![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm glad to see that the actions of Constantine are no longer being whitewashed. It's important to report the historical facts as they are, not just the history that lets people feel good about themselves and their history. The people who write American History text books could learn a lot from this! -- Lucavix 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
the article needs serious re-organization. At present it reads like a random collection of trivia and anecdotes. After some general musings, we speak about Poland for some reason, then about Druids and the Goths, then back to the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Then we mention some Roman festivals, then some Celtic festivals, and again some Roman festivals. What this article needs is a clear layout of time and space. "Christianization" has been occurring for 2000 years, and it is continuing today. We need:
Yes, this is a lot of material. Which means Wikipedia:Summary style, we already have lots of sub-articles, like Constantine I and Christianity, Germanic Christianity, Anglo-Saxon mission, Hiberno-Scottish mission, Christianization of Bulgaria, Baptism of Poland, etc. I daresay all the material required is already on Wikipedia, it just needs to be ordered properly here. dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
euroheritage.net on the added map:
I added a History of European Christianization timeline, as commentary above requested. Being my first contribution to the site, I hope it will not be deemed inappropriate. If something is erroneous to you, please notify me for change.
Please do not remove large sections of the page without explaining your reasoning. Remember to use edit summaries. Isopropyl 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What was wrong with the "major dates of conversion" map? It looks okay. Isopropyl 00:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
From my experience a good half of the maps and charts throughout this site are drawn by the uploaders. It is whimsical to me why my map is an exception. If the clarity errors were fixed (which they have been now), placing this map in the article would turn it from a very marginal and poor article into a clear, historically-guided article. The map can be verified on every Wikipedia history page I checked under each nation's article, as I expected people to complain. Wikipedia demands "verifiabilty" not "truth" as the help sections even say. It is unreal why a historically-factual map (or as historical as this site can possibly be, usually dubious from my experience) cannot be used to help convey the content.
The clarity errors have been fixed based upon the issues informed to me. If there is another issue you see, let me fix it, then I will add it into the article for continuity.
Map of Major European Christianization Dates
The map template is from the United Nations, and as I read, it is for public use. Other charts and maps used throughout this site also use a template and superimpose historically legitimate information on top. As many people commented above, something like this is really needed for this article.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Unless otherwise noted, the maps included on this web site are produced by the Cartographic Section and are copyrighted by the United Nations. Reproduction of any part without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Reproduction of any part without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful.
I have changed the caption of the painting of the execution of a native American to indicate the Christianization of native Americans was "sometimes" a violent and coercive process. The previous statement that it was "mostly" violent and coercive is false. Roughly speaking, in some parts of Latin America, such as Mexico, Christianity was indeed imposed by violence, and Indians who resisted too openly were burned at the stake. However, generally speaking, in North America conversion was not imposed by violence or even coercion, and this is true of parts of Latin America as well. The history of the Christianization of the Americas is actually quite complex and varied. (By way of example, where I live the Carrier people actually sent a delegation in 1865 to demand a priest and converted voluntarily. This was by no means a unique event. Such requests were apparently often motivated by the belief that the priests controlled the devastating diseases that native shamans were unsuccessful in dealing with.) Bill ( talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I just say something? What the hell has been written in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.224.204 ( talk) 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
we should be careful with plastering this article with romantic paintings. It's okay to convey a notion of how Christanization was perceived in the 19th century, but it is misleading to use them as if they were illustrating the actual events. Thus, the caption of "a 19th-century representation of the 'docile heathen'", but adding the caption "the conversion of Native Americans was sometimes a violent and coercive process" to Image:Persecution of Native American religion.PNG is disingenious. If anything, parallel the first caption with "a 19th-century representation of Hispanic fanatical evangelism" or similar. -- dab (𒁳) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is severely POV-pushing the opposite. 68.110.8.21 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody (serious) disputes there were vast positive effects going along with Christianization. Abolition of "child sacrifice" still isn't a very good example of them. This is needlessly polemic. Human sacrifice in tribal societies is a rationalization of a sound anthropological impetus to kill. For the detached ethnologist, it is really much the same if people are killed for better harvest or because of heresy. Of course executions of heretics aren't commonly referred to as "human sacrifice", but that's just terminology. Benefits and drawbacks of Christianization are elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Especially the section on the cross which is bad historical POV. The cross as a symbol did exist in pre-Nicean Christianity, there are quite a few references to Christians making the sign of the cross. Tertullian (2nd-3rd century) said "we ware are foreheads out with the sign of the cross." This would hardly suggest that the cross "was not particularly associated with Christianity before the 4th century." And what do we base " Constantine I is widely considered to have introduced the symbol into Christianity" this statement on? Perhaps we might just add "Constantine made Jesus divine and invented Sunday worship" while we're at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.174.185 ( talk) 01:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a cursory glance at the part of this wiki describing the christianization of the Frankish Empire and it is immediately apparent that this section is entirely unreferenced, over simplistic and glaringly wrong. To surmise;
Bdubay ( talk) 02:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, please look at the revert Editor2020 did on me, and read the sentence segment, "whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them". It is ungrammatical and should be changed. To use "are" we need to apply the present progressive tense with the gerund "permitting". If we keep " permitted" as s/he reverted to, then "are" needs to be deleted. Mistakefinder ( talk) 06:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The term "Christianization" or "Christianize" is a also a colloquialism meaning to beat the stuffings out of people until they confess their error and adopt the correct (Christian) belief. As in " A come-to-Jesus" experience. Also adopted by Jews, as in: "Izzie got Christianized yesterday; he's still in hospital". Or today: "I Christianized the little brute. Won't be snatching any more purses".
