Christianity and paganism

The pattern for the Roman state's response to what was seen as a religious threat was established in 186 BC. Roman officials became suspicious of the worshippers of Dionysus and their practice of Bacchanalia because it "took place at night" (also a later Christian practice).^[2]: 32 Magic and secret plots against the emperor were seen as products of the night.^{[3]: 200, fn.32 [4]: xxiii} Bacchic associations were dissolved, leaders were arrested and executed, women were forbidden to hold important positions in the cult, no Roman citizen could be a priest, and strict control of the cult was thereafter established.^{[2]: 32–33 [2]: 32–33} In the first century of the common era, there were "periodic expulsions of astrologers, philosophers and even teachers of rhetoric... as well as Jews and...the cult of Isis".^[2]: 34 Druids also received this treatment, as did Christians.^[5][2]: 34

Persecution of early Christians

Christianity was persecuted by Roman imperial authorities early on in its history within the greater empire. By the early part of the 2nd century AD Christians were no longer viewed as forming a breakaway sect of Judaism, but were considered as belonging to just another of many foreign cults which had infiltrated the Empire.^[6] They gradually became conspicuous by their absence from festival activities where ritual sacrifices for the health of the emperor and well-being of the empire took place, behavior that carried a "whiff of both sacrilege and treason".^[7][8][9]

Persecution under Nero, 64–68 AD

The first documented case of imperially supervised persecution of the Christians in the Roman Empire begins with Nero (37–68). In AD 64, a great fire broke out in Rome, destroying portions of the city and economically devastating the Roman population. Nero himself was suspected as the arsonist by Suetonius. In his Annals, Tacitus (who claimed Nero was in Antium at the time of the fire's outbreak), stated that "to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians, or Chrestians,^[10] by the populace" (Tacit. Annals XV, see Tacitus on Jesus). Suetonius, later to the period, does not mention any persecution after the fire, but in a previous paragraph unrelated to the fire, mentions punishments inflicted on Christians, defined as men following a new and malefic superstition. But Suetonius did not specify the reasons for the punishment; he just listed the fact together with other abuses put down by Nero.^[11]

Persecution from the 2nd century to Constantine

The Persecution in Lyon was preceded by mob violence, including assaults, robberies and stonings (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 5.1.7). Further state persecutions were desultory until the 3rd century, though Tertullian's Apologeticus of 197 was ostensibly written in defense of persecuted Christians and addressed to Roman governors.

Although there was sporadic local persecution, there was no empire-wide persecution of Christians until the reign of

The Diocletianic Persecution

The persecutions culminated with

According to Rodney Stark, since Christians most likely formed only sixteen to seventeen percent of the empire's population at the time of Constantine's conversion, they did not have the numerical advantage to form a sufficient power–base to begin a systematic persecution of pagans.^[15]: 13 However, Brown reminds us "We should not underestimate the fierce mood of the Christians of the fourth century", nor should it be forgotten that repression, persecution and martyrdom do not generally breed tolerance of those same persecutors.^[16] Brown says Roman authorities had shown no hesitation in "taking out" the Christian church which they saw as a threat to the peace of the empire, and that Constantine and his successors did the same for the same reasons. Rome had been removing anything it saw as a challenge to Roman identity since Bacchic associations were dissolved in 186 BCE. That military action against a mystical religion became the pattern for the Roman state's response to anything it saw as a religious threat. That position of the state toward internal threats did not change once the emperors were Christian.^[17]

Within this environment, Christians of the fourth century also believed the conversion of Constantine (traditionally 312) showed that Christianity had triumphed over paganism (in Heaven) and little further action against pagans was necessary; everything was done but the sweeping up in the Christian view.^[18] As a result, the fourth century included a focus on heresy as a higher priority than paganism.^[19][20] According to Brown, "In most areas, polytheists were not molested, and apart from a few ugly incidents of local violence, Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence".^[21][22]

After Constantine, except for the brief period of Julian's rule, paganism never regained its previous status as a state religion. Yet despite its inferior status in the Christian Empire, paganism still existed and was practiced.^[23] Up to the time of Justin I and Justinian, there was some toleration for all religions; there were anti-pagan and anti-heretical laws, but they were not generally enforced. Thus, up through the sixth century, there still existed centers of paganism in Athens, Gaza, Alexandria, and elsewhere.^[23]: 372

