It's been said the official Roman state religion was too elitist and detached to have ever been truly loved by the average Roman. Which is why the "lower classes" ended up becoming intrigued with various mystery cults and eventually Christianity's rapid spread with its populist messages of salvation for all regardless of where people found themselves in societies hierarchy.
Could a commoners "people's religion" have spread throughout Ancient Rome prior to Christianity?
- Thread starter Malone
- Start date
I think so, both Stoicism(greek) and Buddhism(eastern) existed by then
Heck Sun worship would probably have taken over the lower classes if Aristonicus succeeded
Other forms of Judaism could probably have done so before Christianity if they same "modifications" as Christianity(lack of circuncision and no-eating pork as requirement, openness to gentile converts)
Heck Sun worship would probably have taken over the lower classes if Aristonicus succeeded
Other forms of Judaism could probably have done so before Christianity if they same "modifications" as Christianity(lack of circuncision and no-eating pork as requirement, openness to gentile converts)
I've said this many times but I guess once more doesn't hurt, there is actually very little empirical proof that Christianity spread that much before Constantine, the usual """estimates"""(read, baseless assumptions that are built by a rather simplicistic mathematical model) are around 5-10% but when you get down to the empirical data it seems like the percentages is less than that and that a fairly sizeable % of the Christian community likely was ex-Jewish in origins until the 3rd century CE.
This is false. First there is the assumption of a dichotomy that doesn't bear out to the reality of the religious experience of the Romans. The state festivals were looked forward to. Just as how today people might look forward to the whole winter season, people looked forward to Saturnalia. People liked the public sacrifices, it was a time when they got meat which as a poor person was often the only time.
But even beyond that, one should understand that it is the Domestic Hearth cult that is the center of Roman Religion. Regardless if one was a craftsman or one was one of the elite, it was this worship not the public festivities that was the center. Giving offerings to the Lares, Penates, Vesta and other Gods and Goddesses that made up one's household worship. Sure how elaborate your family alter would greatly depend on your status, but this cultus was the center of spirituality.
Also as they were brought up, Mystery Cults with few exceptions, most were integrated into society. As the Roman's religious view was not-exclusive. That meant one could attend say a mystery cult to Isis or the Elusian mysteries while engaging with the rest of roman religion.
The fact that it took centuries to convert people, and that was with the full force of the Roman Imperial State behind the Church, shows that the idea that they were just waiting for Christianity to show up and didn't care for their own religious tradition to be false.
Yea this.
Its easy to be good when you have the full force of an imperial state at your back to use to convert people. and there were many levers that the imperial state had at its beck and call. It was the Roman State and its power that was good at converting people.
Sure, but didnt Constantine just legalize Christianity tho?
It wouldnt convert the whole Empire if that was all he did, right? Otherwise we'd be buying into christian excepcionalism
For what I know it was the likes of Theodosius who employed the state on a massive scale to impose conversion on the romans, much later than Constantine
And if we assume persecution = successful conversion then Christianity wouldnt have spread at all, even if you say the persecutions were massively exaggerated and we just counted Nero for example, a small cult such as Christianity should easily have ceased to exist if it the "full might of the roman state" could replace paganism with Christianity just because someone like Constantine used it
Because lets be real Nero certainly disliked christians more than Constantine disliked pagans, he was one for most of his life
Again, that would only endorse christian exceptionalism
Want a theory that doesnt treat paganism as a religion doomed to be replaced by Christianity because "its sooo special"?
Okay, here's one
Christianity's popularity predated Constantine
It wasnt more popular than paganism, not by a long shoot and certainly not over the whole Empire, but it was particularly strong in the East(Armenia, Judea, some of Greece) so it only made sense for Constantine who planned to estabilish his powerbase in the East(Nova Roma/Constantinopolis and all) to legalize the eastern religion and adopt it as his personal one to gain support from said christians, who later would use this endorsement and the "power of the roman state" to impose it on the whole Empire
So is Christianity special? Perhaps, in some ways, cool afterlife and Jesus that did make it popular, including with the aforementioned lower classes
The same way you could claim Helle nism was special for all the reasons you mentioned
After all it remained popular after Constantine for quite some time, heck there are recorded hellenic individuals from the byzantine era! And things like Saturnalia were indeed popular with the people
So...what, was Christianity so exceptional to the point Constantine could wipe other religions out of the map by himself to make room for it? No
Nor was it so inferior to paganism that it had no following outside of Judea, I mean Im fairly certain you dont think it was so exceptional that Constantine would pick a random judean religion without any influence and dedicate his life alongside every Emperor after him(except Julian) to wipe out paganism, because otherwise we might as well say that the Chi Rho miracle really happened and Christianity was really that exceptional to magically convert an Emperor together with all his family(except, again, Julian for some reason) into devout, zealot followers who crush paganism...despite having no following outside of Judea...