2601:8:8280:9C8:C4AD:F02F:EFD7:6C11 ( talk) 21:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Christianization of Romania? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB ( talk) 02:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Christianization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://uhi.academia.edu/documents/0065/1378/Sanmark2004_OPIA34.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I went through and made sure we were using more consistent spelling. Previsouly we had a mix of both the 'ize' and 'ise' ways to spell such words. Being that the page title uses a 'z' and American English in general makes use of the 'z' rather than 's' in these words, I have taken the liberty of changing the spelling on the page. Feel free to revert it if its not acceptable, but it looks really odd seeing both spellings next to eachother, so I'd advise you pick one. Most of the other wikipedia articles make use of 'Christianised', so maybe that would've been better for Wikipedia consistency, but then the title of this page would need to change, and I have no idea how to do that. 71.120.201.39 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the title should be changed to Christianisation. 220.238.175.61 ( talk) 06:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone possibly antitheist appears to have made a bad faith edit in the lead claiming that Christianisation was tantamount to "genocide" in Old Prussia.
Un like the Soviet genocide or Reign of Terror perpetrated by antitheists/ communists/ anarchists/ other radical left ideologues, and while the Armenian genocide and Assyrian Genocide continue to be denied by "secular" Turkish "nationalists", there is no such thing as a Old Prussian Genocide there in wiki as of today. This is one of the reasons why Larry Sanger a wiki co-founder and an agnostic fled this website.
The wiki article on genocide itself states for an event in history to be called genocide it needs to confirmed as such by UN conventions
There's no doubt that Old Prussian pagans may have been oppressed and ethnically cleansed/ assimilated in pre-modern times by Christian zealots and bigots in the Dark Ages of the mediaeval Europe, but the "genocide" term often used for mass killings in the modern era only. Until someone can show that the UN recognises it as such, the "genocide" claim is probably just another anticlerical or fiberal polemics and rhetorics that's been grossly exaggerated. Nolicmahr ( talk) 06:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
For discussion: Special:Diff/1045367969 Nolicmahr ( talk) 06:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sehamahmadd. Peer reviewers:
Angelv03.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I am changing the first section's title, from early to ancient, but I am quite willing not to do so, if someone feels strongly about it. Ancient is technically the more correct term as far as modern scholarship goes, but since we are not bound by that, early also works. Taking the easiest path to an explanation, I chose the first sentence in the article
Ancient Rome here on WP. It reads thusly: In modern historiography, ancient Rome refers to Roman civilization from the founding of the city of Rome in the 8th century BC to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD. It encompasses the Roman Kingdom(753–509 BC), Roman Republic (509–27 BC) and Roman Empire (27 BC–476 AD) until the fall of the western empire.
Please, if anyone has a problem with this change, do say so. Thank you!
