Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire

The Capitoline Triad, second century sculpture. The Roman gods Minerva, Jupiter and Juno

Religion in Graeco-Roman times differed from religion in modern times. In the early Roman Empire religion was polytheistic and local. It was not focused on the individual but was focused on the good of the city: it was a civic religion in which ritual was the main form of worship. Politics and religion were intertwined, and many public rituals were performed by public officials. Respect for ancestral custom was a large part of polytheistic belief and practice, and members of the local society were expected to take part in public rituals.[26][27]

Roman historians, such as the classicist J. A. North, observe that Roman imperial culture began in the first century with religion embedded in the city-state, then gradually shifted to religion as a personal choice.[28] Roman religion's willingness to adopt foreign gods and practices into its pantheon meant that, as Rome expanded, it also gained local gods which offered different characteristics, experiences, insights, and stories.[29][30][29][31] There is consensus among scholars that religious identity became increasingly separated from civic and political identity, progressively giving way to the plurality of religious options rooted in other identities, needs and interests.[32][29]

Formerly, scholars believed that this plurality contributed to the slow decline of polytheism that began in the second century BC, and this axiom was rarely challenged.[33][34] James B. Rives, classics scholar, has written that:

Evidence for neglect and manipulation could readily be found,  ... But, as more recent scholars have argued, this evidence has often been cited without proper consideration of its context; at the same time, other evidence that presents a different picture has been dismissed out of hand.[35][36]

Temple of Augustus and Livia, Vienne (modern France). Originally dedicated to Augustus and Roma. Augustus was deified on his death in 14 AD: his widow Livia was deified in 42 AD by Claudius

After 1990, evidence expanded exponentially and altered the picture of late antique paganism.[37] For example, private cults of the emperor were previously greatly underestimated.[38] For many years, the imperial cult was regarded by the majority of scholars as both a symptom and a cause of the final decline of traditional Graeco-Roman religion. It was assumed this kind of worship of a man could only be possible in a system that had become completely devoid of real religious meaning. It was, therefore, generally treated as a "political phenomenon cloaked in religious dress".[39] However, scholarship of the twenty-first century has shifted toward seeing it as a genuine religious phenomenon.[39]

Classical scholar Simon Price used anthropological models to show that the imperial cult's rituals and iconography were elements of a way of thinking that people formed as a means of coming to terms with the tremendous power of Roman emperors.[40] The emperor was "conceived in terms of honors ... as the representation of power" personifying the intermediary between the human and the divine.[41][39] According to Rives, "Most recent scholars have accepted Price's approach".[38]

Recent literary evidence reveals emperor worship at the domestic level with his image "among the household gods".[42] Innumerable small images of emperors have been found in a wide range of media that are being reevaluated as religiously significant.[42] Rives adds that "epigraphic evidence reveals the existence of numerous private associations of 'worshippers of the emperor' or 'of the emperor's image', many of which seem to have developed from household associations".[42] It is now recognized that these private cults were "very common and widespread indeed, in the domus, in the streets, in public squares, in Rome itself (perhaps there in particular) as well as outside the capital".[42]

Christianity emerged as a sect of Second Temple Judaism in Roman Judaea, part of the syncretistic Hellenistic world of the first century AD, which was dominated by Roman law and Greek culture.[43][44] It started with the ministry of Jesus, who proclaimed the coming of the Kingdom of God.[45] After his death by crucifixion, some of his followers are said to have seen Jesus, and proclaimed him to be alive and resurrected by God.[46][47][48]

When Christianity spread beyond Judaea, it first arrived in Jewish diaspora communities.[49] The early Gospel message spread orally, probably originally in Aramaic,[50] but almost immediately also in Greek.[51] Within the first century, the messages began to be recorded in writing and spread abroad.[52][53] The earliest writings are generally thought to be those of the Apostle Paul who spoke of Jesus as both divine and human.[54]^: 60 The degree of each of these characteristics later became cause for controversy beginning with Gnosticism which denied Jesus' humanity and Arianism which downgraded his divinity.[54]^: 69

Christianity began to expand almost immediately from its initial Jewish base to Gentiles (non-Jews). Both Peter and Paul are sometimes referred to as Apostles to the Gentiles. This led to disputes with those requiring the continued observance of the whole Mosaic law including the requirement for circumcision.[55][56][57][58][59] James the Just called the Council of Jerusalem (around 50 AD) which determined that converts should avoid "pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood" but should not be required to follow other aspects of Jewish Law (KJV, Acts 15:20–21).[60] As Christianity grew in the Gentile world, it underwent a gradual separation from Judaism.[61]

Christianization was never a one-way process.[62] Instead, there has always been a kind of parallelism as it absorbed indigenous elements just as indigenous religions absorbed aspects of Christianity.[63] Michelle Salzman has shown that in the process of converting the Roman Empire's aristocracy, Christianity absorbed the values of that aristocracy.[64] Several early Christian writers, including Justin (2nd century), Tertullian, and Origen (3rd century) wrote of Mithraists "copying" Christian beliefs.[65] Christianity adopted aspects of Platonic thought, names for months and days of the week – even the concept of a seven-day week – from Roman paganism.[66] [67] Bruce David Forbes says that "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".[68] Some scholars have suggested that characteristics of some pagan gods — or at least their roles — were transferred to Christian saints after the fourth century.[69] Demetrius of Thessaloniki became venerated as the patron of agriculture during the Middle Ages. According to historian Hans Kloft, that was because the Eleusinian Mysteries, Demeter's cult, ended in the 4th century, and the Greek rural population gradually transferred her rites and roles onto the Christian saint Demetrius.[70]

For the followers of traditional Roman religions, Christianity was seen as an odd entity, not quite Roman, but not quite barbarian either.[71] Christians criticized fundamental beliefs of Roman society, and refused to participate in rituals, festivals and the imperial cult.[71][72][73] They were a target for suspicion and rumor, including rumors that they were politically subversive and practiced black magic, incest and cannibalism.[74][75][76] Conversions tore families apart: Justin Martyr tells of a pagan husband who denounced his Christian wife, and Tertullian tells of children disinherited for becoming Christians.[77] Despite this, for most of its first three centuries, Christianity was usually tolerated, and episodes of persecution tended to be localized actions by mobs and governors.[78] Suetonius and Tacitus both record emperor Nero persecuting Christians in the mid-1st century, however this only occurred within Rome itself. There were no empire-wide persecutions until Christianity reached a critical juncture in the mid-third century.[79]

Beginning with less than 1000 people, by the year 100, Christianity had grown to perhaps one hundred small household churches consisting of an average of around seventy (12–200) members each.[80] These churches were a segmented series of small cells.[81] By 200, Christian numbers had grown to over 200,000 people, and communities with an average size of 500–1000 people existed in approximately 200–400 towns. By the mid-3rd century, the little house-churches where Christians had assembled were being succeeded by buildings adapted or designed to be churches complete with assembly rooms, classrooms, and dining rooms.[82] The earliest dated church building to survive comes from around this time.[83]

In his mathematical modelling, Rodney Stark estimates that Christians made up around 1.9% of the Roman population in 250.[84] That year, Decius made it a capital offence to refuse to make sacrifices to Roman Gods, although it did not outlaw Christian worship and may not have targeted Christians specifically.[85] Valerian pursued similar policies later that decade. These were followed by a 40-year period of tolerance known as the "little peace of the Church". Christianity grew in that time to have a major demographic presence. Stark, building on earlier estimates by theologian Robert M. Grant and historian Ramsay MacMullen, estimates that Christians made up around ten percent of the Roman population by 300.[84] The last and most severe official persecution, the Diocletianic Persecution, took place in 303–311.[73]

Jugate gold multiple issued by Constantine at Ticinum in 313, showing the emperor and the god Sol, with Sol also depicted in his quadriga (chariot) on Constantine's shield.[86]

Constantine, who gained full control of the empire in 312, became the first Christian emperor. Although he was not baptised until shortly before his death, he pursued policies that were favorable to Christianity. The Edict of Milan of 313 ended official persecutions of Christianity extending toleration to all religions. Constantine supported the Church financially, built basilicas, granted privileges to clergy which had previously been available only to pagan priests (such as exemption from certain taxes), promoted Christians to high office, and returned property confiscated during the persecutions.[87] He also sponsored the First Council of Nicea to codify aspects of Christian doctrine.[88]

According to Stark, the rate of Christianity's growth under its first Christian emperor in the 4th century did not alter (more than normal regional fluctuations). However, since Stark describes an exponential growth curve, he adds that this "probably was a period of 'miraculous seeming' growth in terms of absolute numbers".[89] By the middle of the century, it is likely that Christians comprised just over half of the empire's population.[84]

The transition from the old political-religious system to a governmental alliance with the church was a gradual one. Under Constantine and his sons, certain pagan rites, including animal sacrifice and divination, began being deprived of their previous position in Roman civilization.[90][91][92] Yet other pagan practices were tolerated, Constantine did not stop the established state support of the traditional religious institutions, nor did society substantially change its pagan nature under his rule.[93] Constantine's policies were largely continued by his sons though not universally or continuously.[94]