Constantine

The Edict of Milan of 313 finally legalized Christianity, and it gained governmental privileges, such as tax exemptions to Christian clergy, and a degree of official approval under Constantine.^[24] Constantine destroyed a few temples and plundered more, converted others to churches, and neglected the rest;^[25]: 523 he "confiscated temple funds to help finance his own building projects", and in an effort to establish a stable currency, so he was primarily interested in hoards of gold and silver, but he also confiscated temple land;^[26] he refused to support pagan beliefs and practices while also speaking out against them; he periodically forbade pagan sacrifices and closed temples,^[27] made laws that threatened and menaced pagans while other laws markedly favored Christianity, and he personally endowed Christians with gifts of money, land and government positions.^{[28]: 243 [29][30]: 302 : 302}

As the emperor, he openly supported Christianity after 324, but there are indications he also remained tolerant of pagans.

All records of anti-pagan legislation by Constantine are found in the Life of Constantine, written by Eusebius, as a kind of eulogy after Constantine's death.[35] It is not a history so much as a panegyric praising Constantine. The laws as they are stated in the Life of Constantine often do not correspond, "closely, or at all", to the text of the Codes themselves.^[35]: 20 Eusebius gives these laws a "strongly Christian interpretation by selective quotation or other means".^[35]: 20 This has led many to question the veracity of the record, and whether, in his zeal to praise Constantine, Eusebius generously attributed actions to Constantine that were not actually his.^[36]

Gratian

In 382, Gratian was the first Roman emperor to formally, in law, divert into the crown's coffers those public financial subsidies that had previously supported Rome's cults; he appropriated the income of pagan priests and the

Gratian and Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, exchanged multiple letters and books on Christianity, and the sheer volume of these writings has often been seen as evidence that Gratian was dominated by Ambrose.[29]^[40][41] Ambrose, therefore, was the 'true source' of Gratian's anti-pagan actions.^[42] McLynn finds this unlikely and unnecessary as an explanation: Gratian was, himself, devout, and "The many differences between Gratian's religious policies and his father's, and the shifts that occurred during his own reign, are to be explained by changed political circumstances [after the Battle of Adrianople], rather than capitulation to Ambrose".^[43]

Modern scholars have noted that Sozomen is the only ancient source that shows Ambrose and Gratian having any personal interaction. In the last year of Gratian's reign, Ambrose crashed Gratian's private hunting party in order to appeal on behalf of a pagan senator sentenced to die. After years of acquaintance, this indicates Ambrose did not personally feel he had enough influence to take for granted that Gratian would grant a request to see him. Instead, Ambrose had to resort to such maneuverings to make his appeal.^[42] Gratian's brother, Valentinian II, and his mother disliked Ambrose, but Valentinian II also refused to grant requests from pagans to restore the Altar of Victory and the income of the temple priests and Vestal Virgins.

Between 382 and 384, there was yet another dispute over the Altar of Victory. According to the Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, Symmachus requested the restoration of the altar that Gratian had removed and the restoration of state support for the Vestals. Ambrose campaigned against any financial support for paganism throughout his entire career, and anything like the Altar that required participation in blood sacrifices was anathema. Ambrose responded to Symmachus' and his arguments prevailed; the requests were denied.^[44]: 776 Pagans became outspoken in their demands for respect, concessions and support from the state, voicing their resentment in historical works, such as the writings of Eunapius and Olympiodorus.^[45][46]

After Gratian, the emperors Arcadius, Honorius and Theodosius continued to appropriate for the crown the tax revenue collected by the temple custodians, though this may have been more about the empire's ongoing financial difficulties than religion.^{[47][48]: 60} Urban ritual procession and ceremony was gradually stripped of support and funding.^[49] Rather than being removed outright though, many festivals were secularized, and later, these were incorporated into a developing Christian calendar (often with little alteration). Some had already severely declined in popularity by the end of the 3rd century.^[50]

