Christianity and the Late Roman Empire

[Quintius Clavus]

Just to muddy the waters a bit, I own a coin of Constantine with Sol Invictus on its reverse.
We have to remember that Constantine's edict was an edict of "Tolerance". Christianity (or Christianities at that point) had wide appeal as it/they were not restricted to only initiates (Mithraism is one whose influence or membership is, I agree, greatly overstated-especially in fictional works) and was open to all social classes. As noted above, Christianity made promises both for the here/now and for the afterlife. Other religions may have promised something for an afterlife and/or had savior-god attributes, but were not open to all.
Constantine assisted and presided at the Council of Nicea, where the bishops "hammered" out the terms of formal belief for Christian orthodoxy (not to be confused with the Ortholox Church). He chose to be baptised on his deathbed. It is likely that he feared that if he sinned after baptism that he would be denied a place in Heaven. He seems to have felt guilty about some of the executions he ordered during his raign (such as perhaps his son Crispus). IIRC, many Christians or converts in that time chose baptism late in life or on their deathbeds for much the same reasoning.
It was not until Theodosius I aka the Great that a particular orthodox Christianity was formally declared the one and only religion of the Empoire (again, not to be confused with the Orthodox Church).

[Marja]

I get the impression that there were more open Christianities and more secret Christianities, and the latter, Christian mystery religions, haven't lasted longer than the pagan mystery religions, perhaps due to expense and secrecy. Most modern Christians may consider Montanism, Sabellianism, and so-called Arianism to be heretical, but that hasn't stopped Christians from studying Tertullian et al.

I understand that Mithraism was a mystery religion. If so, its reasons for losing out are probably related to all the other mystery religions' reasons for doing so.

But that leaves traditional Roman paganism, NeoPlatonist paganism, and the syncretic Roman paganisms, any of which might have rivalled Christianity, or Marcionism, or Manichaeism, either of which would have resulted in a very different Christianity.

Now that leaves aside the questions concerning Christian attitudes to violence, and Christian attitudes towards the Roman Empire. It may be worth comparing early Roman and early non-Roman Christianities.

[Alanus]

No doubt Constantine was much the Christian because his mother was. How much the Christian he really was will always spawn debate... especially since he wasn't baptised until lying upon his death bed, blessed not by Eusebius of Caesaria but rather by an Arian. :whistle:

Seems likely to me that Christianity was the first imposing relgion that appealed to the common Roman man & woman... and to the poor, a promise unparalled previously. And that may have been the Bottom Line.

[Nathan Ross]

Just to muddy the waters a bit, I own a coin of Constantine with Sol Invictus on its reverse.

I believe the Sol coins are among the most common of Constantine's issues between 310 and about 318. Confusingly, he also issued a lot featuring Mars as well, plus a few of Hercules and Jupiter. Coins weren't really purged of pagan images until after 324.

In a way, I suppose these pagan gods might have acted as stand-ins for Christian ideas. Jupiter and Hercules, the gods of the tetrarchy, could be seen as echoes of God and Christ - the one being the father of the other. Even the anti-Christian writer Porphyry apparently accepted that Jesus was a semi-divine figure, similar to Hercules. Late Roman syncretism is an odd business!

We have to remember that Constantine's edict was an edict of "Tolerance".

Also that it wasn't an 'edict', but rather a rescript letter from Licinius to some of his eastern governors! Actually all the letter did was underline some of the conditions already in place in the west, where all penalties against Christians had been lifted by Constantine and Maxentius in 306. The persecution had been officially terminated by Galerius in 311. But the date and the place provide a neat sort of dividing line in Christian history, which is why we hear so much about it.

Now that leaves aside the questions concerning Christian attitudes to violence, and Christian attitudes towards the Roman Empire.

Yes, it would be interesting to know what the average Christian of c.320 might have thought about the way their faith had been co-opted by the state - a religion of peace and individual salvation turned into one of imperial victory. Would they have minded?

Ironically, I suspect that it was the experience of the persecutions under Decius, Valerian and Diocletian that really transformed Christianity into its later form. You find a new spirit in the writings of men like Cyprian and Lactantius - bellicose, even martial: they were soldiers of Christ, battling against the Devil, and the threats were real. For the first time Christians realised their own strength and numbers, and the failure of the persecution in 304 gave them a taste of victory. From there it was only a small step to claiming an emperor as one of their own.

[Theodosius the Great]

Getting back to the larger question for a moment...

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?

I think it's important to step back and remember that by the year 324 Christianity was an international faith, officially endorsed by neighboring kingdoms of Armenia (in 301) and Ethiopia (324) before Constantine's (personal) endorsement. Iberia's king converted in the 320s. Rome finally joins the ranks of Christian nations when Theodosius enshrined it as the official religion (380). So, in context Constantine's endorsement hardly seems so remarkable or innovative. Christianity was already on the rise on the world stage long before he became an emperor. It made strides into Persia and among the Arab tribes.

