Syncretized Roman Christianity in the Late Principate/Early Dominate

[Sierra]

In the Late Roman period, Christianity was a fast growing force, the rough number of Christian converts increasing at exponetial rates from its rough founding during the reign of Tiberius until Christians were the majority in or around 350 AD. At the same time, as has been well hashed out, here was great discord between the Christians and the various varieties of non-Christians who practiced a variety of mystery cults, henotheistic faiths, or the long established Helleno-Roman traditional religion. Persecutions of Christians and purges of converts from public offices became common, if disorganized, over the second half of the 3rd Century. Later on, Julian tried to resurrect the old Roman religion, but was almost certainly foredoomed to failure due to his inaccurate understanding of how Roman religion worked on an organizational level, (attempting to impose Christian-like order on the chaotic pagan religious scene), as well as the already nearly dominant social power of the Christians.As a result, the old Roman ways were either subsumed by the new Christian church as part of its ritual and hierarchic nature, or else vanished form society.

However, I wonder if sufficient Imperial meddling could not have resulted in a Christianity somewhat more in touch with Roman religion than we have today, and removed more from Judaism. Could an emperor with a philisophical bent, or looking for a unifying religious ideology, have welded aspects of Roman religion to Christanity? Whether the emperor in question is an alternate history emperor such as Commodus's dead twin Fulvus, or a figure like Aurelian or Constantine. In particular, the idea being that of tying the cult of Sol Invictus into it (though anything that increases the Romanization of Christianity would be good), and possibly elements such as genii, lares, and penates, sacrifices, and other such elements that would have made the transition to monotheism easier, and avoided the political persecutions altogether. I am not all that well versed in the philosophy and religious politics of Rome as I am in the economics or secular poltics, so I posit this query to the community.

 

[zazeron12]

One emperor arguably tried this(Sol Invictus cult)

And all it did was give Christianity its romanized aesthetic

the issue is that Christian in our timeline is already HEAVILY romanized(the pope’s title is literally pontifex Maximus)

to romanize it further would be hard

 

[piratedude]

but was almost certainly foredoomed to failure due to his inaccurate understanding of how Roman religion worked on an organizational level, (attempting to impose Christian-like order on the chaotic pagan religious scene)

It wasn't an "inaccurate" understanding of roman religion, it was an attempt to institutionalize the platonic understanding of the Greco-Roman religion in a way that was competitive with Christianity (which was, had been, and would continue playing around with platonic ideas for centuries)

Really, its not wholy inaccurate to think of early Christianity as just the most successful form of hellenized-apocolyptic Judaism

 

[piratedude]

the issue is that Christian in our timeline is already HEAVILY romanized(the pope’s title is literally pontifex Maximus)

Technically it isn't and has never been an official title of the pope, only ever informally since the renaissance

 

[piratedude]

Could an emperor with a philisophical bent, or looking for a unifying religious ideology, have welded aspects of Roman religion to Christanity? ... and possibly elements such as genii, lares, and penates

Thats essentially what the cult of saints were: an christian adaptation of Greco-Roman hero cults that filled in these roles

 

[FairlyUninformedGraduate]

Thats essentially what the cult of saints were: an christian adaptation of Greco-Roman hero cults that filled in these roles

Exactly this. Saints dont have much basis in the bare bones of christianity, but they do make sense as a substitute for a polytheistic faith. Really, Christianity was a form of expansionist Judaism that was co-opted, firs tb y Saul/Paul, a romanized government officer and Roman citizen who articulated it in a new way, then by the various early fathers via the Council of Nicea. by the 5th century I doubt most original followers of jesus would recognise the greek and latin speaking, golden icon making, rigidly hierarchical, saint worshipping, torah ignoring, pork eating, rome centred faith as anything even vaguely to do with a monotheistic poor jewish activist carpenter turned rabbi and faith healer.

 

[Evil Crusader]

A major bind is that the stresses that lead to the transition from the Principate to the Dominate work, I believe, against the AHC.
The tendency of the Dominate, after all, was to reinforce but one model and elevate it all above the others, in stark contrast to the more liberal approach that could be had during the Principate; I don't see why would religion escape this trend (and I believe the rivalry between Christianity, Mithraism, and the occasional pushback from the remaining Greco-Roman elites to be a proof of it).
As has been said, most of the underlying concepts of Nicaean Christianity ended up pretty deeply Romanized - they kept titles, the seat, even the administrative division (the diocese). And of course, Augustine's popular turn to Neo-Platonism was definitely not Judaizing (it must be noted that the 'Jewish party' had essentially lost the fight by the end of the 2nd century, with Jerusalem only keeping its exalted status due to theological relevance of the place itself, rather than on its strong clergy faction).

