Christianity and the Late Roman Empire

[Valerian Pertinax]

To continue our discussion from Why Late Rome:

We all know that Christianity grew to become the dominant religion in the Roman world in the 4th and 5th centuries. My question has always been: how and why? The easy and oversimplified answer is, of course, the endorsement of Constantine before the battle of the Milvian Bridge. But as Nathan pointed out, it wasn't an overnight switch, and Christianity ended up being a relatively painless transition for many people.

So: why Christianity? Other emperors had endorsed what could be called "foreign" deities such as Sol Invictus or El Gabal. What made Christianity different? To what extent did Christianity adopt Pagan ideas, symbols, and customs? Was the Roman world Christianized, or was it Christianity that underwent Romanization?

[M. Val. Naso]

Christianity is a mixed version of several eastern misterium-religions, judaism, and a lot of paganism. But this is another topic, not for RAT.

What is interesting, that it really wasn't an overnight switch, even so, that even St Augustine preached against the Sol Invictus-cult. And this is at the end of the 4th century, almost a century later, than Milvian Bridge.

The eastern cults, which basically were the same, and probably sprung from the same base (Mithras, Sol, Sol Invictus) were very popular in the armies, and AFAIK they were the last stand against christianity after Iulian the Apostate. The use of so-called christian symbols may not always mean troops being christian...just think of theearly militaristic mithraic/solic representations of Jesus.

[Hermann]

Well, it almost seems that Christianity is moulded into a shell which is already there. Initially, many Christians did not believe in an afterlife nor just one god. Judaism was originally a polytheistic religion, and its adherents believed that the afterlife was not conscious. In lieu of these factors, we must consider that Christianity might have been simply a set of rules which could be applied to whatever culture adopted it. Roman Catholics practically worship Saints (and what's the say Saint's weren't considered deities?). This is a carry-over from the religion on antiquity. It's the same with Germanic sects of Christianity. Saxons first saw Jesus as just another god to worship. Eventually people began to push aside the old gods because of the possibility of a favourable afterlife.

Also consider that Constantine may have seen Christianity as a religion would could be used for political gains. For space's sake, I won't get into all the details. The religion appealed to people because it promised things which were not guaranteed before: A favourable afterlife, straight-forward rules, and only one god to worry about.


Just some theories for your thoughts.

[Valerian Pertinax]

I wonder if Constantine's endorsement of Christianity wasn't a Caesar-esque move to appeal to the lower classes? He would have needed a way to sell himself as not just another general waging a civil war to claim the throne (a depressingly common occurance by that time) but as a true liberator fighting for the people. Someone correct me if I'm mistaken, but Christianity was more appealing to the downtrodden with it's promise of resurrection and eternal life (though the details were still being hammered out), and he would have the advantage of being something of an innovator by being the first Emperor to publically align himself with the new faith.

I also have a hard time accepting the notion that the Roman Catholic Church provided a way to unite Europe under a single faith even after the collapse of the Western Empire. True, the church provided a template for a commonish faith across western Europe, but it wasn't strong enough to prevent the fractiousness of feudalism, or the entire old eastern empire gradually become what we call the Orthodox Christian Church. It certainly wasn't enough to even present a consistent version of itself throughout Europe. A few years ago, I read a book titled Lost Christianities, and was taken aback by the sheer diversity of religious opinion in the early days of the Christian church. It seems as though the early church spent much intellectual capital attempting to "correct" dissenting beliefs umungst its flock, even as the Western Empire kept shrinking.

[Epictetus]

Early Christianity was very diverse, so much so that some researchers have used the term Christianities in the plural. However, from the very beginning, and including under the consolidation phase(s), I think Christianity stood out for two main reasons:

1) They offered extremely visible and tangible benefits to its adherents in this world through charity. This was not a simple promise for help, but a reality. Early Christians helped the poor publicly, in front of everyone, and the entire community of Christians and pagans watched the starving be given food and the naked be clothed. Julian realised this was a major reason for Christianity’s popularity and tried to get pagan cults to do the same. Peter Brown’s new Through the Eye of a Needle discusses wealth and charity and is absolutely fascinating.