To my knowledge, the only other faith that made inroads on a similar scale in this part of the world was Manichaeism. It's prophet, Mani (d. 276 AD), was comparable to Saint Paul in his missionary efforts. At its height it spread from Persia into Rome and China.

This religion was the main rival of Christianity and it wasn't even Roman. The rest of the opposition, such as it was, didn't hold much sway over the populace. I think what spurred Christianity within the Roman empire in the fourth century was imperial sponsored missionary activity. With the Church's newfound wealth and the emperor's comissioning of Christian Bibles the populace could now be evangelized and educated on a wider level at a more rapid pace. And with the empire's contacts among it's allies the Church actively preached to barbarian tribes across the Danube and Rhine. The Goths converted in the 370s to Arianism of which the reigning emperor, Valens, was an adherent. So, I think the Church's state support more than the suppression of opposition is what spurred its growth. But both were needed for such rapid expansion.

This goes back to the point in the previous thread about underestimating the religiosity of Romans!

Just to pick up on this point, Lincinius, when facing the army of Maximinus at Adrianople (313), revealed to his men before the battle that he had a dream the night before. A divine messenger told him to pray to the Supreme God. In the morning he wrote down the prayer from his dream and distributed it to his men. Lincinius ordered his soldiers to utter it three times. Here is the prayer from Lactantius' On the Death of the Persecutors:

Supreme God, we pray to you, Holy God, we pray to you. We commend all justice to you. We commend our safety to you. We commend our empire to you. Through you we live, through you we emerge victorious and fortunate. Highest, Holy God, hear our prayers. We lift up our arms to you. Hear us, Holy, Highest God.

Actually all the letter did was underline some of the conditions already in place in the west, where all penalties against Christians had been lifted by Constantine and Maxentius in 306. The persecution had been officially terminated by Galerius in 311. But the date and the place provide a neat sort of dividing line in Christian history, which is why we hear so much about it.

Right now I'm reading "Constantine The Emperor" by David Potter. He mentions that although Maxentius lifted penalties against Christians in his territory as well it wasn't until Constantine defeated him that all Church properties were restored. As for Galerius, yes, he officially terminated the Great Persecution. But his successor, Maximinus, rekindled it only to rescind it before the final battle with Lincinius. After being defeated he issued his edict of tolerance to Christianity before committing suicide at the approach of Lincinius' victorious army. So, this was the true end of the persecutions.

Yes, it would be interesting to know what the average Christian of c.320 might have thought about the way their faith had been co-opted by the state - a religion of peace and individual salvation turned into one of imperial victory. Would they have minded?

I question this belief of pacifism. With all this new talk about 'Christianities' why should we think Christians were united in their pacifism? I've read evidence of Christians serving in the army long before Constantine.

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

Yes, well the New Testament wasn't even canonized until the late fourth century. I'm surprised how many people are unaware of this.

Constantine assisted and presided at the Council of Nicea, where the bishops "hammered" out the terms of formal belief for Christian orthodoxy

True, although it wasn't til the end of the fourth century that the New Testament was canonized. Though the council was instrumental in, if not starting, then accelerating the process.

~Theo

[Marja]

Imperial missionary activity had relatively little role in the Gothic conversions.

There may have been Christians in Dacia and Scythia, and there definitely were Christians elsewhere who were captured and enslaved by Gothic and Herulian raiders. Wulfila was the son or grandson of slaves. Within a couple generations they had been thoroughly Gothicized. Ultimately, Wulfila and many others were forced into exile in Moesia Secunda.

There were Syrian monks. Audius and his supporters were forced into exile in Scythia Minor.

These are the two best-attested groups involved in missionary activity in Gutþiuda. But one was Gothic, and the other was there because the emperors didn't know what to do with them. As fas as I know, the main evidence for an imperial role is the supposed conversion on the Danube, but that's iffy, and I suspect that many including Fritigern had already converted, and there were propaganda reasons to attribute Gothic 'errors' to Valens' 'errors'.

The linguist D.H. Green has noted the differences between Gothic Christian vocabulary and other Germanic Christian vocabularies, and if I remember correctly, attributes these to the Gothic conversion being earlier and more archaic, being bottom-up rather than top-down, and also Wulfila describing Jesus in unmilitary terms.

I think someone mentioned that Ethiopia had a similar early bottom-up conversion, in which case it can serve as a comparison for both Gutþiuda and Rome.

*Green, Language and History in the Early Germanic World, pp. 361ff and 364ff.

