Podcasts about eastern empire

On this episode of Two Mikes, Dr. Michael Scheuer and Col. Mike speak with Chad Stewart, author of the Britfield series—a bold, America First alternative to the indoctrination plaguing children's media. Stewart discusses the fourth book, Britfield in the Eastern Empire, which tackles real-world issues like economic collapse and AI threats through the eyes of young protagonists. He also announces a $50 million feature film now in pre-production, aiming to reclaim youth culture from woke propaganda and satanic symbolism with truth, values, and powerful storytelling.Follow Maverick Broadcasting Network on Pickax to catch the full lineup of shows and breaking news: https://pickax.com/maverickbroadcasting Protect your financial future with precious metals! Get your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from My Gold Guy today and take control of your financial destiny. https://mygoldguy.com/mbnIndulge in the finest quality with Prepper All-Naturals – sous vide, freeze-dried, and ready to savor today or in a decade. Order now using code MBN for a 25% discount. https://prepperbeef.com/freedomfirstbeefBe ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code MBN for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/mbn.Unleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Supermassive Black Coffee. Order now using code MBN and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://supermassiveblackcoffee.com

Author CR Stewart shares his latest book in his Britfield series: Britfield & the Eastern Empire, Book IV. The series is based on family, friendship, loyalty, and courage that is written for pre-teens, Y/A, and readers of all ages.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I've caught up on The Remarried Empress and wow ... I have no words. Actually, I have a lot of words! Listen to this podcast episode for a breakdown of what's going on in the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire between episodes 156-181 of The Remarried Empress by Alphatart & Sumpul! https://www.patreon.com/girlwonder Connect with Girl Wonder:  My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/girlwonder My YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTk-JbxxAnf5TKyeCchNRHA twitter.com/girlwonderpod instagram.com/girlwonderpodcast Email: girlwondersquad (at) gmail (dot) com Buy me a coffee: http://ko-fi.com/girlwonderpodcast

Today, The Two Mikes welcomed back Chad Stewart, the author of the Britfield series of novels -- and soon movies -- for middle-schoolers. Mr. Stewart reported that the fourth book in his series -- titled Britfield and the Eastern Empire -- will be published in 2025, just as the lead characters -- Tom and Sarah -- reach age 15 and are learning the pros and cons of modernity as they are found in such things as AI and digital currencies. The first installment of seven Britfield movies also is scheduled to go into pre-production in November, 2026. Mr. Stewart noted that the movie will be set in the Christmas season. Mr. Stewart also said that the first three books in the series continue to do very well, and began to be published in Britain in June 2024.

Chad Robert Stewart is an international award-winning and bestselling author, educator, and global strategist. The Britfield book series (Award-winning of 34 separate categories) is transforming literature and education while bringing encouragement to children and families worldwide. The first live-action Britfield movie is projected to become one of the highest grossing films in cinematic history. With the launch of Britfield & the Eastern Empire, Book IV, Chad will be discussing Britfield's impact on education, literacy, creativity, and media. With the first of seven Britfield movies in pre-production, the Theatrical Play (April 2024), and the Global Book Tours (2024-26), it is estimated that Britfield will surpass the C. S. Lewis and Tolkien series in worldwide sales and impact. Chad is also the Founder of the prestigious Devonfield, a comprehensive company dedicated to the highest quality in film production, publishing and education, Chad's areas of expertise are writing, film and media production, global strategy, and international marketing. He received a Bachelor of Arts in British Literature and European History from Brown University; earned an M.B.A. from Boston College; and is pursuing a Master of Science in Advanced Management and a PhD in Technology and Strategy at Peter F. Drucker and Masatoshi Ito Graduate School of Management, Claremont Graduate University. Chad's contact info: media@Britfield.com.  http://www.britfield.com/  http://Authorvisit.britfield.com Challenges of Faith Radio made (10/1/24) top listener chart and leaderboards on Goodpods:      

Today, The Two Mikes welcomed back Chad Stewart, the author of the Britfield series of novels -- and soon movies -- for middle-schoolers. Mr. Stewart reported that the fourth book in his series -- titled Britfield and the Eastern Empire -- will be published in 2025, just as the lead characters -- Tom and Sarah -- reach age 15 and are learning the pros and cons of modernity as they are found in such things as AI and digital currencies. 

The first installment of seven Britfield movies also is scheduled to go into pre-production in November, 2026. Mr. Stewart noted that the movie will be set in the Christmas season. Mr. Stewart also said that the first three books in the series continue to do very well, and began to be published in Britain in June 2024. 

The books also are being translated and published in Polish; the first volume is already in book shops. Other foreign publishers are planning to publish the books in additional languages.  Mr. Stewart said that the first three volumes of the series continue to sell well and are being used by teachers in an increasing number of schools -- now numbering in the thousands -- in the United States. Just as important, Mr. Stewart said that he continues to receive letters from parents explaining how much their middle-schoolers enjoy the books and how much they learn from them. 

Often, the parents also say how much they enjoyed the books. Mr. Stewart noted that he and his crew love hearing this kind of thing because the Britfield series is meant to provide a positive experience for children and families to help counteract many of the current books for youngsters which often feature negativity, poor conduct, and leave the child disconnected from reality, feeling less than what he or she is because of a lack of superpowers or some other non-existent attribute, and often poison young minds with cultism or other deranged ideas.      The websites for Mr. Stewart's Britfield projects are: https://www.britfield.com/ and https://www.britfieldinstitute.org/Follow Two Mikes on Pikcax: https://pickax.com/twomikesFollow Freedom First Network on Pickax at https://pickax.com/freedomfirstnetElevate your meals with Freedom First Beef… even if you find yourself in the middle of the apocalypse! Use code TWOMIKES for 15% off and enjoy high-quality beef whenever you crave it – today or tomorrow! https://freedomfirstbeef.comBe ready for anything life throws your way with The Wellness Company's Medical Emergency Kit. Order today using code TWOMIKES for a 10% discount at https://twc.health/ffn.Protect your financial future with precious metals! Use code TWOMIKES to get your FREE Gold and Silver Guide from Genesis Gold today and take control of your financial destiny! https://pickaxgold.comUnleash the spirit of liberty in every cup with Freedom First Coffee's Founders Blend. Order now using code TWOMIKES and savor the unparalleled taste of freedom in every patriotic sip. https://freedomfirstcoffee.com

"In the Western empire, what was the last recorded Legion to take the field as a formed/cohesive unit? And the same question for the Eastern Empire." Join us on Patron patreon.com/ancientwarfarepodcast  

This episode there was no interview, but a dive into a game much discussed last episode and well as a good look at Rodger B MacGowan's lush new artbook cum autobiography.Here's the video version of the podcastHere's the audio version of the podcastVento Nuovo releases Blocks in the EastDevir Games updates the release scheduleThin Red Line Games announces new living rules for The Fate of AllBelated Happy 7th birthday to Fort Circle GamesNoble Knight is paying extra for your used RPG stuffNew game from Neva: Rebellion and PunishmentDon't forget the PUSHING CARDBOARD SWAG!Join us on our DISCORD CHANNELNoble Knight GamesThe best place to find out of print games without paying Ebay prices!Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.Support the Show.

How can lessons from the fall of Rome help us navigate today's political landscape? Jeremy Ryan Slate is back on the 365 Driven podcast to explore the striking parallels between ancient Rome and modern America. Jeremy holds a master's degree in Roman History and he brings his expertise to this episode to draw parallels to modern America and the lessons we can learn from Rome's fall. Jeremy kicks off by examining the pivotal changes of 1913, including the introduction of the income tax, the 17th Amendment, and the Federal Reserve Act, and their lasting impact on American politics. Jeremy then dives into the significance of emperor worship and propaganda in Rome's transition from a republic to an empire, and shows how these historical events provide a perspective on our current political struggles. Jeremy then journeys through the extensive history of Rome, from its founding in 753 BC to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD, and beyond to the Eastern Empire's collapse in 1453. Understanding Rome's evolution from kingdom to republic to empire offers rich insights into the factors that led to its decline, such as poor leadership, economic turmoil, and military crises.  You will learn about the decline of the Western Roman Empire and its financial and political woes, echoing modern federalism in the United States. Evaluating the stories of key figures like the Gracchi brothers, Gaius Marius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, and Julius Caesar, we can extract valuable lessons on reform, conflict, and power struggles. Additionally, Jeremy touches on the relevance of Roman history in today's social media-driven discussions and underscores the importance of community involvement and independent thought in navigating contemporary politics. Tune in for a compelling exploration of history that resonates powerfully with our present. Key highlights: The Decline of Empires and Republics Timeline of Rome's Changing Leadership Rise and Fall of Roman Empire Caesar's Rise to Power Roman Empire, Greek Influence, and Collapse Understanding Empires and Political Parties Connect with Jeremy Ryan Slate: Instagram: @jeremyryanslate Website: CommandYourEmpire.com Connect with Tony Whatley: Website: 365driven.com Instagram: @365driven Facebook: 365 Driven LinkedIn: Tony Whatley

PREVIEW: #ROME: Conversation upcoming next week from the second hour of the exchange with author Emma Southon re her new work, A ROME OF ONE'S OWN, re the women of Rome from the kingdom to medieval Rome in the Eastern Empire -- this excerpt about Augustus's daughter Julia and her suprising successful marriage to her father's best friend, Agrippa. undated Claudius A Rome of One's Own: The Forgotten Women of the Roman Empire  by  Emma Southon  (Author) https://www.amazon.com/Rome-Ones-Own-Forgotten-Empire/dp/1419760181/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= The history of Rome has long been narrow and one-sided, essentially a history of “the Doing of Important Things.” And as far as Roman historians have been concerned, women don't make that history. From Romulus through the political stab-fest of the late Republic, and then on to all the emperors, Roman historians may deign to give you a wife or a mother to show how bad things become when women get out of control, but history is more than that. Emma Southon's A Rome of One's Own is the best kind of correction. This is a retelling of the history of Rome with all the things Roman history writers relegate to the background, or designate as domestic, feminine, or worthless. This is a history of women who caused outrage, led armies in rebellion, wrote poetry; who lived independently or under the thumb of emperors. Told with humor and verve as well as a deep scholarly background, A Rome of One's Own highlights women overlooked and misunderstood, and through them offers a fascinating and groundbreaking chronicle of the ancient world.

Rashta's cruelty has no bounds. Listen to this podcast episode for a breakdown of what's going on in the Western Empire and the Eastern Empire. We're discussing episodes 146-155 of The Remarried Empress by Alphatart & Sumpul! https://www.patreon.com/girlwonder Connect with Girl Wonder:  My Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/girlwonder My YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTk-JbxxAnf5TKyeCchNRHA twitter.com/girlwonderpod instagram.com/girlwonderpodcast Email: girlwondersquad (at) gmail (dot) com Buy me a coffee: http://ko-fi.com/girlwonderpodcast

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/eastern-european-studies

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/italian-studies

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

ORDER QUALITY MEAT TO YOUR DOOR HERE: https://wildpastures.com/promos/save-20-for-life/bonus15?oid=6&affid=321 Save 20% and get $15 off your FIRST order! Support your local farms and stay healthy! GET HEIRLOOM SEEDS & NON GMO SURVIVAL FOOD HERE: https://heavensharvest.com/ USE Code WAM to get FREE shipping in the United States! HELP THE WAM LEGAL DEFENSE FUND HERE: https://gogetfunding.com/wam-legal-defense/ GET YOUR APRICOT SEEDS at the life-saving Richardson Nutritional Center HERE: https://rncstore.com/r?id=bg8qc1 BUY GOLD AND SILVER HERE: https://kirkelliottphd.com/wam/ Josh Sigurdson reports on the false flags forcing the world into a violent global conflict as World War 3 approaches. Recently, leaked German government documents came out showing the step by step process that would bring NATO and the west into a world war with Russia following a loss by Ukraine. All the while, Iran, Yemen, Palestine and the east are quickly falling into an unstoppable conflict with Israel, the United States and the UK. All of the players have either been propped up by Israel or the United States in the first place. From Russia to Ukraine, from Iran to Israel, a country that created Hamas in the first place. This is a planned event to bring order out of chaos and force upon the public the technocratic "Great Reset." It's an excuse to force a CBDC onto the public as the western economies collapse by design and the Eastern Empire rises. Expect false flag attacks throughout Europe, continued pummeling of civilians in Gaza, complete destruction of the supply chain and energy grid and new fake "pandemics." Don't fall for either side. Support independence and humanity over eugenicists and globalist warmongers. The UK is out of stockpiles after sending them all to Ukraine. They're desperately recruiting for the Royal Navy. Ukraine is conscripting old men and young women. The US is out of money. Israel is backing both sides. When will people learn? Stay tuned for more from WAM! HELP SUPPORT US AS WE DOCUMENT HISTORY HERE: https://gogetfunding.com/help-wam-cover-history/ Buy HEALTHY organic coffee with your day's worth of antioxidants HERE: https://www.r1kln3trk.com/3PC4ZXC/FFJPPD/ GET AN EXTENDED FREE TRIAL FOR ICKONIC WHEN YOU SIGN UP HERE: https://www.ickonic.com/affiliate/josh10 BUY YOUR PRIVATE CLEARPHONE HERE: https://www.r1kln3trk.com/3PC4ZXC/F9D3HK/ LION ENERGY: Never Run Out Of Power! PREPARE NOW! https://www.r1kln3trk.com/3PC4ZXC/D2N14D/ GET VITAMINS AND SUPPLEMENTS FROM DR. ZELENKO HERE: https://zstacklife.com/?ref=WAM GET TIM'S FREE Portfolio Review HERE: https://bit.ly/redpilladvisor And become a client of Tim's at https://www.TheLibertyAdvisor.com STOCK UP ON STOREABLE FOODS HERE: http://wamsurvival.com/ OUR GOGETFUNDING CAMPAIGN: https://gogetfunding.com/help-keep-wam-alive/ OUR PODBEAN CHANNEL: https://worldaltmedia.podbean.com/ Find us on Vigilante TV HERE: https://vigilante.tv/c/world_alternative_media/videos?s=1 FIND US on Rokfin HERE: https://rokfin.com/worldalternativemedia FIND US on Gettr HERE: https://www.gettr.com/user/worldaltmedia See our EPICFUNDME HERE: https://epicfundme.com/251-world-alternative-media JOIN OUR NEWSLETTER HERE: https://www.iambanned.com/ JOIN our Telegram Group HERE: https://t.me/worldalternativemedia JOIN US on Rumble Here: https://rumble.com/c/c-312314 FIND WAM MERCHANDISE HERE: https://teespring.com/stores/world-alternative-media FIND OUR CoinTree page here: https://cointr.ee/joshsigurdson JOIN US on SubscribeStar here: https://www.subscribestar.com/world-alternative-media We will soon be doing subscriber only content! Follow us on Twitter here: https://twitter.com/WorldAltMedia Help keep independent media alive! Pledge here! Just a dollar a month can help us alive! https://www.patreon.com/user?u=2652072&ty=h&u=2652072 BITCOIN ADDRESS: 18d1WEnYYhBRgZVbeyLr6UfiJhrQygcgNU World Alternative Media 2023

Theodahad's Thirty Pigs 535 to 536 The death of Amalasuintha triggered the Gothic Wars, wherein the Eastern Empire, under Justinian, attempted to claw back what it had lost in Italy. This episode follows the war up to  the siege of Naples by Belisarius in the autumn of 536. Transcript Instagram Sources Support the Show Title Music: "The Britons" by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ Sound effects from freesound.com    

Trump plays the left again and sends them huddling to discuss how to get out of the mess they've created. A bombshell letter proves Cohen's a liar.A Chinese immigrant rings the alarm bell about America's rapid embrace of communism in America. He says the left is behind it and they're emulating the CCP.China and Russia join forces to reduce America to ashes and create a new Eastern Empire. Meanwhile John Kirby threatens to sanction Uganda and take away their healthcare over a new law allowing the death penalty for gay rapists.Democrats aren't smart. Biden's latest Judicial Nominee proves the point; can't even define a basic legal maneuver.Another man steals an award from women. Transgenderism is a mental illness. Biden gets in another fight with a teleprompter and loses. Get full access to Drew Allen at drewallen.substack.com/subscribe

December 11: Saint Damasus I, Pope c. 305–384 Optional Memorial; Liturgical Color: White Patron Saint of Archaeologists A dynamic pope mentors Jerome and embellishes catacombs Damasus reigned in the era when the popes died in their beds. The long winter of Roman oppression had ended. The arenas were empty. Christians were still occasionally martyred, but not in Rome. The many popes of the 200s who were exiled, murdered, or imprisoned were consigned to history by the late 300s. The Church was not merely legal by Damasus' time but was established, by decree, in 380 as the official religion of the Roman Empire. The slow-motion crumbling of paganism was such that Christian Senators and Pope Damasus petitioned the emperor that a prominent and famed Altar of Victory in the Senate be removed. The request was granted. No more Vestal Virgins, pagan priests reading entrails, a Pontifex Maximus, or auguries either. The Church was in the ascendancy. As Rome's military prowess deteriorated and the Eastern Empire was theologically mangled by the Arian controversy, the Bishop of Rome's importance swelled. Pope Damasus rode the first wave of these historical and religious trends. He was perhaps the first pope to rule with swagger. Damasus was of Spanish origins, and his father was likely a married priest serving in Rome's church of the martyr Saint Lawrence. Damasus was probably a deacon in that same church. He was elected Bishop of Rome in 366 but not without some controversy. A rival was aggressively supported by a violent minority who defamed Damasus, though they never removed him. Damasus cared for theology and held two synods in Rome, one of which excommunicated the Arian Bishop of Milan, making way for Saint Ambrose to later hold that see. Pope Damasus also sent legates to the First Council of Constantinople in 381, which reiterated and sharpened the language of the Creed developed at Nicea in 325. Perhaps Damasus' greatest legacy is not directly his own. He employed a talented young priest-scholar named Jerome as his personal secretary. It was Damasus who instructed Jerome to undertake his colossal, lifelong task of compiling from the original Greek and Hebrew texts a new Latin version of the Old and New Testaments to replace the poorly translated Old Latin Bibles then in use. The Vulgate, as Jerome's work is known, has been the official Bible of the Catholic Church since its completion. Description automatically generatedRome's theological ascendancy made its bishop the Empire's primary source and focus of unity. This, in turn, led to accusations, first aired in Damasus' time, that Rome's prelates lived in excessive grandeur. One pagan senator said mockingly that if he could live like a bishop he would gladly become a Christian. Similar charges would hound Rome throughout history. But Damasus strictly enforced a decree prohibiting clergy from accepting gifts from widows and orphans, and he himself lived a holy life. He restored his father's house church, now called Saint Lawrence in Damasus. The church still reflects its origins and is found inside of a larger building, just where a house church would have been located in ancient times. Pope Damasus also left a beautiful legacy in Rome's catacombs, a legacy which has only been fully appreciated due to modern archeological excavations. Damasus was very devoted to Rome's martyrs and embellished many of their tombs with brief Latin inscriptions. The papal crypt in the Catacombs of Saint Callixtus still houses the original marble slab engraved with Damasus' moving eulogy to the popes and martyrs entombed nearby. The epitaph ends with Damasus stating that although he wished to be buried in that crypt, he did not want to offend such holy remains with his presence. But Damasus composed his most tender epitaph for his own tomb: “He who walking on the sea could calm its bitter waves; He who gives life to dying seeds of the earth; He who was able to loose the mortal chains of death, and after three days' darkness could bring forth the brother for his sister Martha; He, I believe, will make Damasus rise anew from his ashes.” Damasus was clearly a Christian first and a pope second. Saint Damasus, you led the Church with a mixture of theological acumen, administrative competence, holy witness, and artistic flourish. Intercede in heaven for all who exercise headship in the Church to lead Her with attributes similar to your own.