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 19:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
In an effort to remove the tag from this article, I am going to attempt to address its issues. I would like to begin by moving the introductory paragraph concerning the Interpretatio Christiana to its appropriate chronological location. As an introductory comment, it appears to describe all the eras that follow - including the centuries before it existed. It therefore reads like an agenda - something that this article is trying to prove - and is not NPOV. Syncretism also deserves a much longer and more detailed discussion. I would appreciate any and all comments. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 16:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Ancient (Ante-Nicaean) Christianity
Christianization began slowly, amidst opposition in the Roman Empire, in the province of Judaea, in the region of Palestine, around 30–40 AD. There is agreement among twenty-first century scholars that Christianization of the Roman Empire did not happen by imposition from rulers to the ruled in the centuries preceding Constantine (315). Instead, it was acquired by one person from another, through imitation, and learning what constituted Christian self-identification. [1] Christianization of the early Roman Empire was the cumulative result of multiple individual behaviors. [2] This emergence was 'self-organized', distributed away from any central authority, and was based on common causes. [3] Christianity reached critical mass, (when there were enough adopters for it to be self-sustaining and able to generate further growth), in the hundred years between 150 to 250 when it moved from less than 50,000 adherents to over a million. [4] [5] [6] [7] Scholars agree there was a significant rise thereafter in the absolute number of Christians in the third century. [8]
The Council of Jerusalem (around 50 AD) agreed the lack of circumcision could not be a basis for excluding Gentile believers from membership in the Jesus community. They instructed converts to avoid "pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood" ( KJV, Acts 15:20–21). [9] These were put into writing, distributed ( KJV Acts 16:4–5) by messengers present at the Council, and were received as an encouragement. [9]: 257 The Apostolic Decree helped to establish Ancient Christianity as unhindered by either ethnic or geographical ties. Christianity was experienced as a new start, and was open to 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 including those who might have lacked literacy. [10] Early Christian communities were highly inclusive in terms of social stratification and other social categories. [11]: 79 Heterogeneity characterized the groups formed by Paul the Apostle, and the role of women was much greater than in either of the forms of Judaism or paganism in existence at the time. [11]: 81 Early Christians were told to love others, even enemies, and Christians of all classes and sorts called each other " brother" and " sister". Recent research has shown it was the formal unconditional altruism of early Christianity that accounts for much of its otherwise surprising degree of success. [12]
Ante-Nicaean Christianity was also highly exclusive. [13] Believing was the crucial and defining characteristic that set a "high boundary" that strongly excluded the " unbeliever". [13] Keith Hopkins asserts: "It is this exclusivism, idealized or practiced, which marks Christianity off from most other religious groups in the ancient world". [14] In the eyes of many non-believers, Christianity was an unacceptable form of superstitio; its founder had been executed by Roman authority, it was seen as having fallen away from the faith of the Jews, and could, therefore, claim no legitimate authority. [15] In response, some second-century apologists took the approach of referring to Christians as another genos or race, with their own history, and legitimate religious practices. This 'third race' concept may have originated in accusations from outsiders such as Suetonius, (Nero 16.2.), who described Christians in a derogatory manner as ‘a genus of people' who held a 'new and mischievous superstitio’. [16] In the Epistle to Diognetus, an extant late second century letter to a Roman official, the anonymous author observes that early Christians functioned as if they were a separate "third race": a nation within a nation. The Christian apologist Tertullian in his ad nationes (1.8; cf. 1.20), mocked the accusation that ‘we are called a third race’, yet there is also ambivalence, since he takes some pride in the uniqueness it represents. [17] 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). [18] In Daniel Praet's view, the exclusivity of Christian monotheism formed an important part of its success, enabling it to maintain its independence in a society that syncretized religion. [19]
Christianization was not a one-way process. [20] There was instead a parallelism in the processes of Christianization in that Christianity absorbed indigenous elements just as indigenous religions absorbed aspects of Christianity. [21] Salzman has shown that, in the process of converting the Roman Empire's aristocracy, Christianity was also shaped by the values of that aristocracy. [22] Polytheism openly adopted aspects of the new religion transforming and adapting them to fit. [23] Several early Christian writers, including Justin (2nd century), Tertullian, and Origen (3rd century) wrote of Mithraists copying Christian beliefs. [24] The Neoplatonist movement began with Plotinus in mid–third century Egypt. [25] Christian thought had already been influenced by Plato through the church Fathers (see: Clement of Alexandria). By the fifth–century, "Neoplatonism had undergone a process of theologizing", and this evolution in Platonic thought was accompanied by an increased influence on Christianity. [26]
In 301, Armenia became the first kingdom in history to adopt Christianity as an official state religion. [27] The transformations taking place in these centuries of the Roman Empire had been slower to catch on in Caucasia. Indigenous writing did not begin till the fifth century, there was an absence of large cities, and many institutions such as monasticism did not exist in Caucasia until the seventh century. [28]
Scholarly consensus places the Christianization of the Armenian and Georgian elites in the first half of the fourth century, although Armenian tradition says Christianization began in the first century through the Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew. [29] This is said to have eventually led to the conversion of the Arsacid family, (the royal house of Armenia), through St. Gregory the Illuminator in the early fourth century. [29]
Scholars do not agree on the date, but most assert 337 as the year Mirian III of Iberia (present-day Georgia) adopted Christianity. [30] According to medieval Georgian narratives, Christianization there began with the Apostle Andrew the First-called and culminated in the evangelization of Iberia through the efforts of a captive woman known in Iberian tradition as "Nona" in the fourth century. [31] Fifth, 8th, and 12th century accounts of the conversion of Georgia reveal how pre-Christian practices were taken up and reinterpreted by Christian narrators. [32]
In 325, The Kingdom of Aksum (Modern Ethiopia and Eritrea) became the second country to declare Christianity as its official state religion.
