this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

History

23101 readers
63 users here now

Welcome to c/history! History is written by the posters.

c/history is a comm for discussion about history so feel free to talk and post about articles, books, videos, events or historical figures you find interesting

Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember...we're all comrades here.

Do not post reactionary or imperialist takes (criticism is fine, but don't pull nonsense from whatever chud author is out there).

When sharing historical facts, remember to provide credible souces or citations.

Historical Disinformation will be removed

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

You want me to use BCE and CE instead of BC and AD because its too 'religious'

But what event triggers this "common era"?

:lea-smug: :very-smart:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

thus taking the religion of widows, slaves, and freedmen and making it the religion of kings.

Perhaps that's part of the materialist answer right there. It was the religion of the poor and destitute and slaves, so the some elites coopeted it to maintain/increase their political hegemony. If Christianity was a social movement, then the Roman elites taking over and neutering it's revolutionary character makes a lot of sense.

I'm thinking back to a great book I read, not Marxist as far I know, called "The Germanization of Christianity." The first third of the book is about the Romanization of Christianity, turning a religion of desert monks and beggars into a bureaucracy.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

To be sure, it became more of a political movement after it was targeted by Emperors such as Domitian. Not immediately afterwards, but it became a place where, if you were on the outs with the Emperor, you could still seek some level of political power. By the time it was coopted by Constantine, it's social revolutionary characteristics were already well and gone, and it was suffering its own political schisms. Still an incredibly potent political force within the empire, but not one of social revolution, imo.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

A professor at Uni once said that in the first century of Christianity, deathbed conversions were very popular among the wealthy elite because a conversion cleansed you of past sins. I thought it was a fun fact at the time, but it's such an elitist mindset to think you can cheat your taxes to get into heaven.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

I also had a professor mention that, but he couched it as, it was very popular among early Christians to claim that 'so-and-so' converted on their death bed, but we don't find evidence of conversion (i.e. christian ornaments in graves) among the elites until much later.

It's very much a history as opposed to archaeology matter.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Luckily archaeology is becoming more and more necessary for modern historians to acknowledge.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

They try their hardest not to. That being said, it is likely that Constantine was baptized on his deathbed, but we also don't know for sure, but it is clear from what writings we have that he had that elite understanding of sin that you were talking about, so it could have been popularized by that point.

Hard to say.