Mike Isaacson: Rome gets sacked ONE TIME, and that's all these people can talk about! [Theme song] Nazi SS UFOsLizards wearing human clothesHinduism's secret codesThese are nazi lies Race and IQ are in genesWarfare keeps the nation cleanWhiteness is an AIDS vaccineThese are nazi lies Hollow earth, white genocideMuslim's rampant femicideShooting suspects named Sam HydeHiter lived and no Jews died Army, navy, and the copsSecret service, special opsThey protect us, not sweatshopsThese are nazi lies Mike: Welcome to another episode of The Nazi Lies Podcast. Today we're talking with Edward Watts, professor of history and Alkaviadis Vassiliadis Endowed Chair in Byzantine Greek History at the University of California San Diego. He's here to talk to us about his book, The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome: The History of a Dangerous Idea. The book is an extraordinary scholarly endeavor that managed to give a detailed and engaging history of 1700 years of Roman history in under 300 pages. Welcome to the podcast, Dr. Watts. Edward Watts: Thanks so much for having me. It's exciting to be here. Mike: All right. Now, you are one of the rare guests on our show whose book was actually directed at debunking Nazi lies. Tell us what you had in mind when you were writing this book. Edward: So the thing that prompted me to write this book was a recognition that the history of Rome, and in particular the legacy of Rome as it relates to the end of Roman history, was something that was being repeatedly misused across thousands of years to justify doing all sorts of violence and horrible things to people who really in the Roman context had very little to do with the decline of Rome, and in a post-Roman context, had nothing really to do with the challenges that people using the legacy of Rome wanted to try to address. And in particular, what prompted this was the recognition after 2016 of how stories about the classical past and the Roman past were being used on the far right and the sort of fascist fringe as a way of pointing to where they saw to be challenging dynamics and changes, critical changes, in the way that society was functioning. What was happening was people were doing things like using the story of the Gothic migrations in the 4th century AD to talk about the need to do radical things in our society related to immigration. And the discussions were just misusing the Roman past in really aggressive ways as kind of proof for radical ideas that didn't really relate to anything that happened in the past and I think are generally not things that people would be willing to accept in the present. And Rome provides a kind of argument when it's misunderstood,when Roman history is misunderstood, it provides a kind of argument that people are not familiar enough with to be able to refute, that might get people who think that a certain policy is aggressive or inhumane or unnecessary to think twice about whether that policy is something that is a response to a problem that people need to consider. And that's just wrong. It's a wrong way to use Roman history. It's a wrong way to use history altogether. And it's a rhetoric that really needs to be highlighted and pointed to so that people can see how insidious these kinds of comparisons can be. Mike: Okay, so your book discusses the idea of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, which you say started before any such decline or fall in the late Republic. What was politics like in the Roman Empire before the myth of Rome's decline popped up? Edward: So this is an interesting question because the story of Roman decline actually shows up in some of the very earliest Roman literature that we have. So the very first sort of intact Latin texts that we have from the Roman period are things like the plays of Plautus. In one of the earlier plays of Plautus, he is already making fun of people for saying that Rome is in decline. And he's saying this at a time right after the Roman victory over Hannibal when there is no evidence that Rome is in decline at all. And yet we know that there are politicians who are pushing this idea that the victory over Hannibal has unleashed a kind of moral decline in Rome that is leading to the degeneration of Roman morals and Roman behaviors and Roman social structures in such a fashion that will disrupt the ability of Rome to continue. This is just not something that most people recognized to be true, but what we see when politicians in the third century and second century BC are saying things like this, they aren't particularly interested in describing an objective reality. What they're looking to do is insert ideas into popular discourse, so that people in the context of their society begin to think it might be possible that decline exists. So I think that when we look at Roman history before Roman literature, or before these pieces of Roman literature exist, we really are looking at much later reconstructions. But I think that it's fair to say that even in those reconstructions of stories about things like say, the sixth king of Rome, those stories too focus on how that particular regime was inducing a decline from the proper behaviors of Romans. So I think we could say that there is no before decline. Rome seems always to have been talking about these ideas of decline and worrying about the fact that their society was in decline, even when objectively you would look around and say there is no reason whatsoever that you should be thinking this. Mike: Okay. Now your book argues that this political framing helped politicians shape the politics of the Roman Empire in particular ways. So how did those who pushed this declensionist narrative change the Roman republic? Edward: So in the Roman republic, there are a few things that this narrative is used to do. In the second century, early second century BC, this narrative is used to attack opponents of a politician named Cato. What Cato tried to do was single out people who had been getting particularly wealthy because of the aftermath of Rome's victory in the Second Punic War over Hannibal and then its victories in the eastern Mediterranean against the Greek King, Philip V. And what Cato saw was that this wealth was something that profoundly destabilized society because now there were winners who were doing well economically in a way that the old money establishment couldn't match. And so what he's looking to do is to say that when you look around and you see prosperity of that level in the Roman state, this is a sign that things are actually bad. It's not a sign of things are good. It's a sign that things are deteriorating, and we need to take radical steps to prevent this. And the radical steps that Cato takes, and that he initially gets support for, involves very onerous taxes directed specifically against groups of people that he opposed. He also serves as the person who decides who gets to be in the Roman Senate, and he uses that position to kick out a lot of people on the basis simply of him deciding that they embody some kind of negative trajectory of the Roman State. And there's a reaction to this and Cato eventually is forced to kind of back away from this. As you move later in the second century, the narrative of decline becomes something that first is used to again justify financial policies, and then later, actual violence against officials who are seen as pushing too radical an agenda. And so this becomes a narrative that you can use to destabilize things. It doesn't matter if you're coming from what we would say is the right or the left, the kind of equal opportunity narrative that can be used to get people to question whether the structures in their society are legitimately in keeping with the way the society is supposed to function. Mike: Okay. So a lot of people have this misconception that Rome kind of snapped from being a republic to being governed by an emperor, but that's not really so. What was the imperial administration like and how did it change? Edward: The Roman republic was in many ways a very strong constitutional system that had a lot of things built into it to prevent one individual from taking over. Not only did it have a structure that was based on a kind of balance of power–and the description of that structure was something that influenced the Founding Fathers in the US to create the balances of power that we have–but in Rome, the administrative office that correlated to the presidency actually was a paired magistracy. So there were two consuls who governed together and could in theory check one another. What the decline narrative happened or allows to happen is that these structures begin to be questioned as illegitimate. And you get, starting in the later part of the second century and going all the way through the murder of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, a long set of discussions about how the Constitution is not functioning as it's supposed to, how the interests of everybody are not being represented by the representatives in the Senate and by the sorts of laws that are being put forward in assemblies. And you have a greater sense that there's an emergency, and an emergency that requires people to assent to an individual exercising more power than the structure really permits. And so this idea of decline heightens this sense of emergency and you have cycles every generation or so, where the sense of emergency gets greater and another constitutional structure snaps. Until eventually what you have is an individual in Julius Caesar, who is able to exercise complete and effective control over the direction of politics in the state. Mike: Okay. So for whatever reason, the assassination of Julius Caesar sticks strong in our cultural psyche, but reading your book it seems like assassinating emperors was kind of commonplace? Edward: It depends on the period. Yeah, there are definitely periods where the violent overthrow of emperors are somewhat common. I think with Caesar, what we have is the assassination. We're still when Caesar was assassinated in the final death throes of the Roman republic. And so it takes a while and a really brutal nearly 15-year-long sprawling Civil War for Rome to finally just accept that the republic as a governing structure is not really going to function in the way it had before. And the first emperor is Augustus. The first assassination actually occurs about 75 years after Augustus takes over. The first emperor that's assassinated is Caligula. Then you have moments of really profound peace and stability that are punctuated by these upheavals where, you know, in the year 68 the Emperor Nero commits suicide and this leads to a sprawling civil war in which four emperors take power in the course of a single year. Then things kind of calmed down. There's an assassination in 96, and no more assassinations for almost 100 years. And so you have these moments where the structures of the empire are very stable, but when they break, it breaks very seriously. It's very rare when an emperor is assassinated, that there's only one assassination and things kind of work out after that. And so generally, I think what this suggests is, if you have faith that the Imperial structure is working predictably, it's very, very hard to disrupt that. But if you have a sense that an emperor is not legitimate or is not in power or has taken power violently, there's a very serious risk that that emperor will in turn be overthrown violently, and something very serious could happen, even going so far as resulting in a civil war. Mike: Okay so one of the biggest myths surrounding the Roman Empire is that it fell in 476 AD, and that plunged Europe into the Dark Ages, but this isn't really so. What happened in 476 AD, and how did it become the legendary fall of Rome? Edward: Yes, so 476 AD is one of the greatest non-events in history. Because when we look at our history and our timeline for the fall of Rome, this is the date that stands out to us. But actually in 476, there's not a single person who seems to think that Rome fell on that day. What happens is in the middle part of the fifth century, the eastern empire and the western empire separated in 395. And in the middle part of the fifth century, the western empire has a very serious loss of territory and then a loss of stability within Italy. So that there are, in a sense, kingmakers who run the army and decide whether an emperor should be in power or not. And so you have a number of figurehead emperors, starting really in the 450s and going through 476, who are there, in a couple of cases at certain moments they do exercise real power, but much of the time they're subordinate to military commanders who don't want to be emperor, or in many cases are of barbarian descent and don't think they can make imperial power actually stick, and in 476, Odoacer who was one of these barbarian commanders overthrows an emperor in Italy and says, "We are not going to have an emperor in Italy anymore. Instead, I'm just going to serve as the agent of the eastern emperor in Italy." And for the next 50 years, there are barbarian agents–first Odoacer and then Theodoric–who serve in this constitutional way where they acknowledge the superiority and the authority of the emperor in Constantinople over Italy. And in practice, they're running Italy. But in principle, they are still affirming that they're part of the Roman Empire, the Roman senate is still meeting, Roman law is still used. It's a situation where only when the eastern empire decides that it wants to take Italy back, do you start getting these stories about well, Rome fell in 476 when these barbarians got rid of the last emperor and now it's our obligation to liberate Italians from this occupation by these barbarians. In 476, though, this is not what anyone in Constantinople or in Italy actually thought was going on. Mike: Okay. So both the east and the west of the Roman Empire eventually became Christian. How did this alter the myth of the declining Rome? Edward: So for much of Roman history, there is very much this idea that any problem that you have is a potential sign of the decline of Rome, and if you are particularly motivated, you can say that the problem requires radical solutions to prevent Rome from falling into crisis. But with Christianity, when the Roman Empire becomes Christian, there is no past that you can look back to say, "Well, we were better as a Christian empire in this time." When Constantine converts to Christianity, he's the first Christian emperor. And so it's very natural for opponents to be able to say, "Look, he made everything Christian and now things are going to hell ,and so Christianity is the problem." So what Christians instead say is what actually is going on here is we are creating a new and better Rome, a Rome where the approach to the divine is more sophisticated, it's more likely to work. And so for about 100 years, you have instead of a narrative decline, a narrative of progress where Christians are pushing a notion that by becoming Christian, the Empire is embarking on a new path that is better than it has ever been before. Not everybody accepts this. At the time of Constantine's conversion, probably 90% of the Emperor's still pagan so this would be a very strange argument to them. And by the time you get into the fifth century, you probably are in a majority Christian empire, but like a 50% majority, not like 90% majority. So there is a significant pushback against this. And in moments of crisis, and in particular after the Sack of Rome in 410, there is a very strong pagan reaction to this idea of Christian Roman progress. And Christians have to come up with evermore elaborate explanations for how what looks like decline in any kind of tangible sense that you would look at in the western empire is actually a form of progress. And the most notable production of that line of argument is Augustine's City of God, which says effectively, “Don't worry about this world. There's a better world, a Christian world that really you should be focusing on, and you're getting closer there. So the effect of what's going on in the Roman world doesn't really matter too much for you.” Mike: Okay. Now at one point, there were actually three different polities across Europe and Asia Minor all claiming the inheritance of the Roman Empire. How did this happen? Edward: There are different moments where you see different groups claiming the inheritance of Rome. In the Middle Ages, you have the rise of the Holy Roman Empire, which is a construction of Charlemagne and the papacy around the year 800. And the claim that they make is simply that there is the first empress of the Roman state who takes power all by herself in 797–this is the Empress Irene–and the claim Charlemagne makes as well that eliminates the legitimacy of the Roman Empire and Constantinople because there's no emperor. Therefore because there's no emperor, there's no empire and therefore we can just claim it. Another moment where you see this really become a source of significant conflict is during the Fourth Crusade when the Crusaders attack Constantinople and destroy the central administration of the eastern Roman Empire. After that point, you have the crusaders in Constantinople who claim that they are a Roman state. You have the remains of the Roman state that had been in Constantinople sort of re-consolidating around the city of Nicaea. You have a couple of other people who claim the inheritance of the Roman state inEpirus and Trebizond, and they all kind of fight with each other. And so ultimately, what you see is that the Roman Empire has this tremendous resonance across all of the space that was once Roman. So their empire at its greatest extent went from the Persian Gulf all the way to Scotland. And it went from Spain and the Atlantic coast of Morocco all the way down to the Red Sea. It's massive. And in a lot of those territories after Rome recedes, the legacy of Rome remains. So a lot of people who felt that they could claim the Roman legacy tried to do that, because it gave a kind of added seriousness and a more, a greater echo to these little places that are far away from the center of the world now, places like Britain or places like France or places like Northern Germany. And so you, in a sense, look like you're more important than you are if you can make a claim on the Roman imperial legacy. Mike: Okay. And so how do these would-be empires finally end up collapsing? Edward: So, each in their own way. In the case of the Holy Roman Empire, it actually lasts for very long time. It's created under Charlemagne in 800, and it lasts really until the time of Napoleon. And it collapses because it's sort of dissolved because in Germany there was a fear that Napoleon might actually use the hulk of the Holy Roman Empire and the title of Holy Roman Emperor to claim a kind of ecumenical authority that would go beyond just what he had as emperor of France. The crusader regime in Constantinople is actually reconquered by the Nicene regime in 1261. So the Crusaders take Constantinople in 1204, and then these Roman exiles who set up a kind of Roman Empire in exile in Nicaea reconquer in 1261. And they hold Constantinople for another 200 years until the Ottomans take it in 1453. The other sort of small Roman states are absorbed either by the state in Constantinople or by the Ottomans, but ultimately by the end of the 1460s, everything that had once been part of the Eastern Empire in the Middle Ages is under Ottoman control. Mike: Okay. And so despite all of the polities that could have contended for the inheritance of Rome collapsing, Rome's decline still played a large part in political considerations across what was formerly the Roman Empire but now as an instructive metaphor. How was the decline of the Roman Empire leveraged to influence politics leading into the modern era, and who were the big myth makers? Edward: Yeah, there's a couple of really important thinkers in this light. One is Montesquieu, the French thinker who uses a discussion of Roman history to launch into a much more wide and expansive and influential discussion of political philosophy that centers really on notions of representation and sets some of the groundwork for what actors in the American Revolution and French Revolution believed they were doing. Montesquieu is really, really important in understanding 18th-century political developments. And I think it's impossible really to understand what the American Revolution and the French Revolution thought they were doing without also looking at Montesquieu. But now I think the more influential figure in terms of shaping our ideas about what Roman history looked like and what Roman decline meant is Edward Gibbon. Gibbon is also an 18th-century thinker. When he started writing a history of Rome, he started writing in the 1770s when he believed that there was a firm and stable European political structure of monarchies that could work together and kind of peacefully move the continent forward. And while Gibbon is working on this, of course, you know, the American Revolution happens, and the French Revolution happens, and his whole structure that he was looking to defend and celebrate with his Roman history disappears. And so his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire becomes a book that is extracted from its historical context. And it seems like it is an objective narrative of what happens. It's not objective at all. What Gibbon is trying to do is compare the failings of one large single imperial structure and the advantages of this kind of multipolar world where everyone is balanced and cooperative. But everybody forgets that that multipolar world even existed because the book comes out after it's gone. So what you have with Gibbon is a narrative that seems to be just an account of Roman history, and a very, very evocative one. I think most of the people now who have Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire on their shelf don't read it. But they know the title. They know the concept. This means that you have a ready-made metaphor for anything that's bothering you. You know, you can talk about the decline and fall of Rome. Just about everybody in the entire world knows that Rome declined and fell. And very few of them know much about why it happened or how it happened or how long it took. And so evoking the decline and fall of Rome allows you to kind of plug in anything, as my friend Hal Drake says, anything that's bothering you at a particular moment, you can plug in and say Rome fell because of X. And if you look at the last 50 years you can see lots and lots and lots of examples of X, lots of different things that bothered people that got plugged into the story of Rome fell because of whatever's bothering me that day. Mike: I am certainly guilty of having a copy of Gibbon on my bookshelf and not having read it. [laughs] So in talking about the modern appropriation of the memory of Rome, you of course talk about Fascist Italy. You reference Claudio Fogu, whom I absolutely love, check out his book The Historic Imaginary. How did Fascists wield the memory of the Roman Empire to justify their regime? Edward: Yeah, it's so, so seductive what is done in the city of Rome in particular. And there's a sense that I think is a very real sense that creating and uncovering and memorializing the imperial center of the Roman Empire makes real the experience of walking through it, and with the right kind of curation can make it feel like you're in a contemporary environment that's linked to that ancient past. And what Mussolini and his architects tried very very hard to do was create this, in a sense, almost Roman imperial Disneyland in the area between the Colosseum and the Capital line. So when we walk there, we see a kind of disembodied and excavated giant park with a large street down the middle running from the Colosseum along the length of the Roman Forum. But that was actually neighborhoods.  Before Mussolini, there were actual houses and shops and restaurants and people living there, and very, very long-standing communities that he removed with this idea that you were in a sense restoring the past and creating a future by removing the present. And I think that's a very good metaphor for what they were up to. What they were trying to do was create an affinity for the fascist present by uncovering this Roman past and getting rid of what they saw as disorder. And the disorder, of course, was real people living their lives in their houses. But the other thing that people, you know, when tourists visit this now, they don't know that history. They don't know that when they walk on the street alongside the Forum, they're actually walking on a street that is a 20th-century street created for Fascist military parades on the ruins of modern, early modern, and medieval houses. They just see this as a way to kind of commune with this Roman past. And the Fascists very much understood that aesthetic and how seductive that aesthetic was. Mike: Okay, so let's circle back to where we started with your motivation for the book. How are people invoking the fall of Rome now, and what are they getting wrong? Edward: I think that we see, again, this temptation to take what's bothering you and attaching it to Rome. And I think even if you just look over the last 50 years, you can almost trace the sorts of things people are anxious about in a modern context based on the things that are advanced for what possibly made Rome fall. So in the 70s and early 80s, there's lots of concern about environmental contamination and the effect that this is going to have on people's lives. And we get the story of Rome fell because of lead poisoning. I mean, it didn't. It's just ridiculous that you would think Rome fell because of lead poisoning when there is no moment that it fell, the place was active and survived for well over 1500 years when it was using lead pipes. There's no evidence whatsoever that this is true. In the 70s, Phyllis Schlafly would go around and say that Rome fell because of liberated women. I think that would be a very big surprise to a lot of Roman women that they were actually liberated, definitely in the 1970's way. In the 80s, and even into the 2010s, you have people like Ben Carson talking about Rome declining because of homosexuality or gay marriage. Again, that has nothing to do with the reality of Rome. There are other places where I think people come a little bit closer to at least talking about things that Romans might acknowledge existed in their society. So when you have Colin Murphy and others in the lead up to the Iraq War talking about the overextension of military power as a factor that can lead to the decline of Rome, yeah, I mean, Rome did have at various moments problems because it was overextended militarily. But most of the time it didn't. To say that the Romans were overextended militarily because they had a large empire ignores the fact that they had that large empire for almost 400 years without losing significant amounts of territory. So comparing Roman military overextension and US military overextension could be a useful exercise, but you have to adjust the comparison for scale. And you have to adjust the comparison to understand that there are political dynamics that mean that places that in the first century BC required military garrisons, in the third century did not. And so you're not overextended because you're in the same place for 400 years. At the beginning, you might need to have an extensive military presence in a place that later you won't. So I think that what we need to do when we think about the use of the legacy of Rome, is think very critically about the kinds of things that Rome can and can't teach us, and think very clearly about the difference between history repeating itself–which I think it doesn't–and history providing us with ideas that can help us understand the present. I think that's where history is particularly useful, and Roman history in particular is useful. Because it's so long, there are so many things that that society deals with, and there are so many things that it deals with successfully as well as fails to deal with capably. All of those things offer us lessons to think with, even if they don't offer us exact parallels. Mike: Okay, so we've talked a bunch about the fabricated history of Rome and the popular memory of Rome. What does the actual history of Rome and fears of Roman decline have to teach us about the present? Edward: I think the biggest thing that we can see is if somebody is claiming that a society is in profound decline and the normal structures of that society need to be suspended so the decline can be fixed, that is a big caution flag. What that means is somebody wants to do something that you otherwise would not agree to let them do. And the justification that they provide should be looked at quite critically, but it also should be considered that, even if they identify something that might or might not be true, the solution they're proposing is not something that you absolutely need to accept. Systems are very robust. Political systems and social systems are very robust and they can deal with crises and they can deal with changes. If someone is saying that our system needs to be suspended or ignored or cast to the side because of a crisis, the first step should be considering whether the crisis is real, and then considering whether it is in fact possible to deal with that crisis and not suspend the constitutional order, and not trample on people's rights, and not take away people's property, and not imprison people. Because in all of these cases that we see Roman politicians introduced this idea of decline to justify something radical, there are other ways to deal with the problem. And sometimes they incite such panic that Romans refuse or forget or just don't consider any alternative. That has really profound and dangerous consequences because the society that suspends normal orders and rights very likely is going to lose those rights and those normal procedures. Mike: All right. Well, Dr. Watts, thank you so much for coming on The Nazi Lies Podcast to talk about the myth of the Roman Empire. The book, again, is The Eternal Decline and Fall of Rome out from Oxford University Press. Thanks again, Dr. Watts. Edward: Thanks a lot. This was great. Mike: If you enjoyed what you heard and want to help pay our guests and transcriptionist, consider subscribing to our Patreon at patreon.com/nazilies or donating to our PayPal at paypal.me/nazilies or CashApp at $nazilies [Theme song]

In the mid 1400s, the head of the Byzantine Empire was a career politician with decades of experience who most people thought would be a capable leader. Instead, through a series of hilariously terrible decisions, he managed to take his already weak empire off the cliff, and into the dustbin of history, in just a few short years. And one of the ways he did that was by deliberately giving up the most strategic resource his empire possessed. We're seeing a similar story play out today-- the people with decades and decades of experience are doing all the wrong things to vanquish one of the most strategic resources in our modern world: energy. Think about it-- the people in charge have demonized an entire industry. They punish oil companies with creative taxes and insane regulations. They refuse to follow the law and lease federal lands to oil and gas companies. They drag their feet in the permitting process. They constantly antagonize energy companies and blame high fuel prices on the industry's “greed”. In short they do everything they can to destroy a critical resource that the nation depends on for growth and prosperity. This is our topic for today's podcast. We start off walking through the comical incompetence of Emperor Constantine XI from the Byzantine Empire… and then go through some key issues to know about in the oil and gas sector. In short, supply is tight… and probably not getting better. Demand is increasing. It's a really important trend to understand. But we leave with some good news. This is fixable, both long-term and short-term. But the short-term fix is going to rely on a few surprising characters from our past that may become some of the most exciting economies in the world. Open Podcast Transcription [00:00:00.610] Today we're going to go back in time to January 6 and the year 1449 to the city of Mistress and the Peloponnesian Peninsula of Greece. Now, at the time, Greece was a pretty important part of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine Empire, as you probably know, was really just the continuation of the the ancient Roman Empire that had been around for a really long time. And at its peak, the Roman Empire encompassed virtually the entire known Western world, from Hispania, North Africa, central and Eastern Europe, Britannia, all the way to the Dardanellesh and modern day Turkey. At a certain point in the third 4th century, there was a formal demarcation of the Roman Empire.   [00:00:40.510] And they said, you know what? There's going to be two empires are going to be an Eastern Empire that's based in Constantinople, modern day Istanbul, and a Western Empire that's going to remain in Italy. And the two empires were basically two different empires. They had two different emperors, imperial courts, imperial armies, their own palaces. Everything was totally separate and distinct.   [00:00:57.840] The thing is that while the Western Empire was in decline, right, the original Rome was in serious, serious decline. With the barbarian invasions and the tax farmers and the desertions and everything that they were suffering there, the Eastern Empire was thriving. It was growing. It was getting better and more powerful. And even by the time the Western Empire collapsed in 476, the Eastern Empire was really just getting started.   [00:01:19.380] It hadn't even peaked yet. The Eastern Empire wouldn't peak for more than a century after the fall of the west, and it stayed very powerful for a very, very, very long time. We can actually tell this because the Eastern Empire, they minted a special coin. It's called the gold solidus solidst coin. And the solids gold coin was something like reserve currency.   [00:01:38.610] It was like the US. Dollar. Today we're in the same way. You might have a merchant in India doing business with somebody in New Zealand, and they'd conduct that transaction in US. Dollars.   [00:01:48.810]

In the mid 1400s, the head of the Byzantine Empire was a career politician with decades of experience who most people thought would be a capable leader. Instead, through a series of hilariously terrible decisions, he managed to take his already weak empire off the cliff, and into the dustbin of history, in just a few short years. And one of the ways he did that was by deliberately giving up the most strategic resource his empire possessed. We're seeing a similar story play out today-- the people with decades and decades of experience are doing all the wrong things to vanquish one of the most strategic resources in our modern world: energy. Think about it-- the people in charge have demonized an entire industry. They punish oil companies with creative taxes and insane regulations. They refuse to follow the law and lease federal lands to oil and gas companies. They drag their feet in the permitting process. They constantly antagonize energy companies and blame high fuel prices on the industry's “greed”. In short they do everything they can to destroy a critical resource that the nation depends on for growth and prosperity. This is our topic for today's podcast. We start off walking through the comical incompetence of Emperor Constantine XI from the Byzantine Empire… and then go through some key issues to know about in the oil and gas sector. In short, supply is tight… and probably not getting better. Demand is increasing. It's a really important trend to understand. But we leave with some good news. This is fixable, both long-term and short-term. But the short-term fix is going to rely on a few surprising characters from our past that may become some of the most exciting economies in the world. Open Podcast Transcription [00:00:00.610] Today we're going to go back in time to January 6 and the year 1449 to the city of Mistress and the Peloponnesian Peninsula of Greece. Now, at the time, Greece was a pretty important part of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine Empire, as you probably know, was really just the continuation of the the ancient Roman Empire that had been around for a really long time. And at its peak, the Roman Empire encompassed virtually the entire known Western world, from Hispania, North Africa, central and Eastern Europe, Britannia, all the way to the Dardanellesh and modern day Turkey. At a certain point in the third 4th century, there was a formal demarcation of the Roman Empire.   [00:00:40.510] And they said, you know what? There's going to be two empires are going to be an Eastern Empire that's based in Constantinople, modern day Istanbul, and a Western Empire that's going to remain in Italy. And the two empires were basically two different empires. They had two different emperors, imperial courts, imperial armies, their own palaces. Everything was totally separate and distinct.   [00:00:57.840] The thing is that while the Western Empire was in decline, right, the original Rome was in serious, serious decline. With the barbarian invasions and the tax farmers and the desertions and everything that they were suffering there, the Eastern Empire was thriving. It was growing. It was getting better and more powerful. And even by the time the Western Empire collapsed in 476, the Eastern Empire was really just getting started.   [00:01:19.380] It hadn't even peaked yet. The Eastern Empire wouldn't peak for more than a century after the fall of the west, and it stayed very powerful for a very, very, very long time. We can actually tell this because the Eastern Empire, they minted a special coin. It's called the gold solidus solidst coin. And the solids gold coin was something like reserve currency.   [00:01:38.610] It was like the US. Dollar. Today we're in the same way. You might have a merchant in India doing business with somebody in New Zealand, and they'd conduct that transaction in US. Dollars.   [00:01:48.810]