 

[Jeeves]

As has been said, most of the underlying concepts of Nicaean Christianity ended up pretty deeply Romanized - they kept titles, the seat, even the administrative division (the diocese). And of course, Augustine's popular turn to Neo-Platonism was definitely not Judaizing (it must be noted that the 'Jewish party' had essentially lost the fight by the end of the 2nd century, with Jerusalem only keeping its exalted status due to theological relevance of the place itself, rather than on its strong clergy faction).

Very true - I only have to point out that the modern usage of 'diocese' to mean a bishopric (and the establishment of titular bishops next to the diocesan bishops) differs from the late- and post-Roman concept. The civil diocese as the organizational layer between the provinces and the prefectures was not adopted by the church. Instead, a bishop came to head a civitas - in almost, but not quite all cases a city and its Hinterland - while the church provinces pretty much took over the secular organization, with the Metropolitan bishop as a counterpart to the secular governor. It was mostly them who controlled access to the Bishop of Rome as the (gradually established) highest authority, with the patriarchs never quite taking over a role equivalent to the prefects.

Also, during the fourth and fifth century there was quite a bit of conflict over the role of the bishop: whether to follow the ascetic model of, most prominently, a Martin of Tours or to essentially lead the same life any upper class Roman patronus would have been familiar with...

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Thats essentially what the cult of saints were: an christian adaptation of Greco-Roman hero cults that filled in these roles

Cult of saints?!
Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) don't worship saints. This is a pretty bad misinterpretation of basic Christian theology which many Christians would take offense to. There's a difference between veneration and worship.

When praying to a saint, its not as though one is praying to another deity, but instead asking for said person in heaven to intercede on your behalf through prayer. It's not much different than a Christian asking their priest to pray for them in a time of distress.

Christianity was a form of expansionist Judaism that was co-opted, firs tb y Saul/Paul, a romanized government officer and Roman citizen who articulated it in a new way,

St. Paul was someone who had regular contact with other Apostles like Peter who were alive during Jesus' time. There were other leading and prominent Christian figures who would have contested St. Paul's works if they didn't agree with it themselves.

I doubt most original followers of jesus would recognise the greek and latin speaking, golden icon making, rigidly hierarchical, saint worshipping, torah ignoring, pork eating, rome centred faith as anything even vaguely to do with a monotheistic poor jewish activist carpenter turned rabbi and faith healer.

Latin and Greek were widely spoken languages during Jesus' time. Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman east going back to the time of Alexander the Great who kicked off the Eastern Mediterranean's Hellenization.

As for Golden icons, they're literally images of various saints/religious figures. It's no different from beautifying a temple, or building statues for prominent religious figures/scenes as a form of artistic expression by the religion's adherents.

As for the reason why Christians abandoned Kosher dietary restrictions, it was because they saw such customs as obsolete and archaic as when Jesus came, he established a New Covenant with mankind (hence the New Testament). These debates were occurring in the times of the Early Christian Church where St. Peter and St. Paul (both of whom were contemporaries of each other) debated this issue. The two eventually developed an accord of this which was why Christianity moved towards become a distinct religion rather than a disparate sect of Judaism.

 

[piratedude]

Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) don't worship saints. This is a pretty bad misinterpretation of basic Christian theology which many Christians would take offense to. There's a difference between veneration and worship.

When praying to a saint, its not as though one is praying to another deity, but instead asking for said person in heaven to intercede on your behalf through prayer. It's not much different than a Christian asking their priest to pray for them in a time of distress.

...yes, i know, and this practice is called a cult in the original meaning of the term. It is not a term ment to imply that saints themselves are being worshiped

[/QUOTE]The veneration of saints, in Latin cultus, or the "cult of the Saints", describes a particular popular devotion or entrustment of one's self to a particular saint or group of saints. Although the term worship is sometimes used, it is only used with the older English connotation of honoring or respecting (dulia) a person.
[/QUOTE]