But yeah no I dont think that lowly of Hellenism
So my point is
Christianity was a fairly popular religion, probably not the biggest one, but particularly popular in the East and a very enduring one considering all it went through, quite impressive
Constantine made it legal because it benefited his plans of centralizing the Empire into said East, then his successors who were much more zealot-y than him persecuted the pagans and led to that little tiny detail that was the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, which is where Hellenism was the most popular
Then said christian East survived, great part thanks to Constantine's dynasty creating a quasi-invincible capital in there, and the West was taken over by christian churches
But even then paganism for all the persecution it endured still survived in intelectual circles for many centuries afterwards, quite impressive as well
However if my interpretation of the events is not good enough for you, and I'll admit I have reeeeeally little evidence to back it up, well we can always go with Great Man Theory! After all we know Dovahhaty was right about everything.
What are the actual contemporary sources? Because I found this prior:
The Early Christianization of Armenia
The Christianization of Armenia began with the work of Syrian apostles from the 1st century CE and was boosted in the early 4th century CE by such figures as Saint Gregory the Illuminator, who converted...
www.worldhistory.org
"That is the legend of how Armenia became a Christian state. Modern historians, though, prefer a more organic process of acceptance and conversion occurring in different places at different times. They also prefer the more secure date of around 314 CE of Armenian's official adoption of Christianity. This followed the Roman emperor Constantine I's Edict of Milan in 313 CE which legalised Christianity in the Roman Empire of which Armenia was a province. It seems probable that Christianity actually entered Armenia by two separate but more or less contemporary routes, thus explaining the conflicting accounts in ancient historical records."
What I find conscipicuous is how the Armenian conversion and the Diocletian persecution seem to have happen in 2 different universes which seems weird to me, surely the Romans must have noticed what was happening in Armenia and surely the traditional accounts of the early Christian history would reference the mass persecution in the Roman empire. As far as I can see that isn't the case though.
In fact it might very well be that Armenia sucked up to Rome so much that they shifted from persecution to adopting Christianity around 314 exactly because of that, arguably something similar is seen in Ethiopia where the same king that called himself "Son of Mars" adopted Christianity down the line.
From what I understand, having the state support Christianity financially/as far as it being the religion of the Emperor - and the pagans not having the state's financial support/organizational support - certainly was a factor here. Not so much "the Empire was able to force-convert everyone because force." alone, but definitely Christianity post-Constantine having advantages in sticking and being in a position to catch on.
Yeah that makes more sense
I remember seeing the Majorian channel commenting how the byzies kept financing churches everywhere while leaving the temples in a state of full decay where they would loot the ruins to make more buildings
I remember reading somewhere that part of the reason for Christianity's popularity amongst segments of the lower classes was its charitable activities, which were more effective and generous than the pagan equivalent. And that was under pagan emperors, as I recall, not when the state apparatus was contributing. But as I can't remember the source off the top of my head, I suggest verifying!
Most of those claims and estimates come from Rodney Stark, but they are virtually a circular arguments, Stark assumes certain high figures for the number of Christians and then tries to explain them using those arguments and those argument are themselves "proven" by the supposed high number of Christians.
Anyway clearly the Romans knew what charity was(euergetism) and even had organized welfare with the grain dole.
I'd say Buddhism could be an option.
Certain records among some Roman citizens hint at a Buddhist presence in the 2nd century AD and we also have the Roman historical accounts describing an embassy sent by the Indian king Porus to Caesar Augustus; though exactly when is unclear but apparently somewhere 22 BC and 13 AD. One of its members burned himself alive in Athens to demonstrate his faith which was described as causing a by Nicolaus of Damascus.
So let's say that sensation holds, at least with a handful of intrigued elites, philosophers, or even just merchants who want an easy in with the Eastern Trade networks that might make things smoother for them and thus the faith gets a certain amount of support, be it by the state or merchant classes, maybe enough to set up a small temple or encourage more missions to spread the teachings.
Even if this protection/support is eventually withdrawn, so long as the ball got rolling sufficiently through one means or another, it could easily follow the same general path as Christianity, possibly more easily given is not as exclusionist and can also be interpreted just as a philosophy, not a religion (Though it is). Plus, just like Christianity its anti war and any other inconvenient ideals can easily be cut out, ignored or rewritten when/if it gets adopted as the state religion.
