The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

For the week of December 12th - December 18th, we are reading approximately the next 28 pages of Byzantium by Judith Herrin.

The second week's reading assignment is:

Week Two - December 12th through December 18th -> PART ONE - Chapters THREE and FOUR p. 22 - 50
THREE - "The East Roman Empire" and FOUR - "Greek Orthodoxy".

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was being kicked off on December 5th. We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle. This thread will be opened up on December 12th or late December 11th.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Welcome,

~Bentley


TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Judith Herrin

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

If you need help - here is a thread called the Mechanics of the Board which will show you how:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/5...

SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW:

Chapter Three - The East Roman Empire

The author begins the story of The East Roman Empire. Herrin further elaborates that 'this eastern half of the Roman Empire is Byzantium. That name was not given to it until the sixteenth century, when humanist scholars tried to find a way of identifying what remained after the collapse of Old Rome in the West. Although they coined a term which has been used ever since, it is important to remember that the inhabitants of the empire called themselves Romans (in Green, Romaioi), and saw themselves as such.

Additionally, "bread and circuses" are introduced by Herrin. This is a shorthand for the principle of providing basic food supplies plus public entertainment free to all the inhabitants of the eastern capital.

Constantine stressed that they were Romans but also stressed the fact that they were descendants of Greeks and Romans.

Chapter Four - Greek Orthodoxy

At the beginning of this chapter, Herrin asks the question why did the adherents of Apollo, Iris, Zoroaster, Mithras and other established gods adopt Christianity. She spends this chapter trying to answer just that.

The author also tried to distinguish between the differences between eastern and western Church practice and their refusal to accept subordination to the bishops of Rome.

The Emperors fought and died like Greeks and Romans, but in the end they waned to be buried and prayed for as Christians.

Folks, I will fill in message 2 when I get back from a meeting; but for those of you who want to get started - please jump in.

I think in chapter 3 we have a colossal moment: to break up the Roman empire into two. It seems sensible in the fact Rome had a lot of enemies over a large territory. I'd like to be a fly on the wall when Diocletian began to set up the two empires and who should rule over which one, etc.

I must say the religious disputes in Chapter 4 didn't make a lot of sense to me. I was never able to decide if I was a heretic or not.

I loved the part about the religious disputes! I was raised very strongly Norwegian Lutheran (that's almost a separate religion, you know) and so I had the background for that part. It was fascinating.

But I didn't know all that about Arius and how his beliefs, when accepted, spread in the East and to the Goths and the Germanic tribes and were fiercely fought by the Western Roman Christians and Emperors. These "Arians" were finally pressured into adopting the Western views but it took awhile longer for the rural pagan tribes to convert.

There's a lot of material in that chapter - it covers about 1000 years.

Bryan wrote: "I think in chapter 3 we have a colossal moment: to break up the Roman empire into two. It seems sensible in the fact Rome had a lot of enemies over a large territory. I'd like to be a fly on the ..."

I often wonder about the political struggles that may have also necessitated the divisions; the differences in approach, life style and beliefs may have provided more of the break between the two than we realize. Obviously personalities played a large part in all decisions.

Great question Bryan.

Patricrk wrote: "I must say the religious disputes in Chapter 4 didn't make a lot of sense to me. I was never able to decide if I was a heretic or not."

Patricrk, you make me laugh. Most of the time when I read about the religious disputes, I just shake my head as well. But as far as you being a heretic or not; I am sure that the jury is still out (smile).

Becky wrote: "I loved the part about the religious disputes! I was raised very strongly Norwegian Lutheran (that's almost a separate religion, you know) and so I had the background for that part. It was fascin..."

Becky, Herrin covers a lot of ground. Very true and in one chapter!
It makes sense in some respects what happened in the Fourth Crusades; things were not as they seemed. Love the part about the fact that you were raised Norwegian Lutheran and that's almost a separate religion. Love to know more about that and why.

Oh, old time Norwegian Lutheran is just fairly strict and very conservative (although pretty liberal politically). There was lots of church history taught in our religion classes. But what I really meant was that the Norwegian-Americans were so insular - keeping their old ways and language and so on generations after they moved to the US. In fact, I'm having lutefisk and lefse etc. for Christmas - as is traditional.

Well I think that is terrific. At least remembering some of your cultural influences but at the same time embracing the new.