Theodosius

In the Eastern Empire, up until the time of Justinian, the Byzantine emperors practiced a policy of tolerance toward all religions. This pertained to both devotions to the Greco-Roman gods and the religion of barbarians living within the empire. Although there were anti-pagan laws, there is no record of their harsh punishments ever being enforced.^[51] As the eastern emperor, Theodosius seems to have practiced this same type of cautious policy from the beginning of his reign. Theodosius declared Nicene Christianity the official religion of the empire, though this was aimed more at the local Arians in Constantinople than the pagans. For pagans, he reiterated his Christian predecessors' bans on animal sacrifice, divination, and apostasy, but allowed other pagan practices to be performed publicly and temples to remain open.^{[3]: 35 (and note 45) [52][53]} He also turned pagan holidays into workdays, but the festivals associated with them continued.^[54]

There is evidence that Theodosius took care to prevent the empire's still substantial pagan population from feeling ill-disposed toward his rule. Following the death in 388 of his praetorian prefect,

Classicist Ingomar Hamlet says that, contrary to popular myth, Theodosius did not ban the Olympic games.[60] Sofie Remijsen [nl] indicates there are several reasons to conclude the Olympic games continued after Theodosius and came to an end under Theodosius II instead. Two scholia on Lucian connect the end of the games with a fire that burned down the temple of the Olympian Zeus during his reign.^[61]: 49

Legislation

A number of laws against pagan sacrifice, and against heresy, were issued towards the end of Theodosius' reign in 391 and 392.^[62]

Anti-pagan legislation reflects what Brown calls "the most potent social and religious drama" of the fourth-century Roman empire.^[63]: 640 From Constantine forward, the Christian intelligentsia wrote of Christianity as fully triumphant over paganism. It did not matter that they were still a minority in the empire, this triumph had occurred in Heaven; it was evidenced by Constantine; but even after Constantine, they wrote that Christianity would defeat, and be seen to defeat, all of its enemies – not convert them.^[63]: 640 As Peter Brown says, "Conversion was not the principal aim of a social order that declared the God-given dominance of Christianity".^[63]: 640

The laws were not intended to convert; "the laws were intended to terrorize... Their language was uniformly vehement, and... frequently horrifying".^[63]: 638 Their intent was to reorder society along religious lines with the 'triumphant' Christian church in charge, and pagans and Jews at the outskirts of influence, so that laws could be made that were sufficiently intimidating to enable Christianity to put a stop to animal sacrifice.^{[63]: 639–640} Blood sacrifice was the element of pagan culture most abhorrent to Christians.^[64] If they could not stop the private practice of sacrifice, they could "hope to determine what would be normative and socially acceptable in public spaces".^[65] Altars used for sacrifice were routinely smashed by Christians who were deeply offended by the blood of slaughtered victims as they were reminded of their own past sufferings associated with such altars.^[66]

Blood sacrifice was a central rite of virtually all religious groups in the pre-Christian Mediterranean, and its gradual disappearance is one of the most significant religious developments of late antiquity. ... Public sacrifices and communal feasting had declined as the result of a decline in the prestige of pagan priesthoods and a shift in patterns of [private donations] in civic life. That shift would have occurred on a lesser scale even without the conversion of Constantine... It is easy, nonetheless, to imagine a situation in which sacrifice could decline without disappearing. Why not retain, for example, a single animal victim in order to preserve the integrity of the ancient rite? The fact that public sacrifices appear to have disappeared completely in many towns and cities must be attributed to the atmosphere created by imperial and episcopal hostility.^[67]

By the time the pro-pagan emperor

One of the first things that is important about this, in Malcolm Errington's view, is how much anti-pagan legislation was applied and used, which would show how dependable the laws are as a reflection of what actually happened to pagans in history.^[72] Brown says that, given the large numbers of non-Christians in every region at this time, local authorities were "notoriously lax" in imposing them. Christian bishops also frequently obstructed their application.^{[63]: 638–639, 640} The harsh imperial edicts had to face the vast following of paganism among the population, and the passive resistance of governors and magistrates, thereby limiting their impact.^[73][74] Limiting, but not eliminating impact altogether, as Anna Leone says, "Temple closures and the prohibition of sacrifices had an impact... After AD 375 the majority of [pagan] religious offices disappear completely from the epigraphic record".^{[75]: 83  [76]: 25}

