The Arian Controversy and the Council of Nicea

[TITVS SABATINVS AQVILIVS]

You're welcome Theo, see you to the next discussion

Vale

[Casmin]

. The only thing we can argue over is to what degree and how long it took - but it did happen. Paganism was too amorphous to accomplish such a feat.

Theo

Well, there really wouldn't have been a need to unite pagans behind a common belief system. Unlike the Christians, they didn't vehemently badger each other over theological concepts.

At that particular time, I don't think there were enough Christians in the Empire that uniting them would in turn unite the Empire. I believe the key thing Constantine did by accepting Christianity was that he essentially brought them into the fold. They were a troublesome lot, often at odds with good Roman social behavior. Constantine removed the wall between Christian and non-Christian so that there was, in theory, less the Christian could bang his fist against. Sometimes people will fight against an obstruction (in this case the division between Christian and non-Christian) just because it is there. Jim Morrison used to comment that if there weren't any police guarding the stage during his performances, the audience wouldn't try to get up on the stage. Perhaps Constantine understood this behavior.

I think this is the way Constantine attempted to unite the Empire. On paper, the Christians were no longer the creepy people who conversed in hidden dark corners, fought "the man", or were pushed to martyrdom by going against the grain of Imperial policy. Uniting the Christians behind a common belief (ala Nicea) only sought to end the in-fighting with themselves so that they could be on an equal footing with their pagan counterparts.

[Theodosius the Great]

Well, there really wouldn't have been a need to unite pagans behind a common belief system.

When you are being invaded from all the frontiers, unity is the single most crucial thing you need.

What about what I cited earlier about the Arian barbarians and the pagan Persians ? Christians in the West resented persecution from Arian barbarians and Eastern Christians resented Persians for their reputation of persecuting fellow Christians in their empire. Christians preferred Roman rule under a Christian Emperor. In fact, the word "Roman" became synonomous with "Christian." And "Greek" became synonomous with "pagan." So the Greek speaking citizens came to resent being called "Greeks" :!: They proudly called themselves "Romans" for the first time in history. Whereas before, Diocletian had wisely distrusted pagans from Persian-derived cults (which were ever more popular) of remaining loyal to Rome, should Persia ever invade Roman territory.

Even if there were schisms within Christianity there were only two or three large factions. It brought more unity to the Empire than there was before when they had hundreds of assorted pagan cults with no vested interest in staying within the Empire.

The concept is similar to Diocletian's tetriarchy in a way. He split the Empire into four large pieces. Even though it was split, these parts of the Empire acted in unison under his leadership. Before Diocletian at any one time they had a dozen or so generals running around tearing up the Empire.

Uniting the Christians behind a common belief (ala Nicea) only sought to end the in-fighting with themselves so that they could be on an equal footing with their pagan counterparts.

I don't remember reading about any infighting among Christians before Constantine. The movement was widespread but diffused at that time.

At that particular time, I don't think there were enough Christians in the Empire that uniting them would in turn unite the Empire

Of course that's true but not the whole truth. Constantine sought to spread and promote Christianity by giving Christians preferential treatment. Most of the top positions were awarded to Christians and pagan temples were no longer subsidized. Constantine greatly accelerated the rate of conversions to Christianity.


Theo

[Casmin]

Good points Theodosius. However, I'm a bit confused. If there wasn't any bickering until Constantine then what was the point of Nicaea?

I totally agree that unity was of utmost importance. I said earlier that there was little point in solidifying pagan religions. True, it may sound easier to unify 3 or 4 Christian sects rather than a thousand pagan ones but like I stated before no pagan sects were at each others throats over dogma. I hate what if's but if the Christians were originally united behind one theology would they still have been a thorn in Rome's side pre-Constantine? Probably. I don't think it was their disunity as much as their on-the-edge-of-society nature that posed the problem for Rome. By accepting Christianity, Constantine removed some of the religion's "edginess".

Unless I misunderstood you, I think you might be juxtaposing facts from different periods when you mention Constantine's attempt at unity and Arian barbarians persecuting pagans and such. I don't think during Constantine's time Romans preferred rule by a Christian emperor.

I'm enjoying this discussion and looking forward to your response. Maybe you can bring me into the fold of being a true believer.

[Theodosius the Great]

If there wasn't any bickering until Constantine then what was the point of Nicaea?

Oh, it's no coincidence that the bickering started with Constantine. He was the catalyst by initiating the coalescence of the Christian communities across the Empire. Of course, everyone thought it was important to affirm orthodox Christianity. No doubt the councils which Constantine convened revealed for the first time some of the deviant beliefs held by certain Christian communities. It was only under Constantine that ecumenical councils were first held. So, the revelations from these meetings no doubt surprised many Christians and it was imperative that they get things straightened out now that what ever is decided in the councils will be enforced by the state.

