[trturkall]

This will consist of two semi-related questions about Christianity in Rome. As always I apologize if this has already been addressed.

1. What in your opinion was the ultimate effect that Christianity had on Roman society in the big picture? Did it contribute to or slow down the eventual demise of the empire?

2. Do you think that Constantine "adopted" Christianity because of political or social motives, or was he genuinely a Christian convert? Or both? Please explain.

[noemon]

1) Christianity had no effect on Greco-Roman society, save from turning Rome into a more Greek-oriented political machine.
2) It was out of political motives. Christianity was a mock-up organization that fully adopted Pantheist creeds, norms and organizational structure but whose sole effect was to rally certain elements of the Empire, most particularly the Greeks into subtle rebellion against Roman elitism in political posts. Several theologists and historians have tried to spot the doctrinal and historical effects christianity had, unsatisfactorily they have spotted one single "change", the christian network of charity stands as the sole effect christianity had on the social fabric. Legislation remained secular, education remained secular. The Olympic games were replaced by several other sports according to city instead of being centralized into Olympia.

I suggest you read this magnificent piece of work:

http://www.amazon.com/Social-Economic-H ... 0819621641

You can read it for free in google books.

In point of civilization, the Greeks were the predominant race in the empire. From the second half of the sixth century, Latin had ceased to be the language of the Government. The legislation eventually became thoroughly Greek, both in language and spirit. Beside the Greeks, only the Armenians had developed a civilization of their own. The Slavs, it is true, had acquired a significant influence over the internal and external affairs of the empire, but had not established a Slavic civilization on Byzantine soil, and the dream of a Roman Empire under Slavic rule remained a mere fantasy.

In the breaking of the empire on ethnographic lines of cleavage, it was an important feat that at least the Greeks were more solidly united than in former centuries. The dialects of ancient Greece had for the most part disappeared, and the Koiné of the Hellenic period formed a point of departure for new dialects, as well as the basis of a literary language which was preserved with incredible tenacity and gained the ascendancy in literature as well as in official usage. Another movement, in the sixth century, was directed towards a general and literary revival of the language, and, this having gradually spent itself without any lasting results, the dialects unfortunately, became the occasion of a further split in the nation. As the laterliterary language, with its classic tendencies, was stiff and unwieldy, as well as unsuited to meet all the exigencies of a colloquial language, it perforce helped to widen the breach between theliterary and the humbler classes the latter having already begun to use the new dialects. The social schism which had rent the nation, since the establishment of a distinctively Byzantine landed interest and the rise of a provincial nobility, was aggravated by the prevalence of the literary language among the governing classes, civil and ecclesiastical. Even the western invasion could not close this breach; on the contrary, while it confirmed the influence of the popular tongue as such, it left the social structure of the nation untouched. The linguistic division of the Greek nation thus begun has persisted down to the present time.

Eusebius, was the propaganda minister of Constantine, one of the so-called Church Fathers revered in the entire of Christendom, and officially the Father of Church History. He wrote in his "Preparation for the Gospel" in regards to Christians answering to those who inquire "who we are and whence we come from":

Well then, that being Greeks by race and Greeks by sentiment...

These are just a few snippets that verify my argument, Rostovzeffs book provides serious socio-economic analysis that further butresses and demonstrates the argument.