Secondly, the laws reveal the emergence of a language of intolerance. The legal language runs parallel to the writings of the apologists, such as Augustine of Hippo and Theodoret of Cyrrhus, and heresiologists such as Epiphanius of Salamis.^[63]: 639 Christian writers and imperial legislators both drew on a rhetoric of conquest.^[63]: 640 These writings were commonly hostile and often contemptuous toward a paganism Christianity saw as already defeated.^[77][78]

Lastly, on the one hand the laws, and these Christian sources with their violent rhetoric, have had great influence on modern perceptions of this period by creating an impression of continuous violent conflict that has been assumed on an empire-wide scale.^[79] Archaeological evidence, on the other hand, indicates that, outside of violent rhetoric, there were only isolated incidents of actual violence between Christians and pagans.^{[80][81]: 7  [82][83][84]} Non-Christian, (non-heretical), groups such as pagans and Jews enjoyed a tolerance based on contempt through most of Late Antiquity.^[63]: 641

Temple destruction

It has been common for much of scholarship to attribute rampant temple destruction to Theodosius through his prefect, Maternus Cynegius. Cynegius did commission the destruction of temples, using the army under his control and nearby monks, especially in the territory around Constantinople in the diocese of Oriens (the East).

Problems with this view have arisen in the twenty-first century. Archaeological evidence for the violent destruction of temples in the fourth century, from around the entire Mediterranean, is limited to a handful of sites.[90] Temple destruction is attested to in 43 cases in the written sources, but only 4 of them have been confirmed by archaeological evidence.^[33]

In Gaul, only 2.4% of over 500 known temples and religious sites were destroyed by violence, some of it barbarian.^[91] In Africa, the city of Cyrene has good evidence of the burning of several temples; Asia Minor has produced one weak possibility; in Greece the only strong candidate may relate to a barbarian raid instead of Christians. Egypt has produced no archaeologically confirmed temple destructions from this period except the Serapeum. In Italy there is one; Britain has the highest percentage with 2 out of 40 temples.^[92]

Trombley and MacMullen say part of why discrepancies between literary sources and archaeological evidence exist is because it is common for details in the literary sources to be ambiguous and unclear.^[93][94] For example, Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples, then he said Theodisius destroyed them all, then he said Constantine converted them all to churches.^{[95]: 246–282 [90]} "According to Procopius, in the 530s Justinian destroyed the temples of Philae widely identified as the last bastion of paganism in Egypt. But no priests are attested to after the 450s, Christianity was thriving there from the early fourth century, and the temples themselves are among the best preserved in the ancient world".^[96]: 799

Archaeology suggests that religious buildings were subject to three different directions of change during the imperial period: early abandonment, destruction and re-use.^[75]: 28 The financial struggles begun in the third century continued on into the fourth century to negatively impact available funding to maintain the large temple complexes and their festivals.^[47][97] Lower budgets, with less spent on statuary, monuments, and simple maintenance, meant the physical decline of urban structures of all types. Many Temples were left to fall into disrepair and in many instances, such as in Tripolitana, this happened before any Christian anti-pagan legislation could have been a factor.^{[75]: 29 [note 1]}

Progressive early decay was accompanied by an increased trade in statuary and salvaged building materials, as the practice of recycling became common in Late Antiquity, resulting in their complete destruction and removal.^[75]: 2 "Even churches were reused in similar ways".^[75]: 82 Some temple restorations took place throughout the imperial period, but there is no evidence of state participation or support. Restorations were funded and accomplished privately.^{[75]: 36–39}

Overall data indicates that a number of elements coincided to end the Temples, but none of them were strictly religious.^[75]: 82 The economy, necessity, and political expressions of power were the primary driving forces for the destruction and conversion of pagan religious monuments.^{[75]: 82 [87]: 103–107 [98]: 63} Lavan says: "We must rule out most of the images of destruction created by the [written sources]. Archaeology shows the vast majority of temples were not treated this way".^[99]

Temple conversion

Some scholars have long asserted that not all temples were destroyed but were instead converted to churches throughout the empire.