One question that comes to mind for me (and be advised that my concentration in my graduate studies is Islam, especially its formative first 100-years) is whether there was an inherent instability in the Western portion of Rome versus the Eastern portion that led to Diocletian's division of the empire? I think Herrin makes a good point about the necessity, given the size of the empire and the desire to institute a stable hand-over of power, in creating the division and the Senior-Junior emperor relationship.

However, I'm inclined to think in the overarching terms of Jared Diamond's popular Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies abot this schism and the Western empire's quicker faltering. What I mean by this is that there seems to have been no natural 'buffer' between the Western empire and its main advisaries to the north (Germanic invasions) whereas the Syrian desert (and later) the Anatolian mountains formed a space where the Byzantines and Sassanids were able to set up buffer states, taking various Arab tribes into their patronage. Thus, like Diamond asserts for world history on a macro-level, here a geographic feature might contribute to Byzantium's longevity.

Also, there is something to be said about the fact that, unlike Anatolia itself, 1000+ years of Greco-Roman heritage did not lead to the widespread adoption of Greek in greater Syria. At the eve of Islam most commoners were still speaking Aramaic, Syriac and Arabic, showing that although nominally a part of the empire, this area was more a buffer between Persia and 'Rome.'

Just a theory, but something worth thinking/debating, as we read these sections.

The distance factor (geography again) appears, in Herrin's argument, to have influenced the ecumenical councils, with the Bishop of Rome representing all the west. This theme is worth discussing as well. Did it lead to schism? Obviously Rome was able to consolidate its religious authority in the West, whereas Constantinople continually fought heresies on its fringes.

Benjamin, maybe you are not aware of our citation rules - you must add the book cover, the author's photo and always the author's link (it only takes seconds):

by Jared Diamond

We had a very lively spotlighted book discussion on that book awhile ago; the threads are still on the site. You make a good point about geography maybe being one factor.

Are you asking if distance and geography lead to a schism. I guess anything is possible. Maybe the Eastern Church just was not friendly or familiar with the Bishops of Rome and there was mistrust because of that and other reasons. But then again, that did not stop the spread and the influence elsewhere. Maybe the geographical isolation and its past, predisposed certain beliefs that the Roman bishops had discarded and/or replaced with new ones. And the East just could not let go of these beliefs. Even in Europe there were splits when staunch believers could not adopt to change or mend their differences. But your post is truly an excellent one. Please remember the citation rule that our group has. You do not have to repeatedly cite the book and the author under discussion on these threads - only any other book or author.

Just curious do you practice Islam as well or are you are just studying it. A fascinating study I am certain.

Just studying it, not practicing. I will be sure to cite with the cover of the book. Apologies.

No problem at all; your posts are extremely good; please keep them up and add your thoughts as we go along.

You must love your coursework; it must be fascinating.

Benjamin wrote: "One question that comes to mind for me (and be advised that my concentration in my graduate studies is Islam, especially its formative first 100-years) is whether there was an inherent instability ..."

besides geography the size of the cities was important, all the big cities were in the East except for Rome. Urban areas in the west, except for Rome, would have been classifed no higher than a large village in the East. Most of the major talent would have been in the East.

Interesting Patricrk. It is hard to believe that aside from Rome that the only big cities were in the East.

Bentley wrote: "Interesting Patricrk. It is hard to believe that aside from Rome that the only big cities were in the East."

http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/ha...

POPULATION OF CITIES:
In the Principate, the five leading cities were ROME, ALEXANDRIA, ANTIOCH, EPHESUS, and CARTHAGE. In 100 A.D., Rome boasted a population of over 1,000,000 permanent residents; Alexandria was perhaps between 500,000 and 750,000. The cities of Antioch, Ephesus and Carthage had populations on the order of 350,000 to 500,000 residents. There were many more cities in the eastern provinces boasting large populations. In the province of Asia (western Anatolia), Ephesus (500,000) competed for title of “first city of Asia” with SMYRNA (250,000) and PERGAMUM (150,000). Middle sized cities in Italy, Africa, and the Roman East ranged between 50,000 and 100,000, perhaps twice the size of their counterparts in the northern provinces. Most cities in the Roman world numbered between 10,000 and 25,000 residents, although many citizens resided in the surrounding countryside (Latin, pagus; Greek ????) rather than in the civic center.

Remember it probably took 10 peasants in the fields to support one person in the city. For the east and Rome some of those peasants were in the grain fields of Eygpt and North Africa from which grain could be imported.