2) Christianity also offered salvation in the next world. Although some pagan cults or philosophies did the same thing, theirs was a confused affair. Christianity was also confusing – if you consider the route to salvation from the Gnostic or “orthodox” perspective – but all flavours of Christianity offered it in some form or another.

If you think about these two very powerful promises – “We will help you in this world, and you will go to paradise in the next” – you can see why joining Christianity must have been very tempting. This promise was unique in the ancient world, until some tried to copy it. After Constantine there were more benefits, because being a Christian could help one’s imperial career.

[Nathan Ross]

Constantine may have seen Christianity as a religion would could be used for political gains.

I wonder if Constantine's endorsement of Christianity wasn't a Caesar-esque move to appeal to the lower classes?

That view was suggested by Jacob Burkhardt in the the 1850s and has been very influential since. Burkhardt saw Constantine as a Napoleon figure, ambitious for power by any means and using religion, politics and war to get it. The idea has been challenged more recently by Timothy Barnes, among others. Barnes prefers to see Constantine as deeply religious and a committed Christian from his youth (he also accuses Burkhardt of 'procedures... improper for one who claims to be a serious historian'...! - Barnes: Constantine: Dynasty, Religion & Power, 2011)

The use of so-called christian symbols may not always mean troops being christian...

That's true. Jonathan Bardill (Constantine: Divine Emperor of the Christian Golden Age, 2012) points out that the chi-rho was not a specifically Christian emblem in the early 4th century - it could stand for various things, including 'chrestos' ('useful') - perhaps it was used a similar way to the earlier 'Utere Felix'?

Bardill also connects Constantine's adoption of Christianity with the earlier tetrarchic adoption of 'divine protectors' - Diocletian and Maximian associating themselves with Jupiter and Hercules as godlike mediators between the world and the spirit - and even Hellenistic ideas of divine kingship, with the virtuous ruler becoming the image of god (eikon theou).

Prayer and sacrifice to the gods, in this view, generates a kind of spiritual or supernatural energy, concentrated in the figure of the emperor(s), and used to safeguard the empire and ensure the peace and prosperity of the world. In theory, at least... We might remember that one of the triggers for the 'great persecution' was supposedly Christians in imperial service messing up the sacrifices: a form of spiritual treason.

So there was nothing unRoman about Constantine becoming a Christian - he was just associating himself with God and Christ in the same way that Diocletian associated himself with Jupiter. Christianity was a sort of powered-up version of Sol worship, and there are at least suggestions that Constantine saw himself as equal to Christ... Hardly an 'orthodox' belief!

As for the rest of the population and army - whatever Constantine's own beliefs might have been, few people would have noticed an immediate difference after the battle of Milvian bridge. Christianity had been legal under both Constantine and Maxentius anyway, and for around decade afterwards there were few open declarations of faith. 'Sol Invictus' coinage was still being minted until 319. The so-called 'edict' of Milan (which wasn't actually an edict) refers only to 'whatever divinity there is in the seat of heaven' - lots of bets being hedged there!

It was only after Constantine's victory over Licinius in 324 that he started on an openly anti-'pagan' policy: not only promoting Christians but acting against traditional practices, banning oracles and private sacrifice, dismantling temples, melting down cult statues for coinage and so on. This was a shock at the time - Barnes (2011) cites the anti-Christian poet Palladus (redated to the early 4th century): "Hellenism everywhere is dead".

[Timianus]

Early Christianity was very diverse, so much so that some researchers have used the term Christianities in the plural.

Indeed, just look at all the different "sects" of Christians. It was not until Diocletian began to apply the Nicene Creed doctrine by force that a universal belief system was adopted. Look at the major doctrinal conflicts with the Arians, Donatists, etc.

As to why Christianity became so popular, as has already been mentioned, the core concepts of Christianity were present in many eastern religions. Also, the idea of Jesus being both god and human was a reflection of the neoplatonic construct of "perfect forms vs reality". From a doctrinal standpoint, there is very little that was "new". What was new was combining those elements with monotheism. I think Saint worship is reflective of the ancient practice of worshiping household gods. That was the neat thing about what is called "paganism"--there was virtually a "god" for everything.