In the mid 1400s, the head of the Byzantine Empire was a career politician with decades of experience who most people thought would be a capable leader. Instead, through a series of hilariously terrible decisions, he managed to take his already weak empire off the cliff, and into the dustbin of history, in just a few short years. And one of the ways he did that was by deliberately giving up the most strategic resource his empire possessed. We're seeing a similar story play out today-- the people with decades and decades of experience are doing all the wrong things to vanquish one of the most strategic resources in our modern world: energy. Think about it-- the people in charge have demonized an entire industry. They punish oil companies with creative taxes and insane regulations. They refuse to follow the law and lease federal lands to oil and gas companies. They drag their feet in the permitting process. They constantly antagonize energy companies and blame high fuel prices on the industry's “greed”. In short they do everything they can to destroy a critical resource that the nation depends on for growth and prosperity. This is our topic for today's podcast. We start off walking through the comical incompetence of Emperor Constantine XI from the Byzantine Empire… and then go through some key issues to know about in the oil and gas sector. In short, supply is tight… and probably not getting better. Demand is increasing. It's a really important trend to understand. But we leave with some good news. This is fixable, both long-term and short-term. But the short-term fix is going to rely on a few surprising characters from our past that may become some of the most exciting economies in the world. Open Podcast Transcription [00:00:00.610] Today we're going to go back in time to January 6 and the year 1449 to the city of Mistress and the Peloponnesian Peninsula of Greece. Now, at the time, Greece was a pretty important part of the Byzantine Empire. Byzantine Empire, as you probably know, was really just the continuation of the the ancient Roman Empire that had been around for a really long time. And at its peak, the Roman Empire encompassed virtually the entire known Western world, from Hispania, North Africa, central and Eastern Europe, Britannia, all the way to the Dardanellesh and modern day Turkey. At a certain point in the third 4th century, there was a formal demarcation of the Roman Empire.   [00:00:40.510] And they said, you know what? There's going to be two empires are going to be an Eastern Empire that's based in Constantinople, modern day Istanbul, and a Western Empire that's going to remain in Italy. And the two empires were basically two different empires. They had two different emperors, imperial courts, imperial armies, their own palaces. Everything was totally separate and distinct.   [00:00:57.840] The thing is that while the Western Empire was in decline, right, the original Rome was in serious, serious decline. With the barbarian invasions and the tax farmers and the desertions and everything that they were suffering there, the Eastern Empire was thriving. It was growing. It was getting better and more powerful. And even by the time the Western Empire collapsed in 476, the Eastern Empire was really just getting started.   [00:01:19.380] It hadn't even peaked yet. The Eastern Empire wouldn't peak for more than a century after the fall of the west, and it stayed very powerful for a very, very, very long time. We can actually tell this because the Eastern Empire, they minted a special coin. It's called the gold solidus solidst coin. And the solids gold coin was something like reserve currency.   [00:01:38.610] It was like the US. Dollar. Today we're in the same way. You might have a merchant in India doing business with somebody in New Zealand, and they'd conduct that transaction in US. Dollars.   [00:01:48.810]

Part 22 Unrest Leading To Renaissance Today we see the influence of the Church wane amidst both religious and societal turmoil and a brief look at two men rising in opposition to the Church. We are now in the 14th & 15th Century! The church has grown exponentially from the original 12 apostles of Jesus Christ. It has spread far and wide in the known world. However, this period in history shows that the Church is now declining rapidly – both numerically and in its influence. We look briefly today at the reasons for this. 1. Rapid Decline a. Avignon Popes (1309-1378) Firstly we look at that Agivnon Popes or as some term it “Babylonian Captivity of the Papacy.” Pressure from the French monarchy in conflict with the Papacy, caused the Papacy to move to Avignon, France from Rome in Italy. This was due to the elected Pope, Clement V refusing to move to Rome and remained in France, finally moving the whole of his court to Avignon in 1309. From here there were 7 successive Popes, elected by the French rather than Italians as before. b. Great Schism Now we have the ‘Great Schism' or the ‘Western Schism' occurred with the Catholic Church from 1378 to 1417. The Pope returned to Rome from France in 1377, after a riot in Rome to ensure that the next Pope was Italian in 1378. The French then elected a Pope of their own. There was much disputation and at one stage there were 3 Popes - the Avignon Pope: Benedict XIII; the Roman Pope: Gregory XII; the Pisa Pope: John XXIII. A Council was called by the Pisa Pope John XXIII in 1414 and agreement was reached as to the procedure of the election of a new Pope. All these events though caused a great loss of confidence in the Church. Wealth, corruption, immorality and the scandalous indulgences were rife throughout the Church, which led to much discontent and uncertainty. In the year 1453, Turkish Muslims attacked the Eastern Empire and the great Christian city of Constantinople fell. c. Bubonic Plague Bubonic Plague broke out in 1347 and killed one third of the Catholic west in 3 years. The Rise of national consciousness and strong monarchies developed in England, France & Spain resisting pressure from Rome. d. Rise in Personal Devotion There was in Northern Europe a growing movement around personal devotion to God, and therefore less reliance on the Church for spiritual insight. But more about that next week! It was also an area of global exploration with the likes of exploring greats of Magellan and Columbus. 2. Outspoken Critics of the Church There was also growing criticism of the church, particularly from within! John Wycliffe (1320-1384) - Wycliffe was a Priest in the Roman Catholic Church and a leading philosopher at Oxford University. He spoke out against church corruption, transubstantiation, confession to the priest and infallibility of the church & Pope. Many travelling bands of teachers and preachers were organised and sent out by him. Wycliffe is commonly described as the 'Morning Star of the English Reformation', who had a great desire to ensure that the Bible was made available to everyone in their own language. Therefore he initiated the translation of the Latin Vulgate Bible into English, and it was completed by his followers. He was protected by the English monarchy from Church persecution and inquisition. If you read your Bible in any language but Latin and the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek - you have much to be thankful to God for the life and work of John Wycliffe! They still do great work today and you can find out more by visiting their website: http://wycliffe.org.uk/ To get a hint of the disturbance to the Church caused by Wyclif, here are some of the things he said. Private confession... was not ordered by Christ and was not used by the apostles. Englishmen learn Christ's law best in English. Moses heard God's law in his own tongue; so did Christ's apostles. It is plain to me that our prelates in granting indulgences do commonly blaspheme the wisdom of God. Our clerics neither evangelize like the apostles, nor go to war like the secular lords, nor toil like labourers. The bread while becoming by virtue of Christ's words the body of Christ does not cease to be bread. The gospel alone is sufficient to rule the lives of Christians everywhere. Any additional rules made to govern men's conduct added nothing to the perfection already found in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jan Hus (1374-1415) - The other main critic was the Bohemian man, Jan Hus. Hus was a priest in the Catholic Church and Rector of Prague University. Hus was strongly influenced by Wycliffe, and much to the chagrin of the Catholic Church hierarchy, he promoted personal devotion and piety; the supreme authority of the Bible; taught that the Church is the body of Christ and the head is Jesus Christ - not the Pope; and that only God can forgive sin, not the Church. Again, Hus was another man ahead of his time and one of the pioneers of the protestant church to come. Hus, because of his condemnation of much Church teaching and practise was imprisoned, tried, condemned and executed in 1415 following the Council of Constance. Again some quotes from this protesting pioneer: "Has not God himself instituted marriage, as a means to satisfy the craving for love in all men. ... For those are speaking lies in hypocrisy, who have a seared conscience, who forbid a life in marriage and abstain from foods which God has created (1 Timothy 4:1-5). I hold this to be the seed of iniquity and the root of all evil." “Many centuries have passed since the foundation of Christianity and bishops and priests have wedded and permitted themselves to be wed in honour and decency, until some Primates, Gregory VII (also called Hildebrand) and Innocent III, thousand years after the death of Jesus the Nazarene, conceived the thought to forbid marriage to priests, so that they would not love their families, would not honour their home and would be compelled to seek salvation under the wing of Rome only, remembering the protection which was to come from there against worldly powers.” Tap or click here to download this as an audio mp3 file

It is easy to focus on the church in the west. But the church also expanded to the east and south of Jerusalem.--To the south, Ethiopia has a long history in the church, including references in the Old Testament and New. Several Ethiopian churches have richly illustrated interiors and are excellent examples of how art was used in the early church.--In the east, while the Western Romain Empire was in decline and eventually fell, the Eastern Empire endured for approximately another 1000 years. It became known as the Byzantine Empire but was essentially an unbroken kingdom originating in the Roman Empire. In this empire, the churches at Constantinople, Antioch, and Alexandria all sent out many successful missionaries to the east.

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/middle-eastern-studies

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/environmental-studies

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/italian-studies

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As modern empires rise and fall, ancient Rome becomes ever more significant. We yearn for Rome's power but fear Rome's ruin--will we turn out like the Romans, we wonder, or can we escape their fate? That question has obsessed centuries of historians and leaders, who have explored diverse political, religious, and economic forces to explain Roman decline. Yet the decisive factor remains elusive. In New Rome: The Empire in the East (Harvard UP, 2022), Paul Stephenson looks beyond traditional texts and well-known artifacts to offer a novel, scientifically-minded interpretation of antiquity's end. It turns out that the descent of Rome is inscribed not only in parchments but also in ice cores and DNA. From these and other sources, we learn that pollution and pandemics influenced the fate of Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire. During its final five centuries, the empire in the east survived devastation by natural disasters, the degradation of the human environment, and pathogens previously unknown to the empire's densely populated, unsanitary cities. Despite the Plague of Justinian, regular "barbarian" invasions, a war with Persia, and the rise of Islam, the empire endured as a political entity. However, Greco-Roman civilization, a world of interconnected cities that had shared a common material culture for a millennium, did not. Politics, war, and religious strife drove the transformation of Eastern Rome, but they do not tell the whole story. Braiding the political history of the empire together with its urban, material, environmental, and epidemiological history, New Rome offers the most comprehensive explanation to date of the Eastern Empire's transformation into Byzantium. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/christian-studies

Photo: The division of the Roman Empire after the death of Theodosius I, c. 395 AD, superimposed on modern borders  "In 286, the Emperor Diocletian decided to divide Rome into two sections to try and stabilize the empire. For 100 years Rome experienced more divisions and in 395 BC it finally became The Western Empire and The Eastern Empire. "The division changed Roman life and government forever. There were now two emperors in each half and they governed independently." @Batchelorshow #Londinium90AD: Gaius and Germanicus discuss the divide of the Fourth-Century Roman Empire into two as a model for the American Empire. Michael Vlahos. #FriendsofHistoryDebatingSociety .. Permissions:  Map of the boundaries of the western and eastern Roman empires after the death of Theodosius I, in 395 AD.    Western Roman Empire   Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire Date17 October 2006 (original upload date)SourceMade personally from Image:BlankMap-Europe-v3.png, using (2004). The Collins Atlas of World History. Wiltshire: HarperCollins, 46-47. 0-00-716640-0. and Image:Roman empire 395.jpg as a source.AuthorGeuiwogbil at English WikipediaOther versions This map has been uploaded by Electionworld from en.wikipedia.org to enable the Wikimedia Atlas of the World . Original uploader to en.wikipedia.org was Geuiwogbil, known as Geuiwogbil at en.wikipedia.org. Electionworld is not the creator of this map. Licensing information is below. Geuiwogbil at the English Wikipedia, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publishes it under the following license: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. | Attribution: Geuiwogbil at the English Wikipedia You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work; to remix – to adapt the workUnder the following conditions: attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

In this episode, Janakan Raj (Co-Founder) and Babitha Selva (Vocalist) of "Eastern Empire" share the story behind the South Asian music group. We discuss the inception and mission of the band, the role music plays in communities globally and in tying us to our roots, the symbolic significance of practices in Carnatic music, and more.Eastern Empire's Youtube Page: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheEasternempire/videosThis episode was brought to you by online learning community - Skillshare. Sign up for a free 30 day trial now: https://skillshare.eqcm.net/SIB

It's hard to believe that a tiny religion from Jerusalem that started with about 120 people is now in nearly every major city and province in the Eastern Roman Empire-and the Eastern Empire was the richest and most heavily populated section of the Empire- but this is where we are when we read Acts 18. --Christians had been every-day faithful kind of Christians- praying, singing, giving, gathering, hearing the Word, preaching the Word, suffering...dying. Still, a heavenly candle lit by God will become a raging fire across the earth, and no government or riot can stop it burning. --That candle is the Church in Acts-the Church today-and that fire is still burning.--In Acts 18, there are reasons for Paul to feel beat down, but God cares for him. God will not let the candle be snuffed- he will fan it's flame anew.--How does God care for Paul-

It's hard to believe that a tiny religion from Jerusalem that started with about 120 people is now in nearly every major city and province in the Eastern Roman Empire-and the Eastern Empire was the richest and most heavily populated section of the Empire- but this is where we are when we read Acts 18. --Christians had been every-day faithful kind of Christians- praying, singing, giving, gathering, hearing the Word, preaching the Word, suffering...dying. Still, a heavenly candle lit by God will become a raging fire across the earth, and no government or riot can stop it burning. --That candle is the Church in Acts-the Church today-and that fire is still burning.--In Acts 18, there are reasons for Paul to feel beat down, but God cares for him. God will not let the candle be snuffed- he will fan it's flame anew.--How does God care for Paul--

In this episode I host Dr. Jeroen W.P. Wijnendaele on a complicated and fascinating subject and that is "Were the Byzantines actually Roman?" Was the Byzantine Empire Greek? Or was it Roman? We explore the very origins of "Byzantine" and "Byzantium" by starting off in the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium and then we watch as the Roman Empire expands while asking ourselves, what did it mean to be "Roman?" We take a journey into Byzantine studies and historiography as we ask "why did some in the West call the Eastern Roman Empire the Empire of the Greeks? Were there political motivations behind the framing of "Byzantine?" And more importantly, how did the Roman citizens in the Eastern Empire view themselves before and after the decline and fall of the Western Roman Empire? As we journey through history and sources such as Anna Komnene and her awesome work known as the Alexiad we see an intimate portrait of a complicated subject and that is how the ancient and medieval peoples of the Eastern Roman Empire viewed themselves? Lastly, we arrive to the last two ultimate questions and that is "Is one term more accurate than the other?" And are there controversies within Byzantine Studies and should it evolve or change? ACADEMIA PAGE: https://ugent.academia.edu/JeroenWPWijnendaele TWITTER: https://twitter.com/_Dragases_ Buy his book The Last of the Romans: Bonifatius below! https://www.amazon.com/Last-Romans-Bonifatius-Warlord-Africae/dp/1474295991/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Jeroen+W.P.+Wijnendaele&qid=1618426985&sr=8-1 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/antiquity-middlages/support

Pope Zachary, our last "Byzantine" pope, marks an important shift away from the Eastern Empire, towards... yet another empire.  In his episode, we discuss the ongoing Iconoclasm, calming the Lombard threat, evangelization in Germania, and how babies poop sometimes. Come for the bad Angelology, stay for "Here are your Hot Dogs": a broad overview of the Franks.  Revolution 1: https://open.spotify.com/episode/3fuVDWbZ9igPTraCLTZx3j?si=OudvgE-nQWOQnTO2EjZ8yw&fbclid=IwAR1WarEAq1jShf1EvsCPBKhyeIsfW1aIXbiW99SPAXYmBQDaL7sf7-hhPGs

Now comes the body-blow that would rock the Western Roman Empire on its heels. The Vandals, part of the original Rhine invasion of 406, now surged out of Spain and made a beeline for Roman North Africa.North Africa was Rome's bread basket and money-maker - any threat to it would create a food and financial crisis from which it would be nearly impossible to recover.Find out what happened and how the brilliant Roman commander, Flavius Aetius, reacted alongside the powerful Eastern Empire. Subscribe to us here on your favourite podcast channel, and follow us on Instagram and Facebook @bitesizebattles.

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy's turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy’s turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy’s turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy’s turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence.

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy’s turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy’s turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Though commonly used today to identify a polity that lasted for over a millennium, the label “Byzantine empire” is an anachronism imposed by more recent generations. As Anthony Kaldellis explains in Romanland: Ethnicity and Empire in Byzantium (Harvard University Press, 2019), this has contributed to the denial of the ethnic identity that most denizens of the empire had of themselves as Romans. Kaldellis traces the origins of this process of denial to the 8th century CE, with the papacy’s turn to the Franks as their protectors. The efforts by the Catholic Church to de-legitimize the Eastern Empire as the legatee of ancient Rome denied the self-identification of its residents as Romans, one that is reflected in much of the surviving literature from this era. This identity was so widely embraced by the residents of the empire as to make it a largely homogenous state ethnically throughout much of its existence, one that absorbed many of the bands of people from other ethnic groups who migrated to the empire over the centuries of its existence. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A long time ago in a galaxy not far from the nation's capital...It is a dark time for the Wizards. Before the John StarWallker's knee had been temporarily destroyed, a secret congregation of Lord Leonsis' minions visited Emperor Ernie Grunfeld's hidden base and unassumingly offered him the keys to Washington's galaxy (and an undisclosed compensation bounty) for the emperor's 16th year. Lord Leonsis knew not if the newly acquainted army of Wizards could stand up to the test of the rising Eastern Empire.Overcoming the Wizards' dreaded injuries, locker room rifts, perpetual downplaying of opponents, decrepit defense, and careless safeguarding the eternal rock, Old School Scottie Brooks and  Brattlequest Beal ushered the limping Wizards army into the Battle of the Eastern Empirs just as John Skywallker recovered from his battle wounds.The Wizards army fell predictably to the Beasts of the North whose emperor filled its army with a plethora of young, sharpshooting storm troopers. Yet Emperor Ernie survives yet again to the dismay of Washington galaxy dwellers. Noah Goetzel and Truth About It's Troy Haliburton explore the emperor's perplexing return... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A long time ago in a galaxy not far from the nation's capital... It is a dark time for the Wizards. Before the John StarWallker's knee had been temporarily destroyed, a secret congregation of Lord Leonsis' minions visited Emperor Ernie Grunfeld's hidden base and unassumingly offered him the keys to Washington's galaxy (and an undisclosed compensation bounty) for the emperor's 16th year. Lord Leonsis knew not if the newly acquainted army of Wizards could stand up to the test of the rising Eastern Empire. Overcoming the Wizards' dreaded injuries, locker room rifts, perpetual downplaying of opponents, decrepit defense, and careless safeguarding the eternal rock, Old School Scottie Brooks and  Brattlequest Beal ushered the limping Wizards army into the Battle of the Eastern Empirs just as John Skywallker recovered from his battle wounds. The Wizards army fell predictably to the Beasts of the North whose emperor filled its army with a plethora of young, sharpshooting storm troopers. Yet Emperor Ernie survives yet again to the dismay of Washington galaxy dwellers. Noah Goetzel and Truth About It's Troy Haliburton explore the emperor's perplexing return... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Indiana Jones tells his father that he saw Sir Richard in person and that his shield pointed the way to Alexandretta. John Ingle is back one more time as we talk laundry, Grail Diaries and excriptions. Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/indianajonesminute Join us online at: http://www.indianajonesminute.com/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1011918448897040/ 

The Roman Empire, written by Joshua J. Mark and narrated by James Lloyd: https://www.ancient.eu/Roman_Empire/ If you like our audio articles, please support us by becoming a member or donating to our non-profit company: - www.ancient.eu/membership/ - www.ancient.eu/donate/ - www.patreon.com/ahe The Roman Empire, at its height (c. 117 CE), was the most extensive political and social structure in western civilization. By 285 CE the empire had grown too vast to be ruled from the central government at Rome and so was divided by Emperor Diocletian (284-305 CE) into a Western and an Eastern Empire. The Roman Empire began when Augustus Caesar (27 BCE-14 CE) became the first emperor of Rome and ended, in the west, when the last Roman emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by the Germanic King Odoacer (476 CE). In the east, it continued as the Byzantine Empire until the death of Constantine XI and the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 CE. The influence of the Roman Empire on western civilization was profound in its lasting contributions to virtually every aspect of western culture.

When we talk about the fall of the Roman Empire, we're only talking about the western half - France, Spain, Italy, North Africa, and Britain. The eastern half of the Roman Empire survived the disastrous fifth century and would last in one form or another until 1453. What was so special about the eastern half of the Roman Empire, and how did it avoid the fate of its western cousin?Subscribe to Tides of History today so you never miss an episode: https://smarturl.it/TOHThank you to our sponsors:Texture - Get a 14-day free trial with access to thousands of online magazines here:www.texture.com/tidesSquarespace - Get a free trial and save 10% when you launch your domain here:www.squarespace.com/tidesThe Great Courses - Get a free trial with access to thousands of videos here:www.thegreatcoursesplus.com/tides

By 476 AD, the Western Roman Empire had fallen. In this episode, we trace the final twenty years of Roman History in the West. We continue with collapse of the Hunnic Empire after the death of Attila and see how the West gets on without Aetius. Then, the Eastern Empire mounts one last rescue mission before the final Roman Emperor in the West is deposed. Before finishing, we briefly consider the different arguments as to why the Western Empire fell and discuss the merits of each. 

Explore the background of the 4th Century in which there was chaos. The Great Persecution happened under Diocletian (284-305 AD) around 297-301 AD. Explore the Tetrarchy with the Eastern Empire ruled by Diocletian and Galerius, and the Western Empire ruled by Maximian Augustus and Constantius. Galerius provoked Diocletian into persecuting the Christians. Diocletian retired in 304 AD and insisted that Maximian retire as well. Galerius took over for Diocletian and Constantius took over for Maximian. Galerius continued the persecution. Constantius did not think Christians should be persecuted so did not pursue Christians. Eventually Galerius concedes defeat since the public was not unifying but actually dividing. Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration. Consider Eusebius’ response. Christianity became a religio licita (a legal religion) once again. Constantine was in Britain when his father died and he claimed to be the rightful successor to the throne. Maxentius also claimed the throne. There was a political and physical battle going on but also a spiritual battle. Constantine had a conversion experience in which the Labarum symbol (Chi-Rho) appeared and so it was used on the shields of his men during the battle at Milvian Bridge where he defeated Maxentius. Constantine was theologically confused from the start. Consider Henry Chadwick’s description of Constantine. Constantine never left this syncretic faith. The Arch of Constantine marks the spot of the Battle of Milvian Bridge. Constantine took control of the Western Empire, formed an alliance with Licinius, and agreed to no more persecution of Christians through the Edict of Milan. Was all well and everyone living in peace? Not exactly. Distant rulers such as Maximinus Daia who ruled the furthest eastern part of the Empire carried on the persecution but was eventually overthrown by Licinius. Constantine and Licinius had a complex friendship or relationship. There was distrust between them and in 324 AD Constantine overthrew Licinius. Constantine became the sole ruler of the entire Empire and desired unity.