Thank you for the source; still hard to imagine that civilization had not spread that much and that the bulk of the people were in the East.

Good citation.

Patricrk . . . so are you advocating that the Byzantine empire more or less cut its losses, preserving the most important (ie most populated/cultured) portion of the Empire, along with the means to feed that portion (Nile / N. Africa) and then, like Herrin says, even played off some of the encroaching bands of Germans toward the Western Empire?

I know you haven't specifically stated this, or made any other explicit argument, but have really provided very good and relevant data on the population centers.

I ask this because I've come to approach the idea of 'elite history' with some skepticism and any attempt to say that the Empire showed a policy predilection toward preserving its populated side (at the expense of the western half) must assume some elite action in that direction, some probably misplaced back-reading into history that would attribute to the Emperors a foreknowledge that they would lose the Western portion (or would, at least, have to choose between the two). Now, notably, one could argue that Constantine's founding of a New Rome is worth considering in this context, although Herrin attributes this more to a re-centralizing, especially with regard to the major perceived threat of the Sassanian/Persian 'other eye' of the known world.

On the other hand, your emphasis on the population centers fits in well as another data point for the geographical hypothesis, in that the empire was molded in this direction by the center of gravity that these cities became (rather than any concious choices made by elites). It is interesting to note that the Islamic conquests immediately gravitated toward Syria, drawn that way, as if both the Byzantines and the newly emerging Arab polity felt the tug of those big metropolitan centers.

Becky wrote: "I loved the part about the religious disputes! I was raised very strongly Norwegian Lutheran (that's almost a separate religion, you know) and so I had the background for that part. It was fascin..."
Becky, Where I live, half-way between Chicago and Milwaukee, there is a Lutheran Church on every corner.
My congregation was founded by Swedes from Andersonville in Chicago, which just had its annual St. Lucia parade. Most of the religious disputes in the Lutheran church today are not discussed in our congregation. I doubt if people paid any more attention 1500 years, before the printing press.

Patricrk wrote: "I must say the religious disputes in Chapter 4 didn't make a lot of sense to me. I was never able to decide if I was a heretic or not."

LOL ! I kept asking myself: what did all this stuff mean to the average citizen? One thing that came to mind was the question: Which church will get me to Heaven ? Many would prefer a church which demands as little as possible, but gives the maximum benefit.
People had little free time to ponder these questions.

Becky wrote: "Oh, old time Norwegian Lutheran is just fairly strict and very conservative (although pretty liberal politically). There was lots of church history taught in our religion classes. But what I rea..."

I once had lutefish at a local swedish restaurant.
Now I understand the rumor that they are used as shingles in Denmark.

Bentley wrote: "SUMMARY AND OVERVIEW:

Chapter Three - The East Roman Empire

The author begins the story of The East Roman Empire. Herrin further elaborates that 'this eastern half of the Roman Empire is Byzanti..."

Herrin described Byzantine Christianity on the last page of Ch. 4 as: "vigorous in its development of Christian definitions that allowed for a variety of different experiences, male and female, solitary and ceremonial. It was through its religion that it conducted its great arguments." Sounds good, but Herrin still needs to explain why Byzantine influence has lasted 1700 years.

Benjamin wrote: "Patricrk . . . so are you advocating that the Byzantine empire more or less cut its losses, preserving the most important (ie most populated/cultured) portion of the Empire, along with the means to..."

byzantine
a. Of, relating to, or characterized by intrigue; scheming or devious: "a fine hand for Byzantine deals and cozy arrangements" (New York).

That would have been a very byzantine thing to do wouldn't it! Once the Empire killed off the old Roman Republic virtues, I think it was highly likely that the western half of the empire was deliberately abandoned to concentrate on saving the richer more cultured part.

I am not sure that I agree that Rome abandoned Rome.

I was fascinated by the fact that until the 6th century both Latin and Greek were both employed in the Byzantium Empire.

It was Latin in the West and Greek in the East. Herrin stated that most well educated men were bilinqual. Now I wonder what that meant in terms of numbers.

Did the two different languages contribute to the schism between the two churches and between New and Old Rome. That had to create some difficulties I would think.

What did folks think about Diocletian and his plan for a tetrachy versus a monarchy?

What from your viewpoint were the pros and cons of such a division?

What did Herrin mean when she stated: "In the East, the Romans had to contain Persia, always considered the 'other eye' of the face of the known world." What did that mean?

