After Kautsky wrote, I think we learned much more about the extraordinary *Palestinian* context of early Christianity. AFAIK, today's knowledge shows that early Christianity was very much a product of its Palestinian context, rather than *principally* an outgrowth of the larger Roman culture found at the core of the Empire. For example, we are now particularly aware of a number of relevant religious movements during this era, such as the Essenes (the umbrella name associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls).
Therefore, for leftist historians, I believe most would emphasize that the early Christian movement initially took place in the context of political desperation and extreme social disillusionment. The calamities that fostered the Christian movement included:
- Imperial domination and oppressive rule,
- co-optation and discrediting of the local Palestinian ruling elites,
- a resultant fragmentation of Palestinian society leading to persistent vicious civil wars
- the subsequent brutal defeat of at least 2 national revolts
- deportation and mass enslavement of large parts of the Palestinian population.
Geoffrey de Ste Croix's writings on early Christianity provide some good insight. [The late de Ste Croix was a one of the most respected classicists at Oxford (and wrote from a marxist perspective). Several years ago Carol C. pointed him out on LBO with regard to slavery in Greece.]
Ste Croix meticulously documents the intolerance and fanaticism of early Christianity, borne from the Macabean-era climate of Palestine, and how the early martyrs were actually often volunteers. Early Christian intolerance extends to non-Christians but also focuses on fellow Christians as alleged heretics and schismatics. Ste Croix says that when Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire this exclusiveness and zeal helped transform it into "a persecuting force without parallel in the world's history".
http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Persecution-Martyrdom-Orthodoxy-Geoffrey/dp/0199278121
Paul
At 10:54 PM 8/1/2007 -0700, you wrote:
>John Thornton wrote:
>
> >Can anyone here give me their opinion of Kautsky's "Foundations of
> >Christianity"?
> >
> >
>I read Kautsky's book and I thought it was excellent. Very level headed
>and very interesting.
>
>He mostly focuses on explaining how late Roman culture helps explain a
>lot of early Xtianity -- which turns out to be more of a reaction to
>that culture than something in itself.
>
>For example, he explains how the asceticism was less a religious feature
>than a reaction to the extreme overindulgence (vomitariums, colliseum
>blood baths) of the late empire. By placing it in a historical setting
>(from a Marxist perspective) it helps you understand a lot of stuff
>about it that you might otherwise think was "religious."
>
>Clearly written. Easy to read.
>
>It's a mistake to assume that an old book is not necessarily a good book.
>
>The notion that something newer is better is a modern prejudice, not in
>any way a fact.
>
>Joanna