercised by temperate and indecisive contests (Gibbon, General Observations 2007).

The Old Testament ends with this assessment.  We now move into THE GENERAL SETTING OF CHRISTIANITY IN HISTORY

*     *     *

NOTES OF REFERENCE:

THE PRE-CHRISTIAN COURSE OF MANKIND

"BETWEEN THE TESTAMENTS"

1.           Matthew 5:17

2.           John 1:1,3; Ephesians 3:9; Hebrews 1:2

THE RETURN FROM BABYLON

3.           Durant, page 545.

4.           Jacob Z. Latourette, RABBINIC ESSAYS, Hebrew Union College Press, Cincinnati, 1951, page 13-14

5.           Heinrich Graetz, HISTORY OF THE JEWS, Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1894, Volume 1, pp. 406-407

6.           This is described in Josephus’ ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, Book XI, Chapter X, Parts 5, 6.  The flavor of this piece is to be followed throughout this section.  The Word of God and God’s Law are to be taken as fact.  This is not necessarily the position of the author.  It is, however, clearly the position of the principals involved.

A NEW WAY OF LIFE

7.           Daniel 8:22

8.           Hamilton, pp. 2-53

SYNAGOGUE NO LONGER IN AUTHORITY

9.           R. Travere Herford, TALMUD AND APOCRYPHA, Soncine Press, London, 1033, p. 77

100 TEARS OF POLEMAIC RULE

10.         Charles Foster Kent, HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE, The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia, 1940, p. 320

11.         Opt. Cid, Lauterbach, p. 196

12.         Ibid, p. 196

13.         THE REPUBLIC OF PLATA, translated with introduction and notes by Francis MacDonald Cornford, Oxford University Press, 1956.  See “A Proof of Immortality” (Plato, pp. 341-344).  As pointed out in the text, most have assumed that the doctrines of traditional Christianity have come from the Bible.  Compare, for example, present day teachings on the immortality of the soul with what Plato wrote in the “Phaedo” (GREAT DIALOGUES OF PLATA, Mentor Books, 1956):

“… The soul is shown to be immortal, and since immortal, indestructible … Do we believe there is any such thing as death?  To be sure.  And is this anything but the separation of the soul and body?  And being dead is the attainment of this separation, when the soul exists, in herself, and separate from the body, and the body is parted from the soul.  That is death…Death is merely the separation of soul and body.” 

14.         The Jewish Encyclopedia

15.         Opt. Cid., Kent, pp. 324-325

16.         . McClintock and Strong, CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL LITERATURE, Volume I, pp. 271-272; and Maccabees, Chapter 4

17.         Daniel 11:29-31

THE MACCABEAN REVOLT

18.         Josephus, ANTIQUITIES OF THE JEWS, The Jewish Publication Society of America, New York, 1911, Book XII, Chapter VI, Part 2

19.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, p. 205

20.         Opt. Cid., Herford, pp. 64-65

21.         Nicholas de Large (ed.), THE ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE, Aurum Press, London, 1997; Paul E. Sigmund, NICHOLAS DE CUSA (LARGE) and MEDIEVAL POLITICAL THOUGHT, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1963

22.         John Ma, “Re-Examining the Hanukkah,” The Marginalia Review of the Book, July 9, 2013

THE SANHEDRIN

23.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, p. 203

24.         Numbers 11:16

25.         Malachi 2:7

26.         Deuteronomy 18: 1-7; Ezekiel  44:23; Deuteronomy 33:10

LAY TEACHERS REJECT PREMISE

27.         The reference for this section is the Torah, The Jewish Publication Society of America, Philadelphia, PA, 1962

SO, WHAT WAS GOD’S WAY, ANYWAY?