And then the way the poor Germans were described:

"In the north and west, Germanic tribes were ever anxious to invade and occupy Roman territory. With no written language, no coinage, no law or recognizable system of government, they were traditionally considered unsophisticated barbarians. "

What did folks think about the "bread and circuses"?

And gee when was the last time our government gave us a bronze token to get free bread just because we lived in our country. What a distribution center that must have been.

Bentley, the Tetrarchy was doomed from the start as it did not take into account how the sons of Emperors would react to what they would see as their natural inheritance being usurped.

I am surprised that Diocletain wasn't aware of this and I wonder why he specifically excluded Constantine from being junior Emperor to his father, Chlorus, in the west. I suspect personal reasons related to the young Constantine's period in the east at Diocletian's court and on campaign with Galerius against the Persians.

Isn't it strange too that Persia, modern day Iran mostly, is still the arch enemy of the west, as it was in much of Antiquity?

Laurence, you raise some great points. Persia (modern day Iran) was according to Herrin - the "other eye" on the face of the world. I am still trying to figure out that "abstruse anecdote" of hers. And isn't it true (as you have so accurately pointed out for us) - that things have never changed with them; they still are angry and warlike frankly toward the West even until the present day. Of course, they have never liked their neighbors much either (smile).

A long time to hold a grudge; maybe they will never unclench their fists. There was a brief reprieve with the Shah; but then the West seemed to not be satisfied with that arrangement either. Are the two so fundamentally different that there will always be mistrust and resentment as history has shown? Maybe folks should just say why bother with them. With this kind of history, maybe these attitudes are part of their nationalistic DNA.

What was amazing in terms of Diocletain is that he got a great life out of it and a long and peaceful retirement in his palace tending his gardens. This arrangement served him well. Obviously he saw in Constantine what made Constantine do the things he did: an unrestful soul who would not get along with the others and/or complement others aside from himself. But this is all personal conjecture on my part.

It would have been a dream if it had lasted. And maybe if the people had selected these co leaders like a president and a vice president and maybe if these two had no allusions that they would be in office/power forever; the future arrangements may have worked out better.

That was the rub with most of these emperors - they wanted all of the trappings as if they were gods here on earth versus mortal men. There was always somebody wanting to unseat them or take away their power and/or kingdom.

What can you tell us about young Constantine's period in the east at Diocletian's court and/or on campaign with Galerius against the Persians which MAY possibly have made Diocletain wary of him and/or that kind of arrangement you described?

Remember a lot of us do not have a background in Byzantine history and are trying to fill in the blanks.

I found the parts about Arius interesting and how the Council of Nicaea rejected him. It comes down to philosophy and theology on the one hand, but much more on the other: how people see one's own religion, very personal. The power of ideas, eh?

I found this site to be the most readable:

Defining the heresy named after him.

His teaching was that the Father alone is God. The Logos or Son, Arius maintained, was a created being - formed out of nothing by the Father before the universe was made. He therefore said that there was a time when the Son had not existed.

According to Arius, the Son was the first and greatest of all that God had created; He was closer to God than all others, and the rest of creation related to God through the Son (for instance, God had created everything else through Christ).

By developing this arch-heresy, Arius thought he was defending the fundamental truth that there is only one God - monotheism. A belief in the full deity of Christ, he supposed, would mean the Father and Son were two separate Gods, which contradicted the many statements of the Bible about God’s oneness.

Arius was also unhappy with Origen’s idea that there could be ‘degrees’ or ‘grades’ of divinity, with the Son being slightly less divine than the Father (this became known after the Nicene Council as semi-Arianism).

Arius argued that since the Father is clearly God, it follows that the Son could not be God - so He must be a created being.
(Source: http://www.tecmalta.org/tft340.htm)

Other:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01718...

Yes, Bryan I was getting to this part which was one of my favorites actually because I have always wondered where some of these ideas and notions came from (the twenty disciplinary laws or canons). I can see now after reading a book about Byzantium no less - that finally I stumbled across the answer.

These dictums were not God's but came from Constantine's meeting held at Nicaea with 318 fathers of the church. The first Ecumenical Council (spelled oecumenical).

You know the old catechism - the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Of course we also learned that the son was god here on earth and of course it gets more confusing as it goes along (smile).

But the canons of the church came from this period. And to tell you the truth, I see many of Arias's ideas stirred in the mix somewhat.

Thank you for bringing up what I considered one of the most enlightening chapters.