Rebroadcast of the long running radio program, "The Ave Maria Hour", a presentation of the Franciscan Friars of the Atonement. www.AtonementFriars.org Daughter of Emperor Arcadius and Empress Aelia Eudoxia. She was born to the imperial family of the Eastern Empire, becoming regent in 414 for her young brother Theodosius II, who became emperor following the death of their father in 408. Given the honorific title Augusta by the Senate, she took a vow of perpetual virginity and gave herself completely to the task of raising her brother to rule the Eastern Empire. Her control was considerable, including running the day to day affairs of the empire, reforming the moral and religious life of the imperial court, and watching over Theodosius' education. In 421, Theodosius wed Athenais, who was baptized, took the name Eudocia, and was declared Augusta by her husband. A protracted political struggle between the two very formidable women started immediately. Pulcheria was exiled for a time, but was recalled after Theodosius leamed of his wife's infidelity. Throughout, Pulcheria was a vocal advocate of orthodoxy against the Eutychian heresy, promoting the appeal of Pope Leo I the Great to the emperor after the decrees of the Latrocinium. In 450, following Theodosius' untimely death from a fall while hunting, Pulcheria was declared Empress, and she married General Marcian after his agreement to share power with her and to respect her virginity.  Pope Leo acknowledged in a letter her instrumental role in the defeat of the heresies of Eutychianism and Nestorianism and for securing the recall of the many orthodox bishops who had been exiled by Theodosius and the heretics after gaining ascendancy in 449. Pulcheria was also responsible for the building of churches, hospitals, and the school of Constantinople, which became one of the chief universities of the Eastem Empire.

The Eastern Empire is healthy and flourishing but the Western Empire is gone. It's time to reflect on the reasons why.

Rome may have fallen but it's not taking this podcast with it. The Eastern Empire is still going strong but will undergo major changes, making our histories of Greece and Rome merge into one.

The new Emperor Tiberius II decided to throw the Empire's strength into the war with Persia. He spends liberally and recruits new men to bolster the Eastern Empire. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Professor Freedman focuses on the question of how the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire survived, while the West collapsed in the fifth century. He begins with a brief overview of Procopius’ Secret History, a work which presents a highly critical account of the reign of the emperor Justinian. The more urbanized, economically stronger, and geographically more stable Eastern Empire was able to survive while the West was dismantled by barbarian tribes. Yet under pressure from its old enemy, Persia, and new threats, the Slavs and Avars in the West and Arabs in the East, the Eastern Empire experienced a decline in the seventh century. Against the background of this political instability, Professor Freedman also discusses the Christological controversies of Nestorianism and Monophysitism which plagued the Church in the East. Beginning in the late seventh century, Iconoclasm also added to the pressures facing the Eastern Church and Empire. Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://oyc.yale.edu This course was recorded in Fall 2011.

Following the death of Eudoxia, the Praetorian Prefect Anthemius took control of the Eastern Empire and ran it wisely for the next decade. Meanwhile in the West, anti-barbarian policies will lead to the invasion of Italy by Alaric.

Professor Kleiner presents the three options for the course's term paper, which fall into two main categories: a research paper or a project to design a Roman city. For the research paper, she suggests cities and monuments not covered or mentioned briefly in the lectures, which embody some of the themes and issues raised in the course. Such topics include, in the Eastern Empire, the Roman cities of Corinth and Gerasa (Jerash), the Library of Celsus at Ephesus, and the Temple of Bel and the tower tombs at Palmyra. In the west, possible subjects are the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum; funerary architecture in Pompeii; a Roman villa at Fishbourne; Roman baths at Bath; and the houses at Vaison-la-Romaine. Students may also study a site or monument of their choice, provided that the topic is pre-approved by Professor Kleiner. The lecture concludes with an overview of the "Design a Roman City" option, in which students draw or generate plans and other representations of a hypothetical Roman city of 10,000 inhabitants, accompanied by a paper supporting their proposal.

Professor Kleiner presents the three options for the course's term paper, which fall into two main categories: a research paper or a project to design a Roman city. For the research paper, she suggests cities and monuments not covered or mentioned briefly in the lectures, which embody some of the themes and issues raised in the course. Such topics include, in the Eastern Empire, the Roman cities of Corinth and Gerasa (Jerash), the Library of Celsus at Ephesus, and the Temple of Bel and the tower tombs at Palmyra. In the west, possible subjects are the Villa of the Papyri at Herculaneum; funerary architecture in Pompeii; a Roman villa at Fishbourne; Roman baths at Bath; and the houses at Vaison-la-Romaine. Students may also study a site or monument of their choice, provided that the topic is pre-approved by Professor Kleiner. The lecture concludes with an overview of the "Design a Roman City" option, in which students draw or generate plans and other representations of a hypothetical Roman city of 10,000 inhabitants, accompanied by a paper supporting their proposal.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the culture, history and legacy of the eastern Byzantine Empire. In 453 with the Barbarians at the gate, through the gate and sacking the city of Rome “the wide arch of the ranged empire” finally began to fall...Or did it? In AD 395 the Emperor Theodosius had divided the vast Roman Empire between his two sons. The Northern and Western Europe provinces were governed from Rome, but the Eastern Empire became based on the Bosphorous in the city of Constantinople. And when Rome crumbled and the Dark Ages fell across Western Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire endured, with its ancient texts, its classical outlook and its Imperial society…for another one thousand years. How did the East survive when the West fell, were they really Romans and why do we know so little about one of the most successful and long lived Empires ever to straddle the globe? Did its scholars with their Greek manuscripts enable the Western Renaissance to take place? And why has it so often been sidelined and undermined by history and historians? With Charlotte Roueché, Reader in Classical and Byzantine Greek, Kings College London; John Julius Norwich, author of a three part history of Byzantium: The Early Centuries, The Apogee and Decline and Fall; Liz James, Senior Lecturer in the History of Art, University of Sussex.

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the culture, history and legacy of the eastern Byzantine Empire. In 453 with the Barbarians at the gate, through the gate and sacking the city of Rome “the wide arch of the ranged empire” finally began to fall...Or did it? In AD 395 the Emperor Theodosius had divided the vast Roman Empire between his two sons. The Northern and Western Europe provinces were governed from Rome, but the Eastern Empire became based on the Bosphorous in the city of Constantinople. And when Rome crumbled and the Dark Ages fell across Western Europe, the Eastern Roman Empire endured, with its ancient texts, its classical outlook and its Imperial society…for another one thousand years. How did the East survive when the West fell, were they really Romans and why do we know so little about one of the most successful and long lived Empires ever to straddle the globe? Did its scholars with their Greek manuscripts enable the Western Renaissance to take place? And why has it so often been sidelined and undermined by history and historians? With Charlotte Roueché, Reader in Classical and Byzantine Greek, Kings College London; John Julius Norwich, author of a three part history of Byzantium: The Early Centuries, The Apogee and Decline and Fall; Liz James, Senior Lecturer in the History of Art, University of Sussex.

This week's episode is titled – “Challenge.”We've tracked the development and growth of the Church in the East over a few episodes. To be clear, we're talking about the Church which made its headquarters in the city of Seleucia, twin city to the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, in the region known as Mesopotamia. What today historians refer to as The Church in the East called itself the Assyrian Church. But it was known by the Catholic Church in the West with its twin centers at Rome and Constantinople, by the disparaging title of the Nestorian Church because it continued on in the theological tradition of Bishop Nestorius, declared heretical by the Councils of Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon 20 years later. As we've seen, it's doubtful what Nestorius taught about the nature of Christ was truly errant. But Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, more for political reasons than from a concern for theological purity, convinced his peers Nestorius was a heretic and had him and his followers banished. They moved East and formed the core of the Church in the East.While that branch of the Church thrived during the European Middle Ages, the Western Catholic Church coalesced around 2 centers; Rome and Constantinople. Though they'd reached agreement over the doctrinal issues regarding the nature of Christ and expelled both the Nestorians to the East and the Monophysite Jacobites to their enclaves in Syria and Egypt, the Western and Eastern halves of the Roman Church drifted apart.The Council of Constantinople in 692 marked one of several turning points in the eventual rift between Rome and Constantinople. Called by the Emperor, the Council was attended only by Eastern Bishops. It dealt with no real doctrinal matters but set down rules for how the Church was to be organized and worship conducted. The problem is that several of the decisions went contrary to the long-held practice in Rome and the churches in Western Europe that looked to it. The Pope rejected the Council. à And the gulf between Rome and Constantinople widened.This gap between the Eastern and Western halves of the Church mirrored what was happening in the Empire at large. As we've seen, Justinian I tried to revive the gory of the Roman Empire in the 6th C, but after his death, the Empire quickly reverted to its path toward disintegration. What helped this dissolution was the emergence of Islam from the southeast corner of the Empire.Historically, the Arabs were a people of multiple tribes who shared both a common culture and distrust of one another which fueled endless conflict. But the early 7th C saw them united by a new and militant religion. The endless struggles that had kept them at each other's throats, were merged into a shared mission of setting them at everyone else's. Why steal from each other in generations of just transferring the same loot back and forth when they could unite and grab new plunder from their neighbors?And so much the better when those neighbors who used to be too strong to attack, were now in decline and under-defended?It was a Perfect Storm. The emergence of the Muslim armies in the early 7th C, bursting forth from the furnace that forged them, came right at the time when the once unstoppable might of the Roman Empire was finally a relic of a bygone age. Constantinople was able to hold the invaders at bay for another 700 years, but Islam spread quickly over other lands of the once great Empire; into the Middle East, North Africa, and was even able to get a foothold in Europe when they jumped the Straits of Gibraltar and landed in Spain. In the East, the Muslims swept up into Rome's ancient nemesis, Persia, and quickly subdued it as well.It all began with the birth of an Arab named Muhammad in 570.Since this is a podcast on the history of Christianity rather than Islam, I'll be brief in this review of the new religion that moved the Arabs out of their peninsula during the 7th C.Islam marks its beginning to the Hegira, Muhammad's move from his hometown of Mecca to the city of Medina in AD 622.  This began the successful phase of his preaching. Muhammad built a theology that included elements of Judaism, Christianity, and Arabian polytheism.While there's much talk today about Islam's place with Judaism and Christianity as a monotheistic religion, a little research reveals Muhammad really only elevated one of the Arab's gods over the others – that is Il-Allah, or as it is known today – Allah. Allah was the moon god and patron deity of Muhammad's Quraysh tribe. The enduring proof of this is the symbol of the crescent moon that adorns the top of every Muslim mosque and minaret and is the universal symbol of Islam.Muhammad's new religion included elements of both Judaism and Christianity because he hoped to include both groups in his new movement.  The Jews refused his efforts while several Christians joined the new movement. It's understandable why. The church Muhammad was familiar with was one that had been co-opted by Arab superstition. It hardly resembled Biblical Christianity. It was ripe pickings for the emergent faith. When Islam later ran into more orthodox Christian communities, they refused the new faith. Muhammad was incensed at the Jews and Christians refusal to join, so they became the object of his wrath.Part of Muhammad's genius was that he sanctified the Arabic penchant for war by uniting the tribes and sending them on the mission of taking Islam to the rest of the world thru the power of the sword. Loot was made over as a religious bonus, evidence of divine favor.Islam's rapid spread across Western Asia and North Africa was facilitated by the vacuum left from the chronic wars between Rome and Persia. Just prior to the Arab conquests, the old combatants had concluded yet another round in their long contest and were exhausted!In the 2nd decade of the 7th C, the Persians conquered Syria and Palestine from the Romans, took Antioch, pillaged Jerusalem, then conquered Alexandria in Egypt. That means the Persians ruled what had been the 2nd and 3rd most populous cities of the Roman Empire. They conquered most of Asia Minor and set-up camp just across the Bosporus from Constantinople.Then, in one of the great reversals of history, Emperor Heraclius rallied the Eastern Empire and launched a Holy War to reclaim the lands lost to the Persians.  They retook Syria, Palestine, Egypt and invaded deep into Persia. You can well imagine what all this war did politically, environmentally and economically to the region. It left it exhausted. Like a body whose defenses are down, the Eastern Empire was ripe for a new invasion. And look; Oh goodie à Here come the Arabs swinging their scimitars. The Arab advance was nothing less than spectacular.Muhammad died in 632 and was followed by a series of associates known as caliphs. In 635 the Arabs took Damascus, in 638 they captured Jerusalem. Alexandria fell in 642. Then the Muslim armies turned north and swept up into the demoralized region of Persia. By 650 it was theirs, as were parts of Asia Minor and a large part of North Africa.The Muslims realized conquering the Mediterranean would require they become a naval power. They did and began taking strategic islands in the Eastern and Central sea. In the 670s with their new navy, they began taking shots at Constantinople but were chased off by a new invention – Greek Fire.They conquered Carthage in 697, the center of Byzantine might in North Africa. Then in 715, they hopped the Straits of Gibraltar and landed in Spain, bringing the Visigothic rule there to an end. They then crossed the Pyrenees and laid claim to Southwestern Gaul. It wasn't ill the Battle of Tours in 732 that the Franks under Charles Martel were able to put a halt to the Muslim advance. That also marks the beginning of the ever so slow roll-back of Muslim domination in the Iberian Peninsula.But what territory Islam lost in the far western reach of their holdings was made up for by their advances in the East. During the 8th C, they reached into Punjab in India and deep into Central Asia.The major islands of the Mediterranean became coins that flipped from Byzantine to Muslim, then back again. The Muslims even managed to settle a couple of colonies on the coast of Italy. They raided Rome.These conquests tapered off as the old tendency toward animosity between the Arabic tribes returned. The thing that had united them, Islam, became one more thing to fight over. The main point of contention was over who was supposed to lead the Umma – the Muslim community. Islam fractured into different camps who turned their scimitars on each other, and the rest of the world breathed a collective sigh of relief.The Church in those lands that now lay under the Crescent moon suffered. Islam was supposed to hold a certain respect for what they called “The People of the Book” - meaning Christians and Jews. Moses and Jesus were considered great prophets in Islam.  While pagans had to convert to Islam, Christians and Jews were allowed to continue in their faith, as long as they paid a penalty tax. The treatment of Christians varied widely across Muslims lands. Their fate was determined by the intensity of the rulers' faith and adherence to Islam.  This was largely due to the conflicting instructions found in the Koran about how to treat people of other faiths.In Islam, later revelation supersedes earlier pronouncements. Early in Muhammad's career, he hoped to win Christians by persuasion to his cause so he called for kindly treatment of them. Later, when he had some power and Christians proved intractable, he spoke more stridently and urged their forced compliance. Conversion FROM Islam to any other religion was to be punished by execution. But the Koran isn't set down in a chronological sequence and readers don't always know which was an earlier and which a later revelation. Some Muslims rulers were stern and read the harsh passages as being the rule. They persecuted Christian and tried to eradicate the Church. Others believed the call to a more merciful relationship with Christians was a higher morality and followed that. Churches were allowed to meet under such rulers, but public demonstrations of faith were banned and no new church building was permitted.Interestingly, there was a flowering of Arabic culture that took place due to rule by benevolent Muslims. Because Christian scholarship was allowed, the Classics of Greek and Roman civilization were translated into Arabic BY CHRISTIAN CLERGY and SCHOLARS. It was this that led to the emergence of the Arabic Golden Age modern historians make so much of. That such a Golden Age was sparked and enabled by Christian scholars giving Muslims access to the works of classical antiquity is rarely mentioned.The severe limits placed on the Faith by even lenient Muslim rulers, combined with the harsh treatment of the Church in other places led to widespread loses by the Church in terms of population and influence. Catholic Christians living in North Africa fled north to Europe where they were welcomed by those of similar faith. But the Jacobite Monophysite community was left behind to languish, and the vibrant church culture that had once dominated the region was nearly lost. The resurgent radical Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is now putting the final nails in the coffin of the Coptic Church, the spiritual heirs to that once vibrant history.Nearly everywhere Islam spread, it was accompanied by mass defections of marginal Christians to the new faith. Pragmatism isn't such a modern philosophy after all. Many nominal Christians assumed the single God of Islam was the same as the one God of Christianity and He must favor the Muslims – I mean > look at how successful they are in spreading their religion. Might makes right – Right? // Well, maybe it doesn't . . . Shhh! Not so loud, the mullahs might hear and their scimitars are sharp.As many had converted to the newly emergent Christianity under the auspices of Constantine in the early 4th Century, now many converted to Islam under the caliphates in the 7th.Along with the restrictions placed on those Christians who refused to convert to Islam was added a practice the Muslims picked up from the Zoroastrian rulers of Persia.  They required Christians to wear a distinctive badge and prohibited them from serving in the army. That was probably for the best since the army was used specifically to spread the Faith by the sword – the Muslim practice of jihad. But being banned from the military meant they were prohibited the use of arms, and forced to wear distinctive clothing meant easy identification for those hostile elements who saw the presence of Christians as contrary to the will of Allah. Christians became targets of public shame and often, violence. Since conversions FROM Islam were punishable by death, while conversion TO Islam was rewarded, even in the most lenient realms under the banner of Crescent Moon, the church experienced a steady decline.As Islam settled in and became the dominant cultural force throughout its domains, most of the Christian communities that remained became tradition-bound. They reacted strongly against any innovations, fearing they were dangerous deviations from the Faith they'd held to so tenaciously in spite of persecution. Another reason they rejected change was for fear it might lead to success and the church would grow. Growth meant the Muslim authorities paying closer attention, and that was something they wanted to avoid at all costs. For that reason, to this day the Church in Muslim lands tends to be archaic and bound to traditions practiced for hundreds of years.

We're changing gears a bit to begin a series of podcasts considering the impact Christianity has had on the world. We'll unpack how the Faith has left its imprint on society. The Title of this episode is The Change - Part 1: The Sanctity of Life.Knowing my fascination with history and especially the history of Rome, a few years ago, someone recommended I watch a mini-series that aired on a cable network. While it was dramatic historical fiction, the producers did a good job of presenting the customs & values of 1st C BC Roman culture. While the series was suspenseful & entertaining, it was difficult to watch because of the brutality that was commonplace. And it wasn't put in merely for the sake of titillation or to make the shows more provocative. It was an accurate depiction of the time. More than once, I found myself near tears, broken over just how lost the world was. Several times I said out loud, "They needed Jesus!"Exactly! THAT was the very era Jesus was born into & the culture the Gospel spread in. How desperately the Roman Empire needed the life-affirming message the Early Church preached & lived.There's an old saying, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” When the early Christians came to Rome, we can be thankful they DIDN'T do what the Romans did. On the contrary, slowly but surely, with fits & starts, they eventually transformed the Greco-Roman world from rank paganism to a more or less Biblical worldview. Nowhere was that seen more clearly than in the change that was made to the sanctity of human life.During the early days of the Roman republic, the high value put on the family unit formed a moral base that lent a certain weight to the value of the individual. But as the idea of the State grew during the late republic, then blossomed in the Empire, people were evaluated in terms of what they could contribute to the State. That meant people on the bottom of the social scale had little to no value. The poor, women, and slaves became chattel; property to be used. Life became cheap. And the pagan gods bequeathed no real moral virtue into the Roman world. They were understood to be whimsical & selfish at the best of times, cruel in the worst.The Christian value of the sanctity or specialness of human beings was based in the Jewish view of man as created in God's image. There was a healthy Jewish population in the City of Rome itself & scattered throughout other major cities of the Empire. Early on, the unique Jewish view of man had infiltrated the Roman world where ever Jews were to be found. So different was this view of man from the paganized Greco-Roman worldview that many of the more enlightened Greeks & Romans had begun attending Jewish synagogues. If they stayed, they became known as God-fearers; Gentiles who believed in the God of the Bible, but hadn't become full converts to Judaism by being circumcised, baptized, & keeping kosher. They occupied a section in many synagogues, sitting by themselves to hear the teaching of Scripture. The book of Acts tells us some of Paul's most fruitful work was in this God-Fearer section of the synagogue.The Jewish idea of men & women being created in God's image took on new potency when the Gospel was preached, for it told of God becoming man. And becoming a man so He could go to the cross to ransom lost men & women; translating them from a destiny in hell to the glory of heaven. All this spoke of God's view of the value of human beings. If He would endure the passion & cross, it meant life was of inestimable value. Rather than life being cheap, it was to be honored and protected at all costs, regardless of its station or quality.One way the early Christian demonstrated this was the church's opposition to the widespread practice of infanticide. It was common to expose unwanted children soon after birth, either by drowning or leaving them on exposed where the elements or wild beasts would finish them. They were left to die for physical deformities, for being of the wrong sex, or simply because the parents couldn't afford another mouth to feed.Abandoning unwanted infants was quite common in the Greco-Roman world. In fact, the founding myth of Rome begins with 2 infant boys being tossed into the Tiber River. Romulus & Remus both survived to be suckled by a she-wolf, then raised by an elderly shepherd. It was their later struggle that founded the city of Rome, named for one of the brothers - Romulus.So in the city of Rome itself, parents would regularly leave unwanted children at the base of the Columna Lactaria. In later times, Roman parents would abandon their infants there to show grief over some national calamity, like the death of a beloved emperor. To put that in modern terms, imagine someone dropping off their 2 week old infant at a memorial for 9/11 - and just walking away; thinking that somehow shows solidarity with everyone's shock & grief. Yet that's what many Romans did with their newborns when calamity struck.Greeks also practiced infanticide by abandoning infants. They did so because it was woven into their mythology. The well-known Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex revolves around Oedipus who at only 3 days was abandoned by his father King Laius of Thebes. Ion, founder of Ionia was abandoned as an infant by his mother. Poseidon, Aesculapius, & Hephaistos were all abandoned infants. Even Paris who started the Trojan War was abandoned as a child. In Sparta, every newborn was brought before the elders for inspection. If the child was deemed weak in any way, it was abandoned.As shocking, is realizing in all the literature come to us from that time, nowhere is there a shred of evidence infanticide was wrong, or even questioned.Infanticide wasn't practiced just among the Greeks & Romans; other ancient societies practiced it as well. Plutarch said the Carthaginians had made infant sacrifice a regular occurrence. When building a new house or wall, they mixed the blood of an infant with the mortar, thinking it made the wall stronger. If a wealthy family had no new-born to offer, they'd buy one off a poor mother. Though we don't have a record of what was on the 12 Tablets that formed the basis of Roman Law & civilization, we know a good deal of what was in them from the quotes of later Romans. Cicero says it was part of Roman law to expose deformed infants. In the 1st C AD, Seneca, remarks in passing, without batting the proverbial eye, that deformed infants were routinely drowned. Infanticide was so common in the later Greek era that in the 2nd C BC, Polybius blamed a population decline on it. Because infanticide was so common, large families among both Greeks & Romans was rare. An inscription found at Delphi reveals that in a 2nd C sample of 600 families, only 1% had more than 1 daughter! Infanticide was practiced in India, China, Japan, Africa, the rainforests of Brazil, among the Inuit, & among the native North & Central  Americans.Early Christians balked not at calling infanticide, murder. To them, infants were creatures of God who bore His image no less than their mature counterparts. They'd heard of Jesus' attention to little children in Matthew 19. That passage is interesting because the disciples thought the children approaching Jesus weren't worthy of His august attention. In their attitude toward the little ones, contrary as it was to Jesus' own perspective, we catch of glimpse of how the Greco-Roman culture had influenced them. The pre-Roman Jewish culture put a huge emphasis on children. They were regarded as a great blessing from God. Children were God's promise of a future! Yet in the disciples' shooing the children away from Jesus, we see how the Greco-Roman devaluing of life had infected them.We ought to reflect on how the modern abortion debate may have affected our valuation of human life. The parallels to the current population decline among ethnic Europeans ought to be obvious & a sign of how the Judeo-Christian worldview has been gutted from Western civilization.The Didache, the standard catechism used by the Church in the 1st C tells Christians, "You shall not commit infanticide." It's condemned in the Epistle of Barnabas, written about 130. In AD 222, the 1-time slave turned bishop of Rome, Callistus expressed his dismay at the widespread practice of exposing unwanted infants.It was this & the very vocal Christian opposition to it that helped fuel the persecution the early church faced in so many places around the Empire. The Romans placed great stock in tradition and looked with suspicion on anyone who sought to change it. The Christians were doing just that with their radical ideas about how to treat the unwanted.While Christians opposed infanticide, they were unable to do anything about it as a social policy while they were an outlawed group. It wasn't until the Edict of Milan in AD 313 that they were able to even speak to official policy. Then, only 60 years later Emperor Valentinian, at the urging of Basil of Caesarea, outlawed the wicked practice of infanticide.But while they waited for the laws to change, early Christians didn't sit on their hands. They regularly went out to the hillsides where children were left exposed and took them into their homes, raising them as their own children. In Rome, Bishop Callistus organized people to roam the streets in the late evening, looking for abandoned children. He then placed them in the homes of parents wanting them. As far as we know, this was the first organized adoption agency, even though it was done on the sly. The famous martyr Polycarp's protégé, Benignus of Dijon, recused & nurtured abandoned little ones, ministering to the needs of children who'd been deformed because of botched abortions. Afra of Augsburg, a notorious prostitute before her conversion to Christ, began a ministry to the abandoned children of prisoners, thieves, smugglers, pirates, runaway slaves, and all sorts of ne'er-do' wells.No one should get the impression from this that following Valentinian's outlawing of infanticide & child-abandonment, there was an immediate, overnight end to the practice. Far from it. People in Europe & the Eastern Empire continued to off their off spring in large numbers. And Christians continued to adopt them. But as the influence of the Christian worldview spread, there was a deep & fundamental shift that took place in the way people viewed human life; all of it from cradle to grave. And where that respect for life settled in, infanticide evaporated. It got to the point where a single abandoned infant became a shocking event the news of which spread like wild-fire. And when desperation moved some young mother to abandon her child, where did she leave it? Not on a hillside to let it die. No. She left it on the doorstep of the local church because she knew her child would be taken care of.So it ought to be with the deepest kind of grief that we hear now about newborns being left in dumpsters & gas station restrooms. It seems we've regressed, not progressed; devolved, not evolved. Society has at any rate. And to think - there are people who actually rejoice that the Christian worldview has been cut loose from modern society.We have abortion, which is really just an earlier form of infanticide. Partial birth abortion isn't even that! If a woman doesn't make the appointment to rid herself of the unwanted before it's born, no problem; when in Rome, do as the Romans do.What's next? Gladiatorial combat? Oops - too late. // Slavery? Again, too late. It's already here.We'll be taking a look at many more ways the Christian Faith has impacted culture & civilization in the weeks to come.

