For they stumbled at that stumbling stone;"Romans 9:32; ; ; ; ).

It demands that the motives shall be pure, and rejects all actions from earthly ambition or ends.
Photo provided by Flickr

Indeed, Christianity was quite simply the Roman religion.

The beginning of this collapse in the West is obviously due to Germanic migrations, but the economic devastation of Italy or the Aegean has another cause: the advent of , which shattered Roman control of the Mediterranean and devastated its trade system.

This was the closest Rome ever got to a constitutional, non-hereditary system of rule.
Photo provided by Pexels

Cameron certainly never actually calls them Romans.

* [–] Paul must come to grips with the problem raised by a message that declares people free from the law. How are they to relate to Roman authority? The problem was exacerbated by the fact that imperial protocol was interwoven with devotion to various deities. Paul builds on the traditional instruction exhibited in –, according to which kings and magistrates rule by consent of God. From this perspective, then, believers who render obedience to the governing authorities are obeying the one who is highest in command. At the same time, it is recognized that Caesar has the responsibility to make just ordinances and to commend uprightness; cf. –. That Caesar is not entitled to obedience when such obedience would nullify God’s prior claim to the believers’ moral decision becomes clear in the light of the following verses.

The transition from Diocletian to Constantine is illustrated in the following flow chart.
Photo provided by Flickr

What is striking about this quote, for my purposes here, is that it is an example of Mango and Scott taking from the Greek of Theophanes and translating it "the Roman country," which they do throughout their translation.

"Roman" now meant the Empire, Romania, , and the citizens, and only secondarily the City.
Photo provided by Flickr

This was long before Rome was even a cloud on the horizon.

These are shibboleths of the modern Academy, but the irony is that Haldon's quote from Marx, that "Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they please," is something that, as a practical matter ("praxis" there), most Marxists actually don't believe.

The Roman name was not a label slapped onto a deeper Greek identity.

We are perhaps going to hear about the class struggle of the oppressed masses in Mediaeval Romania -- which is something we don't quite get even from Anthony Kaldellis in his more radical moments.

So hadn't the Carolingians "abandoned" Rome to the Church?

So if Haldon is at all uncomfortable with "Byzantine Empire" and is determined never to let the name "Romania" issue from his pen, he tells us absolutely nothing about why this would be, or why he prefers "Eastern Roman Empire." Obviously, he would rather not get into it.

They continued in Romania right through the Middle Ages.

And we might charitably concede that "Eastern," which was used by no contemporaries, is simply a way of avoiding confusion between the City of Rome and the Empire of Romania, which is the on-going problem of all this terminology in English.

Romans 1:1-17 (Reflections) | Message & Meaning

Except, of course, that it doesn't, since Haldon himself has not actually offered any discussion either of "Byzantine Empire" or "Eastern Roman Empire." He has sent us to go hunting through Byzantinist journals in German (although this article itself looks to be in English).

Reflections of an Anglican Theologian | Anglican …

As it happens, Haldon does seem a little uncomfortable with "Byzantium." Thus, on page 4, we get the first use of the term "Byzantine Empire," which Haldon glosses by saying, "better described, in fact, as the medieval Eastern Roman Empire." He doesn't say it is "better described," but we do get a footnote:

There is a debate around the use of this term [i.e.