In the centuries following his death, Theodosius I (347 – 395) gained a reputation as the emperor who established Christianity as the official religion of the empire. Modern historians see this as an interpretation of history that began with the bishop Ambrose rather than actual history.[95][96][97] Cameron explains that, since Theodosius's predecessors Constantine, Constantius, and Valens had all been semi-Arians, it fell to the orthodox Theodosius to receive from Christian literary tradition most of the credit for the final triumph of Christianity.[98][note 1]

In 379, Theodosius ascended the eastern throne, and in 380, he issued the edict Cunctos populos, also known as the Edict of Thessalonica.[105] [note 2] The Edict was addressed directly to the people of the city of Constantinople, and was about opposing Arianism, establishing unity in Christianity, and suppressing heresy.[107][108][note 3] German ancient historian Karl Leo Noethlichs writes that the Edict of Thessalonica did not declare Christianity to be the official religion of the empire, and it gave no advantage to Christians over other faiths.[112] Hungarian legal scholar Pál Sáry says it is clear from mandates issued in the years after 380 that Theodosius had made no requirement in the Edict for pagans or Jews to convert to Christianity.[113][note 4]

There is little, if any, evidence that Theodosius I pursued an active policy against the traditional cults, though he did reinforce laws against sacrifice, and write a copious number of laws against all forms of heresy.[97][114][115] Scholars generally agree that Theodosius' began his rule with a cautiously tolerant attitude and policy toward pagans. Three successive laws issued in February 391 and in June and November of 392 are asserted as marking a change in Theodosius' policy putting an end to both tolerance and paganism.[116]

Theodosius I's empire

The laws of 391 and June 392 were responses to local appeals that restated, as instructions, what had been requested by the locals, and they never claimed to be binding on the population at large, writes Alan Cameron, Roman historian.[117][118][119]

The law of 8 November 392 has been described by some as the universal ban on paganism that made Christianity the official religion of the empire, yet it makes no mention of Christianity.[120][121] The law was addressed only to Rufinus in the East, and its focus is private domestic sacrifice: the lares, the penates and the genius.[122][123] The term lares could be used as a synonym for "home" because the god takes care of everything about the domus;[124] the genius was fixed on a person, either the household head or the head of the empire itself, worshipped at home to bless the home;[122] and the penates were the divinities who provided and guarded the food and possessions of the household.[118] These private domestic sacrifices were thought at the time to have "slipped out from under public control" which needed reasserting accordingly.[118][125]

Sozomen, the Constantinopolitan lawyer, wrote a history of the church around 443 where he evaluates the law of 8 November 392 as having had only minor significance at the time it was issued.[119] Sacrifice had largely ended by the time of Julian (361-363), a generation before the law of November 392 was issued.[126][127] Alan Cameron explains that scholars have simply assumed Theodosius' anti-pagan legislation differed from previous legislation by going further, being more effective, and by being enforced, but this has never been established.[128] Historical and literary sources outside the laws themselves, do not support the view that Theodosius created an environment of intolerance and persecution of pagans.[129][130]

During the reign of Theodosius, pagans were continuously appointed to prominent positions, and pagan aristocrats remained in high offices.[113] During his first official tour of Italy (389–391), the emperor won over the influential pagan lobby in the Roman Senate by appointing its foremost members to important administrative posts.[131] Theodosius also nominated the last pair of pagan consuls in Roman history (Tatianus and Symmachus) in 391.[132] Theodosius allowed pagan practices – that did not involve sacrifice – to be performed publicly and temples to remain open.[90][133][91]

He also voiced his support for the preservation of temple buildings, but failed to prevent the damaging of several holy sites in the eastern provinces which most scholars believe was sponsored by Cynegius, Theodosius' praetorian prefect.[91][134][135] Some scholars have held Theodosius responsible for his prefect's behavior, yet following the death in 388 of Cynegius, Theodosius replaced him with a moderate pagan who subsequently moved to protect the temples.[136][97][137] There is no evidence of any desire on the part of the emperor to institute a systematic destruction of temples anywhere in the Theodosian Code, and no evidence in the archaeological record that extensive temple destruction took place.[138][139]

While conceding that Theodosius's reign may have been a watershed in the decline of the old religions, Cameron downplays the role of the emperor's religious legislation as limited in effect, and writes that Theodosius did 'certainly not' ban paganism.[128] In his 2020 biography of Theodosius, Mark Hebblewhite concludes that Theodosius never saw himself, or advertised himself, as a destroyer of the old cults.[97][114][115]

In the period from 375 to 402 the senatorial aristocracy had remained largely pagan.[140] Within the next century, their descendants, almost universally, converted to Christianity.[141] This Christianized Roman aristocracy was able to maintain, in Italy, up to the end of the sixth century, the secular traditions of the City of Rome.[142] This survival of secular tradition was aided by the Imperial government, but also by Pope Leo I in the Western Empire (440–61) who, from the very beginning of his pontificate, ensured that the 'Romans of Rome' should have a say in the religious life of the City.[143]

For multiple reasons beyond religion, the Western Roman Empire declined during the 5th century while the eastern Roman Empire during the reign of emperor Theodosius II (408–50), boomed.[144] In 408, General Stilicho fell from power and died; in 410, Alaric I and the Visigoths sacked Rome. (While it has been said that the 'fall of Rome' was not a single dramatic event, the Roman imperial government was replaced by successor kingdoms in 476.[145]) The eastern empire in the mid-5th century was functioning well, and Theodosius II enjoyed a strong position at the centre of the imperial system.[146] Decline in the west led both eastern and western authorities to assert their right to power and authority over the western empire.[147]

Theodosius II 'power grab' was based on Roman law and military power.[148] Leo responded, using the concept of inherited 'Petrine' authority,[149] asserting that there are ‘divine matters’ (res divinae) and ‘secular matters’ (res saeculares) that should be managed separately by the church and the secular government, each in their own sphere.[150] The Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon in 449 and 451, convened by the Eastern emperors Theodosius II (407–450) and Marcianus (450–457), were unacceptable to the papacy. Pope Leo attempted to challenge the imperial decisions taken at these councils.[151] He argued that the emperor should concern himself with ‘secular matters’, while ‘divine matters’ had a different quality and should be managed by ‘priests’ (sacerdotes).[151][150]

Western and Eastern Roman Empires 476 AD

Pope Leo was not successful.[151][150] The Roman emperors of the first three centuries had seen the control of religion as one of their functions, taking among their titles pontifex maximus ("chief priest") of the official cults. The Western Christian Emperors did not see themselves as priests, surrendering the title pontifex maximus under the emperor Gratian.[152] The Christian Eastern Emperors, on the other hand, believed the regulation of religious affairs to be one of their prerogatives.[153] The western emperor Valentinian III (425–55) was, in essence, appointed by Theodosius, and there is some evidence for Valentinian willingly acquiescing to the east’s policies.[154] Without the support of the western emperor, by the end of his pontificate, Leo had to accept Theodosius' authority, thereby beginning the trend toward state control of the church that was realized in the next century.[151][150][note 5]

Byzantine Empire under Justinian's uncle Justin I shown in the darker color (orange). The lighter color (gold) shows the conquests of his successor, Justinian I with the Byzantine empire (about 550) at its greatest extent

In 535, the eastern emperor Justinian I (reign 527 to 565) attempted to assert control of Italy, resulting in the Gothic War which lasted 20 years.[155] Once fighting ceased, the senatorial aristocracy returned to Rome for a period of reconstruction. Changes from the war, and from Justinian's reconstruction of Italy's administration in the decades after it, removed the supports that had allowed the aristocracy to retain power. The Senate declined rapidly at the end of the sixth and early seventh century coming to its end sometime before 630 when its building was converted into a church.[156] Bishops stepped into roles of civic leadership in the former senator's place.[155] The position and influence of the pope rose.[157]

Justinian took an active concern in ecclesiastical affairs and this accelerated the trend towards the control of the Church by the State.[153][158] The relation of church to state where the secular power presides over the religious one, and the state ruler functions as the overall head of the church, including over the Pope, is broadly associated with countries dominated by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.[159] Where Constantine had granted, through the Edict of Milan, the right to all peoples to follow freely whatever religion they wished, the religious policy of Justinian I reflected his conviction that a unified Empire presupposed unity of faith.[160][161]

Under emperor Justinian, "the full force of imperial legislation against deviants of all kinds, particularly religious" ones, was applied in practice, writes Judith Herrin, historian of late antiquity.[162] Historian Pierre Chuvin describes the severe legislation of the early Byzantine Empire, as causing the freedom of conscience that had been the major benchmark set by the Edict of Milan to finally be fully abolished.[163]^: 132–48

Eleven of the thirteen men who held the position of Roman Pope from the late seventh to the middle of the eighth century were the sons of families from the Byzantine empire in the East who had to be approved by the Eastern emperor.[164] The Byzantine control of the Roman papacy, along with tremendous losses to Islam, and changes within western Christianity, put an end to Ancient Christianity as it had existed in the Western empire with some religious competition, toleration and secularism.[165][166][167][168][169] Most scholars agree the 7th and 8th centuries are when the 'end of the ancient world' is most conclusive and well documented.[170][171]^: 85