[Nathan Ross]

Lincinius, when facing the army of Maximinus at Adrianople (313), revealed to his men before the battle that he had a dream the night before. A divine messenger told him to pray to the Supreme God.

Yes, and there's the reference in the Milan 'edict'/letter to 'whatever divinity there is in the seat of heaven' - it seems both emperors were agreed on the efficacy of monotheism, but not (yet) on the exact form it would take.

Right now I'm reading "Constantine The Emperor" by David Potter.

Aha! I've been meaning to read Potter's book for a while now, but after ploughing through Barnes and Bardill recently I'm having a break from Constantiniana! Is it good? Does he make any strikingly new points?

I think we should be slightly wary in comparing Constantine's and Maxentius' pro-Christian measures. For a start, there was far more church property in Rome than in the relatively unChristianised Gallic and British provinces, where quite possibly Constantius had refrained from seizing much of it anyway. Maxentius certainly allowed the restoration of the papacy (or bishops of Rome - although they immediately started fighting among themselves!), and I believe he actually did begin restoration of property shortly before 312. His name has been so blackened by subsequent historians, though, that it's difficult to get a clear picture of what he intended.

I've read evidence of Christians serving in the army long before Constantine.

They certainly did - there are several martyr stories about soldiers (Sergius and Bacchus, apparently in the imperial bodyguard, for example), but also the edict banning Christians from the army would have been unneccessary if there were none...

Tertullian's De Corona describes a soldier 'known to everyone as a Christian' throwing away the laurel crown and his military gear on the parade ground and giving himself to martyrdom. So even under the Severans there were Christians in the army. But this text is one of the strongest appeals to Christian pacifism (or anti-militarism): "Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword?" and so on. But Tertullian having to argue this point suggests that it was not universally held, and as I said before I think this view, however popular it was at the time, had probably changed by the end of the century.

[M. Val. Naso]

"whatever divinity there is in the seat of heaven"

this doesn't even necessarily refer to a monotheistic stance...

[Timianus]

Supreme God, we pray to you, Holy God, we pray to you. We commend all justice to you. We commend our safety to you. We commend our empire to you. Through you we live, through you we emerge victorious and fortunate. Highest, Holy God, hear our prayers. We lift up our arms to you. Hear us, Holy, Highest God.

Sounds like a Catholic offertory prayer.

[starman2012]

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.

That helped but I don't think it was among the most important factors. The State had long been dishing out free bread for example.

2) Christianity also offered salvation in the next world.

Sure it offered "eternal life"-- very appealing then and now. But there was more-unlike mythological figures like mithra, jesus was a historical figure (In his latest work, Did Jesus Exist) Ehrman points out that, unlike some modern anti-christians, even the bitterest ancient critics of christianity didn't deny that he lived). His putative resurrection not only restored the faith of his followers, it made them more impressed than ever. Supposedly he had conquered death, which everybody wanted, and was promised. Nobody else could make such a promise or do it with such apparent credibility.

[Nathan Ross]

"whatever divinity there is in the seat of heaven"

this doesn't even necessarily refer to a monotheistic stance...

Arguably the 'divinity' in this case is singular, but it's (probably deliberately) ambiguous. There's a similar phrase on the inscription of the Arch of Constantine, raised by the (mainly non-Christian) senate in 315: Constantine "inspired by the divine (instinctu divinitatis), and by the greatness of his mind, has delivered the state from the tyrant and all of his followers."

The 'divine' could mean either the Christian God, or some other other god (Sol Invictus was also referred to as Summus Deus), or just the spirit of the gods generally.

But Constantine himself was less hazy on his faith. In his rely to the Donatists after the Council of Arles in 314 he wrote that "I myself must be judged by Christ" (qui ipse judicium Christi expecto).

[Theodosius the Great]

Aha! I've been meaning to read Potter's book for a while now, but after ploughing through Barnes and Bardill recently I'm having a break from Constantiniana! Is it good? Does he make any strikingly new points?

Well, I just finished it last night. I think Potter is a very good writer. This is, IIRC, the fourth biograpghy of Constantine I've read but I'm sure you know much more about the man than I do.

I did learn some things regarding C's style of government. He retained most of Maxentius' and Lincinius' political appointees for a time after his victories over them. In the wars against the latter he showed he could be reckless as a general but also that he knew when to reign in his aggressiveness. Potter is convinced C really loved Fausta even after her mysterious death given that she was often pregnant and that he never remarried or kept any concubines for the last eleven years of his life. They may have even been buried together.

Unlike most of the other bios I've read I think Potter's approach, as he explains in his appendix, stresses selected primary sources over others, like certain panegyrics (though not all), the Theodosian Code which preserves some of his rulings and somewhat reveals his personality, and Eusebius up to a point. The latter's faults are pointed out despite his great importance. Later sources are given much less weight in evaluating C's intentions and motives. (Constantius II tries to paint his father one way while Julian distorts him in other, more obvious ways.) So, I enjoyed the book and recommend it.