This 17th episode is titled “What a Difference a Century Makes.”During the mid-4th Century, the history of the Church walked apace with the history of the Roman Empire. With the death of Constantine the Great, the rule of the Empire divided among his 3 sons, Constantine II, Constans, & Constantius. In the power-hungry maneuverings that followed, they did their upbringing in a Christian education little honor. They quickly removed any challenge by their father's relatives, then set to work on one another. 3 years after their father's death they went to war in a struggle for sole supremacy. Constantine II was slain by Constans, who was in turn murdered by a Gallic commander of the Imperial guard named Magnentius. After the defeat and suicide of Magnentius, Constantius became sole Emperor & reigned till his death in 361.Constantius departed from his father Constantine's wise policy of religious toleration. Constantius was greatly influenced by the Arian bishop of Constantinople Eusebius who inspired him to use the authority of his office to enforce the Arian-brand of Christianity not only on the pagans of the Empire but also on those Christians who followed the Nicene Orthodoxy. Paganism was violently suppressed. Temples were pillaged and destroyed with the loot taken from them given either to the Church or Constantius' supporters. As Christians had earlier been subject to arrest & execution, so now were pagans. Not unexpectedly, large numbers of former pagans came over to Christianity; their conversion feigned. A similar persecution was applied towards Nicaean Christians. They were punished with confiscation and banishment.Constantius meddled in most of the Church's affairs, which during his reign was fraught with doctrinal controversy. He called a multitude of councils; in Gaul, Italy, Illyricum, & Asia. He fancied himself an accomplished theologian and enjoyed being called Bishop of bishops.Constantius justified his violent suppression of paganism by likening it to God's command to Israel to wipe out the idol-worshipping Canaanites. But intelligent church leaders like Athanasius argued instead for toleration.  Athanasius wrote,Satan, because there is no truth in him, breaks in with ax and sword. But the Savior is gentle, and forces no one to whom He comes, but knocks on and speaks to the soul: ‘Open to me, my sister?' If we open to Him He enters but if we will not, He departs. For the truth is not preached by sword and dungeon, by the might of an army, but by persuasion and exhortation. How can there be persuasion where the fear of the Emperor is uppermost? How exhortation, where the contradictory has to expect banishment and death?The ever-swinging pendulum of history foretells that the forced-upon faith of Constantius will provoke a pagan reaction. That reaction came immediately after Constantius during the reign of his cousin, Julian the Apostate. Julian had only avoided the earlier purge of his family because he was too young to pose a threat. But the young grow up.  Julian received a Christian education and was trained for a position in church leadership. But he harbored and nurtured a secret hatred for the religion of the court, a religion under which his family was all but exterminated. He studied the banned texts of Eastern mystics & Greek philosophers; all the more thrilling because they were forbidden. Julian became so immersed in paganism, he was made the leader of a secret order devoted to keeping the ancient religion alive.Despite his hostility toward Christianity, Julian recognized the Faith was too deeply entrenched in the Empire to turn back the sundial to a time when Christians were persona non grata. He decided instead to simply pry loose the influence they'd established in the civil realm. He appointed non-Christians to important posts & reclaimed some of the old pagan temples that had been turned into churches back to their original use.Julian enacted a policy of religious tolerance. Everyone was free to practice whatever faith they wanted. Make no mistake, Julian wanted to eliminate Christianity. He felt the best way to accomplish that, wasn't by attacking it outright. After all, 200 years of persecution had already shown that wasn't effective. Rather, Julian figured all the various sects of Christianity would end up going to war with one another and the movement would die the death of a thousand cuts, all self-inflicted. His plan didn't work out, of course, but it was an astute observation of how factious the followers of Christ can be.When Julian was killed in 363 in an ill-advised war against the Sassanids, the pagan revival he'd hoped for fizzled. The reasons for its demise were many. Because Paganism is an amalgam of various often contradictory beliefs and worldviews it lacked the cohesion needed to stare down Christianity. And compared to the virtuous morality and ethical priorities of Christianity, paganism paled.Julian's hoped-for elimination of Christianity by allowing its various sects to operate side by side never materialized. On the contrary, major advances were made toward a mutual understanding of the doctrinal debates that divided them. The old Athanasius was still around and as an elder statesman for the Church he'd mellowed, making him a rallying point for different groups. He called a gathering of church leaders in Alexandria in 362, right in the middle of Julian's reign, to recognize the Creed of Nicea as the Church's official creedal statement. His resolution passed.But trouble was brewing in the important city of Antioch. While the Western churches under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome remained steadfast in their loyalty to the Nicean Creed, the Eastern Empire leaned toward Arianism. Antioch in Syria was a key Eastern city split between adherents of Nicea & Arianism. The official church, that is, the one recognized by the Emperor in Constantinople had an Arian bishop. The Nicean Christians were led by Bishop Paulinus in a separate fellowship. But in 360, a new bishop rose to lead the Arian church at Antioch – and he was a devoted Nicean named Meletius! This occurred right at a time when more & more Eastern bishops were coming out in favor of the Nicene Creed. These Eastern bishops supported Meletius and the New Niceans of Antioch. We might think this would see a merger of the old-Niceans under Paulinus with the new, and à we'd assume wrongly. Rome & the Western church considered Paulinus the rightful bishop of Antioch & remained suspicious of Meletius & the new-Niceans. Efforts on their part to negotiate with & be accepted by the Western church were rebuffed. This served to increase the divide between East & West that had already been brewing for the last few decades.A new center of spiritual weight developed at this time in Cappadocia in central-eastern Asia Minor. It formed around the careers of 3 able church leaders, Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend, Gregory of Nazianzus. Their work answered the lingering concerns that hovered around the words the Nicaean Council had chosen to describe Jesus as being of the same substance as the Father. These 3 Cappadocian Fathers were able to convince their Eastern brothers that the Nicean Creed was the best formulation they were likely to produce and to accept that Jesus was of the same substance as the Father, and so God, not a similar substance and so something other than or less than God, as the Arians held it. They pressed in on terms that made it clear there was only one God but 3 persons who individually are, and together comprise that one God; The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They said the 3 operated inseparably, none ever acting independently of the others. Every divine action begins from the Father, proceeds thru the Son, and is completed in the Holy Spirit.In 381 at the Council of Constantinople, the Eastern Church demonstrated its acceptance of the Cappadocian Fathers' theology by affirming their adherence to the Nicean Creed. This effectively marked the end of Arianism within the Empire. And unlike the previous 3 ecumenical councils, the Council of Constantinople was not followed by years of bitter strife. What the council failed to do was resolve the split in the church at Antioch. The West continued to support the Old-Niceans while the East supported the New. It was clear to all tension was building between the old seat of Imperial power & the new capital; between Rome & Constantinople.  Which church & bishop would be the recognized leader of the whole? Antioch became the site where that contest was lived out thru their surrogates, Paulinus & Meletius.The Council of Constantinople attempted to deal with this contest by developing a system for how the churches would be led. The rulings of the Council, and all the church councils held during these years are called Canon Law, which established policy by which the Church would operate. One of the rulings of the Council of Constantinople established what was known as dioceses. A diocese was a group of provinces that became a region over which a bishop presided. The rule was that one diocese could not interfere in the workings of another. Each was to be autonomous.Though Jovian followed Julian as emperor in 363 his reign was short. He followed a policy of religious toleration, as did Valentinian I who succeeded him. Valentinian recognized the Empire was too vast for one man to rule & appointed his younger brother Valens to rule the East. Valens was less tolerant than his brother & attacked both paganism & the Nicean Christians. But Valens was the last Arian to rule in either East or West. All subsequent emperors were Orthodox; that is, they followed the Nicean Creed.When Valentinian died in 375, rule of the Western Empire fell to his son Gratian. When Valens died, Gratian chose an experienced soldier named Theodosius to rule the East.Gratian & Theodosius presided over the final demise of paganism. Both men strongly supported the Orthodox faith, and at the urging of Bishop Ambrose of Milan, they enacted policies that brought an end to pagan-worship. Of course, individuals scattered throughout the Empire continued to secretly offer sacrifices to idols & went through the superstitious rituals of the past, but as a social institution with temples & a priesthood, paganism was eradicated. Under the reign of Theodosius, Christianity was made the official religion of the Empire.We'll end this episode with a look at how the church at Rome emerged during the 4th & 5th Centuries to become the lead church in the Empire.In theory all the bishops of the Empire's many churches were equal. In reality, from the time of the Apostolic Fathers, some gained greater prominence because their churches were in more important cities. During the 2nd & early 3rd Centuries Alexandria, Antioch, Rome & Carthage were the places of the greatest spiritual gravity; their senior pastors recognized as leaders, not just of their churches but of The Church. The Council of Nicaea in 325 recognized Alexandria as the lead church for all North Africa, Antioch in the East & Rome as preeminent in the West.Constantinople, the new Eastern political capital, was added to that list in 381 by the Council of Constantinople.  As one of its rulings in canon law, the Council declared Constantinople 2nd only to Rome in terms of primacy in deciding church matters.We might assume the Bishop of Rome would gladly accept this finding of the Council, being that it acknowledged the Roman “see” (that is, a bishop's realm of authority) as primary. He didn't! He objected because the Council's ruling implied the position of a Church and its Bishop depended on the status of their city in the Empire. In other words, it was the nearness to the center of political power that weighed most. The Bishop of Rome maintained that the preeminence of Rome wasn't dependent on political proximity but on historical precedent. He said the decree of a Synod or Council didn't convey primacy. The Roman Bishop claimed Rome was primary because God had made it so.  At a Council in Rome a year after the Council of Constantinople, the Roman Bishop Damasus said Rome's primacy rested on the Apostle Peter's founding of the Roman church. Ever since the mid-3rd C, Roman Christians had used Matthew 16, Luke 22 & John 21 to claim their church possessed a unique authority over other churches & bishops. This Petrine Theory as it's come to be known was generally accepted by the end of the 6th C. It claimed Peter had been given primacy over his fellow apostles, and his superior position had been passed on from him to his successors, the bishops of Rome, by apostolic succession.In truth, there was already a substantial church community in Rome when Peter arrived in Rome and was martyred. The Christians honored Peter as they did all their martyrs by making his grave a popular gathering place. Eventually, it became a shrine. Then, when persecution ended, the shrine became a church. The leader of that church became associated with Peter whose grave was its central feature.When Constantine came to power, he ordered a basilica built on the site on Vatican Hill. To mark that a new day of favor toward the Church had come, Constantine gave the Lateran Palace where the Roman Empress had lived to the Bishop of Rome as his residence. But the story that arose later which puts Emperor Constantine on his face before Sylvester, the Bishop of Rome, pleading forgiveness in sackcloth & ashes & handing over to him the rule of Italy & Rome, is a fiction.Until Bishop Damasus in the mid-4th C, the Roman bishops were competent leaders of the church but tended toward weakness when dealing with the Emperors, who often sought to dominate the Faith. A dramatic change occurred at the end of the 4th C, when under Ambrose of Milan, the Church dictated to the Emperor.Bishop Damasus, a contemporary of Ambrose, installed the Primacy of Peter as a central part of Church doctrine. He claimed the Roman church was started by Peter, who'd passed on his authority to the next bishop, who'd, in turn, handed it to his successor and that each Bishop of Rome was a recipient of Peter's apostolic authority. Since Peter was the leader of the Apostles that meant the Roman church was the lead church and the Bishop the leader, not just of Rome but of all Christendom. Damasus was the first to address other bishops as ‘sons' rather than ‘brothers.'Historical events during the 4th & 5th Centuries enhanced the power of the Bishop of Rome. When Constantine moved the political capital to Constantinople in 330, it left the Roman Bishop as the strongest individual in Rome for long stretches of time. People in the west looked to him for temporal as well as spiritual leadership when a crisis arose. Constantinople & the Emperor were hundreds of miles & weeks away; the Roman bishop was near; so people turned to him to exercise authority in meeting political as well as spiritual crises. In 410 when Alaric and the Visigoths sacked Rome, Bishop Innocent I used clever diplomacy to save the city from the torch. When the Western Empire finally fell in 476, the people of Italy looked to the Roman Bishop for civil as well as religious leadership.Great leaders like Cyprian, Tertullian, & Augustine were outstanding men of the Western church who counted themselves as being under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome. The Western Empire had also managed to stay free of the heretical challenges that had wracked the East, most notably, the brouhaha with Arius and his followers. This doctrinal solidarity was due in large part to the steadfast leadership of Rome's Bishops.Another factor that contributed to Rome's rise to dominance was the decline of the other great centers. Jerusalem lost its place due to the Bar Kochba rebellion of the 2nd C. Alexandria & Antioch were overrun by the Muslims in the 6th & 7th Centuries; leaving Constantinople & Rome as the centers of power.In an Imperial edict in AD 445, the Emperor Valentinian III recognized the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in spiritual affairs. What he enacted became Canon law for all.Another great boon to the influence & prestige of the Roman Bishop was the missionary work of monks loyal to Rome. Clovis & Augustine planted churches in northern France & Britain, all owing allegiance to Rome.But above all, the Roman church was led by several able bishops during this time; men who overlooked no opportunity to enhance & extend their power.Leo I was bishop at Rome from 440 to 461 & by far the ablest occupant of the Bishop's seat until Gregory I, 150 years later. His skill earned him the title “Leo the Great.”We're not sure when Rome's bishops began to be called “pope”, a title which for years had been used by the bishop of Alexandria. But Leo was the first to refer consistently to himself as pope – from Latin, a child's affectionate term for papa. In 452, Leo persuaded Attila the Hun to let the city of Rome alone. Then 3 years later when the Vandals came to sack the city, Leo convinced them to limit their loot-fest to 2-weeks. The Vandal Leader Gaiseric kept his word, and the Romans forever after esteemed Leo as the one who saved their city from destruction.Pope Leo insisted all church courts & the rulings of all bishops had to be submitted to him for final decision. This is what Valentinians III's edict of 445 granted and he was determined to apply it.Pope Gelasius I, who ruled from 492 to 496, said that God gave sacred power to the Pope and royal power to the King. But because the Pope had to account to God for the King at the judgment, the sacred power of the Pope was more important than royal power. So, civil rulers should submit to the Pope. While the emperors didn't all automatically knuckle under to popes, most did resign a large part of authority & political influence to the Roman Bishops.

This episode of CS the first of a couple summary reviews we'll do. My plan is to continue on as we have, pausing occasionally to in one episode catch us up in broad strokes on what we've covered so far.My hope is to avoid the whole, “Can't see the forest for the trees” thing. For those listeners where English is a second language, that phrase is an idiom that means the loss of perspective behind too many details.Though I want to give a clean straight narrative for our story of the Church, we can't help but bounce around ab it between times & places. It's just the nature of trying to examine all of church history, instead of its course in one location. Still, I hope to build a basic sense of historical flow. To that end, stopping every so often to step back and provide a quick summary of the material we've covered so far seems appropriate.Overviews won't have nearly the detail as a regular episode, but they will have a lot more names & dates since it's a culling & gleaning of what the last so many episodes have covered.Okay, here we go with our first Overview . . .While the Christian Faith began as an inordinately tiny sect within 1st Century Judaism, it grew rapidly, first among Jews, then among Gentiles. This growth can be attributed to two main causes. First, was the generally lethargic spiritual condition of the ancient world, most especially in those regions dominated by the Roman Empire. Several factors conspired to make people ripe for the message the Gospel proclaimed. Second, was the spiritual dynamic provided by early followers of Jesus. They demonstrated an exceptional lifestyle that attracted others. Even while Rome followed an official policy of opposition to the Faith, the number of its adherent grew.Early Christianity is divided by historians into 2 periods: the Apostolic & Post-Apostolic.The Apostolic lasts from the mid-1st Century to the early 2nd when the last of the Apostolic Fathers died. The Apostolic Fathers are counted not only as the original disciples of Jesus and their peers but their direct followers; men like Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch & Polycarp.The Post-Apostolic period stretches from the early 2nd Century to the beginning of the 4th. During this time the leadership of the church moved from direct dependence on the Apostolic Fathers to local church leaders, known as pastors. As the decades passed, these local lead pastors morphed into bishops who oversaw a growing episcopal structure.This period was marked by episodic & regional persecution of Christians in Roman lands. It wasn't until the mid to late 3rd Century that persecution became a widespread policy. It ended with the arrival of Emperor Constantine and the Edict of Milan in 313. Names associated with this time are Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen.Besides persecution, the main challenge the Post-Apostolic church faced was presented by heresy.Early Christians heeded the New Testament's repeated call for maintaining correct belief and refuting false teaching. The Faith wasn't just the philosophical ramblings of a sun-burnt sage. It was rooted in historical events both ancient & recent. When aberrant teachers attempted to hijack core & cardinal doctrines, bishops gathered to study what their Scriptures said and arrive at a consensus. In this way, they refuted the challenge of such groups & teaching as Docetism and its later evolution, Gnosticism.  They rebuffed Marcionism, the Ebionites, Manachaeists & the aberrant teaching of Montanus. The greatest threat rose from a Bishop named Arius who denied Jesus' deity.  Though Arianism was officially quashed at the First of the Great or what are called Ecumenical Councils held at Nicaea in 325, it continued to be espoused in many regions for the next century and a half. The Council of Nicaea established the orthodox Christian position today known as Trinitarianism, which holds that God is one in essence while three in persons. While 300 bishops signed the Nicaean Creed, many of them went away from the Council unsettled about the terminology used in the Creed to define the correct view of God. The task of sharpening the terms & arriving at the proper description of the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity was left to the Cappadocian Fathers some time later.The Post-Apostolic period is also when the Church Fathers realized the need to provide a definitive list of books that comprised the Bible. The work of several councils finally closed the Canon during this time.The Post-Apostolic Period was followed by what's often called Catholic Christianity; not to be confused with ROMAN Catholic. The term ‘catholic' means universal and stands in contrast to the many often subtle doctrinal challenges that arose following the Council of Nicaea. This period, stretching from the beginning of the 4th Century to the end of the 5th saw 7 major Church Councils that all met to address some new or renewed challenge to orthodoxy, specifically as it related to the theological can of worms the First Council at Nicaea opened, and maybe we should say, sought to close. You see, once the Church settled on the Trinity as the right way to understand God, the main questions were;1) How do the persons of the Godhead relate to one another?2) How are we to understand the person of Jesus? How do we reconcile Him as both God & Man?This second issue ended up in sometimes bloody brawls as advocates of different positions used the debate to secure political favor & religious prestige.During this period of Catholic Christianity, 4 cities rose as the gravitational centers of the Christian world; Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, & the new capital of the Empire, Constantinople. Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople were all in the East while Rome was alone in the West. The main contest for prestige & power was between Alexandria & Antioch which used 2 different ways of interpreting Scripture and understanding the Person & Nature of Christ. Alexandria had a long reputation as a center of scholarship but Antioch continually produced excellent preachers. Since the Church at Constantinople, being near the royal palace, was the premier church in terms of securing imperial favor, whoever was the bishop there tended to secure favor for his side of the debate. It infuriated many of the bishops at Alexandria that Antioch kept providing new leaders for the Church at Constantinople. The supreme example of all this is the verbal and at times physical brawl that took place between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius from Antioch, who became Bishop at Constantinople.It was during this time as well that the Church at Rome emerged to become, not just the lead church in the West, but over the entire Empire. One of the reasons for this is the generally excellent leadership the Roman Bishops provided. When the Eastern churches were wracked by debate, Rome often played a mediating influence or lent a perspective that resolved the issue.What encouraged Rome's emergence as the lead church in the Faith was the claim of some Roman Bishops that they were spiritual heirs to Peter's spiritual hegemony. That claim was not without considerable push-back by many, but it eventually proved persuasive so that Rome was given tacit, if not outright honor as the lead church.Again, it was during this era the Ecumenical Councils were convened. They were concerned largely with settling the Christological disputes tearing apart the Church. The First Council of Nicaea in 325 & First Council of Constantinople in 381 condemned Arianism. The Council of Ephesus in 431 condemned Nestorianism and affirmed Mary as the Theotokos; that is the "Mother of God."The Council of Chalcedon just 20 years later affirmed that Christ had two natures; He was fully God and fully man, yet was one person. It specifically condemned Monophysitism, the belief that Jesus' divine nature overwhelmed his human nature. Following Chalcedon, several groups broke with the orthodox, or what we would call from this time, Catholic position; again, not Roman Catholic. The term simply means what was the accepted position of the Church & churches of the Roman World. The churches of Egypt, headquartered at Alexandria tended to be Monophysite while the churches that moved into the East followed a distorted view of Nestorius' & began to adopt the idea that Jesus was not only of two natures, He was two persons in a single body. As we've seen in previous episodes, it's unlikely Nestorius himself believed that, though his opponents claimed he did, and his later followers do seem to have moved in that direction.One of the most significant events of this period occurred in late February of 380. Emperor Theodosius I signed the Edict of Thessalonica which made Catholic, Trinitarian Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire. Prior to this the Emperors Constantius II & Valens favored Arian flavors of the Faith. Theodosius I declared the Trinitarianism of the Nicene Creed as the perennial position of the Empire. While there were going to be all kinds of problems associated with making Christianity the State religion, what ensured it would really go awry was that Theodosius went further and in effect outlawed unbelief; any belief but Catholic Christianity was deemed heretical. Heretics weren't just put out of the Church, they were put out of life!It didn't take long for the Church to avail itself of the Imperial organizational structure, adopting similar geographical borders. They even kept the old imperial name – Diocese. Bishops oversaw the various dioceses. The bishop's home was known as a seat, or see.Back-tracking a bit, when Christians were being persecuted during the 2 and 3rd Centuries in the West, many of them fled for refuge to the East and the Sassanid Empire, the long-time enemy of Rome. Though the Sassanids were Zoroastrians, they welcomed the Christians because, you know, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.When Rome became a Christian State, the Sassanids feared the Christians would become a kind of religious Fifth Column and began persecuting them. The once vibrant Persian church was decimated and many of these Eastern Christians fled even further East, becoming what is today referred to as the Church of the East.As we've seen in recent episodes, Monasticism became a standard feature of Christianity during the time of Catholic Christianity and carried on for centuries after in the Middle Ages.While there are dozens of names associated with this time, we'll limit our list to a few as we wrap up this episode.There are the Cappadocian Fathers: Basil the Great, his brother Gregory of Nyssa and their friend, Gregory of Nazianzus.There's the Popes Damasus I & Leo the Great.We've mentioned Cyril of Alexandria & his nemesis, the defrocked & banished Nestorius.There's the astoundingly gifted Bishop of Milan, Ambrose and his student who eventually outshined his teacher – Augustine.This is the time of Jerome & the Golden-tongued Chrysostom.It's the time Attila the Hun and Alaric whose Goths sacked Rome.It's the age of the Vandals who are such brutes they give their name to bad behavior.This is also the time of an interesting character whose life has become a thing of legend – Patrick of Ireland. We'll take a look at him soon.The Era of Catholic Christianity ends in the late 5th Century with the Fall of the Western Roman Empire. This is of course an arbitrary line we draw, especially when we consider that the Eastern Empire saw itself as the continuation of the Empire for another thousand years.But most historians see the Fall of the Western Roman Empire as a momentous event that leveled a blow to the European mindset it took centuries to recover from. Thus, the period between the Roman Empire and the Modern Era is called the Middle Ages. And while it's been fashionable for a long time in the popular idea of history to see the Middle Ages as Dark and a long stretch when nothing of much consequence happened, the more astute student knows the Middle Ages were a time of amazing development.