Byzantium lost control of Italy in the eighth century,[172] but by then Christianity had been thoroughly changed.[note 6] This is exemplified in the creation of the Papal state and the alliance between the papacy and the militant Frankish king Charlemagne.[191][168][169] As historian Peter Brown explains: the "surface appearance remains the same, but the inner structures that support that surface have changed entirely".[192] Historian at the University of Miami J. Tomas Lopez points out that this was the culture from which "the richly eclectic faith of the Middle Ages emerged".[193]

Demographer John D. Durand explains two types of population estimates: benchmarks derived from data at a given time, and estimates that can be carried forward or backward between such benchmarks.[194] Reliability of each varies based on the quality of the data.[194] Romans were "inveterate census takers," but few of their records remain.[195] Durand says historians have pieced together the fragments of census statistics that still exist "with such historical and archaeological data as reported size of armies, quantities of grain shipments and distributions, areas of cities, and indications of the extent and intensity of cultivation of lands".[195]

Sociologists Rodney Stark and Keith Hopkins have estimated an average compounded annual rate of growth for early Christianity that, in reality, would have varied up and down and region by region.[196][197] Ancient historian Adam Schor explains that "Stark applied formal models to early Christian material... [describing] early Christianity as an organized but open movement, with a distinct social boundary, and a set kernel of doctrine. The result, he argued, was consistent conversion and higher birth rates, leading to exponential growth."[198] Stark asserts 3.4% compounded annually while Keith Hopkins uses what he calls "parametric probability" to reach 3.35%.[196][197]

Art historian Robert Couzin, who specializes in Early Christianity, has studied numbers of Christian sarcophagi in Rome and explains that "more sophisticated mathematical models (for the shape of the expansion curve) could affect certain assumptions, but not the general tendency of the numerical hypotheses".[199]

Classical scholar Roger S. Bagnall found that, by isolating Christian names of sons and their fathers, he could trace the growth of Christianity in Roman Egypt.[200][201] While Bagnall cautions about extrapolating from his work to the rest of the Roman Empire, Stark writes that a comparison of the critical years 239–315 shows a correlation of 0.86 between Stark's own projections for the overall empire and Bagnall's research on Egypt.[202][200]

Though the reliability of population numbers remains open to question,[195] Garry Runciman, historical sociologist, has written that "It seems agreed by all the standard authorities that during the course of the third century there was a significant rise, unquantifiable as it is bound to be, in the absolute number of Christians".[203] Therefore, he says, regardless of debated definitions and numbers, the original question, "How was it done?", remains the same.[203]

According to Bagnall, the story of the rise of Christianity has traditionally been told in terms of contest and conflict with Roman paganism.[204][205] Markus is one among many contemporary scholars who have challenged this view: "The image of a society neatly divided into "Christian" and "pagan" is the creation of late–fourth century Christians, and has been too readily taken at its face value by modern historians".[36] Graeco-Roman polytheism was not one uniform entity, nor were its many versions uniformly hostile to Christianity.[206]

Edward Gibbon wrote the first version of the top-down conflict model in 1776. He saw Constantine as driven by "boundless ambition" and a desire for personal glory to force Christianity on the rest of the empire in a cynical, political move.[8][9] Gibbon believed this was how Constantine's religion "achieved, in less than a century, the final conquest of the Roman empire".[207][208][209] Gibbon's historical sources were almost exclusively limited to Christian literary documents.[210] These documents have a starkly supernatural quality and many are hagiographical. They present the rise of Christianity in terms of conquest; this conquest had taken place in Heaven where the Christian god had defeated the pagan gods. Fourth century Christian writers depict Constantine's conversion as proof of that defeat, and Christian writings are filled with proclaiming their heavenly "triumph".[211]

Recent scholarship has seen multiple developments in studies of coins,[212] inscriptions,[213] material remains,[214] and art within this period, as well as whole new fields of scholarship that have produced "an abundance of evidence unavailable to Gibbon".[215] Modern computer technology has brought the ability to analyze the large amounts of data contained in that abundance.[216] This has led to the assertion that paganism did not end in the late fourth century.[217][218][219] There are many signs that a healthy paganism continued into the fifth century, and in some places, into the sixth and beyond.[220]^{: 108–110}[221][222][223][224] Archaeology indicates that in most regions the decline of paganism was slow, gradual and untraumatic.[225][226]

New research has also led to the view that Christianity did not owe its success to having been imposed by Constantine. Edwin A. Judge, social scientist, has provided a detailed sociological study demonstrating that a fully organized church system existed before Constantine and the Council of Nicea. From this, Judge concludes "the argument Christianity owed its triumph to its adoption by Constantine cannot be sustained".[227]

Contemporary scholars see the third century as the century that established Christianity.[228][229] There was a significant rise in the absolute number of Christians in that period.[203] Critical mass was achieved in the hundred years between 150 and 250 which saw Christianity move from fewer than 50,000 adherents to over a million.[230] Classics professor Seth Schwartz asserts that the number of Christians at the end of the third century indicates Christianity's successful establishment predated Constantine.[231]

Peter Brown writes that much of the previous framework for understanding Late Antiquity has been based on the dramatized "tabloid-like" accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum of Alexandria in 391, its supposed connection to the murder of Hypatia, and the application of the Theodosian law code.[232][233] The language of the Code parallels that of the late fourth and early fifth century Christian apologists in Roman–style rhetoric of conquest and triumph.[234] For many earlier historians, this created the impression of on–going violent conflict between pagans and Christians on an empire-wide scale with the destruction of the Serapeum being only one example of many temples having been destroyed by Christians.[235]

Temple of Hathor, Dark interior, Dendera, Egypt. Original construction is estimated at the 1st century BC with subsequent additions in Roman times. The temple is one of the well preserved temples in Egypt.

New research has revealed problems: archaeology indicates the Serapeum was the only temple destroyed in this period in Egypt;[236] classicist Alan Cameron writes that the Roman temples in Egypt "are among the best preserved in the ancient world".[237] Written historical sources are filled with episodes of conflict, yet events in late antiquity were often dramatized by both pagans and Christians for their own ideological reasons.[238]^: 5 Temple destruction is attested to in 43 cases in the written sources, but only four are confirmed by archaeological evidence.[239] [note 7] Recent scholarship asserts that Hypatia's murder was largely political and probably occurred in 415 not 391.[249][232] There is no evidence that the harsh penalties of the anti-sacrifice laws were ever enforced.[250] Jan N. Bremmer has written that recent evidence shows "religious violence in Late Antiquity is mostly restricted to violent rhetoric: 'in Antiquity, not all religious violence was that religious, and not all religious violence was that violent'."[20]^: 9

Some of the most influential textual sources on pagan-Christian violence concerns Martin, Bishop of Tours (c. 371–397), the Pannonian ex-soldier who is, as Salzman describes, "solely credited in the historical record as the militant converter of Gaul".[251] The portion of the sources devoted to attacks on pagans is limited, and they all revolve around Martin using his miraculous powers to overturn pagan shrines and idols but not to ever threaten or harm people.[252] Salzman concludes that "None of Martin's interventions led to the deaths of any Gauls, pagan or Christian. Even if one doubts the exact veracity of these incidents, the assertion that Martin preferred non-violent conversion techniques says much about the norms for conversion in Gaul" in 398 when Sulpicius Severus, who knew Martin, wrote Martin's biography.[253]

In a comparative study of levels of violence in Roman society, German ancient historian Martin Zimmermann, concludes there was no increase in the level of violence in the Empire in Late Antiquity.[254][255] Acts of violence had always been an aspect of Roman society, but they were isolated and rare.[256][257][258] Archaeologist David Riggs writes that evidence from North Africa reveals a tolerance of religious pluralism and a vitality of traditional paganism much more than it shows any form of religious violence or coercion: "persuasion, such as the propagation of Christian apologetics, appears to have played a more critical role in the eventual "triumph of Christianity" than was previously assumed".[259][260][261]

Christian writers gave the narrative of victory high visibility, and according to Brown, Christians generally objected to anything that called that narrative into question. That included the mistreatment of non-Christians. The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity says that "Torture and murder were not the inevitable result of the rise of Christianity."[6]^: 861 Instead, there was fluidity in the boundaries between the communities and "coexistence with a competitive spirit."[262] In most regions of the Empire, pagans were simply ignored, and while there were a few ugly incidents of local violence, "Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence" says Brown.[263]

As a result, the conflict model has become marginalized in the twenty first century.[264] According to historian Raymond Van Dam, "an approach which emphasizes conflict flounders as a means for explaining both the initial attractions of a new cult like Christianity, as well as, more importantly, its persistence".[265] Archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan of the Centre for Late Antique Archaeology indicate that archaeology does not show evidence of widespread conflict.[266] Historian Michelle Renee Salzman asserts that, in light of current scholarship, violence can not be seen as a central factor in explaining the spread of Christianity in the western empire.[267][268]

Some innate characteristics of Roman Empire contributed to Christianization: travel was made easier by universal currency, laws, relative internal security and the good roads of the empire. Religious syncretism, Roman political culture, a common language, and Hellenist philosophy made Christianization easier than in places like Persia or China.[269]

Judaism was also important to the spread of Christianity; evidence clearly shows the Diaspora communities were where Christians gave many of their earliest sermons.[270]

The fourth century developed new forms of status and wealth that included moving away from the old silver standard.[271] Brown says Constantine consolidated loyalty at the top through his spectacular generosity, paying his army and his high officials in gold and thereby flooding the economy with gold.[272] The imperial bureaucracy soon began demanding that taxes also be paid in gold.[273] This created multiple problems.[274]

"The fourth century scramble for gold ensured that the rural population was driven" hard says Brown.[275] Eighty percent of the population provided the labor to harvest 60% of the empire's wealth, most of which was garnered by the wealthy.[276] This contributed to unrest.[277] Constantine reached out to the provincial elite for help with unrest and other problems, enlarging the Senate's membership from about 600 to over 2,000.[278] This also contributed to unrest and change as the novi homines ("new men", first in their family to serve in the Roman Senate) were more willing to accept religious change.[279] In response to all of this, bishops became intercessors in society, lobbying the powerful to practice Christian benevolence.[280] After 370/380, wealth and cultural prestige began moving toward the Catholics.[281]

In 429, Emperor Theodosius II (r. 402 – 450) ordered that all of the laws, from the reign of Constantine up to himself and Valentinian III, be found and codified.[282] For the next nine years, twenty-two scholars, working in two teams, dug through archives and assembled, edited and amended empirical law into 16 books containing more than 2,500 constitutions issued between 313 and 437. It was published as the Theodosian Code in 438.[283][284] The code covers political, socioeconomic, and cultural subjects with religious laws in Book 16.[285]

Constantine and his descendants used law to grant "imperial patronage, legal rights to hold property, and financial assistance" to the church, thereby making important contributions to its success over the next hundred years.[286][287] Laws that favored Christianity increased the church's status which was all important for the elites.[288][289] Constantine had tremendous personal popularity and support, even amongst the pagan aristocrats, prompting some individuals to become informed about their emperor's religion.[290] This passed along through aristocratic kinship and friendship networks and patronage ties.[291] Emperors who modeled Christianity's moral appeal with aristocratic honor, combined with laws that made Christianity attractive to the aristocratic class, led to their conversion beginning in the 360s under Gratian.[292][293]

Sacrifice in honour of the goddess Diana, first century wall-painting. House of the Vettii in Pompeii

The Imperial laws collected in Chapter 10, Book XVI of the Theodosian Code provide important evidence of the intent of Christian emperors to promote Christianity, eliminate the practice of sacrifice and control magic. While it is difficult to date with any confidence any of the laws in the Code to the time of Constantine a century earlier,[294][295][296] most scholars agree that Constantine issued the first law banning paganism's public practice of animal sacrifice.[297][298] Blood sacrifice of animals was the element of pagan culture most abhorrent to Christians, though Christian emperors often tolerated other pagan practices.[299] Brown notes that the language of the anti-sacrifice laws "was uniformly vehement", and the "penalties they proposed were frequently horrifying", evidencing the intent of "terrorizing" the populace into accepting the absence of public sacrifice being imposed by law.[300]

However, the Code does not have the ability to tell how, or if, these policies were actually carried out.[301][302] There is no record of anyone in Constantine's era being prosecuted for sacrificing, nor is there evidence of any of the horrific punishments ever being enacted.[303][304] Legal anthropologist Caroline Humfress says the idea of "an empire-wide 'legal system' being imposed from above" before Justinian does not accurately reflect the social and legal realities of the earlier centuries of the Roman Empire.[305] Humfress asserts that Roman imperial law, though not irrelevant, was not a determining factor in Roman society before the sixth century.[306] Imperial commands provided magistrates with a license to act, but those magistrates chose how, or whether to act, for themselves, according to local circumstances.[250][note 8]

Sacrifices continued to be performed privately, in the home, and in the country away from the imperial court, but the public ritual killing of animals seems to have largely disappeared from civic festivals by the time of Julian (361 to 363). Evidence for public sacrifices in Constantinople and Antioch altogether runs out by the end of the century.[126][127] Bradbury asserts that the complete disappearance of public sacrifice "in many towns and cities must be attributed to the atmosphere created by imperial and episcopal hostility".[310]

However, paganism in a broader sense did not end when public sacrifice did.[311] Brown says polytheists were accustomed to offering prayers to the gods in many ways and places that did not include sacrifice: at healing springs, in caves, in deep woods, with lights, dancing, feasting and clouds of incense. "Pollution" was only associated with sacrifice, and the ban on sacrifice had fixed boundaries and limits.[312] The end of sacrifice led to the birth of new pagan practices such as adding Neoplatonic theurgy to philosophical practices like stoicism.[6]^: 17 Pagan religions also directly transformed themselves over the next two centuries by adopting some Christian practices and ideas.[313] Paganism thereby continued up through the sixth century with still existing centers of paganism in Athens, Gaza, Alexandria, and elsewhere.[311]

Ancient Christianity was unhindered by either ethnic or geographical ties; it was open to being experienced as a new start, for both men and women, rich and poor; baptism was free, there were no fees, and it was intellectually egalitarian, making philosophy and ethics available to ordinary people who might not even have known how to read.[322] Many scholars see this inclusivity as the primary reason for Christianity's success.[323]

Historian Raymond Van Dam says conversion produced a new way of thinking and believing that involved "a fundamental reorganization in the ways people thought about themselves and others". This included a "conscious dismantling of [Roman] concepts of hierarchy and power".[324][325][326] From the beginning, the Pauline communities cut across the social ranks. Paul's understanding of the innate paradox of an all powerful Christ dying as a powerless man created a new social order unprecedented in classical society.[327]

A key characteristic of these inclusive communities was their exclusivity which used belief to construct identity and social boundaries.[328] Believing was the crucial and defining characteristic of membership; it set a "high boundary" that strongly excluded the "unbeliever". Bible scholar Paul Raymond Trebilco asserts that these high boundaries were set without social distancing or vilification of the outsiders themselves, since context reveals "a clear openness to these 'outsiders' and a strong 'other regard' for them".[329] Strong boundaries for insiders, and openness to outsiders as possible converts, are both held in very real tension in New Testament and early patristic writings.[330] However, the early Christian had exacting moral standards that included avoiding contact with those that were seen as still "in bondage to the Evil One": (2 Corinthians 6:1–18; 1 John 2: 15–18; Revelation 18: 4; II Clement 6; Epistle of Barnabas, 1920).[331]

On the one hand, Christianity embraced all, including "sinners"; the term for sinner (Ancient Greek: αμαρτωλοί), meaning the immoral, is a Greek term for those 'on the outside'. Its use was undermined by Jesus, who showed that any 'outsider' could become an 'insider'. Jesus did not classify everyone as sinners, but he did call for those who considered themselves insiders to repent. Paul extended the term's application to everyone, arguing that everyone can become an insider.[332]

On the other hand, the exclusivity of Christian monotheism formed an important part of its success enabling it to maintain its independence in a society that syncretized religion.[333] According to Philosopher and philologist Danny Praet, this gave Christianity the powerful psychological attraction of elitism.[334]

Christian charity, 19th century work by Bertel Thorvaldsen

It has, for many years, been one of the axioms of scholars of early Christianity that significant numbers of women composed its earliest members.[335] Widows were especially critical to growth, and in the church rolls from the second century, there is conclusive evidence of groups of women, with some "exercising the office of widow".[336][337]^{: 10, 75, 188} Historian Geoffrey Nathan explains that "a widow in Roman society who had lost her husband and did not have money of her own was at the very bottom of the social ladder".[338] The church provided practical support to those who would, otherwise, have been in destitute circumstances, and this "was in all likelihood an important factor in winning new female members".[336][339]

Yet, as theologian and historian Judith Lieu points out, the presence of large numbers of female converts within Christianity is not statistically documented.[340] Pagan writers wrote polemics criticizing the attraction of women to Christianity along with the uneducated masses, children, and "thieves, burglars and poisoners", but Lieu describes this as politically motivated rhetoric that cannot be depended upon to prove the presence of large numbers of women.[341] Lieu also notes that, "No Christian source explicitly celebrates the number of women joining their ranks".[342] Classics scholar Sarah B. Pomeroy says "never did Roman society encourage women to engage in the same activities as men of the same social class."[343] According to classical scholar Moses Finley, "there is no mistaking the fact that Homer fully reveals what remained true for the whole of antiquity: that women were held to be naturally inferior."[344]

Art historian Janet Tulloch has observed that "Unlike the early Christian literary tradition, in which women are largely invisible, misrepresented, or omitted entirely, female figures in early Christian art play significant roles in the transmission of the faith".[345] Feminist theologian Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza wrote in her seminal work In Memory of Her: a Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins that many of Jesus' followers were women.[346] The Pauline epistles in the New Testament provide some of the earliest documentary sources of women as true missionary partners in expanding the Jesus movement.[347][348] Lieu affirms that women of note were attracted to Christianity as evidenced in the Acts of the Apostles, where mention is made of Lydia, the seller of purple at Philippi, and of other noble women at Thessalonica, Berea and Athens ( 17.4, 12, 33–34).[349] Lieu writes that, "In parts of the Empire, influential women were able to use religion to negotiate a role for themselves in society that existing conceptual frameworks did not legitimate".[350]

There is some evidence of a similar disruption of traditional women's roles in some of the mystery cults, such as Cybele, but there is no evidence this went beyond the internal practices of the religion itself. The mysteries created no alternative in larger society to the established patterns.[351] There is no evidence of any effort in Second Temple Judaism to harmonize the roles or standing of women with that of men.[352] Roman Empire was an age of awareness of the differences between male and female. Social roles were not taken for granted. They were debated, and this was often done with some misogyny.[353] Paul uses a basic formula of reunification of opposites, (Galatians 3:28; 1 Corinthians 12:13; Colossians 3:11) to simply wipe away such social distinctions. In speaking of slave/free, male/female, Greek/Jew, circumcised/uncircumcised, and so on, he states that "all" are "one in Christ" or that "Christ is all". This became part of the message of the early church and the practice of the Pauline communities.[353]

Professor of religious studies at Brown University, Ross Kraemer, argues that Christianity offered women of this period a new sense of worth.[354] Elizabeth Castelli explains: "The ascetic life, especially the monastic life, may have provided women with a mode of escape from the rigors and dangers of married and maternal existence, with the prospect of an education and (in some cases) an intellectual life, and with access to social and economic power that would otherwise have eluded them".[355][356] Having their female (and imperfect male) babies taken from them and exposed, was an accepted fact of Roman life for most women.[357] In 1968, J. Lindsay reported that even in large families "more than one daughter was practically never reared."[358][359] There was also a high mortality rate among women due to childbirth and abortion.[360]

Judith Lieu cautions that there is "good reason for rejecting a model that understands women’s attraction to early Christianity... purely in terms of ’what it did for them’."[361] A survey of the literature of the early period shows female converts as having one thing in common: that of being in danger. Women took real risks to spread the gospel.[362] Ordinary women moved in and out of houses and shops and marketplaces, took the risk of speaking out and leading people, including children, outside the bounds of the "proper authorities". This is evident in the sanctions and labels their antagonists used against them.[363] Power resided with the male authority figure, and he had the right to label any uncooperative female in his household as insane or possessed, to exile her from her home, and condemn her to prostitution.[364] Kraemer theorizes that "Against such vehement opposition, the language of the ascetic forms of Christianity must have provided a strong set of validating mechanisms", attracting large numbers of women.[365][366]

MacMullen concludes that Christianity did make a moral difference in Roman Empire in the area of sexual conduct: "Here we see an absolutely remarkable impact on manners and morals that was to shape also the whole millennium to come".[367] Classics scholar Kyle Harper states it this way: "the triumph of Christianity not only drove profound cultural change, it created a new relationship between sexual morality and society ... The legacy of Christianity lies in the dissolution of an ancient system where social and political status, power, and the transmission of social inequality to the next generation scripted the terms of sexual morality".[368]

Both the ancient Greeks and the Romans cared and wrote about sexual morality within categories of good and bad, pure and defiled, and ideal and transgression.[369] These ethical structures were built on the Roman understanding of social status. Slaves were not thought to have an interior ethical life because they had no status; they could go no lower socially. They were commonly used sexually, while the free and well-born who used them were thought to embody social honor and the ability to exhibit the fine sense of shame and sexual modesty suited to their station.[370] Sexual modesty meant something different for men than it did for women, and for the well-born, than it did for the poor, and for the free citizen, than it did for the slave — for whom the concepts of honor, shame and sexual modesty were said to have no meaning at all.[370]

In the ancient Roman Empire, "shame" was a profoundly social concept that was always mediated by gender and status. "It was not enough that a wife merely regulate her sexual behavior in the accepted ways; it was required that her virtue in this area be conspicuous."[371] Men, on the other hand, were allowed sexual freedoms such as live-in mistresses and sex with slaves.[372] This duality permitted Roman society to find both a husband's control of a wife's sexual behavior a matter of intense importance, and at the same time see that same husband's sex with young slave boys as of little concern.[373]

The Greeks and Romans said humanity's deepest moralities depended upon social position which was given by fate; Christians advocated the "radical notion of individual freedom centered around ... complete sexual agency".[374] Paul the Apostle and his followers taught that "the body was a consecrated space, a point of mediation between the individual and the divine".[375] This meant the ethical obligation for sexual self-control was to God, and it was placed on each individual, male and female, slave and free, equally, in all communities, regardless of status. It was "a revolution in the rules of behavior, but also in the very image of the human being".[376] In the Pauline epistles, porneia was a single name for the array of sexual behaviors outside marital intercourse. This became a defining concept of sexual morality.[375] Such a shift in definition utterly transformed "the deep logic of sexual morality".[377]

Harper concludes that "there are risks in over-estimating the changes in old sexual patterns that Christianity was able to promote, but there are risks, too, in underestimating Christianization as a watershed."[376]

Charity, 19th century sculpture by Christian Daniel Rauch

Professor of religion Steven C. Muir has written that "Charity was, in effect, an institutionalized policy of Christianity from its beginning.  ... While this situation was not the sole reason for the group's growth, it was a significant factor".[378] Christians showed the poor great generosity, and "there is no disputing that Christian charity was an ideology put into practice".[379][note 9] Prior to Christianity, the wealthy elite of Rome mostly donated to civic programs designed to elevate their status, though personal acts of kindness to the poor were not unheard of. The ancient world has no trace of any organized charitable effort for feeding and clothing the poor, visiting prisoners, or supporting widows and orphan children.[381][382][383] Nevertheless, Salzman asserts that the Roman practice of civic euergetism ("philanthropy publicly directed toward one's city or fellow citizens") influenced Christian charity "even as they remained distinct components of justifications for the feeding of Rome well into the late sixth century".[384]

Christian and non-Christian witnesses testify to the zealousness of Christian communities for almsgiving and charity.[385] "That the later church in Rome was actively involved in charity and renowned for its work with the needy is attested".[386][note 10] Hart writes that the emperor Julian, who was hostile to Christianity, is recorded as saying: "It is [the Christians'] philanthropy towards strangers, the care they take of the graves of the dead, and the affected sanctity with which they conduct their lives that have done most to spread their atheism."[390][391]

Koester argues that "One should not see the success of Christianity simply on the level of a great religious message; one has to see it also in the consistent and very well thought out establishment of institutions to serve the needs of the community".[392]

Two devastating epidemics, the Antonine Plague in 154 and the Plague of Cyprian in 251, killed a large number of the empire's population, though there is some debate over this.[393] Graeco-Roman doctors tended largely to the elite, while the poor mostly had recourse to "miracles and magic" at religious temples.[394] Christians, on the other hand, tended to the sick and dying, as well as the aged, orphaned, exiled and widowed.[395][396] Many of these caretakers were monks and nuns. Christian monasticism had emerged toward the end of the third century, and their numbers grew such that, "by the fifth century, monasticism had become a dominant force impacting all areas of society".[397][398]

According to Albert Jonsen, a historian of medicine, "the second great sweep of medical history [began] at the end of the fourth century, with the founding of the first Christian hospital for the poor at Caesarea in Cappadocia."[399][400][note 11] By the fifth century, the founding of hospitals for the poor had become common for bishops, abbots and abbesses.[403]

According to Stark, "Christianity did not grow because of miracle working in the marketplaces ... or because Constantine said it should, or even because the martyrs gave it such credibility. It grew because Christians constituted an intense community" which provided a unique "sense of belonging".[404][405] Praet has written that, "in his very influential booklet Pagans and Christians in an Age of Anxiety, E. R. Dodds acknowledged ... 'Christians were in a more than formal sense 'members one of another': [Dodds thinks] that was a major cause, perhaps the strongest single cause, of the spread of Christianity".[405]

Christian community was not just one thing. Experience and expression were diverse. Yet early Christian communities did have commonalities in the kerygma (the message), the rites of baptism and the eucharist.[406] As far back as it can be traced, evidence indicates the rite of initiation into Christianity was always baptism.[407] In Christianity's earliest communities, candidates for baptism were introduced by a teacher or other person willing to stand surety for their character and conduct. Baptism created a set of responsibilities within each Christian community, which some authors described in quite specific terms.[408] Candidates for baptism were instructed in the major tenets of the faith (the kerygma), examined for moral living, sat separately in worship, could not receive the eucharist, and were generally expected to demonstrate commitment to the community and obedience to Christ's commands before being accepted into the community as a full member.[409]

Celebration of the eucharist was the common unifier for Christian communities, and early Christians believed the kerygma, the eucharist and baptism came directly from Jesus of Nazareth.[407] According to Dodds, "A Christian congregation was from the first a community in a much fuller sense than any corresponding group of Isis followers or Mithras devotees. Its members were bound together not only by common rites but by a common way of life".[410]

New Testament professor Joseph Hellerman observes New Testament writers as choosing 'family' as the central social metaphor to describe their community. In doing so, they redefined the concept of family.[411] In both Jewish and Roman tradition, genetic families were generally buried together, but an important cultural shift took place in the way Christians buried one another: they gathered unrelated Christians into a common burial space, as if they really were one family, "commemorated them with homogeneous memorials and expanded the commemorative audience to the entire local community of coreligionists".[412] The Jewish ethic and its concept of community as family is what made "Christianity's power of attraction ... not purely religious but also social and philosophical".[413] The Christian church was modeled on the synagogue. Christian philosophers synthesized their own views with Semitic monotheism and Greek thought. The Old Testament gave the new religion of Christianity roots reaching back to antiquity. In a society which equated dignity and truth with tradition, this was significant.[413]

Community on a larger scale is evidenced by a study of 'letters of recommendation' that Christians created to be taken by a traveler from one group of believers to another.[414][415] Security and hospitality when traveling had traditionally been undependable for most, being ensured only by, and for, those with the wealth and power to afford them. By the late third and early fourth centuries, Christians had developed a 'form letter' of recommendation, only requiring the addition of an individual's name, that extended trust and welcome and safety to the whole household of faith, "though they were strangers".[414] Sociologist E. A. Judge writes of the fourth century diary of Egeria which documents her travels throughout the Middle East, seeing the old sites of the Biblical period, the monks, and even climbing Mount Sinai: "At every point she was met and looked after". The same benefits were applied to others carrying a Christian letter of recommendation as members of the community.[414]

The Christian Graces, Faith, Hope & Charity. 19th century trade card

According to Greek scholar Matthew R. Malcolm, central to the kerygma is the concept that the power of God is manifested through Jesus in a reversal of power.[416] In the gospel of Matthew (20:25–26) Jesus is quoted as saying: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be a servant..." Biblical scholar Wayne Meeks explains: "the ultimate power and structure of the universe" [God] has manifested itself in human society through Jesus' act of giving up his power for the sake of love. This reversal has impact on all aspects of the message: it redefines love as an "other-regarding sacrificial act",[417] and it redefines the nature and practice of power and authority as service to others.[416] Meeks concludes "this must have had a very powerful, emotional appeal to people".[417] New Testament scholar N. T. Wright argues that these ideas were revolutionary to the classical world.[418]

This message contained the assertion that Christian salvation was made available to all, and it included eternal life, but not for the unbeliever. Ancient paganism had a variety of views of an afterlife from a belief in Hades to a denial of eternal life completely.[419] Afterlife punishments can be found in other religions preceding Christianity. One scholar has concluded "Hell is a Greek invention".[420] Praet asserts that much of the Roman population no longer believed in Graeco–Roman afterlife punishments, so there is no reason to expect they would take the Christian version more seriously.[420] While it may or may not have been a major cause of conversion, writings from the Christians Justin and Tatian, the pagan Celsus, and the Passio of Ptolemaeus and Lucius are just some of the sources that confirm Christians did use the doctrine of eternal punishment, and that it did persuade some non-believers to convert.[334]

The Christian teaching of bodily resurrection was new, (and not readily accepted), but most Christian views of an afterlife were not new. What they had was the novelty of exclusivity: right belief became as significant a determiner of the future as right behavior.[421] Ancient Christians backed this up with prophecies from ages old documents and living witnesses, giving Christianity its claim to a historical base. This was new and different from paganism.[422] Praet writes that anti-Christian polemics of the era never questioned that: "[Jesus'] birth, teachings, death and resurrection took place in the reigns of the emperors Augustus and Tiberius, and until the end of the first century, the ancient church could produce living witnesses who claimed to have seen or spoken to the Savior".[422] Many modern scholars have seen this as one of the major reasons for Christianity's success.[422]

Faithful Unto Death by Herbert Schmalz, 19th century

The Roman government practiced systematic persecution of Christian leaders and their property in 250–51 under Decius, in 257–60 under Valerian, and expanded it after 303 under Diocletian. While it is understood by scholars that persecution did cause some apostasy and temporary setbacks in the numbers of Christians, the long term impact on Christian conversion was not negative. Peter Brown writes that "The failure of the Great Persecution of Diocletian was regarded as a confirmation of a long process of religious self-assertion against the conformism of a pagan empire."[171]^: 100-101 Persecution and suffering were seen by many at the time of these events, as well as by later generations of believers, as legitimizing the standing of the individual believers that died as well as legitimizing the ideology and authority of the church itself.[423]^{: 6, 25, 203} Drake quotes Robert Markus: "The martyrs were, after the Apostles, the supreme representatives of the community of the faithful in God's presence. In them the communion of saints was most tangibly epitomized".[424]

The result of this was summed up in the second century by Justin Martyr: "it is plain that, though beheaded and crucified, and thrown to wild beasts, and chains, and fire, and all other kinds of torture, we do not give up our confession [of Christ]; but the more such things happen, the more do others and in larger numbers become faithful, and worshippers of God through the name of Jesus".[425] Keith Hopkins concludes that in the third century "in spite of temporary losses, Christianity grew fastest in absolute terms. In other words, in terms of number, persecution was good for Christianity".[426]

In the minority view, miracles and exorcisms form the most important (and possibly the only) reason for conversion to Christianity in the pre-Constantinian age.[427] These events provide some of the best documented ancient conversions.[428] However, there is a drop-off in the records of miracles in the crucial second and third centuries. Praet writes that "as early as the beginning of the third century, Christian authors admit that the "Golden Age" of miracles is over".[427]

Yet, Christianity grew most rapidly at the end of that same third century indicating that the real impact of miracles in garnering new converts is questionable. In Praet's view, even if Christianity had "retained its miraculous powers", the impact of miracles on conversion would still be questionable, since pagans also produced miracles, and no one questioned that those miracles were as real as Christianity's.[429]

Part of a series on
Christianity
Jesus Christ Nativity Baptism Ministry Crucifixion Resurrection Ascension
Bible Foundations Old Testament New Testament Gospel Canon Church Creed New Covenant
Theology God Trinity Father Son Holy Spirit Apologetics Baptism Christology History of theology Mission Salvation
History Tradition Apostles Peter Paul Mary Early Christianity Church Fathers Constantine Councils Augustine East–West Schism Crusades Aquinas Reformation Luther
Denominations Groups Western Western Catholic Protestant Adventist Anabaptist Anglican Baptist Evangelical Holiness Lutheran Methodist Moravian Pentecostal Quaker Calvinism Eastern Eastern Catholic Eastern Orthodox Eastern Protestant Oriental Orthodox Church of the East (Nestorian) Restorationist Jehovah's Witness Latter Day Saint Iglesia ni Cristo Apostolic Catholic Church (Philippines)
Related topics Criticism Culture Ecumenism Glossary Index Other religions Outline Prayer Sermon Symbolism Worship
Glossary Index Outline  Christianity portal

To understand patterns of development, social network theory treats society as a web of overlapping relationships and ties early Christian growth to its preexisting relationships.[430] Adam M. Schor, a scholar of ancient Mediterranean history, discusses this: "Network theory aided Stark's research (with William Bainbridge) including the ground-breaking conclusion that almost all converts to modern religious groups have friendships or familial bonds with existing members. In fact, Stark used the network concept to back up his projections, positing that Christianity first grew along existing Jewish networks and existing links between Roman cities".[431] Historian Paula Fredriksen asserts that it is "because of Diaspora Judaism, which is extremely well established [in the empirical age], that Christianity itself, as a new and constantly improvising form of Judaism, is able to spread as it does through the Roman world".[432]

Current studies in sociology and anthropology have shown that Christianity in its early centuries spread through its acquisition by one person from another by forming a distinct social network.[315] Classical archaeologist and ancient historian Anna Collar chooses network theory for explaining Christianization of the Roman Empire, saying: "it does not address why such changes take place, but it can help explain how change happened".[433] She has written that archaeological remains demonstrate that networks are formed wherever there are connections.[216] When groups of people with different ways of life connect, interact, and exchange ideas and practices, "cultural diffusion" occurs. The more groups interact, the more cultural diffusion takes place.[434] Diffusion is the primary method by which societies change; (it is distinct from colonialization which forces elements of a foreign culture into a society).[431]

The kind of network formed by early Christian groups is what sociology calls a "modular scale-free network". This is a series of small “cells” that are associations of small groups of people, such as the early home churches in Ephesus and Caesaria, with popular leaders, (such as the Apostle Paul), who are the ones who hold together an otherwise unconnected small cluster of cells.[81]

Network theory asserts that modular scale free networks are "robust": "they grow without central direction, but also survive most attempts to wipe them out." The third century saw the empire's greatest persecution of Christians while also being the critical century of church growth.[435] Schor adds that "Persecutions (like Valerian’s) might have thinned the Christian leadership without damaging the network’s long-term growth capacity."[81] Keith Hopkins attests that rapid growth in absolute numbers occurred only in the third and fourth centuries.[436]

Psychological explanations of Christianization are most often based on a belief that paganism declined during the imperial period causing an era of insecurity and anxiety.[437][438] These anxious individuals were seen as the ones who sought refuge in religious communities which offered socialization.[439] For most modern scholars, this view can no longer be maintained since traditional religion did not decline in this period, but remained into the sixth and seventh centuries, and there is no evidence of increased anxiety.[440][441] Psychologist Pascal Boyer says a cognitive approach can account for the transmission of religious ideas and describe the processes whereby individuals acquire and transmit certain ideas and practices, but cognitive theory may not be sufficient to account for the social dynamics of religious movements, or the historical development of religious doctrines, which are not directly within its scope.[442]

Contemporaries like the 1st century magistrate Pliny the Younger employed the model of the spread of disease to describe the spread of Christianity in Pontus in northern Asia Minor: ‘it was not only in towns, but also in villages and the countryside that the contagion of this dreadful superstition has spread’.[443] Price writes that ‘contagious disease’ is a misleading metaphor. It embodies a negative view that leads to the idea of a linear spread where the new cult infected each place it passed through, and this was not the case.[443] Movement of individuals did take place along the obvious routes, but for a new cult to be created along one of those routes, it required the addition of community and interaction within family, professional or other social contexts.[443] Collar asserts that the spread of a religious innovation like Christianity is unlike the spread of disease because innovation requires active adoption by the individual concerned, and this differs considerably from their vulnerability to infectious disease.[444][443]

Game theory is like arithmetic or logic. It can only show one proposition as consistent or inconsistent with another.[445] Economist and game theorist Elias Tsakas asserts that game theory demonstrates it is what people believe about their neighboring groups that matters more than what those groups are actually doing.[446] People form beliefs about their opponent's strategies and then act according to those beliefs.[447] Beliefs are seen as beneficial if they are later seen as confirmed. Linguistic scholars Nicholas Enfield and Stephen Levinson write that Romans believed the early Christian community offered a better quality of life than the ordinary life available to most in the Roman Empire, and this belief is what led to Christianity's growth.[448]

Empirical evidence indicates behaviors spread because people have a strong tendency to imitate their neighbors when they believe those neighbors are more successful. Enfield and Levinson add that "The rapid spread of Christianity in the Roman Empire may provide an example".[448] Pagan society had weak traditions of mutual aid, whereas the Christian community had norms that created “a miniature welfare state in an empire which for the most part lacked social services”.[448] Runciman writes: "If there was a single characteristic of the Christian religion which distinguished it from all its competitors, Judaism included, it was the willingness, at least in principle, of Christians not only to accept converts from wherever they came but to display, or at least be prepared to display, towards the unconverted the same kind of active benevolence that they were expected to display towards one another".[315] This was particularly important during the severe epidemics of the Imperial period when some cities devolved into anarchy. In Christian communities, care of the sick reduced mortality. Extant Christian and pagan sources indicate many conversions were the result of "the appeal of such aid".[448]

Enfield and Levinson speculate that middle class women had higher status and greater marital security within the Christian community because Christian norms required monogamy whereas Roman norms allowed men multiple mates even if they were married. Pagan widows were required to remarry thereby surrendering control of their property to the pater familias. Christian widows could retain their property, and if they had no property of their own, church rolls of the first centuries indicate they were supported by the church community. Christianity was against infanticide,[449] and it is possible this led to substantially higher reproduction rates among Christians which also contributed to the growth of Christianity.[450]

Diffusion of innovative ideas

This view combines an understanding of Christian ideology, and the utility of religion, with analysis of social networks and their environment. Instead of focusing on functional reasons for change, such as history's study of political and economic events does, this approach focuses on the power of social interactions and how social groups communicate.[434][451]

Religions adapt, adjust and change all the time, therefore a true religious innovation must be seen as a significant change – such as the shift from polytheism to monotheism – on a large scale.[452] Collar argues that even though "the philosophical argument for one god was well known amongst the intellectual elite, ... monotheism can be called a religious innovation within the milieu of Imperial polytheism."[453] Ideology is always an aspect of religious innovation, but societal change is driven by the social networks formed by the people who follow the new religious innovation.[454] Sociologist E. A. Judge explains his view of how Christianization occurred by citing the powerful combination of new ideas, and the social impact of the church, which he says formed the central pivotal point for the religious conversion of Rome.[3][4]

Having quickly begun moving outward from Jerusalem, all the largest cities in the empire had Christian congregations by the end of the first century.[455] These became "hubs" for communicating the ongoing spread of the innovation. The variance in the times of when people responded creates a normal distribution curve. Collar explains, "there is a point on the curve that represents the crux of the diffusion process: the ‘tipping point’.[456] This 'tipping' takes place between 10 percent adoption and 20 percent adoption.[457] Christianity achieved this tipping point between 150 to 250 when it moved from less than 50,000 adherents to over a million.[230] This provided enough adopters for it to be self-sustaining and create further growth.[230][228][229]

"Roman Hall of Justice", Young Folks' History of Rome, 1878

In 1986, Ramsay MacMullen wrote "What Difference did Christianity Make?" looking at the consequences of conversion rather than its causes. He has written that "Christianity made no difference";[458] or that it made a negative difference,[459] saying that under the Christian emperors, judicial cruelty rose.[460] MacMullen attributes this to Christian zeal and a belief in purgatory.[461] This is problematic since, "Until the end of the twelfth century the noun purgatorium did not exist; the Purgatory had not yet been born" according to historian Jacques Le Goff.[462]^: 3

It is possible to identify a mounting severity in criminal law,[463] but classicist Peter Garnsey says it takes place throughout the entire imperial period, beginning under Augustus in the first century. It is not exclusive to the Christian emperors. Garnsey asserts this severity was a result of the political shift from a Republic to an autocratic empire.[464]

Historian Jill Harries points out that Roman justice was always harsh.[465] It was a common belief of those in the Roman Empire that severity was a deterrent.[466] As an example of this, Harries writes of the SC Silanianum, a particularly harsh law passed in 10 AD.[467] The SC Silanianum was originally aimed at slaves who murdered their masters, but its reach and its harshness grew as time passed.[note 12] Its history documents the establishment of a legal tradition of increasing harshness beginning in the earliest days of empire; its impact was extensive since ancestral customs – the Mos maiorum – were the most important source of Roman law.[79][474]

On the one hand, increasingly harsh penalties for an ever enlarging number of capital crimes were published by emperors. On the other hand, emperors also wanted to be seen as generous in offering mercy and clemency.[475] Beginning in the first century under Augustus, the established Roman understanding of clemency (clementia) began a transformation that was completed in the fourth century.[476] Christian writers had embraced the concept of clemency and used it to express the mercy of God demonstrated in salvation, thereby combining the two concepts.[477] The use of clementia to indicate forgiveness of wrongs and a mild merciful temper becomes common for writers of the Later Roman Empire.[478]

Christianity did not grow outside Roman culture, it grew within it, ameliorating some of Rome's harsh justice and also adopting some of it.[479][480][481] Augustine of Hippo advocated the harsh discipline of heretics that allowed some of the milder forms of physical torture.[482] Augustine also urged the heretical Donatist bishop Donatus to practice Christian mildness when dealing with enemies.[483] Augustine praised Marcellinus, who presided over an Imperial inquiry into the Catholic-Donatist controversy, for having conducted his investigation without using torture. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, advised his correspondent Studius, a Christian judge, to show clemency, citing as a model Jesus' treatment of the adulteress.[484] Garnsey has written that "Augustine, Ambrose, and other church leaders of progressive views clearly had a beneficent influence on the administration of the law, [but] it is evident that they did not attempt to promote a movement of penal reform, and did not conceive of such a movement".[480] As Peter Brown has summarized: "When it came to the central functions of the Roman state, even the vivid Ambrose was a lightweight".[485]

MacMullen cites Christian emperors as ceasing to use crucifixion and death by wild beasts as death penalties.[460] Bishops, generally, opposed the death penalty. Such a penalty was consistent with the authority of the state, but it was inconsistent with the expansion of the Church through the conversion of its enemies.[484] Arrests and punishments of heretics and all crimes against clergy were normally processed through the local bishop, and Augustine's correspondence after 405 contains many references to him using the bishop's right, and all his personal influence with Imperial officials, to intercede for those the state condemned.[486] The State responded with the law of January 409 which made a "way the authorities could politely by-pass the 'bishop, the persuader of mercy' in arresting and punishing culprits".[486]

Early Christianity never openly called for the abolition of slavery, and while theologian G. François Wessels writes that it "must be conceded" that abolition was not a possibility in Paul's day, it must also be affirmed that many of the early Christians were slave owners who voiced no objection to the long–standing institution.[487][488] Christians of Antiquity advised acceptance of what could not be changed, service to others with a loving attitude, and a focus on true freedom in Heaven.[489] Their stated purpose was to change the heart of man, not the social order, and ancient Christians did not think of their movement in terms of social reform.[490]

It is generally accepted that slavery began a decline in the second century which became more decisive as time passed, but this is usually attributed to economics rather than ideology as actual numbers of slaves have not been established.[491] However, there are several ways in which it is highly likely that Christians did make some contribution to this decreasing slavery.[492][493]

The first can be seen in Paul's Epistle to Philemon, which indicates that Christianity worked to transform the slave-holding household to recognize Christian brotherhood and manumit (an established Roman practice of freeing slaves) accordingly.[492][493] Wessels explains: "Onesimus, a slave, had run away from his master Philemon, but both had become Christians, and Paul sends Onesimus back home with a letter. In that letter Paul insists on Philemon's acceptance of Onesimus, no longer as a slave, but as a 'beloved brother'."[494] Theologian Marianne Thompson has argued convincingly that "a reading of the letter to Philemon which views Paul as asking for Onesimus' spiritual reception as a brother in Christ, without the setting free of his body as a slave, assumes a 'dualistic anthropology' in Paul which his writings do not confirm".[494] Historian Jon H. Roberts quotes Wessels asserting that the cumulative weight of Paul's many suggestive phrases "can really only have one meaning: Philemon should set Onesimus free".[495] If the information in Colossians 4:7–9 is historical, the slave Onesimus was, accordingly, freed.[496] Harper argues that a "broad religious impulse toward manumission runs as a submerged current through the eastern provinces".[497]

Christianity also likely impacted the world of slaves through its adoption of slavery as metaphor claiming all are slaves to sin.[498][499] Christian rhetoric, beginning with Paul, is filled with that metaphorical perspective. John Chrysostom's surviving corpus alone mentions slavery over 5,000 times.[500] Chrysostom, as one example, wrote baptismal instructions for churches in his jurisdiction, telling the officiating priest to stop at various points to remind the catechumens of how the act of baptism frees them from the slavery all humanity had in common with each other. In lawyer and judicial historian Joshua C. Tate's view, "Through their baptism, the catechumens became not only free, holy, and just, but even sons of God and joint-heirs with Christ. Repeated so often, in such an important context, this message must have made a major impact on the thinking of Christian congregations and those with whom they interacted".[501]

Outside of defeated enemies, there were three primary sources of slaves. The first most prolific source was natural reproduction (childbearing), since a child born to a slave was automatically a slave, without option, themselves. Early Christian historian Chris L. de Wet writes that Chrysostom attempted to "guard the sexual integrity of the slave by desexualizing the slave's body and criminalizing its violation. Slaves were no longer morally neutral ground – having sex with a slave while married was adultery and if unmarried, fornication".[502] These teachings, along with the proliferation of chastity among slaves who became Christian,[503] and the spread of ascetism through Roman society, may have lessened their sexual use and their reproductive value and impacted slavery.[492]

The next best source of slaves was from the abandonment of unwanted children (called exposure because the babies were left exposed to the dangers of the wilds). These children were often picked up by strangers to be raised and sold as slaves. The third method was kidnapping. Christians interfered with these methods for resupply through new laws and actions taken against them.[504][505][note 13]

Chrysostom supported the obedience of slaves to their masters. He also told his audience, which consisted mostly of wealthy slave holders, that "Slavery is the result of greed, of degradation, of brutality, since Noah, we know, had no slave, nor Abel, nor Seth, nor those who came after them. The institution was the fruit of sin".[514] MacMullen has written that slavery was "rebuked by Ambrose, Zeno of Verona, Gaudentius of Brescia, and Maximus of Turin", among others.[515] Evidence indicates this oft repeated discourse on slavery shaped late ancient feelings, tastes, and opinions concerning it, and this may have impacted its practice.[492]

Saint Augustine Disputing with the Heretics by Vergós Group, part of the 15th century Saint Augustine Altarpiece painting

In a challenge to the assertion that the practice of charity contributed to social change and the spread of Christianity, MacMullen has written that there was hardly any charity amongst Christians toward heretics.[516] One example often used in demonstration of this is Augustine's support of the state's use of coercion in dealing with the "heretical" Donatists. Brown says this has led to modern liberals describing Augustine as the "prince and patriarch of persecutors", since Augustine's views were referenced on into the Middle Ages.[482]

The harsh realities Augustine faced can be found in his Letter 28 written to bishop Novatus around 416. Donatists had cut out the tongue and cut off the hands of a Bishop Rogatus who had recently converted to Catholicism, condemning him to a slow death by starvation, also attacking an unnamed count's agent who had been traveling with Rogatus.[517] Rutgers professor of history Frederick Russell says Augustine confesses he does not know what to do. By this time, he had spent twenty years verbally appealing to the Donatists using popular propaganda, debate, personal appeal, General Councils, appeals to the emperor, and even politics, and all attempts had failed.[518][519][520]

The empire responded with force and coercion, and Augustine came to support that approach. Augustine did not believe coercion could or would convert someone, but he did observe that it softened the "stubborn Donatists" enough to make it possible to reason with them. He thought that reason would then lead to voluntary agreement, true repentance, and change.[521][522]

As Augustine's biographer, Peter Brown has written that Augustine lived in a harsh, authoritarian age of punitive punishment. Yet Augustine placed limits on the type of coercion that could be used for heretics, recommending only the milder forms in common practice in the home, school and ecclesial court.[523][524] He opposed all the extreme forms of torture and maiming and capital punishment common to the empire of the time.[525] Russell and Brown see Augustine's approach as aimed at reformation of the wrong-doer rather than punitive punishment for the wrong-doing.[522][526][527][528]

Russell asserts that Augustine's response on coercion was context dependent.[529] However, political scientist Herbert A. Deane says there is a fundamental inconsistency between Augustine's political thought and "his final position of approval of the use of political and legal weapons to punish religious dissidence", and others have seconded this view.[530][note 14]

Augustine's approach to heresy contributed to a competition – a "rivalry between the two factions" – that not only failed to suppress Donatism but instead contributed to its spread.[531] Where one faction would build a church, the other would follow; Donatists and Catholics built church after church competing with each other for the loyalty of the people causing the entire landscape of Roman Africa to be "covered with a white robe of churches".[531][532] The Donatists survived until the Muslim conquest of the Maghreb in the closing years of the seventh century.[533]

Despite corruption having a long history in Roman society, Ramsay MacMullen "attributes to the fourth century ...the spread of an ethos of venality (greed and bribery) and the displacement of aristocratic networks of patronage by the indiscriminate exchange of favors for money". He has asserted that this practice shows the church, and Christians in government, were universally corrupt in the fourth and fifth centuries.[516][534] MacMullen's thesis has produced considerable scholarly criticism that has been dubbed the "corruption debate".[535]

When Constantine changed from silver to gold as the monetary standard, there is evidence that greed became rampant as the ruling elite "drove a primitive system of taxation and markets to its limits" to acquire gold.[274] One question has been whether or not this constitutes corruption. Another involves the predominance of Christians in the aristocracy as beginning in the 360s under Gratian long after Constantine's death in 337 as Salzman has documented.[536][537]

Detail of the second century gladiator mosaic floor, at Römerhalle, Bad Kreuznach, Germany

Modern studies have employed many of the same sources as MacMullen, but have arrived at virtually opposite conclusions.[538] For example, in the 1960s, political scientists examined the processes of modernization in the empire, along with those practices considered "corrupt" by modern Western standards, and found that what modern historians have termed "corruption" might "sometimes systematically, have [had] a beneficial impact on a range of important goals: 'nation-building', economic development, administrative capacity, and democratization."[539] Tim Watson concludes that, "Even if agreement can be reached on what exactly constituted 'corrupt' behavior, there is simply not enough data" in the sources to settle the corruption debate.[540]

The games continued under Christian emperors delivering their message of Roman power "and the inevitability of Roman justice for criminals and those foreigners who had dared to challenge the empire's authority", writes classicist Roger Dunkle.[541] Gladiators were often prisoners of war, slaves or criminals, were generally poor, non-citizens, and social outcasts with limited choices. [542] Yet in the same era of increasing judicial harshness the courts stopped sentencing criminals to the arena.[543] There is no source of information explaining why.[544]

MacMullen has written that, "the role of Christianity in the abandoning of most western gladiatorial combat was nil."[463] However, as historian Fik Meijer explains, while gladiator shows were never effectively officially politically abolished, Christians did speak out against them, and the rising number of Christians in the population in the late fourth century caused the popularity of the games to decline.[545] It is likely the games ended from this lack of public support before 440.[546]

According to Brown, the imperial laws, even though they were not enforced, did have a cumulative effect by 425. They set in place the religious order of Roman society: there was the Catholic church, heresies hostile to the 'true faith', and the two great 'outsiders': Judaism and all of polytheism which was jointly called 'paganism'.[547] It is possible to follow in the laws the emergence of a language of intolerance shared by the Christian court and by vocal elements in provincial society.[547] Christian writers and imperial legislators alike drew on a rhetoric of incessant conquest and reconquest that affected every facet of upper-class society.[548]

Gibbon's intolerance argument asserted that Christians, being monotheists, could not emulate the easy acceptance of other deities that characterized a polytheist system, and so were intolerant and oppressive, thereby coercing conversion out of fear. This view can be traced through the scholarship of the two centuries that came after him.[549] Drake asserts that the intolerance argument is incomplete. It can't explain why "tolerant" pagans persecuted "intolerant" Christians.[550] It doesn't explain why Christians worried about the validity of coerced faith and resisted such aggressive actions for centuries.[550]

In the fourth century, a council of Spanish Bishops meeting in Elvira on the coast of Spain, determined that Christians who died in attacks on idol temples should not be received as martyrs. They took this stand, the bishops wrote, because "such actions [of intolerance] cannot be found in the Gospels, nor were they ever undertaken by the Apostles." Drake suggests this stands as testimony to the tradition in early Christianity which favored, was conducive to, and operated toward peace, moderation, and conciliation, a tradition that held true belief could not be compelled for the simple reason that God could tell the difference between voluntary and coerced worship.[551]

Drake says intolerance in the later centuries of the empire cannot be considered solely a religious issue. Instead, he asserts intolerance was a political response to what, today, would be labeled "national security" issues.[552] This is defined as any threat to core community values with particular regard to behaviors that appear to threaten the security of that community.[553] Because religion plays a role in shaping community identity, religious values frequently become the means of defining such boundaries.[553] Scholars of antiquity have increasingly turned to theories of identity formation and boundary maintenance to explain the increase in intolerance in the fifth century and beyond.[554]