From a practical level, the mass switch to Christianity was made possible by the "most favored religion" treatment Constantine provided. Tax exemptions and preference for civic posts were powerful incentives for the aristocracy to switch.

As to why Constantine switched from Sol Invictus to Christianity, my belief is that a large part had to do with an appeal to the masses. Sol Invictus was the god of emperors. Jesus was the god of the people. Constantine also needed a "new god" to distinguish himself from the other 4-5 contenders.

A more difficult question, IMHO, is how he convinced the military to switch from Mithrasism to Christianity. I large part of it had to be the promise of resurrection and eternal life.--otherwise, I do not see how you can convince a but of paid killers to adopt a religion that supposedly supported pacifism.

That is why I have always seen Constantine's "conversion" as a political move rather than a true personal belief. The concept of killing in the name of the god of peace is rather hard to get one's head around.

[Timianus]

It was only after Constantine's victory over Licinius in 323 that he started on an openly anti-'pagan' policy: not only promoting Christians but acting against traditional practices, banning oracles and private sacrifice, dismantling temples, melting down cult statues for coinage and so on. This was a shock at the time - Barnes (2011) cites the anti-Christian poet Palladus (redated to the early 4th century): "Hellenism everywhere is dead".

Simple explanation: Constantine needed the money to pay off his supporters. The switch in religions gave him the perfect excuse for looting the pagan temples. This idea is nothing new. When Caesar conquered Rome, he funded his operations by confiscating the $ in the Temple of Jupiter. Henry the 8th did the same thing when he shut down the monasteries and appropriated their "donations."

[Nathan Ross]

Simple explanation: Constantine needed the money to pay off his supporters.

Less simple explanation: Constantine genuinely was a committed Christian! ;-)

Actually it was probably a bit of both. He did need money - less to pay off his supporters than to finance the building of Constantinople and to stabilise the economy by injecting large quantities of good quality gold and silver coinage into the system. But many of his anti-pagan measures had no financial incentive, and seemed motivated solely by personal belief. Constantine wanted a single unified religion for the empire, with himself at its head - the schisms and heresies in the church seem to have pained and confused him (his own version of Christianity being apparently rather unsophisticated!). His limited measures against 'paganism' probably stemmed from the same source.

Tax exemptions and preference for civic posts were powerful incentives for the aristocracy to switch.

The senatorial aristocracy were already exempt from most taxation anyway - they paid a minimal land tax, but were free of extraordinary tribute taxes and sordida munera, and benefitted from regular tax remissions. When Constantine took Rome in 312 he was careful to avoid penalties against the senate, and confirmed most magistrates in their positions - the message was apparently that business would continue as usual, and the rich would be left in peace with their fabulous wealth and privilege.

Competition for civil posts mainly aided the lower decurial class, many of whom rose to high rank and gained senatorial status in a 'new aristocracy', created by and loyal to Constantine himself. Christianity definitely helped there - a good example would be Flavius Ablabius, Constantine's very able Praetorian Praefect, who was an early convert.

There's a difference, though, between conversion to Christianity and 'Christianisation' - the latter may have been a gradual process of change over the course of a couple of generations, and meant that, while still ostensibly followers of traditional religion, many people would have found the codes and rituals of their lives becoming Christian anyway, and adapted to fit in with them. (Salzman's The Making of a Christian Aristocracy is good on this process).

A more difficult question, IMHO, is how he convinced the military to switch from Mithrasism to Christianity... The concept of killing in the name of the god of peace is rather hard to get one's head around.

Mithraism was never universal in the army, and may always have been a minority religion (although you wouldn't know it from various fictional portrayals!). By the late third century it was in decline anyway - mithraea were still in use and altars being dedicated (by the tetrarchs at Carnuntum, among others), but Sol Invictis and Jupiter Dolichenus seem to have been far more popular with the army c.300, and possibly aspects of Mithraism had merged with a more public cult of Sol (but like most mystery religion questions, this is a bit... mysterious!).