28.         Nehemiah 8:8

ENTER THE PHARISEES

29.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, p 209

30.         Proverbs 14:12; 16:25

THE SADDUCEES

31.         Deuteronomy 17:8-13

32.         Opt. Cid., Josephus, XIII, x, 6

33.         Paul Maier, Josephus, The Essential Writings, 1988

34.         Abraham Geiger, JUDAISM AND ITS HISTORY, University Press of America, 1985

THE ROLE OF THE TEMPLE

35.         Sadducees (Wikipedia)

36.         Karl Gutzkow, “The Sadducees in Amsterdam,” 1834

37.         Pesher Nahum, DEAD SEA SCROLL 4Q169

38.         Mishnah, Midrash (Wikipedia)

39.         Acts of the Apostles

LAY TEACHERS JUSTIFY THE PEOPLE’S ERROR

40.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, p 195

41.         Torah

42.         Opt. cid., Hereford, p 66

43.         Isaiah 58:1

44.         Jeremiah 23:21-22

45.         Isaiah 30:10

PAGAN CUSTOMS CALLED JEWISH!

46.         Jeremiah 10:2

47.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, p 211

48.         Christmas is not of a biblical nature at all.  The festival had its origin hundreds of years before the birth of Christianity.  “Christmas” customs were being observed by almost the whole Western world centuries before Christ.  In any case, hardly any early church scholars believed that Christ was born on December 25.  In fact, there were all types of guesses by the men of the fourth and fifth centuries, and almost everyone disagreed (see Smith’s “Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Volume I, p 358).

The truth seems to be that no one knew or knows when Christ was born.  The Gospels say nothing as to the day of his birth.  It would seem that if God had wanted Christians to celebrate His birthday there would be little disputing the date.

Only two instances of birthday celebrations are in the Bible, and they refer to evil men.  See Genesis 40:20 where Pharaoh’s birthday was observed, and then in Matthews 14:6-10, where Herod’s  birthday party is described along with the beheading of John the Baptist.  Only heathens celebrated their birthdays in Bible times.

Easter, incidentally, is an English word, which has a common origin with the German word “Ostern” ( Eostur, Eastur, Ostara, Ostar).  To the Norsemen this meant the season of the rising or growing sun, the season of new birth.

The word was used by ancient Europeans to designate the “Feast of New Life” in the spring, which is to say, the word long antedates Christianity.  Originally, it referred to the celebration of the spring sun, which had its birth in the East and brought new life upon the earth.  Easter, then, antecedes Christianity by centuries. 

Practically all of the major Christian holy days evolved from pagan rituals, or were founded upon pagan myths including the virgin birth of Jesus, three gods in one person (Father, Son and Holy Ghost in Christianity), as well as the death and resurrection.  This is intriguing because the social consciousness of Christians, despite the evidence to the contrary, is that these theological concepts were unique to Christianity when clearly they were and are not (see Joseph Campbell’s “Myths to Live By,” 1972; “The Mythic Image,” 1974, “The Hero of a Thousand Faces,” (1949).

49.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, p 211

50.         Deuteronomy 31:24

ORAL LAW GAINS ACCEPTANCE

51.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, p 211

52.         Ibid, p 209

53.         Acts of the Apostles 23:8

NEW LAWS OF THE PHARISEES

54.         Opt. Cid., Hereford, p 71

55.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, p 229

56.         The Talmud, Temurah, 156, Yebamoth 72b, 1963

57.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, p 212

58.         Nehemiah 8:8

59.         Malachi 3:6

60.         Jose the Permitter, THE JEWISH QUARTERLY, 1916

61.         Opt. Cid., Talmud, Abodah Zarah 37b

62.         Opt. Cid., Lauterbach, 219

63.         Ibid, p 218

64.         Mark 7:7

THE PROSBUL OF HILLEL

65.         Deuteronomy 15:2

66.         Werblowsky and Wigoder, THE ENCLYCOPEDIA OF THE JEWISH OF THE JEWISH RELIGION, “Prosbul,” p 312 (1955)

67.         Deuteronomy 15:9

68.         Mathew 15:6

69.         Proverbs 3:5

70.         Proverbs 14:12; 16:25

A PRIORI

71.         Deuteronomy 15:9

72.         Eric Hoffer, FIRST THINGS, LAST THINGS, Harper & Row, New York, 1965, p 43

73.         NIETZSCHE by Walter Kaufmann, A Vintage Giant, New York, 1950, p 43

74.         Deuteronomy 5:29

75.         Jeremiah 17:9

76.         Joshua 24:19

77.         Deuteronomy 30:6

78.         Romans 10:2

79.         THE TALMUD

80.         H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, FROM MAX WEBER: ESSAYS IN SOCIOLOGY, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1948, pp 269-270