I said earlier that there was little point in solidifying pagan religions

Yes and no. I believe you're talking about classical paganism. But classical paganism was long in decline and people in droves were abandoning it in favor of Eastern cults. Some pagan sects were seen as dangerous to the state. Diocletian did not single out Christians in his persecutions, he also targeted some of the newer pagan sects that had Persian origins. This occurred in Egypt because he was terrified that these pagans were sympathetic to their Persian co-coreligionists. So, pagans were at each others' throats during the late Empire. Diocletian tried to revive the old beliefs but the tide was turning toward more monotheistic religions and cults.

I don't think it was their disunity as much as their on-the-edge-of-society nature that posed the problem for Rome. By accepting Christianity, Constantine removed some of the religion's "edginess".

I'm not sure if you are addressing persecution of Christians or Christianity after it becomes the official religion of Rome. Which "problem" ?

True, Rome was suspicious of secretive clubs and cults. But by the III century the Christians were not in the shadows anymore. They had buildings that were churches and no longer used houses to worship inside.

Unless I misunderstood you, I think you might be juxtaposing facts from different periods when you mention Constantine's attempt at unity and Arian barbarians persecuting pagans and such.

Yes, I am. For two reasons : 1) I'm not sure what specific period you are addressing. And 2.) I'm trying to show that unity was a process and not a single event. However, I think the empire was majority Christian by the late IV century.

The army and peasants tend to be the most conservative elements in society both now and then. So, they were probably the last strongholds of paganism.

I'm enjoying this discussion and looking forward to your response.

As am I, Casmin. I slightly misunderstood what you were saying earlier.

Maybe you can bring me into the fold of being a true believer

I'm just pointing out what I think is evidence of an unprecedented, unseen level of unity. If your mind is open I'd be glad to try and persuade. If it's closed to persuasion then I'd still like to hear counter-points. Maybe I'll be persuaded. ':

Theo

[Theodosius the Great]

If there wasn't any bickering until Constantine then what was the point of Nicaea?

Oh, it's no coincidence that the bickering started with Constantine. He was the catalyst by initiating the coalescence of the Christian communities across the Empire. Of course, everyone thought it was important to affirm orthodox Christianity - what ever it was. When Constantine started drafting new laws based on Christian morality, he probably was getting mixed feedback from his Christian advisers.

No doubt the councils which Constantine convened revealed for the first time to everyone some of the deviant beliefs held by certain Christian communities. It was only under Constantine that ecumenical councils were first held. So, the revelations from these meetings no doubt surprised many Christians and they saw it as imperative that they get things straightened out now that what ever is decided in the councils will be enforced by the state.

In other words, before Constantine most Christians were probably ignorant of any divisions within their faith, so they could not have been at each others' throats. Even the ones who were aware probably had no idea of the true extent of these divisions.

I said earlier that there was little point in solidifying pagan religions

Yes and no. I believe you're talking about classical paganism. But classical paganism was long in decline and people in droves were abandoning it in favor of Eastern cults. Some pagan sects were seen as dangerous to the state. Diocletian did not single out Christians in his persecutions, he also targeted some of the newer pagan sects that had Persian origins. This occurred in Egypt because he was terrified that these pagans were sympathetic to their Persian coreligionists. So, pagans were at each others' throats during the late Empire. Diocletian tried to revive the old beliefs but the tide was turning toward more monotheistic religions and cults.

I don't think it was their disunity as much as their on-the-edge-of-society nature that posed the problem for Rome. By accepting Christianity, Constantine removed some of the religion's "edginess".

I'm not sure if you are addressing persecution of Christians or Christianity after it becomes the official religion of Rome. Which "problem" ?

True, Rome was suspicious of secretive clubs and cults. But by the III century the Christians were not in the shadows anymore. They had buildings that were churches and no longer used houses to worship inside.

Unless I misunderstood you, I think you might be juxtaposing facts from different periods when you mention Constantine's attempt at unity and Arian barbarians persecuting pagans and such.

Yes, I am. For two reasons : 1) I'm not sure what specific period you are addressing. And 2.) I'm trying to show that unity was a process and not a single event. However, I think the empire was majority Christian by the late IV century.

The army and peasantry tend to be the most conservative elements in society both now and then. So, they were probably the last strongholds of paganism.

I'm enjoying this discussion and looking forward to your response.

As am I, Casmin. I slightly misunderstood what you were saying earlier.

Maybe you can bring me into the fold of being a true believer

I'm just pointing out what I think is evidence of an unprecedented, unseen level of unity. If your mind is open I'd be glad to try and persuade. If it's closed to persuasion then I'd still like to hear counter-points. Maybe I'll be persuaded.