This week's episode of Communion Sanctorum is titled – “Justinian Sayin'”During the 5th C, while the Western Roman Empire was falling to the Goths, the Eastern Empire centered at Constantinople looked like it would carry on for centuries. Though it identified itself as Roman, historians refer to the Eastern region as the Byzantine Empire & Era. It gets that title from Byzantium, the city's name before Constantine made it his new capital.During the 5th C, the entire empire, both East & West went into decline. But in the 6th  Century, the Emperor Justinian I lead a major revival of Roman civilization. Reigning for nearly 40 years, Justinian not only brought about a re-flowering of culture in the East, he attempted to reassert control over those lands in the West that had fallen to barbarian control.A diverse picture of Justinian the Great has emerged. For years the standard way to see him was as an intelligent, ambitious, energetic, gregarious leader plagued by an unhealthy dose of vanity. Dare I say it? Why not: He wanted to make Rome Great Again. While that's been the traditional way of understanding Justinian, more recently, that image has been edited slightly by giving his wife and queen Theodora, a more prominent role in fueling his ambition. Whatever else we might say about this husband and wife team, they were certainly devout in their faith.Justinian's reign was bolstered by the careers of several capable generals who were able to translate his desire to retake the West into reality. The most famous of these generals was Belisarius, a military genius on par with Hannibal, Caesar, & Alexander. During Justinian's reign, portions of Italy, North Africa & Spain were reconquered & put under Byzantine rule.The Western emperors in Rome's long history tended to be more austere in the demonstrations of their authority by keeping their wardrobe simple & the customs related to their rule modest, as befitted the idea of the Augustus as Princeps = meaning 1st  Citizen. Eastern emperors went the other way & eschewed humility in favor of an Oriental, or what we might call “Persian” model of majesty. It began with Constantine who broke with the long-held western tradition of Imperial modesty & arrayed himself as a glorious Eastern Monarch. Following Constantine, Eastern emperors wore elaborate robes, crowns, & festooned their courts with ostentatious symbols of wealth & power.  Encouraged by Theodora, Justinian advanced this movement and made his court a grand showcase. When people appeared before the Emperor, they had to prostrate themselves, as though bowing before a god. The pomp and ceremony of Justinian's court were quickly duplicated by the church at Constantinople because of the close tie between church & state in the East.It was this ambition for glory that moved Justinian to embark on a massive building campaign. He commissioned the construction of entire towns, roads, bridges, baths, palaces, & a host of churches & monasteries. His enduring legacy was the Church of the Holy Wisdom, or Cathedral of St. Sophia, the main church of Constantinople. The Hagia Sofia was the epitome of a new style of architecture centered on the dome, the largest to be built to that time.  Visitors to the church would stand for hours in awe staring up at the dome, incredulous that such a span could be built by man. Though the rich interior façade of the church has been gutted by years of conflict, the basic structure stands to this day as one of Istanbul's premier attractions.Justinian was no mean theologian in his own right. As Emperor he wanted to unite the Church under one creed and worked hard to resolve the major dispute of the day; the divide between the Orthodox faith as expressed in the Council of Chalcedon & the Monophysites.By way of review; the Monophysites followed the teachings of Cyril of Alexandria who'd contended with Nestorius over the nature of Christ. Nestorius emphasized the human nature of Jesus, while Cyril emphasized Jesus' deity. The followers of both took their doctrines too far so that the Nestorians who went East into Persia tended to diminish the deity of Christ, while the Cyrillians who went south into Egypt, elevated Jesus' deity at the expense of his humanity. They put such an emphasis on his deity they became Monophysites; meaning 1 nature-ites.Justinian tried to reconcile the Orthodox faith centered at Constantinople with the Monophysites based in Egypt by finessing the words used to describe the faith. Even though the Council of Chalcedon had officially ended the dispute, there was still a rift between the Church at Constantinople and that in Egypt.Justinian tried to clarify how to understand the natures of Jesus as God & Human. Did He have 1 nature or 2? And if 2. How did those 2 natures co-exist in the Son of God? Were they separate & distinct or merged into something new? If they were distinct, was one superior to the other? This was the crux of the debate the Council of Chalcedon had struggled with and which both Cyril & Nestorius contended over.Justinian had partial success in getting moderate Monophysites to agree with his theology. He was helped by the work of a monk named Leo of Byzantium. Leo proposed that in Christ, his 2 natures were so co-mingled & united so that they formed one nature, he identified as the Logos.In 544 Emperor Justinian issued an edict condemning some pro-Nestorian writings. Many Western bishops thought the edict a scandalous refutation of the Chalcedonian Creed. They assumed Justinian had come out as a Monophysite. Pope Vigilius condemned the edict and broke off fellowship with the Patriarch of Constantinople because he supported the Emperor's edict. Shortly thereafter, when Pope Vigilius visited Constantinople, he did an abrupt about-face, adding his own censure to the condemned pro-Nestorian writings. Then in 550, after several bishops criticized this reversal, Vigilius did another & said the writings weren't prohibited after all.Nothing like being a stalwart pillar of an unwavering stand. Vigilius was consistent; he consistently wavered when under pressure.All of this created so much controversy that in 553 Justinian called the 5th Ecumenical Council at Constantinople. Though it was supposed to be a counsel of the whole church, Pope Vigilius refused to attend. At Justinian's demand, the Council affirmed his original edict of 544, further condemning anyone who supported the pro-Nestorian writings. The Emperor banished Vigilius for his refusal to attend, saying he would be reinstated only on condition of his accepting the Council's decision.Guess what Vigilius did. Yep. He relented and endorsed the Council's finding. So the result was that the Chalcedonian Creed was reinterpreted along far more Monophysite lines. Jesus' deity was elevated to the foreground while his humanity was relegated to a distant backwater. This became the official position of the Eastern Orthodox Church.But Justinian's desire to bring unity wasn't achieved. The Western bishops refused to recognize the Council of Constantinople's interpretation of the Chalcedon Creed.  And while the new spin on Jesus' nature was embraced in the East, the hard-core Monophysites of Egypt stood their ground. They'd come to hold their theology with a fierce regional loyalty. To accept Justinian's formulation was deemed a compromise they saw not only as heretical but as unpatriotic. They vehemently refused to come under the control of Constantinople.What Justinian was unable to do by theological compromise and diplomacy, he attempted, by force. After all, as they say, a War is just diplomacy by other means. And as Justinian might say, “What good is it being King if you can't bash heads whenever you want?”The Emperor also sought to eradicate the last vestiges of paganism throughout the Empire. He commanded both civil officials & church leaders to seek out all pagan cultic practices and pre-Christian Greek philosophy and bring an immediate end to them. He closed the schools of Athens, the last institutions teaching Greek philosophy. He allowed the Jews to continue their faith but sought to regulate their practices. He decreed the death penalty for Manichaeans and other heretics like the Montanists. When his harsh policies stirred up rebellion, he was ruthless in putting it down.Toward the end of his reign, his wife Theodora's Monophysite beliefs influenced him to move further in that direction. He sought to recast the 5th Council's findings into a new form that would gain greater Monophysite support. This new view has been given the tongue-twisting label of Aph-thar-to-docetism.According to this view, even Jesus' physical body was divine so that from conception to death, it didn't change. This means Jesus didn't suffer or know the desires & passions of mortals.When he tried to impose this doctrine on the Church, the vast majority of bishops refused to comply. So Justinian made plans to enforce compliance but died before the campaign could begin, much to the relief of said bishops.Justinian took an active hand in ordering the Church in more than just theology. He passed laws dealing with various aspects of church life. He appointed bishops, assigned abbots to monasteries, ordained priests, managed church lands and oversaw the conduct of the clergy. He forbade the practice of simony; the sale of church offices. Being a church official could be quite lucrative, so the practice of simony was frequently a problem.The Emperor also forbade the clergy from attending chariot races and the theater. This seems harsh if we think of these as mere sporting and cultural events. They weren't. Both events were more often than not scenes of moral debauchery where ribald behavior was common. One did not attend a race for polite or dignified company. The races were à  well, racy. And the theater was a place where perversions were enacted onstage. That Justinian forbade clergy from attending these events means had been common for them to do so.He authorized bishops to function in a quasi-civil fashion by having them oversee public works and enforcing laws against vice. In some places, bishops served as governors.It was under Justinian that the church became an instrument of the state. That process had begun under Constantine but it wasn't until the 6th C under Justinian that it reached its zenith.Christianity continued to extend its influence along the borders of the Empire. With the re-conquest of North Africa, the Arianism that had taken root there was eradicated. The Faith moved up the Nile into what today we know as Sudan. The Berbers of North Africa were also converted. In Europe, Barbarian tribes along the Danube were reached.The divide between Monophysites & Orthodox Justinian had tried to heal continued to plague the church into the 7th C when a new thread emerged; Islam.Emperor after emperor knew a fragmented church meant a weakened society which would be easy prey to the new invaders. So they worked feverishly to bring about theological unity.Let's see – how do we bring the Orthodox & Monophysites together?Sergius, the Patriarch of Constantinople had an idea. Based on what were thought to be the writings of one of the early church fathers named Dionysis, Sergius thought he found support for a new idea that could reconcile the two sides. He said that while Jesus was both divine & human, He worked by only one energy. This sounded great to the Monophysites of Egypt and for a time it looked like there would be unity.  But other bishops cried foul, so Sergius quickly shifted ground and said, “Okay, forget the one energy deal and how about this; Christ was both divine & human but possessed only one will which was a merging of the 2 natures.” Pope Honorius put his stamp of approval on this view & now with the agreement of the 2 most influential churches, it looked like a theological slam-dunk. So in 638, Emperor Heraclius passed an edict expressing Sergius' views and forbidding further debate.The Emperor passed an edict – so that settles it right? >> Not quite.When Pope Honorius died, the next pope announced Jesus had two wills. Oh, & furthermore – that was the real position of Honorius – he'd just been misunderstood by Patriarch Sergius. Each Pope thereafter affirmed Jesus' divine & human wills as distinct though in harmony with each other. This view held sway in the West as opposed to Sergius' view which became the position of the East.When in 648 the issue threatened to once again tear the church & Empire in 2, Emperor Constans II declared all debate about 1 or 2 wills or energies, off-limits. But wouldn't you know it – when word of the ban reached Rome a year later, Pope Martin I called a synod to discuss the issue; decided Jesus had 2 wills and denounced the patriarch of Constantinople. The bishops also said, “How dare the Emperor tell us what we can and can't talk about!”Constans II decided to show the Pope how he dared and had him arrested & hauled to the capital where he was condemned, tortured, and banished. Martin died in exile.Then a funny thing happened. Not funny really – tragic more like. North Africa, that region of the Empire that had been so fastidiously devoted to Monophytism was conquered by Islam. And suddenly the debate lost its main voice. So Constantine IV, called a 6th Ecumenical council, again in Constantinople in 680. This council officially declared the idea of one energy & one will in Christ heretical. Jesus had 2 wills; one divine, the other human. The Council claimed its views were in accord with a similar council held in Rome a year before under the auspices of Pope Agatho.Most Church historians consider the 6th Council to be the last at which the nature of Jesus was the primary theological consideration. To be sure, the Nestorians continued to spread Eastward as they made their way to China and there were still pockets of monophytism in Egypt, but in both the Eastern & Western regions of the Empire, Orthodoxy or what is often called Catholic Christianity now held sway.

This Episode of CS is titled, “Orthodoxy, with an Eastern Flavor.”We need to begin this episode by defining the term “Orthodoxy.”It comes from Greek. Orthos means “straight” & idiomatically means that which is right or true. Doxa is from the verb dokein = to think; doxa is one's opinion or belief.As it's most often used, orthodoxy means adherence to accepted norms. In reference to Christianity, it means conforming to the creeds of the early Church; those statements of faith issued by the church councils we've looked at in recent podcasts and we have a series on in Season 2.In opposition to orthodoxy is what's called heterodoxy; other-teaching. Heterodoxy deviates from the Faith defined by the Creeds. Specific instances of heterodoxy, that is - deviant doctrines are called heresy; with those who hold them known as heretics. When heresy causes a group of people to remove themselves from the Communion of Saints so they can form their own distinct community, it's called a Schism.But there's another, very different way the word Orthodox is used in Christianity. It's the name of one of the 4 great branches of the Church; Roman Catholic, Protestant, & Eastern Orthodox. The fourth is that branch of the Faith we've been looking at for the last couple episodes – The Nestorian Church, AKA The Church of the East.In the West, we're familiar with Roman Catholicism & Protestantism. We're less aware of Eastern Orthodoxy and most people haven't even heard of the Nestorian Church. Ignorance of Eastern Orthodoxy is tragic considering the Byzantine Empire which was home to the Orthodox Church continued to embody the values & traditions of the Roman Empire until the mid-15th C, a full millennium after the Fall of Rome in AD 476.It'll be many episodes of CS before we get to the year 1054 when the Great Schism took place between the Eastern & Western churches. But I think it helpful to understand how Eastern Orthodoxy differs from Roman Catholicism so we can stay a little closer to the narrative timeline of how the Church developed in upcoming episodes.One of the ways we can better understand the Eastern Orthodox Church is to quickly summarize the history of Roman Catholicism in Europe during the Middle Ages as a contrast.In the West, the Church, led by the Pope with cardinals & bishops, oversaw the spiritual & religious aspects of European culture. The affiliation between church & state that began with Constantine the Great & continued for the next century & a half was at best a tense arrangement. Sometimes the Pope & Emperor were close; at other times they were at odds & competed for power. Overall, it was an uneasy marriage of the secular & religious. During the Middle Ages, the Church exerted tremendous influence in the secular sphere, & civil rulers either sought to ally themselves with the church, or to break the Church's grip on power. Realizing how firm that grip was, some civil rulers even sought to infiltrate the ranks of the church to install their own bishops & popes. The Church played the same game & kept spies in many of Europe's courts. These agents reported to Rome & sought to influence political decisions.The situation was dramatically different in the East where the church & state worked in harmony.  Though foreign to the Western Mind, & especially the Modern Western Mind which considers a great barrier between Church & State, in the ancient Byzantine Empire, Church & State were partners in governance.  They weren't equivalent, but they worked together to shape policies & provide leadership that allowed the Eastern Empire to not only resist the forces that saw the West collapse, but to maintain the Empire until the 15th C  when it was finally over-run by the Ottoman Turks.In our attempt to understand Eastern Orthodoxy, we'll look to the description Marshall Shelly provides in his excellent book, Church History in Plain Language.The prime starting point for understanding Orthodoxy isn't to examine its basic doctrines but rather its use of holy images called icons. Icons are highly stylized portrayals of one or more saints, set against a golden background and a halo around the head. Icons are crucial in understanding Eastern Orthodoxy. Orthodox believers enter their church and go first to a wall covered with icons called the iconostasis. This wall separates the sanctuary from the nave. The worshipper kisses the icons before taking his/her place in the congregation. A visitor to an Orthodox home will find an icon in the east corner of the main room. If the guest is him/herself Orthodox, they'll greet the icon by crossing themselves & bowing. Only then will they greet the host.To the Orthodox, icons are much more than man-made images. They're manifestations of a divine ideal. They're considered a window into heaven. In the same way grace is thought to be imparted through the Roman Catholic Mass, grace is thought to flow from heaven to earth thru icons. Protestants can better understand the importance of icons to the Orthodox by considering how important The Bible is to them.  As Scripture is the written revelation of God's will & truth, so icons are considered as visual representations of truth that have as much if not more to impart by way of revelation to believers. In fact, icons aren't painted, they are said to be “written,” conveying the idea that they fulfill the same role as Scripture. The Bible is the Scripture in words; icons are scripture in images.As I said, an icon is a highly stylized portrayal of saints or Bible scenes on panels, usually made of wood, most often cypress which has been prepped with cloth & gesso. The background is gold leaf, depicting the glory of the divine realm the image is thought to come from, with bright tempura paint making the figures & decoration. When dry, the panel is covered in varnish. Some ancient icons are amazing pieces of art. Icon artists consider the writing of icons as a spiritual act & prepare by fasting & prayer, after having completed laborious technical training.Strictly speaking, Eastern Orthodox theology says icons are not objects of devotion themselves. They're thought to be windows into the spiritual realm by which the divine is able to infiltrate & effect the physical.  Though that's the official doctrinal position on icons, they are kissed & venerated at the beginning & at various points during a service.  Icons aren't worshipped, they're venerated; meaning while they aren't given the worship due God alone, they are esteemed as a medium by which grace is bestowed on worshippers. While this is the technical explanation for the use of icons, watching how worshipers use them and listening to how highly they're regarded, I'm hard-pressed to see how in a practical sense, there's any difference between veneration & worship. To many objective observers, the use of icons seems a clear violation of the Second Commandment prohibiting the use of images in the worship of God.Scholars debate when Eastern Christians began to use icons. Some say their use began in the late 6th or 7th C. Before icons became popular, relics played an important part of church life. Body parts of saints as well as items connected to Biblical stories were thought to possess spiritual power.Caution: I know opine à All of this was superstitious silliness, but it framed the thinking of many. Since there were only so many holy relics to go around and each church made claim to one to draw worshippers in, icons began to be used as surrogates for relics. If you can't have a piece of the cross, maybe a golden painting of Mary holding the baby Jesus would do the trick. If you can't have Stephen's index finger, how about his icon? Miraculous stories hovering round relics & icons were legion, each claiming some special connection to God & saints. Relics were said to bring healing. Icons were said to weep tears or bleed. The fragrant scent of incense was said to attend many of the greatest icons. The tales go on & on.The question in all these claims is; where do we find the use of such things in Scripture? By way of reminder, Evangelical Christians determine what defines Biblical as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy by this set of questions –1) Did Jesus teach or model in in the Gospels? 2) Did the Early Church practice it in the book of Acts? 3) Do the NT epistles comment on or regulate it as normative for faith & practice?Using this 3-fold filter, the use of relics & icons isn't orthodox.The Eastern Orthodox church refers to itself as the Church of the 7 Councils. It claims a superior form of the Christian Faith because it draws its doctrine from what it says are the main Church Councils that defined normal Christian belief. The last Council, Nicaea II in AD 787, came about as a response to the Iconoclast Controversy which we'll talk about later. The point here is that Nicaea II declared the veneration of icons to be good & proper. What we're to glean from this is that claiming to be a church that adheres to the creeds of the 7 Councils doesn't mean much if those councils were just gatherings of men. It isn't their Creeds that are important & that define the Faith; It's Scripture alone that has that role. Creedal statements are only so good in as much as they are proper interpretations of the Word of God. But they are not themselves, that Word.Another important distinction between the Eastern & Western Church is how they view the object of salvation.Western Christians tend to understand the relationship between God & man in legal terms. Man is obliged to meet the demands of a just God. Sin, sacrifice, & salvation are all aspects of divine justice. Salvation is cast primarily in terms of justification.In Roman Catholicism, when a believer sins, a priest determines what payment or penance he owes to God. If he's unable to provide enough penance for some especially heinous sin, then purgatory in the afterlife provides a place where his soul can be expiated.In Protestantism, penance & purgatory are set aside for the Biblical doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ whose work at the cross atones for all sin, for all time. Justification by grace through faith is a keystone of evangelical theology. But here still, the issue is legal & forensic.This legal emphasis is continued in Roman Catholicism's view of the papacy. According to Rome, Christ commissioned & authorized Peter & his successors, the popes. That legal authority is seen in the symbols of the papacy – a set of keys.Eastern Orthodoxy presents a contrast to this legal emphasis in Roman Catholicism & Protestantism. The core of Orthodox theology is the incarnation of God & how it effects the restoration & re-creation of fallen man. In Orthodoxy, sin isn't so much a violation of God's law as it is a denigration of God's image. Salvation is less an issue of making sinners just before a holy God as it is a restoration of God's image in them.In Western Christianity, Jesus is seen primarily as the substitutionary sacrifice Who atones for sin & reconciles sinners to God. There's a great burden of guilt due to the penalty of sin God's righteous justice must be paid for. His law has been broken; it must be set right. Jesus sets it right by the cross, His resurrection vindicating & validating His sacrifice as sufficient. This is why the crucifix is such a prominent feature in Roman Catholicism & the Cross is central to classic Protestant preaching.In Eastern Christianity, Christ is God incarnate & on mission to restore the image of God in man. And when I say ‘image,' think “icon”.  This is not to say that in Orthodoxy there's no mention of justification or that in Romanism there's no suggestion of restoration. There is. It's more about where the emphasis lies.In Orthodoxy, the church is far less the formal institution that developed in the West. It's conceived more as the mystical body of Christ continually renewed by the Holy Spirit. This seems a rather odd claim to Protestants who've visited an Eastern Orthodox church, which is filled with images & a formal liturgy that's quite formal. Compared to the spare architecture & decoration of Protestant churches, Orthodoxy does appear formal, but that formalism doesn't extend to the hierarchy of the church. There's no pope in the Eastern Orthodox church. Each of the major branches of Orthodoxy has its own patriarch, but there's no one over-arching head bishop who oversees the Orthodox Church, as the Pope rules in Rome. The Eastern Church sees itself as a community where men & women are restored to the likeness of God.So, we might ask: When did this fundamental difference between doctrinal emphases begin? That's difficult to say for certain because the theology grew through a slow, steady progression. But we could say the differences emerged when the Gospel arrived in Corinth, then Rome in the 1st Century. Corinth was Greek; Rome Latin. The Greeks were more philosophical by nature & the Gospel appealed to their ancient quest to perfect man. The Latin Romans were fascinated by all things legal. They were a race of lawyers. A brief look at the history of Rome's rulers reveals the importance the law played. Whoever could manipulate the courts & Senate ruled.A good way for us to get a handle on the difference between Eastern & Western Christianity as it exists today is this – many Western Christians look back at Constantine's uniting Church & State as a negative development. At the time, it seemed a blessed relief to a church hammered by 2 centuries of persecution, but looking forward form that ancient place, knowing what's coming, we lament the corruption that's in store for the church. So historians of Western Christianity speak of the enslavement of the church by the state.For Eastern Christians, Constantine is regarded as a hero & saint. Orthodoxy considers his reign as the climax of the Roman Empire. According to this view, Rome evolved into a religious monarchy with the emperor as the connecting link between God & the world.  The civil authority of the State was the earthly reflection of divine law while the Church was the religious reflection of Heaven on Earth. In Orthodoxy, the emperor was the place where the civil & religious authorities united. While the church & state were different entities, they weren't seen as separate spheres. They worked together to govern all of human society.Constantine's imprint on Eastern Orthodoxy is undeniable. He considered the empire the “bearer” or litter that carried the Church. As Emperor, his role was to lead both church & state. Recognizing the need to mark this new moment in history, Constantine moved his capital to what was called – “New Rome” or what the people called Constantine's City – Constantinople.  He built the splendid Church of the Holy Apostles to shift the center of Church life to the East. To indicate the importance of the Emperor as God's agent, in the midst of the 12 symbolic tombs of the apostles in the Church of the Holy Apostles, Constantine built a 13th for himself, making it clear he considered himself foundational to the faith & an equal to the Apostles.This helps us understand why Constantine was so zealous to find a solution to the trouble the heresy of Arianism caused. As Shelly says, Constantine was superstitiously anxious that God would hold him personally responsible for the divisions and quarrels among Christians. If Christianity lacked cohesion and unity, how could it be a proper religion for the empire? So Constantine and the emperors who followed him made every effort to secure agreement about the Christian faith.  Constantine thus adopted the practice already in use by Christians to settle differences on a local basis. He called ALL the leaders of the church to meet & agree upon proper belief & practice. This policy became an integral part of the Eastern Christian tradition. From the first Ecumenical Council at Nicea in 325, to the 7th in 787, also held in Nicaea, Emperors called the councils & imperial power presided over them.  That's why to this day the Eastern Orthodox Church refers to itself as the “The Church of the Seven Councils.”These councils produced the creeds which embody orthodoxy.  That orthodoxy was then enforced in society by the civil authorities. Faith ceased to be a purely spiritual or church matter; it took on a political dimension.[1]While the Byzantine Empire had several notable rulers, the most significant after Constantine was Justinian the Great who ruled from 527-65. Constantine maintained a distinction between being a Christian & the Emperor. Justinian merged the 2 to become a Christian emperor. And this reveals one of the fundamental differences between East & West.In the East, the head of the State & the head of the Church were fused into 1 office.In the West, while there were times when a pope wielded tremendous political power, it was in a covert manner. Civil rulers were also at times given great influence in church affairs but typically sought to use that influence behind the scenes. Church & state were kept in separate spheres in the West. In the East, they merged.Justinian thought himself God's agent & the executor of his will. The empire was God's instrument in the world. It bent its knee to Jesus, then rose to enforce its vision & version of Jesus' will on the Earth.This union of church & state continued on in the years that followed. Even under Communism, the Russian Orthodox Church, a branch of Eastern Orthodoxy, continued to operate through State license.It was under Justinian that the unique Byzantine merger of Roman law with Christian faith & Greek philosophy took place, all of it flavored by a dash of Orientalism. This is seen most clearly in Byzantine art. Whereas the West had gone in for the realism of the Greek Classical Age, the Byzantines submerged the physical world of human experience under the supernal & transcendent realm of the spiritual. Nothing revealed that more than the Church of Holy Wisdom, known today as the Hagia Sophia. Justinian's church was a remodel of an earlier church constructed by Constantine. Justinian gave the order it was to be the grandest building on the face of the Earth. Constructed in record time, it was indeed an amazing feat. When it was consecrated in 538, Justinian exclaimed he'd outdone Solomon. The dome, the largest to date, was thought to hang by a golden chain from heaven. It was so immense & high above the ground some thought it was a piece of the sky. The mosaics that made up the floor of the church dazzled the eye.Years later when emissaries from the king of Ukraine visited Constantinople on a quest to find a suitable new religion for the Ukrainians, they were overwhelmed by the Hagia Sophia. It may well have been their report back to their monarch that moved him to choose Christianity as the new state religion. The emissaries said when they stood in the Hagia Sophia, they didn't know if they were in heaven or on earth.It's important to mention here the Byzantines rarely if ever identified themselves as such; they were Romans. Constantinople was New Rome but they were not part of a new Empire called Byzantine. That's a label applied by much-later historians. They were Romans and part of the Roman Empire. The Western half of the Empire may have fallen to barbarian invaders, but the Empire lived on in the East & would do so for another thousand years.[1] Shelley, B. L. (1995). Church history in plain language (Updated 2nd ed.) (141–145). Dallas, Tex.: Word Pub.