Certain records among some Roman citizens hint at a Buddhist presence in the 2nd century AD and we also have the Roman historical accounts describing an embassy sent by the Indian king Porus to Caesar Augustus; though exactly when is unclear but apparently somewhere 22 BC and 13 AD. One of its members burned himself alive in Athens to demonstrate his faith which was described as causing a by Nicolaus of Damascus.
So let's say that sensation holds, at least with a handful of intrigued elites, philosophers, or even just merchants who want an easy in with the Eastern Trade networks that might make things smoother for them and thus the faith gets a certain amount of support, be it by the state or merchant classes, maybe enough to set up a small temple or encourage more missions to spread the teachings.
Even if this protection/support is eventually withdrawn, so long as the ball got rolling sufficiently through one means or another, it could easily follow the same general path as Christianity, possibly more easily given is not as exclusionist and can also be interpreted just as a philosophy, not a religion (Though it is). Plus, just like Christianity its anti war and any other inconvenient ideals can easily be cut out, ignored or rewritten when/if it gets adopted as the state religion.
Yea it was things like this. There also was the stuff like that to get government jobs especially higher up then it was required to become a Christian. There are a lot of tools behind just going "you must be Christian." Another for example was when the Roman State either looked away at the local persecutions of the various non-Christians, or actively supported it - all without officially demanding one be Christian.
If I recall correctly, Julian the apostate made the claim that Christian charity was a contributing factor to its popularity, in a letter to one of his governors i believe, where he said they took care of their own poor but also pagan poor people as well. Julian's works show what he thought were the causes of the christian success, moral fortitude, specifically clerical, when he issued an edict setting the standard for his refounded pagan priesthood, and charity open to all.
I've always been a fan of a not so hostile takeover of the Roman faith by the various mystery cults - after all, Jupiter/Zeus got where he was by dethroning his predecessor.
Maybe, during the Crisis of the Third Century, a charismatic outcast (a former slave, or a woman) pops up, claiming that the current imperial crisis is but a mirror of a theomachy in the heavens, featuring some of the Olympians against other Olympians (especially Demeter) and against deities from outside the Greco-Roman pantheon but still well known to the average Athenian or Roman (especially Isis), with a theology drawing equally from established domestic worship and from the messianic/salvific elements of the mysteries, with some egalitarianism and universalism sprinkled on top.
This figure carves up a small domain somewhere in the Empire, whose radical reforms (abolition of slavery, gender equality, etc.) and callbacks to tradition (slavery and the latifundia are blamed for the end of the idealized Roman soldier-peasant, a republican form of government heavy on popular assemblies is reestablished) are successful enough they end up taking over the Empire as a whole, with their reformed Roman polytheism, seemingly revolutionary but actually steeped in Hellenistic universalism and philosophy, taking the place of Constantine.
Maybe, during the Crisis of the Third Century, a charismatic outcast (a former slave, or a woman) pops up, claiming that the current imperial crisis is but a mirror of a theomachy in the heavens, featuring some of the Olympians against other Olympians (especially Demeter) and against deities from outside the Greco-Roman pantheon but still well known to the average Athenian or Roman (especially Isis), with a theology drawing equally from established domestic worship and from the messianic/salvific elements of the mysteries, with some egalitarianism and universalism sprinkled on top.
This figure carves up a small domain somewhere in the Empire, whose radical reforms (abolition of slavery, gender equality, etc.) and callbacks to tradition (slavery and the latifundia are blamed for the end of the idealized Roman soldier-peasant, a republican form of government heavy on popular assemblies is reestablished) are successful enough they end up taking over the Empire as a whole, with their reformed Roman polytheism, seemingly revolutionary but actually steeped in Hellenistic universalism and philosophy, taking the place of Constantine.
twovultures
Donor
Christianity was growing rapidly before Constantine. I think what he should get credit for is using the power of the state to keep Christianity unified; without the council of Nicea and the official establishment of proto-orthodoxy as the dominant strain of the religion, Christianity could have self-destructed with Arians, Donatists, and proto-Orthodox all fracturing apart and turning their efforts from converting pagans to converting each other, stopping the growth of Christianity right before it became a majority religion. I think this scenario, which would flow from another 2-3 generations of Christianity being intermittently persecuted and tolerated instead of gaining imperial favor, is probably more likely than the 'reformed paganism' scenarios for a continuing pagan Roman empire.