Indeed. I can appreciate in a much better light the important influence of Byzantium had in religious history.

I didn't know where to put this, but apparently Ron Paul loves the Byzantium empire, too:

The recent Washington Post article talks about Paul's economic philosophy (Austrian school) that opposes the Keynes school:

There aren’t many places on the planet that have adhered to Austrian economics. Paul says it has been tried to some extent in Switzerland and Hong Kong. And also Byzantium.

“If you go back to the Byzant, the Byzantine Empire, I think they had like a thousand years that they just used gold coins,” he says. “The Roman empire was stable for a long time, and then they fought too many foreign wars, and they inflated by diluting the metals and clipping coins. They went off sound money.”
(Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politic...)

Yes, and who would have thought we would be getting some of those questions answered in this book about the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople? (not Rome!)

Hello Laurence,

Thank you so much for your information which I have copied and pasted here. Unfortunately, you did not follow our rules for citations.

Laurence stated:

on page 9 it states that the proclamation of the Tetrarchy took place in 293. Further down the page it states that Constantine was summoned to Diocletian's court soon after. He remained at the court until early 305.

During that period Galerius, Diocletian's second in command, conducted two campaigns against the Persians. One he lost. The second was in 296 and Diocleatian accompanied him into the field. They won. It is likely that a young Constantine learned war craft on these campaigns. There is no detail in any document of what occurred, but one possible explanation of Diocletian not naming Constantine as his father's successor in 305 is that Constantine may have displayed support or sympathy for Christianity while Diocletian was persecuting Christians in the last great persecution over the previous few years. Barnes has a lot on this period for those who are interested.

Here is the book which is Constantine and Eusebius:

by Timothy D. Barnes (no author photo available)

ISBN 9780674165311

Also we do not provide links to citations that way (the way you posted) because that does not utilize and take advantage of the goodreads software which is so powerful that it populates every time you cite a book and author properly across our site and goodreads site identifying where that book or author is being discussed. For example one of the many features you can see on each thread, if you look there appears to the right all of the books and authors cited on the thread and where you can find further discussions about these books and authors. It is very powerful and we are consistent about taking advantage of this. This is in addition to the cross pollination across goodreads, etc.

If you are unsure how to do these citations which take 10 seconds at the most once you get the hang of it and I know you will pick this up fast - then look at this thread called the Mechanics of the Board and it will help you out.

Here is the link to the Help Desk folder and the specific thread:

http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/2...

Here is the synopsis of the book Laurence recommended and cited from:

This study of the Roman Empire in the age of Constantine offers a thoroughly new assessment of the part Christianity played in the Roman world of the third and fourth centuries.

Mr. Barnes gives the fullest available narrative history of the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine. He analyzes Constantine's rise to power and his government, demonstrating how Constantine's sincere adherence to Christianity advanced his political aims. He explores the whole range of Eusebius' writings, especially those composed before Constantine became emperor, and shows that many attitudes usually deemed typical of the "Constantinian revolution" were prevalent before the new Christian empire came into existence. This authoritative political and cultural history of the age of Constantine will prove essential to students and historians of the ancient world.

Laurence, I guess that if Diocletian persecuted Christians; then a Christian sympathizer is not a person he would want for a successor and that is an hypothesis for why he was passed over.

Thank you so much for your book suggestion, quotes and for once again filling in the blanks.

Lay on, Macduff (Marjorie), and damn'd be him that first cries, 'Hold, enough!' On to Chapter Four (smile)

Am glad that you are making good progress.

Thank you for the add.

Bryan wrote: "I didn't know where to put this, but apparently Ron Paul loves the Byzantium empire, too:

The recent Washington Post article talks about Paul's economic philosophy (Austrian school) that opposes t..."

Oh my goodness, maybe we should invite Ron Paul to our Byzantium discussion. Who knew (smile)?

Bentley wrote: "What did folks think about the "bread and circuses"?

Everyone should google the CORN DOLE and notice it refers back to the days of Julius caesar and earlier.

Thank you Jim; I was researching your comment and how early this took place; I did find at Oxyrhynchus a corn dole (free food in other words) in 269-71 but only to 3600 citizens. Also Rome to freeborn adult male citizens.