Mob violence was an occasional problem in all the independent cities of the empire. There were no police forces as such. Taxes, food and politics were common reasons for rioting. Religion was also a factor though it is difficult to separate from politics since they were intertwined in all aspects of life.[87]^: 85–87 In 361, the murder of the Arian bishop George of Cappadocia was committed by a mob of pagans, although there is evidence he had cruelly provoked them; the conflict over the Serapeum involved both a Christian and a pagan mob; the Jews and the Christians each gathered to fight in 415, although the sources indicate it was the upper levels of the Jewish community who decided to massacre the Christians after Cyril made serious threats to their leadership.^{[109]: 7, 11, 15–16} A Christian mob threw objects at Orestes and, finally, Hypatia was killed by a Christian mob though politics and personal jealousy were probably the primary causes.^{[109]: 19–21} Mobs were composed of lower-class urban dwellers, upper class educated pagans, Jews and Christians, and in Alexandria, monks from the monastery of Nitria.^{[109]: 18, 22}

Pagan influences on early Christianity

Art

The early Christians adapted many elements of paganism.

Spontaneous lamentation would break out among those present once the struggle of the soul was over. All evidence suggests this was a violent display of grief – the laceration of the cheeks, tearing one's hair, and the rending of garments along with the wailing of the lament song. The church saw this immoderate behavior as improper for people who believed death was not the end, so they attempted to moderate it by singing Psalms, with two groups of singers on opposite sides chanting an antiphonal lament, with rhythm, harmony and order instead. However, this too is similar to the pagan lament sung for Achilles and one suggested by Plato for his Examiners in the Laws.[114]

Pagans and Jews decorated their burial chambers, so Christians did as well, thereby creating the first Christian art in the catacombs beneath Rome.^[115] This art is symbolic, rising out of a reinterpretation of Jewish and pagan symbolism.^[116] Christian piety infused the symbols with its own fresh interpretation.^[116] Christian art had something fundamentally new to say as it gave visual expression to the conviction that the human soul can be delivered from death to an everlasting life.^[116][115] Neither Judaism nor any pagan religion had previously made such a claim.^[117] "The Jewish faith puts little emphasis on immortality, and pagan beliefs about the afterlife were vague, uncertain, and sometimes dismal".^[117]

While many new subjects appear for the first time in the Christian catacombs – i.e. the Good Shepherd, Baptism, and the Eucharistic meal – the Orant figures (women praying with upraised hands) probably came directly from pagan art.^{[118][119]: 125} Pagan symbolism in the form of Victories, cupids, and shepherd scenes are scattered throughout the catacombs. ^[120] Jewish and pagan use of sheep and goats, birds in a tree or vine, or eating fruit, especially grapes, seven steps leading up to a tomb, a pair of peacocks, the Robe of sanctity, the reading of scrolls, are all found in pagan art and adapted in the Christian art to express the hope of immortality in Christian terms.^[121] Pagan sarcophagi had long carried shells, and portraits of the dead often had shells over the head of the dead, while some put a shell over a grave. Christians and Jews adapted the convention, identifying it with another symbol – the halo.^[115] For the Christians who made the catacombs, these symbols were necessary to convey their message.^[122]

Many previously pagan holy places were converted to Christian use. In 609

Many names for months and days of the week – even the concept of a seven-day week – were borrowed from Roman paganism.[125]

In its first three centuries, Christianity did not celebrate the birth of Christ. Birthdays were seen as pagan, no one knew Jesus's true birthdate, and many early church fathers were against the idea.^[126] The earliest source giving December 25 as Jesus's birthdate is the Chronograph of 354, which liturgical historians generally agree was written in Rome in AD 336.^{[127][128][129]} A supposedly earlier reference by Hippolytus of Rome is considered a later interpolation.^[127] In the ancient Roman calendar, December 25 was the date of the winter solstice.^[130][131]

A widely-held theory is that the Church chose December 25 as Christ's birthday (Dies Natalis Christi) to appropriate the Roman winter solstice festival Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (birthday of Sol Invictus, the 'Invincible Sun'), held on the same date.^{[127][131][132]} This festival had been instituted by the emperor Aurelian in AD 274.^[127][133] Gary Forsythe, Professor of Ancient History, says "This celebration would have formed a welcome addition to the seven-day period of the Saturnalia (December 17–23), Rome's most joyous holiday season since Republican times, characterized by parties, banquets, and exchanges of gifts".^[131] Historian Stephen Nissenbaum says this choice was a compromise with paganism, arguing there is no avoiding "Roman midwinter parties and Christianity's conscious decision to place a Christmas celebration right in the middle of them" as part of that compromise.^[134] Many observers schooled in the classical tradition have noted similarities between the Saturnalia and historical revelry during the Twelve Days of Christmas and the Feast of Fools.^[135][136] William Warde Fowler notes: "[Saturnalia] has left its traces and found its parallels in great numbers of medieval and modern customs, occurring about the time of the winter solstice."^[137]