As for Christianity - it's probably much the same process of 'Christianisation'. The soldiers may have remained effectively pagan, but the rituals that governed their lives became steadily attuned to Christianity. Besides which, Constantine had (by accident or design) very effectively 'rebranded' the religion anyway - the 'saving sign' of Christ had led him to victory in the civil wars against Maxentius and Licinius, 'by this sign you will be victor' and so on. Clearly this was the will of heaven!

Soldiers were very practical people, and a religion that guaranteed glory on the battlefield couldn't be denied. By c.324, Christianity was no longer a religion of pacifism, but of military victory.

[Frank]

Soldiers were very practical people, ...

Of course they were. When emperor Anastasius finally payed the soldiers fully in gold instead in kind partially, the recruitment problems disappeared immediately. And these new soldiers have been all good roman christians. Christian pacifism and its impact on the decline of Rome is terribly overrated, especially in the older science of history.

Btw, it is still unclear if the christians christianized the romans more, than the romans romanized christianity or vice versa 8)

[Valerian Pertinax]

Nathan Ross wrote:
"Less simple explanation: Constantine genuinely was a committed Christian!"

Chuckled out loud while reading this, I'll confess. It's difficult to suppress knee- jerk cynicism when a ruler claims divine inspiration, isn't it? Funny that genuine religious piety seems last on our list of Constantine's motivations.

I also found a copy of Constantine: Roman Emperor, Christian Victor cheap on Amazon. Looking toward to filling in some gaps in my knowledge of the man!

[Valerian Pertinax]

Nathan Ross wrote:

"Barnes prefers to see Constantine as deeply religious and a committed Christian from his youth".

I've heard of neither the book nor the author. How old, in this author's view, was Constantine when he could be called a committed Christian? I had been under the impression that Constantine was a Sol Invictus guy until shortly before the encounter at Milvian Bridge.

[Nathan Ross]

Funny that genuine religious piety seems last on our list of Constantine's motivations.

This goes back to the point in the previous thread about underestimating the religiosity of Romans! There's no doubt, I think, that Constantine was a true believer - the question of precisely what he believed, and when, is harder to answer...

I've heard of neither the book nor the author.

Timothy Barnes is one of the dons of Constantine studies, at least in the English-speaking world. His Constantine and Eusebius (1981) was a hugely influential revision of the emperor's life and work, based on the premise that Christian writers Eusebius and Lactantius were generally reliable and Constantine really was a Christian (against Burkhardt, etc). Constantine: Dynasty, Religion and Power (2011) basically defends the same thesis with new ammunition, so to speak.

Barnes is tremendously readable, and aggressively controversial. His recent book blasts most other scholars in the field for failing to sufficiently agree with him: Raymond Van Dam makes 'palpably false claims', Noel Lenski's ideas are 'utterly perverse and grossly misleading', and even Averil Cameron is accused of 'inexcusable errors' - strong stuff!

How old, in this author's view, was Constantine when he could be called a committed Christian?

'Committed' is the difficult part. Barnes has always argued that Constantine was at least favourably disposed to Christianity, possibly from birth. His mother Helena may have been a Christian (she certainly became one later), his stepsister was named Anastasia (which might indicate Christian influence), and his father Constantius refused to implement the full penalties of the persecution in 303. Barnes' argument that Constantine's visit to the ruins of Babylon while on campaign in Persia with Galerius in 298 indicates 'an interest in the Old Testament' is going too far though - Babylon was the site of Alexander's death, and this was surely what made it interesting to passing Romans!

It's possible that Constantius had already adopted Sol as his 'divine protector' prior to 305, although he was supposedly of the 'Herculian house'. Constantine's solar vision in Gaul in 310, however, really underlined the connection (Stephenson is good on this, although he redates it to 309 on, I think, rather flimsy grounds). After this, Constantine firmly rejected the Jupiter-Hercules system of the tetrarchy and adopted Sol/Apollo instead - Barnes sees this as a proto-Christian move: Sol provides 'a bridge between paganism and Christians'. How we get from this to the later outright Christianity of 324 and after is mysterious, but Barnes is convinced that 'Constantine gave Christians his political support from the start and began to declare himself a convert to Christianity before the Battle of Milvian Bridge'.