THE ROMAN EMPIRE IN THE BREACH

81.         Anthony Everitt, THE RISE OF ROME, Random House, New York, 2012

82.         Ibid, Everitt, Time Line, pp 405-416r 

83.         Paul Rhodes Eddy and Gregory A. Boyd, THE JESUS LEGEND: A CASE OF THE HISTORICAL RELIABILITY OF THE SYNOPTIC JESUS, Tradition Baker Academic, ISBN 0-8010-3114-1 page 127 states that it is now "firmly established" that there is non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus).

84.         THE RISE & FALL of the ROMAN EMPIRE, National Geographic, 2014, pp 57-63

85.         Sarah Ruden, PAUL AMONG THE PEOPLE: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time, Pantheon Books, New York, 2010, Preface: Who Was Paul?

86.         Ibid, Preface

87.         Acts of the Apostles 9:4

88.         Opt. Cid., Ruden, xviii-xix

89.         Opt. Cid., Everitt, Preface

90.         National Geographic, THE RISE & FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, Washington, D.C., 2014, pp 117-120

91.         Ibid, pp 109-115

92.         Ibid, pp 96-101

93.         David P. Womersley, History of the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, Penguin Classics, New York, 1994, p 31

94.         Edward Gibbon, “General Observations on the Fall of the Roman Empire of the West, Internet, accessed February 12, 2007.

95.         Ibid

96.         Opt. Cid, Womersley, pp 515, 518, 577

97.         D. M. Low, History of the Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, abridged version, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York, 1960, Chapter XVI, p. 516 (quotation).  pp 203-205. 

Gibbon saw Christianity as a contributor to the fall and to stability of the empire:

"As the happiness of a future life is the great object of religion, we may hear without surprise or scandal that the introduction, or at least the abuse of Christianity, had some influence on the decline and fall of the Roman Empire.

The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister: a large portion of public and private wealth was consecrated to the specious demands of charity and devotion; and the soldiers' pay was lavished on the useless multitudes of both sexes who could only plead the merits of abstinence and chastity.

Faith, zeal, curiosity, and more earthly passions of malice and ambition, kindled the flame of theological discord; the church, and even the state, were distracted by religious factions, whose conflicts were sometimes bloody and always implacable; the attention of the emperors was diverted from camps to synods; the Roman world was oppressed by a new species of tyranny; and the persecuted sects became the secret enemies of their country.

Yet party-spirit, however pernicious or absurd, is a principle of union as well as of dissension. The bishops, from eighteen hundred pulpits, inculcated the duty of passive

obedience to a lawful and orthodox sovereign; their frequent assemblies and perpetual correspondence maintained the communion of distant churches; and the benevolent temper of the Gospel was strengthened, though confirmed, by the spiritual alliance of the Catholics.

The sacred indolence of the monks was devoutly embraced by a servile and effeminate age; but if superstition had not afforded a decent retreat, the same vices would have tempted the unworthy Romans to desert, from baser motives, the standard of the republic.

Religious precepts are easily obeyed which indulge and sanctify the natural inclinations of their votaries; but the pure and genuine influence of Christianity may be traced in its beneficial, though imperfect, effects on the barbarian proselytes of the North. If the decline of the Roman Empire was hastened by the conversion of Constantine, his victorious religion broke the violence of the fall, and mollified the ferocious temper of the conquerors." (chap. 39)

98.         Opt. Cid., General Observations, p 876

99.         Ibid