At 11:54 PM 9/27/99 -0400, Richard Landes wrote:
>At 01:58 PM 9/27/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>In a message dated 99-09-27 10:59:21 EDT, you write:
>>
>><< but one must also ask why the ruling invaders adopted xnty. >>
>>
>>Isn't it possible that christianity was adopted by the soldiers along the
>>frontier in a confraternal way, i.e. a burial society (guaranteed funeral
and
>>burial with an added stipulation that your widow and children will be cared
>>for)? In which case as the Germans took over the task of manning the Roman
>>army they adopted christianity.
>
>>There is much in christianity from its inception that is ideally given to
>>such a social function. Its rapid spread across the Mediterranean bears
this
>>out (amongst merchants and seafarers who would have dearly paid to have the
>>needs of their families addressed). I also think there is ample evidence
>>that large segments of the Roman army were already christianized by the
>>beginning of the 4th century.
>>
>>mark
>
>what does "turn the other cheek" mean to a soldier? i know we take things
>for granted because they happened, but i think we're better historians if
>we ask naive questions. (as peter brown once wrote: the patina of the
>obvious that encrusts human actions, this is the greatest enemy of the
>historian." (or something like that). i find it weird to read a statement
>like the above, as if there were some kind of ideal "fit" btwn xnty and the
>army. why not mithraism?
>
>richard
>
>
Reminds me of a rather popular slogan of World War 2, to the effect that
"there are no atheists in foxholes". Sez who?
Gordon Fisher [log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|