This episode of Communio Santorum is titled, “And In the East – Part 1.”The 5th C Church Father Jerome wrote, “[Jesus] was present in all places with Thomas in India, with Peter in Rome, with Paul in Illyria, with Titus in Crete, with Andrew in Greece, with each apostle . . . in his own separate region.”So far we've been following the track of most western studies of history, both secular & religious, by concentrating on what took place in the West & Roman Empire. Even though we've delved briefly into the Eastern Roman Empire, as Lars Brownworth aptly reminds us in his outstanding podcast, 12 Byzantine Emperors, even after the West fell in the 5th Century, the Eastern Empire continued to think of & call itself Roman. It's later historians who refer to it as the Byzantine Empire.Recently we've seen the focus of attention shift to the East with the Christological controversies of the 4th & 5th Cs. In this episode, we'll stay in the East and follow the track of the expansion of the Faith as it moved Eastward. This is an amazing chapter often neglected in traditional treatments of church history. It's well captured by Philip Jenkins in his book, The Lost History of Christianity.We start all the way back at the beginning with the apostle Thomas.  He's linked by pretty solid tradition to the spread of Christianity into the East. In the quote we started with from the early 5th C Church Father Jerome, we learn that the Apostle Thomas carried the Gospel East all the way to India.In the early 4th C, Eusebius also attributed the expansion of the faith in India to Thomas. Though these traditions do face some dispute, there are still so-called ‘Thomas Christians' in the southern Indian state of Kerala today. They use an Aramaic form of worship that had to have been transported there very early. A tomb & shrine in honor of Thomas at Mylapore is built of bricks used by a Roman trading colony but was abandoned after ad 50. There's abundant evidence of several Roman trading colonies along the coast of India, with hundreds of 1st C coins & ample evidence of Jewish communities. Jews were known to be a significant part of Roman trade ventures. Their communities were prime stopping places for the efforts of Christian missionaries as they followed the Apostle Paul's model as described in the Book of Acts.A song commemorating Thomas' role in bringing the faith to India, wasn't committed to writing till 1601 but was said to have been passed on in Kerala for 50 generations. Many trading vessels sailed to India in the 1st C when the secret of the monsoon winds was finally discovered, so it's quite possible Thomas did indeed make the journey.  Once the monsoons were finally figured out, over 100 trade ships a year crossed from the Red Sea to India.Jesus told the disciples to take the Gospel to the ends of the Earth. While they were slow to catch on to the need to leave Jerusalem, persecution eventually convinced them to get moving. It's not hard to imagine Thomas considering a voyage to India as a way to literally fulfill the command of Christ. India would have seemed the end of the Earth.Thomas's work in India began in the northwest region of the country. A 4th C work called The Acts of Thomas says that he led a ruler there named Gundafor to faith. That story was rejected by most scholars & critics until an inscription was discovered in 1890 along with some coins which verify the 20-year reign in the 1st C of a King Gundafor.After planting the church in the North, Thomas traveled by ship to the Malabar Coast in the South. He planted several churches, mainly along the Periyar River.  He preached to all classes of people and had about 17,000 converts from all Indian castes. Stone crosses were erected at the places where churches were founded, and they became centers for pilgrimages. Thomas was careful to appoint local leadership for the churches he founded.He then traveled overland to the Southeast Indian coast & the area around Madras. Another local king and many of his subjects were converted. But the Brahmins, highest of the Indian castes, were concerned the Gospel would undermine a cultural system that was to their advantage, so they convinced the king at Mylapore, to arrest & interrogate him. Thomas was sentenced to death & executed in AD 72. The church in that area then came under persecution and many Christians fled for refuge to Kerala.A hundred years later, according to both Eusebius & Jerome, a theologian from the great school at Alexandria named Pantaenus, traveled to India to “preach Christ to the Brahmins.”[1]Serving to confirm Thomas' work in India is the writing of Bar-Daisan. At the opening of the 3rd Century, he spoke of entire tribes following Jesus in North India who claimed to have been converted by Thomas.  They had numerous books and relics to prove it. By AD 226 there were bishops of the Church in the East in northwest India, Afghanistan & Baluchistan, with thousands of laymen and clergy engaging in missionary activity. Such a well-established Christian community means the presence of the Faith there for the previous several decades at the least.The first church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, to whom we owe so much of our information about the early Church, attributed to Thomas the spread of the Gospel to the East. As those familiar with the history of the Roman Empire know, the Romans faced continuous grief in the East by one Persian group after another. Their contest with the Parthians & Sassanids is a thing of legend. The buffer zone between the Romans & Persians was called Osrhoene with its capital city of Edessa, located at the border of what today is northern Syria & eastern Turkey. According to Eusebius, Thomas received a request from Abgar, king of Edessa, for healing & responded by sending Thaddaeus, one of the disciples mentioned in Luke 10.[2] Thus, the Gospel took root there. There was a sizeable Jewish community in Edessa from which the Gospel made several converts. Word got back to Israel of the Church community growing in the city & when persecution broke out in the Roman Empire, many refugees made their way East to settle in a place that welcomed them.Edessa became a center of the Syrian-speaking church which began sending missionaries East into Mesopotamia, North into Persia, Central Asia, then even further eastward. The missionary Mari managed to plant a church in the Persian capital of Ctesiphon, which became a center of missionary outreach in its own right.By the late 2nd C, Christianity had spread throughout Media, Persia, Parthia, and Bactria. The 2 dozen bishops who oversaw the region carried out their ministry more as itinerant missionaries than by staying in a single city and church. They were what we refer to as tent-makers; earning their way as merchants & craftsmen as they shared the Faith where ever they went.By AD 280 the churches of Mesopotamia & Persia adopted the title of “Catholic” to acknowledge their unity with the Western church during the last days of persecution by the Roman Emperors. In 424 the Mesopotamian church held a council at the city of Ctesiphon where they elected their first lead bishop to have jurisdiction over the whole Church of the East, including India & Ceylon, known today as Sri Lanka. Ctesiphon was an important point on the East-West trade routes which extended to India, China, Java, & Japan.The shift of ecclesiastical authority was away from Edessa, which in 216 became a tributary of Rome. The establishment of an independent patriarchate contributed to a more favorable attitude by the Persians, who no longer had to fear an alliance with the hated Romans.To the west of Persia was the ancient kingdom of Armenia, which had been a political football between the Persians & Romans for generations. Both the Persians & Romans used Armenia as a place to try out new diplomatic maneuvers with each other. The poor Armenians just wanted to be left alone, but that was not to be, given their location between the two empires. Armenia has the historical distinction of being the first state to embrace Christianity as a national religion, even before the conversion of Constantine the Great in the early 4th C.The one who brought the Gospel to Armenia was a member of the royal family named Gregory, called “the Illuminator.” While still a boy, Gregory's family was exiled from Armenia to Cappadocia when his father was thought to have been part of a plot to assassinate the King. As a grown man who'd become a Christian, Gregory returned to Armenia where he shared the Faith with King Tiridates who ruled at the dawn of the 4th C. Tiridates was converted & Gregory's son succeeded him as bishop of the new Armenian church. This son attended the Council of Nicea in 325. Armenian Christianity has remained a distinctive and important brand of the Faith, with 5 million still professing allegiance to the Armenian Church.[3]Though persecution came to an official end in the Roman Empire with Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 313, it BEGAN for the church in Persia in 340. The primary cause for persecution was political. When Rome became Christian, its old enemy turned anti-Christian. Up to that point, the situation had been reversed. For the first 300 hundred years, it was in the West Christians were persecuted & Persia was a refuge. The Parthians were religiously tolerant while their less tolerant Sassanid successors were too busy fighting Rome to waste time or effort on the Christians among them.But in 315 a letter from Constantine to his Persian counterpart Shapur II  triggered the beginnings of an ominous change in the Persian attitude toward Christians. Constantine believed he was writing to help his fellow believers in Persia but succeeded only in exposing them. He wrote to the young Persian ruler: “I rejoice to hear that the fairest provinces of Persia are adorned with Christians. Since you are so powerful and pious, I commend them to your care, and leave them in your protection.”The schemes & intrigues that had flowed for generations between Rome & the Persians were so intense this letter moved Shapur to become suspicious the Christians were a kind of 5th column, working from inside the Empire to bring the Sassanids down. Any doubts were dispelled 20 years later when Constantine gathered his forces in the East for war. Eusebius says Roman bishops accompanied the army into battle. To make matters worse, in Persia, one of their own preachers predicted Rome would defeat the Sassanids.Little wonder then, when persecution began shortly after, the first accusation brought against Christians was that they aided the enemy. Shapur ordered a double taxation on Christians & held their bishop responsible for collecting it. Shapur knew Christians tended to be poor since so many had come from the West fleeing persecution, so the bishop would be hard-pressed to come up w/the money. But Bishop Simon refused to be intimidated. He declared the tax unjust and said, “I'm no tax collector! I'm a shepherd of the Lord's flock.” Shapur counter-declared the church was in rebellion & the killings began.A 2nd decree ordered the destruction of churches and the execution of clergy who refused to participate in the official Sassanid-sponsored sun-worship. Bishop Simon was seized & brought before Shapur. Offered a huge bribe to capitulate, he refused. The Persians promised if he alone would renounce Christ, the rest of the Christian community wouldn't be harmed, but that if he refused he'd be condemning all Christians to destruction. When the Christians heard of this, they rose up, protesting en masse that this was shameful. So Bishop Simon & a large number of the clergy were executed.For the next 20 years, Christians were hunted down from one end of Persia to the other. At times it was a general massacre. But more often it was organized elimination of the church's leaders.Another form of suppression was the search for that part of the Christian community that was most vulnerable to persecution; Persians who'd converted from Zoroastrianism. The faith spread first among non-Persians in the population, especially Jews & Syrians. But by the beginning of the 4th C, Persians in increasing numbers were attracted to the Christian faith. For such converts, church membership often meant the loss of everything - family, property rights, even life.The martyrdom of Bishop Simon and the years of persecution that followed gutted the Persian church of its leadership & organization. As soon as the Christians of Ctesiphon elected a new bishop, he was seized & killed. Adding to the anti-Roman motivation of the government's role in the persecutions was a deep undercurrent of Zoroastrian fanaticism that came as a result of the conversion of so many of their number to Christianity; it was a shocking example of religious envy.Shortly before Shapur II's death in 379, persecution slackened. It had lasted for 40 years and only ended with his death. When at last the suffering ceased, it's estimated close to 200,000 Persian Christians had been put to death.[1] Yates, T. (2004). The expansion of Christianity. Lion Histories Series (28–29). Oxford, England: Lion Publishing.[2] Yates, T. (2004). The expansion of Christianity. Lion Histories Series (24). Oxford, England: Lion Publishing.[3] Yates, T. (2004). The expansion of Christianity. Lion Histories Series (25). Oxford, England: Lion Publishing.

The title of this episode is, “Can't We All Just Get Along?”In our last episode, we began our look at how the Church of the 4th & 5th Cs attempted to describe the Incarnation. Once the Council of Nicaea affirmed Jesus' deity, along with His humanity, Church leaders were left with the task of finding just the right words to describe WHO Jesus was. If He was both God & Man as The Nicaean Creed said, how did these two natures relate to one another?We looked at how the churches at Alexandria & Antioch differed in their approaches to understanding & teaching the Bible. Though Alexandria was recognized as a center of scholarship, the church at Antioch kept producing church leaders who were drafted to fill the role of lead bishop at Constantinople, the political center of the Eastern Empire. While Rome was the undisputed lead church in the West, Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople vied with each other over who would take the lead in the East. But the real contest was between Alexandria in Egypt & Antioch in Syria.The contest between the two cities & their churches became clear during the time of John Chrysostom from Antioch & Theophilus, lead bishop at Alexandria. Because of John's reputation as a premier preacher, he was drafted to become Bishop at Constantinople. But John's criticisms of the decadence of the wealthy, along with his refusal to tone down his chastisement of the Empress, caused him to fall out of favor. I guess you can be a great preacher, just so long as you don't turn your skill against people in power. Theophilus was jealous of Chrysostom's promotion from Antioch to the capital and used the political disfavor growing against him to call a synod at which John was disposed from office as Patriarch of Constantinople.That was like Round 1 of the sparring match between Alexandria and Antioch. Round 2 and the deciding round came next in the contest between 2 men; Cyril & Nestorius.Cyril was Theophilus' nephew & attended his uncle at the Synod of the Oak at which Chrysostom was condemned. Cyril learned his lessons well and applied them with even greater ferocity in taking down his opponent, Nestorius.Before we move on with these 2, I need to back-track some & bore the bejeebers out of you for a bit.Warning: Long, hard to pronounce, utterly forgettable word Alert.Remember è The big theological issue at the forefront of everyone's mind during this time was how to understand Jesus.Okay, we got it: àThe Nicaean Creed's been accepted as basic Christian doctrine.The Cappadocian Fathers have given us the right formula for understanding the Trinity.There's 1 God in 3 persons; Father, Son & Holy Spirit.Now, on to the next thing: Jesus is God and Man. How does that work? Is He 2 persons or 1? Does He have 1 nature or 2? And if 2, how do those natures relate to one another?A couple ideas were floated to resolve the issue but came up short; Apollinarianism and Eutychianism.Apollinaris of Laodicea lived in the 4th C.  A defender of the Nicene Creed, he said in Jesus the divine Logos replaced His human soul. Jesus had a human body in which dwelled a divine spirit. Our longtime friend Athanasius led the synod of Alexandria in 362 to condemn this view but didn't specifically name Apollinaris. 20 Yrs later, the Council of Constantinople did just that. Gregory of Nazianzus supplied the decisive argument against Apollinarianism saying, “What was not assumed was not healed” meaning, for the entire of body, soul, and spirit of a person to be saved, Jesus Christ must have taken on a complete human nature.Eutyches was a, how to describe him; elderly-elder, a senior leader, an aged-monk in Constantinople who advocated one nature for Jesus. Eutychianism said that while in the Incarnation Jesus was both God & man, His divine nature totally overwhelmed his human nature, like a drop of vinegar is lost in the sea.Those who maintained the dual-nature of Jesus as wholly God and wholly Man are called dyophysites.  Those advocating a single-nature are called Monophysites.What happened between Cyril & Nestorius is this . . .Nestorius was an elder and head of a monastery in Antioch when the emperor Theodosius II chose him to be Bishop of Constantinople in 428.Now, what I'm about to say some will find hard to swallow, but while Nestorius's name became associated with one of the major heresies to split the church, the error he's accused of he most likely wasn't guilty of. What Nestorius was guilty of was being a jerk. His story is typical for several of the men who were picked to lead the church at Constantinople during the 4th through 7th Cs; effective preachers but lousy administrators & seriously lacking in people skills. Look, if you're going to be pegged to lead the Church at the Political center of the Empire, you better be a savvy political operator, as well as a man of moral & ethical excellence. A heavy dose of tact ought to have been a pre-requisite. But guys kept getting selected who came to the Capital on a campaign to clean house. And many of them seem to have thought subtlety was the devil's tool.As soon as Nestorius arrived in Constantinople, he started a harsh campaign against heretics, meaning anyone with whom he disagreed. It wouldn't take long before his enemies accused him of the very thing he accused others of. But in their case, their accusations were born of jealousy.Where they deiced to take offense was when Nestorius balked at the use of the word Theotokos. The word means God-bearer, and was used by the church at Alexandria for the mother of Jesus. While the Alexandrians said they rejected Apollinarianism, they, in fact, emphasized the divine nature of Jesus, saying it overwhelmed His human nature. The Alexandrian bishop, Cyril, was once again jealous of the Antiochan Nestorius' selection as bishop for the Capital. As his uncle Theophilus had taken advantage of Chrysostom's disfavor to get him deposed, Cyril laid plans for removing the tactless & increasingly unpopular Nestorius. The battle over the word Theotokos became the flashpoint of controversy, the crack Cyril needed to pry Nestorius from his position.To supporters of the Alexandrian theology, Theotokos seemed entirely appropriate for Mary. They said she DID bear God when Jesus took flesh in her womb. And to deny it was to deny the deity of Christ!Nestorius and his many supporters were concerned the title “Theotokos” made Mary a goddess. Nestorius maintained that Mary was the mother of the man Who was united with the divine Logos, and nothing should be said that might imply she was the “Mother à of God.” Nestorius preferred the title Christokos; Mary was the Christ-bearer. But he lacked a vocabulary and the theological sophistication to relate the divine and human natures of Jesus in a convincing way.Cyril, on the other hand, argued convincingly for his position from the Scriptures. In 429, Cyril defended the term Theotokos. His key text was John 1: 14, “The Word became flesh.” I'd love to launch into a detailed description of the nuanced debate between Cyril and Nestorius over the nature of Christ but it would leave most, including myself, no more clued in than we are now.Suffice it to say, Nestorius maintained the dual-nature-in-the-one-person of Christ while Cyril stuck to the traditional Alexandrian line and said while Jesus was technically 2 natures, human & divine, the divine overwhelmed the human so that He effectively operated as God in a physical body.Where this came down to a heated debate was over the question of whether or not Jesus really suffered in His passion. Nestorius said that the MAN Jesus suffered but not His divine nature, while Cyril said the divine nature did indeed suffer.When the Roman Bishop Celestine learned of the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius, he selected a churchman named John Cassian to respond to Nestorius. He did so in his work titled On the Incarnation in 430. Cassian sided with Cyril but wanted to bring Nestorius back into harmony. Setting aside Cassian's hope to bring Nestorius into his conception of orthodoxy, Celestine entered a union with Cyril against Nestorius and the church at Antioch he'd come from. A synod at Rome in 430 condemned Nestorius, and Celestine asked Cyril to conduct proceedings against him.Cyril condemned Nestorius at a Synod in Alexandria and sent him a notice with a cover letter listing 12 anathemas against Nestorius and anyone else who disagreed with the Alexandrian position. For example à “If anyone does not confess Emmanuel to be very God, and does not acknowledge the Holy Virgin to be Theotokos, for she brought forth after the flesh the Word of God become flesh, let him be anathema.”Receiving the letter from Cyril, Nestorius humbly resigned and left for a quiet retirement at Leisure Village in Illyrium. à Uh, not quite. True to form, Nestorius ignored the Synod's verdict.Emperor Theodosius II called a general council to meet at Ephesus in 431. This Council is sometimes called the Robber's Synod because it turned into a bloody romp by Cyril's supporters. As the bishops gathered in Ephesus, it quickly became evident the Council was far more concerned with politics than theology. This wasn't going to be a sedate debate over texts, words & grammar. It was going to be a physical contest. Let's settle doctrinal disputes with clubs instead of books.Cyril and his posse of club-wielding Egyptian monks, and I use the word posse purposefully, had the support of the Ephesian bishop, Memnon, along with the majority of the bishops from Asia. The council began on June 22, 431, with 153 bishops present. 40 more later gave their assent to the findings. Cyril presided. Nestorius was ordered to attend but knew it was a rigged affair and refused to show. He was deposed and excommunicated. Ephesus rejoiced.On June 26, John, bishop of Antioch, along with the Syrian bishops, all of whom had been delayed, finally arrived. John held a rival council consisting of 43 bishops and the Emperor's representative. They declared Cyril & Memnon deposed. Further sessions of rival councils added to the number of excommunications.A report reached Theodosius II, and representatives of both sides pled their case. Theodosius's first instinct was to confirm the depositions of Cyril, Memnon, & Nestorius. Be done with the lot of them. But a lavish gift from Cyril persuaded the Emperor to dissolve the Council and send Nestorius into exile. A new bishop for Constantinople was consecrated. Cyril returned in triumph to Alexandria.From a historical perspective, it's what happened AFTER the Council of Ephesus that was far more important. John of Antioch sent a representative to Alexandria with a compromise creed. This asserted the duality of natures, in contrast to Cyril's formulation, but accepted the Theotokos, in contrast to Nestorius. This compromise anticipated decisions to be reached at the next general church Council at Chalcedon.Cyril agreed to the creed and a reunion of the churches took place in 433. Since then, historians have asked if Cyril was being a statesman in agreeing to the compromise or did he just cynically accept it because he'd achieved his real purpose; getting rid of Nestorius. Either way, the real loser was Nestorius. Theodosius had his books burned, and many who agreed with Nestorius's theology dropped their support.Those who represented his theological emphases continued to carry on their work in eastern Syria, becoming what History calls the Church of the East, a movement of the Gospel we'll soon see that reached all the way to the Pacific Ocean.While in exile, Nestorius wrote a book that set forth the story of his life and defended his position. Modern reviews of Nestorius find him to be more of a schismatic in temperament than a heretic. He denied the heresy of which he was accused, that the human Jesus and the divine Christ were 2 different persons.20 yrs after the Council of Ephesus, which many regarded as a grave mistake, another was called at Chalcedon. Nestorius' teaching was declared heretical and he was officially deposed. Though already in exile, he was now banished by an act of the Church rather than Emperor. In one of those odd facts of history, though what Nestorius taught about Christ was declaimed, it turned out to be the position adopted by the Creed that came out of the Council of Chalcedon. When word reached Nestorius in exile of the Council's finding he said they'd only ratified what he'd always believed & taught.There's much to learn from this story of conflict and resolution.First, many of the doctrines we take for granted as being part and parcel of the orthodox Christian faith, came about through great struggle and debate of some of the most brilliant minds history's known. Sometimes, those ideas were popular and ruled because they were expedient. But mere politics can't sustain a false idea. There are always faithful men and women who love truth because it's true, not because it will gain them power, influence or advantage. They may suffer at the hands of the corrupt for a season, but they always prevail in the end.We ought to be thankful, not only to God for giving us the truth in His Word and the Spirit to understand it, but also to the people who at great cost were willing to hazard themselves to make sure Truth prevailed over error.Second, Too often, people look back on the “Early Church” and assume it was a wonderful time of sweet harmony. Life was simple, everyone agreed and no one ever argued. Hardly!Good grief. Have they read the Bible? The disciples were forever arguing over who was greatest. Paul & Barnabas had a falling out over John Mark. Paul had to get in Peter's face when he played the hypocrite.Yes, for sure, in Acts we read about a brief period of time when the love of the fellowship was so outstanding it shook the people of Jerusalem to the core and resulted in many coming to faith. But that was only a brief moment that soon passed.God wants His people to be in unity. True unity, under the truth of the Gospel, is an incredibly powerful proof of our Faith. But the idea that the Early Church was a Golden Age of Unity is a fiction. Philip Jenkins' book on the battle over the Christology of the 4th & 5th Cs. is titled Jesus Wars.The Church as a whole would be better served today in its pursuit of unity if each local congregation focused its primary efforts on loving and serving one another through the power of the Spirit. It's inevitable if they excelled at that, they'd begin looking at all churches and believers in the same way, and unity would be real rather than a program with a start & end date or a campaign based on personalities and hype.Hey - come to think of it, that's what DID bring about that short glorious moment of blissful harmony in Jerusalem among the followers of Jesus – they loved and served one another in the power of the Spirit.