I also found this: (source: wikipedia)

In 58 BC, the patrician-turned-plebeian Clodius Pulcher advanced a popularist political agenda in his bid for the tribunate by offering free grain for the poor. The expense was considerable, and Julius Caesar later reformed the dole. Augustus considered abolishing it altogether, but instead reduced the number of the recipients to 200,000, and perhaps later 150,000.

What do you think about this process; the Constantinople one seemed much more all encompassing. Today folks can apply for food stamps who are in need of assistance and during the depression there were bread lines and there are soup kitchens also today but I do not think that in the days of Constantinople there was any stigma attached to this. What are your thoughts Jim and others?

It is pretty amazing through modern eyes about the bread. I was surprised to hear about this myself and I didn't sense any stigma. Could be a cultural thing? They developed a sense of community or the state felt it was a paternal one. You hear about the absolute monarchs of Europe who felt they were paternal, but really didn't do much like that unless it was really, really bad.

Yes, that is the sense that I got too Bryan. It was a sense of community and sharing. I remember even my grandmother and her sisters etc. would share whatever they had not only with other family members but even with neighbors. You do not see that being done today. No empathy even with the family. There were huge family gatherings and even folks from the neighborhood; everybody seems to keep to themselves nowadays and hides in their house with their core family members. And those who do need help are ridiculed. I did see a bright spot which was very uplifting - Kmart and other stores which have layaway plans are seeing countless anonymous good samaritans coming in this year and paying for those less fortunate and paying off bunches of layaways for the folks who are trying to pay for Christmas. That was nice to hear about. There are folks out there who do have consciences. Yes, it is sad that so many of the absolute monarchs in Europe talked a good ballgame but delivered nothing. I think it appears anyways that Constantinople and other places had the feeling that we were all in this together; you are part of what makes us strong. Here especially I have seen this in the town meetings on healthcare where in my community a poor woman disabled in a wheelchair was castigated and insulted and told to shut up by busloads of paid demonstrators who were crowding the hall. Disgusting really. It was so bad it made national television and the scene was played out over and over again across the US. So it is not just the monarchs; it is the take care of yourself buddy, because that is what I have to do mentality - in other words - so why should you get anything special - what about me. Sad.

And we dare to comment about human rights in other countries. In some ways, culturally Constantinople was nobler.

A non-sectarian, non-theological message in a Christmas card shed light on the practical value of the theology of Chapter Four: "Thank you for becoming a man, closed in by a body that got tired and worn like me". IOW, if Jesus was just God in a man-suit, would he know what we are going through?

Interesting Scott - another Hallmark special (smile)

Bentley wrote: "Yes, that is the sense that I got too Bryan. It was a sense of community and sharing. I remember even my grandmother and her sisters etc. would share whatever they had not only with other family..."

I agree that people feel differently today. Part of it is one's own experience. For a class on aging, I interviewed a man who had gone through the Great Depression. Throughout his life, he helped out neighbors in need. He said that this was just the way he was brought up. But when I talk to someone who grew up in the 1970's or 1980's, they will likely say that anyone who can't find a job is lazy or stupid.

Yes, a real swing isn't it. Who or what is to blame? Should we blame politicians, the church, the parents, the Republicans or Democrats (smile), what has changed about America and what is fundamentally different? Why in Constantinople was feeding the citizens not a stigma and something that was expected as the right thing to do. In fact, in Constantinople they also provided free public entertainment - bread and circus.

In Chapter 4 Herrin talks about the Council of Nicaea.

I visited Iznik, site of the ancient of Nicaea, not far from the Sea of Marmara in Turkey. It was a long day trip from Istanbul, first by ferry and then by taxi. That was ten years ago. It was a sleepy and dusty town on the shore of a lake.

The church, another Hagia Sophia, where the council took place is still there, about 6 foot below ground level and very well preserved, if smaller than you might imagine. Wikipedia has a lot on Iznik and images of the church and the old city walls which I walked through.

To things struck me about Herrin's Ch 4:

1. The success of the anti Arians. The debate at the Council of Nicaea was, to me, a proxy for the debate about whether Christ was a man, but a prophet, or a God. There was a long tradition of turning men into Gods in the Roman Empire. The idea that Christ's divine nature was debated and decided on at a council was a revelation for me when I first read about it.

2. The belief in what we would term magic. Early Christians believed in the power of statues and dust. I can understand in a pre-scientific age that people would clutch at any explanation that seemed logical, but the continued belief in the miracles and magic of Christianity to this day, rather than the message behind it,also fascinates me greatly.

I must say this is a wonderful thread!