The problem is compounded, though, by Constantine's habit of lying about his age. In a later oration, he makes out that he was 'a mere youth' during the great persecution, and also a 'hostage', so could do nothing about it. Barnes points out that he was actually aged about 30, and a high-ranking officer of the imperial court primed to succeed to the purple. Barnes' notion that the persecution itself was a political move by Galerius designed to shut both Constantine and Maxentius out of the succession is harder to accept... The truth is probably somewhere in between - Constantine may have been amenable to Christianity at a young age (or just impressed by its strength?), but took a long time to declare himself, or be convinced of its truth. His later efforts to excuse earlier lapses only confuse the picture.

[Lyceum]

Nathan, an interesting overview as always, thanks. I would add though that whilst "youth" may be overdoing it (...wish I had the oration to hand to see what word he used!) 30 is not that old on the Roman cursus, especially if he wasn't the erus of his house, which I'm guessing he probably was at that time.

I think you're right in that part of the problem has been the white washing of Rome's religious tendencies in the past by previous generations of scholars. I would say that in a way his behaviour isn't that different from later Roman Christians...if you look towards the Orthodox church, its theology and its history, its not necessarily that out there. Especially the place of the Emperor via things like Kaisaropapismos etc ("papa" obviously referring to the Patriarkhos here). I think we need to be tolerant of a plurality here: Constantinus may have had many motives, both secular, political and religious (one god, one emperor...) and may have permitted several religious identities in these early days.

[Nathan Ross]

whilst "youth" may be overdoing it (...wish I had the oration to hand to see what word he used!) 30 is not that old on the Roman cursus

Yes, 'youth' was a bit of a relative term! I followed up Barnes' reference, and it's actually from C's letter to the eastern provinces, dated c.324 and repeated in Eusebius' Vita Constantini (translated into Greek; the original Latin is lost): "I call now on thee, most high God, to witness that, when young, I heard him who at that time was chief among the Roman emperors, unhappy, truly unhappy as he was, and laboring under mental delusion, make earnest enquiry of his attendants as to who these righteous ones on earth were, and that one of the Pagan priests then present replied that they were doubtless the Christians." (Vita, II.51)

This isn't quite the 'brazen lie' that Barnes suggests, although the context indicates that C was too young to have any influence at the time.

It's Eusebius himself who provides the gloss, likening C to Moses being brought up in the palace of Pharoah: "For the tyrants of our day have ventured to war against the Supreme God, and have sorely afflicted His Church. And in the midst of these, Constantine, who was shortly to become their destroyer, but at that time of tender age, and blooming with the down of early youth, dwelt, as that other servant of God had done, in the very home of the tyrants, but young as he was did not share the manner of life of the ungodly: for from that early period his noble nature, under the leading of the Divine Spirit, inclined him to piety and a life acceptable to God." (Vita, I.12)

'Tender age' and 'the down of early youth' do indeed suggest a child, not a high-ranking military officer with several campaigns under his belt!

Constantinus may have had many motives, both secular, political and religious (one god, one emperor...) and may have permitted several religious identities in these early days.

Probably, yes. Interestingly, the same letter mentioned above also contains the bit most quoted as evidence of C's tolerance for paganism: “My own desire is, for the common good of the world and the advantage of all mankind, that thy people should enjoy a life of peace and undisturbed concord. Let those, therefore, who still delight in error, be made welcome to the same degree of peace and tranquillity which they have who believe... With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of lies: we have the glorious edifice of thy truth, which thou hast given us as our native home."

Discord within the Christian community seems to have grieved Constantine more than residual paganism: "For while the people of God, whose fellow-servant I am, are thus divided amongst themselves by an unreasonable and pernicious spirit of contention, how is it possible that I shall be able to maintain tranquillity of mind?" (Vita II.72)

Maintaining the united appearance of the victorious new faith was therefore more important at this stage than making active moves against the traditional religions.