This episode is titled “Who Do You Say He Is?”We begin this episode by reading from the Chalcedonian Creed of AD 451, the portion devoted to the orthodox view of Christ.We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.Compare that to the simple words of the Apostles Creed quoted by many Christians from memory 300 years before.I believe in . . . Jesus Christ, God's only begotten Son, our Lord: Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into hell. The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.Quite a difference. What caused the Church to draw such exacting language regarding who Jesus was between the early 2nd & mid 5th Cs? That's the subject of this and the next episode. Along the way, we'll see of interesting developments in the Church and learn of some colorful characters.In the 16th chapter of Matthew's Gospel, we read of a time near Caesarea Philippi in Galilee when Jesus asked His disciples, “Who do people think I am?” After hearing what the popular talk was, Jesus asked them “Who do YOU say I am?” That set the stage for Peter to confess his faith in Jesus as Messiah.We might think Jesus' affirmation of Peter's reply would put an end to the controversy. It was only the beginning. That controversy raged over the next 500 yrs as Church leaders wrestled with HOW to understand Jesus.We've already touched on this subject in previous episodes. I've mentioned we'd return to deal with it specifically in a future episode. This is it; and here's why we need to slow down a bit and take our time reviewing the history of the controversy over how to understand Who Jesus was. We need to camp here for a bit because this issue consumed a good amount of the Church's intellectual energy during the 4th & 5th Cs.Today, we accept the orthodox view of the Trinity & the Nature of Jesus as God and Man readily; not realizing the agony the Early Church Fathers endured while they labored over precisely HOW to put into just the right words what Christians believe. One theologian said Theology is the fine art of making distinctions. Nowhere is that more clear than here; in our examination of how orthodox theologians described a Christ.The first great Ecumenical Council was held at Nicaea in 325 at the urging of the Emperor Constantine. Some 300 bishops representing the entire Christian world attended to hammer out their response to Arianism; the idea that Jesus was human, but not divine. As the Council dragged on, Constantine, itching to get back to the business of running the Empire, pressed the bishops to adopt a Statement that affirmed Jesus was both God & man.  But many of the bishops left Nicaea discontented with the wording of the Nicaean Creed. They felt it was imprecise. It failed to capture the full truth of Who Jesus is. This lack of support for the Nicaean Creed opened the doors for many of the later controversies that would wrack the Church. The Council of Chalcedon 125 yrs later tightened up the language on Nicaea but didn't fundamentally alter the Creed. Let's take a look at the time between Nicaea & Chalcedon . . .Sometimes, in an attempt to bring clarity to a complex situation, we over-simplify. I run the risk of doing that here. But for the sake of brevity, I beg the listeners' indulgence as I chart the path from 325 to 451.Following Nicaea, with the affirmation that Jesus is both God & Man, the Church had to first harmonize that with the Biblical reality there's ONE God, not Two. And wait, someone asked, what about the Holy Spirit; doesn't the Bible says He's also God? The classic, orthodox statement of the Trinity, that God is 1 in substance or essence, but 3 in persons wasn't something everyone immediately agreed to. It wasn't like at the Council of Nicaea they took a vote and agreed Jesus is both deity & humanity. Then someone raised their hand & said, “Isn't there just one God?”Yes. à Well, how do we describe God now? They waited in silence for 14 seconds, then someone said, “How about this: We'll say God is one in substance & 3 in person.” They all smiled & nodded, slapped that guy on the back and said, “Good one. There it is; the Trinity! Our work here is done. Let's go for pizza. I get shotgun.”No; it took a while to get the wording right. What made it difficult is that they were working in 2 languages, Greek & Latin. A formulation that seemed to work in Greek was hard to bring over into Latin, and vice versa.It took the work of the Cappadocian Fathers, Basil the Great of Caesarea, his younger brother Gregory of Nyssa, and their close friend Gregory of Nazianzus who worked out the wording that satisfied most of the bishops and framed the classic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. The Council of Constantinople was called in 381 to make this Trinitarian formulation official. This was just a year after Emperor Theodosius I declared Christianity the official State religion.So, with that piece of important theological business out of the way, they moved on to the next topic. And this is where it gets messy.If Jesus is both God & Man – how are we to understand that? Does He have 2 natures, or does 1 of the natures trump the other? Or is there a 3rd way: Did the human & divine natures fuse into a new, hybrid nature? And if Jesus IS a hybrid, do Christians get to drive in the chariot-pool lane?Lots of different camps put forward their scheme and fought hard to see their doctrinal formulation become the official position of the Church.The Council of Ephesus in 431 came out with a position that elevated 1 nature, while the Council at Chalcedon 20 years later altered that by affirming Jesus's 2 natures.It became obvious to church leaders after the Council at Constantinople that the turmoil they saved in solving the problem of the Trinity was just added to the Christological problem that rose next.To understand how this issue was settled, we need to take a look at the rivalry that grew between 2 churches; a rivalry sparked in large part by Christianity being liberated from persecution and elevated to the darling of the State. Those 2 churches were Alexandria & Antioch.The debate over how to understand the Person & Natures of Jesus was staged in the Eastern Empire. The West wasn't as involved because Rome simply did not see as much challenge on its belief in the dual nature of Christ. So while it wasn't the scene of so much theological turmoil, it did play an important part in how the controversy was settled.Political rivalry between Alexandria and Antioch had been going on for some time. Being in the East, both churches vied with each other to provide Bishops to Constantinople, the New Rome & political center of the Eastern Empire. Getting one of their Bishops promoted to the capital meant bragging rights and could result in additional power & prestige for the Alexandrian or Antiochan sees. Two bishops from Antioch that were drafted by Constantinople were John Chrysostom, who we've already looked at, and Nestorius, who we will.In addition to their ecclesiastical jealousy, was the very different cultural and theological traditions in play at Antioch and Alexandria. The church at Antioch had a closer tie to the Jewish roots in Jerusalem. It had a stronger tradition of rational inquiry. It was at Antioch that church leaders had dug deeply in the OT to find many of the great types that pointed to Jesus. They studied Scripture through the lens of literal interpretation, rejoicing that God became Man in the Person of Jesus.The Church at Alexandria was different. It grew up under the influence of philosophical Judaism as seen in Philo and passed on to scholars like Clement & Origen. The Alexandrians had a tradition of contemplative piety, as we might expect from a church near the Egyptian desert where the hermits got their start and had been such stand-out heroes of the Faith for generations.  In interpreting Scripture, the Church at Alexandria developed and was devoted to the allegorical method. This saw the truest meaning of Scripture to be the spiritual realities hidden in its literal, historical words.While the leaders at Antioch saw Jesus as God come as man, at Alexandria they agreed Jesus was a man, but His divine nature utterly overwhelmed the human so that He effective had only 1 operative nature; the divine.The differences between Antioch and Alexandria had already surfaced in their different approaches in refuting the error of Arianism. That they never reconciled them set the stage for all the acrimony to ensue over the debate on Jesus. The Arians made much of the NT passages that seemed to suggest Jesus' subordination to God the Father. They liked to quote John 14: 28, where Jesus said, “the Father is greater than I,” & Matt 24: 36, “No one knows . . . not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” In reply to the Arians, the theologians at Alexandria argued such passages were properly applied to the Son of God in his incarnation. The theologians of Antioch took a different route, referring such passages not to Jesus divinity, but to his humanity.  That may seem like splitting semantic hairs; I say poh-tay-toe; You say poh–tah-toe – but our friends in Antioch and Alexandria thought it a big deal and major difference. Really, both approaches provided a defense of the Nicene theology, a refutation of Arianism, and a framework for interpreting the Gospels.This is where I need to simplify lest we get into the minutiae of theologians with too much parchment, ink and time. In summary, the Alexandrian approach recognized Jesus as God but tended to diminish His humanity. The Antiochan approach readily embraced Jesus' humanity but had a hard time explaining how His human and divine natures related to each other.Let me try to make this more practical; maybe something you've grappled with. Have you ever pondered how Jesus could be tempted in all points as we are, as it says in Heb 4:15, yet as God, it was impossible for Him to sin? Sometimes you'll hear it put this way; Was Jesus REALLY tempted, since as God, He COULDN'T sin? As a man, he had the potential to sin. But as God, He couldn't. So was His experience of humanity genuine? If you can relate to the quandary those questions pose, you get an idea of the challenge the Antiochans faced.The difference between Antioch and Alexandria on how to understand Jesus was why Arianism & the Nicene Creed kept coming up in the Christological controversies dominating the 4th & 5th Centuries. Each side thought the other was selling out to Arianism.The battle between the 2 churches came to a head in the 5th C in the war that took place between 2 men; Bishop Cyril of Alexandria and Bishop Nestorius of Antioch who became Bishop of Constantinople.But that's the subject for our next episode.

The title of this 48th episode of CS is “Charlemagne – Part 1.”The political landscape of our time is dominated by the idea that nation-states are autonomous, sovereign societies in which religion at best plays a minor role. Religion may be an influence in shaping some aspects of culture, but affiliation with a religious group is voluntary and distinct from the rest of society.What we need to understand if we're going to be objective in our study of history is that, that idea simply did not exist in Europe during the Middle Ages.In the 9th C, the Frank king Charles the Great, better known as Charlemagne, sought to makes Augustine's vision of society in his magnum opus, The City of God, a reality. He merged Church and State, fusing a new political-religious alliance. His was a conscious effort to merge the Roman Catholic Church with what was left of the old Roman political house, creating a hybrid Holy Roman Empire.  The product became what's called Medieval European Christendom.How did it come about that Jesus' statement that His kingdom was not of this world, could be so massively reworked? Let's find out.300 years after the Fall of the Western Empire to the Goths, the idea and ideal of Empire continued to fire the imaginations of the people of Europe. Though the barbarians were divided into several groups and remained at constant war with each other, the longing for peace and unity that marked the region under the Roman Eagle held a powerful attraction.  Many looked forward to the day when a new Empire would appear. Just as the Eastern Empire centered at Constantinople saw itself as Rome-still, the vestiges of the Western Empire along with their German neighbors hoped the Empire would (insert Star Wars reference) strike back and rise again.By merging the Roman and Germanic religions, customs and peoples, the Franks under Clovis became the odds on favorite to accomplish what many hoped for. But Clovis' dynasty began to fall apart not long after he passed from the scene. His descendants were at odds with each other, vying for pre-eminence. They became adept at intrigue and treachery.The power vacuum created by their squabbles gave room for wealthy aristocrats to gain power. Like 2 dogs fighting over a scrap of food, while they're busy snarling and snapping at each other, the cat comes and quietly steals away what they're fighting over. So it was with Clovis' descendants, the Merovingians. While they fought each other, the landed nobility quietly stole more and more of their authority. Among these emerging aristocrats was one who worked his way into the heart of power to become the most influential figure in the kingdom. He was called the “majordomo” or “mayor of the palace.”The majordomo was the real power behind the throne. He ran the kingdom while the king served as little more than a ceremonial figurehead. The idea was that the son of the previous king wasn't necessarily the one most fit to rule just because of his birth. So while the title went legally to him, the day-to-day business of running the realm was better served by another with the skills to get the job done.In 680, Pepin II became majordomo for the Franks. He made no pretense of his desire to supplant the Merovingian line with his own as the de-facto rulers. He took the title of Duke and Prince of the Franks and made moves to ensure his line would eventually sit the throne.His son, Charles Martel, became majordomo in 715. Charles allowed the Merovingian kings to retain their title but as little more than figureheads. What catapulted Charles to the throne was his defeat of the Muslims in 732.In 711 a Muslim army from North Africa called the Moors invaded Spain and rolled back the weak kingdom of the Visigoths by 718. With the Iberian Peninsula under their control, the Moors began raiding across the Pyrenees into Southern Gaul. Until this time, the Muslims had advanced at a steady pace out of the Middle East, across North Africa, then into Europe. It seemed no one in the West could stop them and the fear of the infidel hordes running amuck throughout the lands of Christendom was a terror.In 732 Charles led the Franks against a Moor raiding party near Tours, deep inside the Frank's land. He inflicted such heavy losses the Moors retreated to Spain and were never again a major threat to Western Europe. For this and his other conquests, Charles was called Martell – “the Hammer.”Martel's son, Pepin III, also known as Pepin the Short, considered it time to make the power of the Frank majordomo more official. Why not give the title of “king” to the guy who was actually ruling, instead of some royal spoiled brat who thought armies were just large toys to play with?  Pepin III asked Pope Zachary for a ruling saying whoever actually wielded power was the legal ruler. He got what he wanted, promptly deposed the last Merovingian King, Childeric III, and was crowned the first of the Carolingian kings by the bishop of Mainz in 751. Childeric was quietly shuffled off to a monastery where he was told to mind his manners or he'd wake up dead one day.  Then, 3 years after Pepin's coronation, Pope Stephen II himself blessed him by making the trip from Rome to Paris and personally anointing Pepin as the “Chosen of the Lord.”Both Popes Zachary and Stephen were eager to shore up the alliance with the Franks begun with Clovis because of the emerging problem with the Lombards. They'd already conquered Ravenna, the center of Byzantine power in Italy. The Lombards demanded tribute from the pope and threatened to take Rome if it wasn't paid. With Pepin's coronation, the Church at Rome secured his promise of protection and his pledge to give the pope the territory of Ravenna once it was recovered. In 756, the Franks forced the Lombards to surrender several of their Italian conquests, and Pepin kept his promise to give Ravenna to the Pope. This was known as the “Donation of Pepin,” and came to be called the Papal States. This made the Pope a temporal ruler over a strip of land cutting across Italy.This alliance between the Franks and the Church at Rome, or more properly, between the Carolingian kings and the Popes, had a dramatic impact on the course of European politics for centuries to come. It sped up the separation of the Latin and Greek Church by giving the Popes an ally to replace the Byzantines. And it created the Papal States which will play a major role in Italian politics all the way up to the late 19th C.But one of the most significant issues was that with the Popes taking a hand in anointing kings, it set the stage for the eventual vying for power between Church and State, between Pope and Emperor.  The question became: Who was really in charge? The Pope—who by reason of setting the crown on the king's head, sanctioned his rule, or the King—whose armies were the enforcement end of the Pope's staff and protected him from enemies? Do popes make kings, or do kings make popes? Fire up the medieval merry-go-round.It was Pepin III's son who took all that his father and grandfather had done and put the cap on it.  His name also was Charles; Charles the Great; known to us as Charlemagne.When Charlemagne succeeded his father in 768 he had a far-reaching vision of making Central Europe into a new Empire, similar to the Golden Age of Rome, but this time enlightened by Christianity.To accomplish this vision he had 3 objectives:1)  Boost the Franks military might so they could dominate Europe,2)  Secure an alliance with the Church to unite Europe under one faith,3)  Make this European base an intellectual center.Charlemagne's success, if we can call it that, set the course for Europe for the next thousand years.Charles the Great was a big man. At 6'3” he was a full foot taller than average at that time. But to those who met him he seemed even bigger because he was one of those people who had an extra dose of gravitas. He was skilled at arms and was always at the head of the army when they went into battle, which he led the Franks in every year.The Merovingians had wasted the strength of the Franks in incessant civil wars. Charlemagne united the Franks and set them on the task of conquest. He took advantage of feuds among the Muslims Moors in Spain and in 778 crossed the Pyrenees in an attempt to reclaim the Iberian Peninsula. His first campaign was met with minor success but later expeditions drove the Moors back to the Ebro River and established a frontier known as the Spanish March centered at Barcelona.Then Charlemagne conquered the Bavarians and Saxons, last of the independent Germanic tribes. He ruthlessly attempted to stamp out the residue of Germanic paganism by passing harsh laws, such as saying eating meat during Lent, cremating the dead, and pretending to be baptized, were offenses punishable by death.The kingdom's eastern frontier was continually threatened by Asiatic nomads related to the Huns known as the Slavs and Avars. Charlemagne decimated the Avars and set up his own military province in the Danube valley to guard against future plundering. He called this the East March, later called Austria.Then, like his father before him, Charlemagne sought to take a hand in Italian politics. The Lombards invaded that territory Pepin had given the Church. So, in 774 at the Pope's urging, Charlemagne once again defeated the Lombards and proclaimed himself their king.The Lombard's campaigns and conquests made it clear the Popes needed protection. Only one military and political power had that ability, the Frank king. Charlemagne, on the other hand, needed divine sanction to accomplish his goal of uniting Europe. Only one authority possessed the religious mojo to do that – the Pope. Can you see where this is headed?April 25, 799 was St. Mark's Day, a day set aside for repentance and prayer. It seemed the right thing to do since Italy had been stricken by numerous problems, including plague and pestilence. So Pope Leo III led a procession thru Rome beseeching God's forgiveness and blessing.The procession wound thru the middle of the city to St. Peter's. As it turned a corner, armed men rushed at the pope. They drove off his attendants, and pulled Leo off his horse, carting him off to a monastery favorable to their cause. That being that they were officials and dignitaries loyal to the previous pope, Adrian I. Perjury and adultery were the charges leveled at Leo. The pope's supporters tracked him down and rescued him.This created a furor that sparked on-going riots that could not be quelled. So Pope Leo once again sent for Charlemagne.  He crossed the Alps with an army, determined to settle the pope's problem once and for all. He put down the unrest and in December presided over a large assembly of bishops, nobles, diplomats and malcontents. In other words, anyone who considered themselves someone and held a hand in the political game was in attendance. Then, the pope, wielding a Bible, took an oath swearing innocence in all charges against him. That brought the mutiny against him to an effective end. But it set the stage for a far more momentous development.2 days later, Christmas Day AD 800, Charlemagne arrived at St. Peter's with a large retinue for the Christmas service. Pope Leo sang the mass and the king knelt in prayer in front of Peter's crypt. The pope approached the kneeling monarch carrying a golden crown. Leo placed it on Charlemagne's head as the congregation cried: “To Charles, the most pious, crowned Augustus by God, to the great peace-making Emperor, long life and victory!” The pope then prostrated himself. Charlemagne, King of the Franks, had just become the first king of the Holy Roman Empire.We'll conclude Charlemagne's story next time.