What I find interesting is that we know so much about Constantine but we still have so many questions. It's hard for me to make a judgement about him. I definately don't see him as a saint, like the Eastern Orthodox do, but I certainly don't see enough evidence to condemn him as a 'poor excuse for a human being'. But if not a saint, he is certainly a hero of Christianity.

I think we should be slightly wary in comparing Constantine's and Maxentius' pro-Christian measures. ...I believe he actually did begin restoration of property shortly before 312. His name has been so blackened by subsequent historians, though, that it's difficult to get a clear picture of what he intended.

Fair enough. Though I'm uncertain as to why such an act couldn't be done with the stroke of a pen. The process itself doesn't seem so arduous a task, imo. But it does sound consistent with Constantine's practice of taking all the credit for finishing someone else's work.

Imperial missionary activity had relatively little role in the Gothic conversions. Wulfila was the son or grandson of slaves. Within a couple generations they had been thoroughly Gothicized....As fas as I know, the main evidence for an imperial role is the supposed conversion on the Danube, but that's iffy,

You make some great observations. As far as the Goths are concerned, I would suggest that Wulfila/ Ulfilas's success was greatly facilitated by Constantine's reconquest of old Dacia (previously abandoned by Aurelian).

~Theo

[Alanus]

Imperial missionary activity had relatively little role in the Gothic conversions.

There may have been Christians in Dacia and Scythia, and there definitely were Christians elsewhere who were captured and enslaved by Gothic and Herulian raiders. Wulfila was the son or grandson of slaves. Within a couple generations they had been thoroughly Gothicized.".. As fas as I know, the main evidence for an imperial role is the supposed conversion on the Danube, but that's iffy, and I suspect that many including Fritigern had already converted, and there were propaganda reasons to attribute Gothic 'errors' to Valens' 'errors'.

Hello, Marja

That appears to be spot-on, and we can't get your observations from Heather & Matthews or Kulikowski. If we read "between the lines" of Socrates Scholasticus, Zosimus, and Sosiman, we almost get the picture; that is, Fritigern was already Christianized prior to the Danube crossing.

We read that Fritigern leads "Roman" troops (or cavalry) into Gothia to fight Athanaric. This would be the second Gothic persecution of Christians. At exactly the same time, Junius Soranus retrieves the Bones of the Martyrs. I wrote a novel on this subject (Forging the Blade) but dealt only with the Arian element to keep the story simple. But in actuality, I believe Fritigern and Soranus retrieved bones of both Arian and Orthodox Christians. Soranus was a Cappadocian (as was Bishop Ulfilas to the third generation), and the Church fathers sent the bones to Cappadocia. We discover that the Gothic Arian Church celebrated October 25th in "honor of Fritigern and the Martyrs." There were two persecutions, the first (by Aoric) driving Ulfilas and 6-8,000 Goths into Mosia Secunda, the second persecution beginning in 369-70... a backlash by Athanaric for the closure of all trading ports, with the exception of one, by Valens.

This info, from Scholasticus and his copyists, places Fritigern as a man of integrity... and it gives him just cause in his later actions against Lupicinus and Maximus (the same Maximus who probably killed Theodosius the Elder, then later sent to Britain for his surly behavior in Mosia). :whistle:

[Nathan Ross]

Thanks for the review, Theo! Looks like I'll certainly have to take a look at this one...

Potter is convinced C really loved Fausta even after her mysterious death given that she was often pregnant and that he never remarried or kept any concubines for the last eleven years of his life. They may have even been buried together.

A very strange idea - never heard of the joint burial thing. Potter, I think, holds with the idea that Fausta was only 9 years old or so when she was married to Constantine, which would explain why she didn't have her first child until nine years later... But what kind of evidence might there be for 'love' between them? She suffered damnatio memoriae after death, and it was never revoked - coincidentally, this happened at the same time as Constantine was passing his pro-marriage morality legislation (and legalising celibacy!). It's a long stretch to see this is as grief for a beloved wife... Whatever Fausta (and Crispus) did was serious, and unforgiveable.

What I find interesting is that we know so much about Constantine but we still have so many questions.

Yes! Barnes (in his most recent book) makes quite a point of the enigma of Constantine. Despite all the studies of him and his reign, there are huge and crucial things we know almost nothing about.

Oh for those lost books of Ammianus... :-)

[Alanus]

Oh for those lost books of Ammianus... :-)

Plus a few others! But Ammianus was the last of the secular writers, and a reasonably thorough one. If only he had given us more detail in what is left. :unsure: