AHC: Christianity doesn't become Rome's state religion?

[tus3]

assuming a grown rate around the lds churches 19th century growth rate

But the growth rate of LDS slowed down before the Mormons where with enough to take over the US.

Anyway if I'm not mistaken Skellagrim had claimed in a previous discussion that all that would be needed to prevent Christianity from taking over the empire would be to turn Constantine the Great into 'Constantine the failure', so everybody will go 'let's just not have a Christian emperor ever again'.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

But the growth rate of LDS slowed down before the Mormons where with enough to take over the US.

the Mormons ran into somethings that the early Christians didn't have to worry about, effective competition.
roman paganism was extremely weak by the 4th century, and this created a void in spirituality of the empire that Christianity could fill in ways no other type of religion could.

Anyway if I'm not mistaken Skellagrim had claimed in a previous discussion that all that would be needed to prevent Christianity from taking over the empire would be to turn Constantine the Great into 'Constantine the failure', so everybody will go 'let's just not have a Christian emperor ever

pinning the rise of Christianity on Constantine is the wrong way of approaching the matter. instead look at like this; Christianity rose to the point where Constantine could embrace it and Christianity would have continued to rise as roman paganism continued to fall.
now you can argue that growth would slow as time went by, but that doesn't change the fact that Christianity was very attractive to the people of Rome.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

pinning the rise of Christianity on Constantine is the wrong way of approaching the matter. instead look at like this; Christianity rose to the point where Constantine could embrace it and Christianity would have continued to rise as roman paganism continued to fall.

This doesn't really follow. An emperor embracing a particular religion is not evidence that religion was destined to succeed.

EDIT: This sense of Christianity's inevitable domination is misguided. At most it was 5-10% of the population at the time of Constantine's conversion, and very possibly lower than that. Most of that growth had likely occurred in the 3rd century, but the turmoil, chaos, disruption and general uncertainty of the 3rd century had mostly passed, and things had mostly stabilized. It's not at all certain that whatever growth patterns Christianity experienced in that environment would carry on to the more stable political and social environment of the 4th century. Roman paganism had also changed significantly in that time, as the whole Aurelian Cult of Sol Invictus, based on its own eastern religion, the worship of the Emesene Elegabal, demonstrates. Non-Christian Roman religion was a bit more adaptive and resilient than people often give it credit for-and would particularly be so in an environment where its temples aren't starved of funding and the elite aren't heavily incentivize to convert to an exclusivist religion.

 

[Citrakayah]

the Mormons ran into somethings that the early Christians didn't have to worry about, effective competition.
roman paganism was extremely weak by the 4th century, and this created a void in spirituality of the empire that Christianity could fill in ways no other type of religion could.

If Christianity didn't have to worry about effective competition, they would not be bloodily suppressing paganism. It should also be noted that not all paganism in the Roman Empire is Roman, and that all other religious aren't going to sit around twiddling their thumbs while Christianity tries to compete with it. The chances that at least one won't reform to deal with the threat is small--but that reformation isn't necessarily going to look anything like Christianity.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

An emperor embracing a particular religion is not evidence that religion was destined to succeed.

that's more or less my point; Christianity didn't grow in the 4th century because of Constantine, but because ordinary people made an educated choice to join. if anything Constantine's conversion hurt Christianity

Non-Christian Roman religion was a bit more adaptive and resilient than people often give it credit for-and would particularly be so in an environment where its temples aren't starved of funding and the elite aren't heavily incentivize to convert to an exclusivist religion.

Rome was on the edge of a demographic collapse. they were not having enough children to sustain their population from the normal attrition of life let alone wars, plagues, fires, earthquakes, etc. the pagan temples were already hurting because the roman elite was dying off.

If Christianity didn't have to worry about effective competition, they would not be bloodily suppressing paganism. It should also be noted that not all paganism in the Roman Empire is Roman, and that all other religious aren't going to sit around twiddling their thumbs while Christianity tries to compete with it. The chances that at least one won't reform to deal with the threat is small--but that reformation isn't necessarily going to look anything like Christianity.

Christianity was so different from anything that came before that it was alien to paganism. Julian the Apostate tried to reform paganism, spoiler alert, he failed

 

[Mikestone8]

If Christianity didn't
have to worry about effective competition, they would not be bloodily suppressing paganism.

Were they? Removing the Altar of Victory from the Senate House may have been illiberal, but not particularly bloody.

I'd always understood that Theodosius' decree was aimed mainly at Christian heretics (who really *were* a problem) and that pagans were at most a secondary target.

 

[Citrakayah]

Christianity was so different from anything that came before that it was alien to paganism. Julian the Apostate tried to reform paganism, spoiler alert, he failed

Oh, sure, paganism was dead in the water. That's why Christians kept having to spread it by sword point.

Look, the real question here shouldn't just be about Roman paganism. It should be about Germanic paganism. And Canaanite paganism. And Mesopotamian paganism (which was a thing into the Islamic era). And Celtic paganism. And Slavic paganism. And Egyptian paganism (it was down, but it wasn't out).

If Christianity can't hijack the state of Rome, they have no hegemonic power to suppress all these other paganisms and they are not associated with the Roman Empire, and so they will spread slower. This matters a lot because it only requires one of those paganisms to be capable of reforming to stand up to Christianity to permanently change the balance of power in Europe. When Rome falls, the dominant powers in the region may very well no longer all be Christian.

Julian ruled for two years after Roman emperors had been embracing Christianity for sixty years. Of course his impact was minimal. That doesn't mean that, if you have no Roman emperors embrace Christianity and Christianity can't use state power to promote itself and suppress rival religions, similar reformers would have a much greater impact (especially if they're in power for more than two years).

EDIT: Please also don't ask me to sit through a long YouTube video produced by a frigging church to analyze your argument.

I'd always understood that Theodosius' decree was aimed mainly at Christian heretics (who really *were* a problem) and that pagans were at most a seconddary target.

Looks to me like he was going after both. Anyway, I'm not just talking about the emperors.

 

[Kerney]

But the growth rate of LDS slowed down before the Mormons where with enough to take over the US.

Anyway if I'm not mistaken Skellagrim had claimed in a previous discussion that all that would be needed to prevent Christianity from taking over the empire would be to turn Constantine the Great into 'Constantine the failure', so everybody will go 'let's just not have a Christian emperor ever again'.

That would be me. That has to do with the Roman (and Pagan in general) views on religion. A good leader has divine sanction and therefore what he doing was pleasing to the gods or god, therefore the empire was prospering. If it stops working it's time to try something else, much like changing military tactics when your loosing.

That's why when Julian tried to refurbish oracles, the pagans weren't enthusiastic. Oracle at Delphi said it was closed and wouldn't work anymore, it wouldn't. Severids had a patron cult to Jupiter-something or other that was popular in 200 but abandoned in 250 when the dynasty was done.

Christianity if it worked was a good 'military tactic' under a successful Emperor. If it didn't work, it's an embarrassing failed attempt to placate the divine.

The faith short-circuited the tradition of seeing it as your responsibility to abandon a losing tactic because your personal salvation was at risk. That's what it was able to do for most of the 4th century and the Grandkids thought it was the new way or "be Christian or be Damned" was what it had always been.

EDIT: Please also don't ask me to sit through a long YouTube video produced by a frigging church to analyze your argument.

I think this is why these debates are fractious. One side, the ones skeptical of Christian exceptionalism are looking at and trying to understand history as it was, while many on the other side (I think factually) are listening to something very much like a 'lost cause' narrative only on a winning cause which says, 'Paganism was dying, Christianity was superior under all circumstances and would naturally win under all circumstances.

This is the equivalent of all Southerners were smarter, chivalrous, and manly, and the unpleasantness certainly wasn't over slavery, which wasn't that bad anyway.

And I don't think they bring it in bad faith, but it is a bad faith argument.

It allows Christians to ignore/justify that Classical worship continued into the 9th century. It can ignore the attacks on temples, the murders of righteous pagans like Hypatia. It can excuse and whitewash later events like the Massacre of Verdun. Sure they can point to 'Peaceful conversions', but other than Ireland, there was a sword ready if you didn't peacefully convert.

The idea that Christianity was just better and once people understood it they sensibly converted is just like the Lost Cause argument that allowed Ex Confederates and their descendants to ignore the rights of black people and that the way things are are just swell.

It doesn't matter that it's being given in good faith by people who believe it.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Rome was on the edge of a demographic collapse. they were not having enough children to sustain their population from the normal attrition of life let alone wars, plagues, fires, earthquakes, etc. the pagan temples were already hurting because the roman elite was dying off.

I am definitely going to put up a massive "citation needed" sign for this one. Rome did have a manpower crisis, but this is not equal to a massive demographic collapse, and it certainly does not mean the Roman elite was dying off. The Roman bureaucracy in the 4th century was absolutely massive, bigger than it had ever been at any point. There was a problem in that, with local elites being co-opted into a national bureaucracy, there may have been less local investment by those elites (though I'm not sure what the extent that was) but there was no serious problem with not enough elites.

That said, again, starving pagan temples of state funding was a deliberate strategy from of the empire from the time of Constantine onward. It wasn't just some coincidental timing from elite demographic collapse. The elite were becoming Christian. Some of the elite were becoming clergy.

Christianity was so different from anything that came before that it was alien to paganism. Julian the Apostate tried to reform paganism, spoiler alert, he failed

Julian The Apostate was Augustus for 2 years. You can debate how successful/unsuccessful he would have been had he lived a full life and reign, but his strategies were very explicitly long-term. Of course they failed when he had only literally just begun when he died.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Were they? Removing the Altar of Victory from the Senate House may have been illiberal, but not particularly bloody.

I'd always understood that Theodosius' decree was aimed mainly at Christian heretics (who really *were* a problem) and that pagans were at most a seconddary target.

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Most of these acts are admittedly not violent, but the Roman state from the conversion of Constantine onward (with the brief exception of Julian) was actively engaged in suppressing and to some extent persecuting paganism at almost every level.

 

[Citrakayah]

And it's worth noting that even things that weren't explicitly violent (like passing laws that forbid sacrifices) required the threat of violence. Perhaps "bloody" isn't the right word, but I think if the government threatened to kill anyone who confessed to a priest, it would be considered violent. Sure, it might not have been enforced, but the threat alone speaks volumes.

 

[kholieken]

One side, the ones skeptical of Christian exceptionalism are looking at and trying to understand history as it was, while many on the other side (I think factually) are listening to something very much like a 'lost cause' narrative only on a winning cause which says, 'Paganism was dying, Christianity was superior under all circumstances and would naturally win under all circumstances.

This is the equivalent of all Southerners were smarter, chivalrous, and manly, and the unpleasantness certainly wasn't over slavery, which wasn't that bad anyway.

And I don't think they bring it in bad faith, but it is a bad faith argument.

It allows Christians to ignore/justify that Classical worship continued into the 9th century. It can ignore the attacks on temples, the murders of righteous pagans like Hypatia. It can excuse and whitewash later events like the Massacre of Verdun. Sure they can point to 'Peaceful conversions', but other than Ireland, there was a sword ready if you didn't peacefully convert.

The idea that Christianity was just better and once people understood it they sensibly converted is just like the Lost Cause argument that allowed Ex Confederates and their descendants to ignore the rights of black people and that the way things are are just swell.

It doesn't matter that it's being given in good faith by people who believe it.

Comparing those who believe that Christianity as "effective religion" is equal to "Lost Cause" is unjustified and bad faith arguments.

Religion regularly raise and fall. Christianity in 3rd century. Mormonism and Ahmadiyah in 18th century. There no need to believe in any "specialness" of Christianity.

By Luck alone, eventually one of "imperial" religion would gain advantage in Roman Empire and become majority. localized pagan faith had crumble under trade and movement of people. Jews, God-fearer, Mystery Religion, Isis Worship, Great Mother, Mithra, and Christianity spreading among urban middle class and poor in Cities.

Christianity effective network of Charity, spread among woman and slaves, acceptance of Bishop which give organization and recruit upper class, its sophisticated theology, and widespread literature (mainly by hijacking Jewish text), etc all give advantage in marketplace of religion.

it didn't have to recruit too much people, 3% of Roman population is enough to be substantial faith in cities and ensure Imperial tolerance and rather acceptance.

Imperial support and persecution of enemies is only needed to complete conversion of pagan and rival faith that already minority in Christian cities.

Buddhism in China perform same feat : first, foreign faith second, minority faith that strong enough to survive persecution third, dominant faith that gain support of government and upper class.

 

[Kerney]

Comparing those who believe that Christianity as "effective religion" is equal to "Lost Cause" is unjustified and bad faith arguments.

No, both the Lost Cause and this line of historiography that justify the rightness of their cause and minimize what is wrong. Note this is not all Christians, but it exists and is very similar using similar tactics and one that I see often on these forums. But note, these are not people who orignated a "Lost Cause" narrative but have been fed one. That is a distinct difference.

Religion regularly raise and fall. Christianity in 3rd century. Mormonism and Ahmadiyah in 18th century. There no need to believe in any "specialness" of Christianity.

The pattern before monotheism is religions rising but not violently replacing the other. We see that in China and India historically.

By Luck alone, eventually one of "imperial" religion would gain advantage in Roman Empire and become majority.

One might have.

localized pagan faith had crumble under trade and movement of people. Jews, God-fearer, Mystery Religion, Isis Worship, Great Mother, Mithra, and Christianity spreading among urban middle class and poor in Cities.

No, it was still the majority religion in the 300's and would still exist in some areas for centuries. There is no evidence localized pagan faith had crumbled. The thing is you could be an Isis worshiperor a Mithra worshiper and still go to the local festival of the localized Pagan faith.