Theo

[Casmin]

In other words, before Constantine most Christians were probably ignorant of any divisions within their faith, so they could not have been at each others' throats. Even the ones who were aware probably had no idea of the true extent of these divisions.

Aha, I see what you're saying now. Very good observation Theo.

In retrospect, I think I was talking about Christianity before the time of Constantine, but trying to relate it to his time. So I was taking it out of context.

My major point in all of this was that Constantine wanted to remove the so called barrier between Christianity and good lawful Roman society by legalizing the former. I think this concept is something I haven't really come across too much but in my opinion is the real meat and potatoes of the council of Nicaea.

Always a pleasure Theodosius.

[Theodosius the Great]

My major point in all of this was that Constantine wanted to remove the so called barrier between Christianity and good lawful Roman society by legalizing the former.

I doubt Christians caused much social strife before Constantine. By the II century the state recognized them as being among the most law abidding citizens : "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...." Galen attested to their high ethical standards. Unlike the Jews, they were not prone to riot with pagan Greeks or initiate revolts against the state.

BTW, I checked the name of those troublesome pagans that Diocletian confronted - they were "Manicheans." They were based in Syria and Egypt.

I think this concept is something I haven't really come across too much but in my opinion is the real meat and potatoes of the council of Nicaea.

Interesting. I always saw the Nicean Council as addressing internal church division rather than social cohesion with the still pagan Empire.

Always a pleasure Theodosius.

Thank you, I enjoyed discussing this topic, Camin.


Theo

[Casmin]

Sorry I'd like to make a correction. It was the Edict of Milan that legalized Christianity not Nicaea. I knew I was wrong but I figured you knew what I meant.

[Theodosius the Great]

Oh, now that makes more sense. I didn't know you meant the Edict of Milan, Casmin. I'll have to adjust my answers to correspond.

So, you were saying that the Edict was the only measure Constantine took to unify the empire ? One major flaw I see in this theory is that Constantine wasn't sole emperor at the time. He just became sole Augustus of the West. To me, it seems unlikely (indeed, against his political interest) to try to unify the empire before unifying it under his sole rule. Putting the horse before the carriage, so to speak.

They were a troublesome lot, often at odds with good Roman social behavior.

The Christians were a troublesome lot only to the state authorities, but not always. When we see Emperors like Trajanus Decius, Valerian and Diocletian who demanded public sacrifices or just sought scapegoats for their failed leadership Christians became targets. But the common pagan thought the punishments inflicted on Christians were undeserved, as Tacitus recorded. Pagan sympathy for Christians continued in later times of persecution as well, in fact, some pagans went so far as to protect Christians from the authorities.

I think this is the way Constantine attempted to unite the Empire. On paper, the Christians were no longer the creepy people who conversed in hidden dark corners, fought "the man", or were pushed to martyrdom by going against the grain of Imperial policy. Uniting the Christians behind a common belief (ala Nicea) only sought to end the in-fighting with themselves so that they could be on an equal footing with their pagan counterparts.

Pagans didn't approve of the Christians' religious exclusivity, but this didn't merit state-sponsored persecution in their eyes.

Furthermore, Christians as a group did not fight back against the state. They really did "turn the other cheek."

As I said earlier, you can make a far better case that Jewish citizens were a troublesome lot for both the state and regular citizens. Alexandria was notorious for its rioting between Greeks and Jews. And this often happened even in times of peace. Then there were the two Jewish revolts of the I and II centuries AD. For these reasons among others, the Christians sought to differentiate themselves from their Jewish brethren.

Back to unity : In your view, you see the Edict of Milan as the only measure taken by Constantine to achieve unity ? To me, the Edict seems like he was just laying the ground for it. [This is reminiscent of the illegal immigration issue taking place here in the US. The first step in dealling with it will probably be to legalize their status. Then there's a lengthy process to pursue that leads to full citizenship (i.e. naturalization) ]

I base my view in the context of the changing religious climate the Empire was experiencing for the prior century or so. A shift away from classical (i.e. Olympian) paganism toward more eastern monotheism. This shift was, no doubt, expedited by the forty years of political and military anarchy. I think Constantine tried to coalesce this general shift by ecouraging his subjects to convert to Chrisitianity. He probably saw Christianity as the most resilient and best organized monotheistic religion that could unify the Empire, in my view.


Theo

[Casmin]

Yeah actually I gotta take a couple steps back. I wrote most of those posts early in the morning. I think I mixed some of my facts together. I haven't had a chance to read your new post yet but I will later on.

However, I did read the first part of your post and yes I agree that Milan wasn't the only measure for unity. If I came off as if I said that I didn't mean to. Till next time