Some way or another, Christmas was started to compete with rival Roman religions, or to co-opt the winter celebrations as a way to spread Christianity, or to baptize the winter festivals with Christian meaning in an effort to limit their [drunken] excesses. Most likely all three.^[138]

Another theory, first proposed by French writer Louis Duchesne in 1889, is that Christmas was calculated as nine months after a date chosen as Christ's conception: March 25, the Roman date of the spring equinox.^[127] This is based on a belief that the spring equinox was the day of God's act of Creation.^[142]

While attending Crozer Theological Seminary c.1950, Martin Luther King Jr. wrote an essay titled "The Influence of the Mystery Religions on Christianity". King noted that the place at Bethlehem selected by early Christians as Jesus's birthplace was an early shrine of a pagan god, Adonis.^[143] After the Bar Kokhba revolt (c. 132–136 CE) was crushed, the Roman emperor Hadrian converted the Christian site above the Grotto into a shrine dedicated to the Greek god Adonis, to honour his favourite, the Greek youth Antinous.^[144]

Influence on early Christian theology

Justin Martyr was a pagan who became a Christian around 132. In his First Apology, Justin used the concept of the "Logos" as a way of arguing for Christianity to non-Jews. These references demonstrate that Justin's knowledge of Stoicism was the knowledge of an ordinary man of his time in ordinary conversation, and that it is unlikely he ever studied Stoicism.^[145] However, he calls himself a Platonist, his references to Plato are much more detailed, and parallels to Plato's writings can be found in Justin's, though they do not suggest direct influence.^[145]: 62 Since a Greek audience would accept references to Greek philosophy, his argument could concentrate on identifying the Logos with Jesus.^[146][147] Scholars generally recognize that Clement went much farther, perhaps the farthest "any Orthodox Christian ever did in his appropriation and use of Hellenistic philosophical and ethical concepts for the expression of his Christian faith".^[148]

The influence of paganism can also be found in the development of many non-Orthodox theologies such as the

Anglo-Saxons

The most likely date for Christianity getting its first foothold in Britain is sometime around 200.^[151] Recent archaeology indicates that it had become an established minority faith by the fourth century. It was largely mainstream, and in certain areas, had been continuous.^[152]

In early Anglo-Saxon England, non-stop religious development meant paganism and Christianity were never completely separate.^[153] Arthur Weston wrote that, "When Gregory the Great was taking steps for the conversion of the heathen Saxons, he is said to have warned his missionaries not to interfere with any traditional belief or religious observance which could be harmonized with Christianity".^[154]

Tell Augustine that he should be no means destroy the temples of the gods but rather the idols within those temples. Let him, after he has purified them with holy water, place altars and relics of the saints in them. For, if those temples are well built, they should be converted from the worship of demons to the service of the true God. Thus, seeing that their places of worship are not destroyed, the people will banish error from their hearts and come to places familiar and dear to them in acknowledgement and worship of the true God.

Further, since it has been their custom to slaughter oxen in sacrifice, they should receive some solemnity in exchange. Let them therefore, on the day of the dedication of their churches, or on the feast of the martyrs whose relics are preserved in them, build themselves huts around their one-time temples and celebrate the occasion with religious feasting. They will sacrifice and eat the animals not any more as an offering to the devil, but for the glory of God to whom, as the giver of all things, they will give thanks for having been satiated. Thus, if they are not deprived of all exterior joys, they will more easily taste the interior ones. For surely it is impossible to efface all at once everything from their strong minds, just as, when one wishes to reach the top of a mountain, he must climb by stages and step by step, not by leaps and bounds.

— 

Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum (1.30)

Richard A. Fletcher suggests that holy wells developed out of a like adaptation.^[155]