Imperial support and persecution of enemies is only needed to complete conversion of pagan and rival faith that already minority in Christian cities.

Then how come it never became a majority anywhere before it gained Imperial Support? There were no Christian cities.

Buddhism in China perform same feat : first, foreign faith second, minority faith that strong enough to survive persecution third, dominant faith that gain support of government and upper class.

Buddhists did not murder their competition and then try to minimize it. They do sometimes get supplanted by Confucianists (almost wrote Confusionists, which would be a cool religion) and Hindus, depend on where.

I am leaving this argument. We could argue back and forth, but I think we would get nowhere.

 

[piratedude]

What are the chances that the cult of isis could become just as dominant as Christianity?
I've admittedly only some passing knowledge of it but from what i can gather it was wildly popular, widespread, and easily assimilated local deities into its framework.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

What are the chances that the cult of isis could become just as dominant as Christianity?
I've admittedly only some passing knowledge of it but from what i can gather it was wildly popular, widespread, and easily assimilated local deities into its framework.

Yeah I'm also impressed by the isaics similarity to Brahmanical hinduism, and whether or not you think that tradition has moral worth its certainly incredibly resilient.

In both traditions, priests were required to have ritual purity and I get the impression that the ideology that isaic priests couldn't become military bureaucratic officials that might usurp an emperor.

In both traditions, there's a startling diversity of philosophy, so everyone can find something that speaks for them, and around this point in history old traditions aren't rejected but are decidedly sidelined by a deity that claims supremacy and pantocratic power.

It even did feature in several emperor's personal self portrayal iirc, so the question is why didn't that structure survive?

 

[piratedude]

Yeah I'm also impressed by the isaics similarity to Brahmanical hinduism, and whether or not you think that tradition has moral worth its certainly incredibly resilient.

In both traditions, priests were required to have ritual purity and I get the impression that the ideology that isaic priests couldn't become military bureaucratic officials that might usurp an emperor.

In both traditions, there's a startling diversity of philosophy, so everyone can find something that speaks for them, and around this point in history old traditions aren't rejected but are decidedly sidelined by a deity that claims supremacy and pantocratic power.

There is actually a closer hindu parallel in the shaktist sect

Shaktism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

There is actually a closer hindu parallel in the shaktist sect

Shaktism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Well no that by and large is included in Brahmanical hinduism- Shakti worship never really rejected that tradition in the way that some Vaishnavas managed to do in the early modern era.

 

[Mikestone8]

We've had a lot of argument about how much of the general popularion was Christian in 312, but do we know how much of the*army* was?

On the face of things, one would expect it to be lower tan in the civil population, and soldiers tended to be of peasant (esp Illyrian) stock raher than townies. And their attitude could be cruciial, since if the religious policies Of Constantine (or any Emperor) offended them, they could kill him any time and elevate sommeone else. Is there any evidence of Constantine running into any particular opposition among his soldiers?

 

[SlyDessertFox]

. Is there any evidence of Constantine running into any particular opposition among his soldiers?

I doubt it. The army was essentially a melting pot of various religious faiths and cults, and in any case adorning your armor with religious iconography to win the protection of a deity for a decisive battle, while not exactly common wasn't really unheard of (and the concept behind it was common). And more importantly, Constantine won. For many, that was enough. He was under the protection of the Christian god, and the Christian god won the battle for him.

We've had a lot of argument about how much of the general popularion was Christian in 312, but do we know how much of the*army* was?

I'm not sure, but Christians found serving in the army distasteful for a number of reasons (including the melting pot of religious beliefs and observances I mentioned above). To quote Tertullian on whether Christians should serve in the army:

I think we must first inquire whether military service is proper at all for Christians….Shall it be held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword? …Shall he carry a flag, too, hostile to Christ? And shall he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from God?…Then how many other offences there are involved in the performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a transgression of God’s law, you may see by a slight survey.

That said, there were Christians in the army at least by the start of the 3rd century, and on into the great persecutions of Diocletian-Diocletian also ordered a purge of Christians in the army (at least those who did not perform sacrifices), so however many there were at his time, there were likely a fair amount fewer by the time Constsantine rolls around. However on the whole I would imagine the percentage of the army that was Christian was likely quite a bit less than the percentage of the general population, and perhaps substantially so.

 

[Silver01]

Also if supposedly the persecutions couldn't work because "there were too many Christians"

Wasn't this exactly one of the reasons why galerius stoped the persecution
I mean by a lot of sources he was a devout pagan and the main instigator for the great persecution and ordered that said persecution was to be with harsh punishment but he was also the one to end it
Because in part he believed that the persecution had left Christianity in it's last stand when it was not the case