References:
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the period in classical history that is more studied than any other, has more written about it, and contains more controversy than any other period. Combine that with it being foundational to everything that comes after it, and it will be easy to understand why this section will be the longest in the entire article. In an effort to shorten it a little, I have put current discussion of controversial material in notes and put the majority view in the text itself. There are 8 problematic and unsupported statements in the current version, 6 of which are in the text, but 2 of them seemed to have little to do with Christianization, so I simply left them out. If anyone objects they can be added back with current scholarship, but in my view, they don't justify the additional length. They are:
The Battle of Frigidus and pagan revival. Most contemporary scholars no longer think a pagan "revival" as such occurred, and see the story as "romantic myth". [1]: 2 and [2] : 78 Two "newly relevant texts – John Chrysostom's Homily 6, adversus Catharos (PG 63: 491–492) and the Consultationes Zacchei et Apollonii, re-dated to the 390s, reinforce the view that religion was not the key ideological element" in the Battle of the Frigidus. [3] p. 191.
Since it's been discounted it seemed appropriate to simply leave it out.
The second is the article's claim that By this time the Christian hierarchy had adopted classical education and culture as the marks of the civilized person, thus bringing the two social groups into alliance.
This is just a mistake. Those early Christians who were educated had all been classically educated as Romans. Scourfield, on page 3 of
[4] discusses Cameron's argument that "Roman culture was all the culture there was" as irrefutable. For educated pagans and educated Christians the classical texts used for educational purposes were the same texts. The new religion did not form outside Roman culture, it formed within it. Different it was in many ways, but its adherents and its organizational structures were products of the same world that produced those who opposed it.
But this has little to do with Christianization - that I can see - so I just left it out.
If anyone objects, yada yada.
I am posting part of the suggested replacement for Late Antiquity in the following section, separate from this, so it can be all discussed separately as needed. After that, I will follow with more on the Germanic peoples, and the Fifth century by itself, and that will close out Late Antiquity.
I intend to separate out the 6th-8th centuries from the next section, because that is when Ancient Christianity turned into medieval Christianity and changed because of Byzantine influence. The priorities and methods of Christianization changed pretty dramatically in that period.
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This next section is really long, but personally, I think it needs to be. Much of the stuff on Justinian could be put in a note, but it seems like it's important enough to be in the article itself. Please tell me if there are objections. Article content is always improved when it includes the differing perspectives of multiple editors. (I have shortened the specific country entries accordingly)
Don't worry about the red references, they are already in the bibliography of the article itself, and won't be red there.
This reads like an overspecific dementi. How narrow does one need to define terms to say that paganism, which in practice was outlawed everywhere and punished if found out, and those methods pushed by force, not forced conversion? And not to mention that you have to define "this era" to specifically end before the massive amounts of forced conversion that we know happened in the early medieval period. Should manipulative language like that really be on wikipedia? Atanar ( talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Since I have gotten almost no response to pre-posting material here, and since it makes it more difficult for me, I have now posted an under construction tag and will move to working directly in the article from now on. Any objections at any time can and should be brought here. Thank you Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I am currently out of town and inactive for a few days so please don’t remove the tag because nothing is happening. I will be back next week. I have opted to leave Serbia and Croatia as is because they are properly sourced. Will move on to sourcing next section next week. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 14:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I will be mostly gone from WP for the next two weeks. Happy holidays everyone! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
It has taken 6 months, with an occasional break, to completely source and remove all tags from this article. I have done my best and hope it meets with approval and general support. If there are any problems, I am more than willing to compromise, confer and negotiate in good WP style. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The article currently uses a mix of short form references and inline citations. I intend to standardise them to all use {{ sfn}} templates. I believe this acceptable under the third point of "Generally considered helpful" in WP:CITEVAR, but I've posted this first in case anyone objects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 19:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that the information about the Christianization of Europe be split into a separate article titled " Christianisation of Europe", primarily the sections § Christianization of Europe (6th–9th centuries) and § Christianization of Europe (10th - 14th centuries). This article is 209 kB large, which is more than enough to split on size alone, and both the amount and quality of the information that will be split are high enough as well. Per WP:SIZESPLIT. Treetoes023 ( talk) 22:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
After working on this article for 6 months, sourcing it meticulously and removing all tags, I have now nominated it for GA. For those who first began what is a phenomenal piece of work and for those of us who supplied the final flourishes, please support this effort in any way you can. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This entry contains material suppressed at Halloween by User:Dogface and User:Brian Kendig. Readers should be aware that the Roman Catholic Church denies the very basis of this article. Consult "history" at the top of the entry page to see whether useful material has been suppressed.
"Christianization is also a term used for "baptized paganism"" I moved this apparent solecism here. Wetman 00:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"the practice of converting pagan cult practices, pagan religious imagery, pagan sites and the pagan calendar to Christian uses."
Excellent! That's in matters of cult, images, sites and calendar. Then we shall see no more reverting of any of this factual material at Wikipedia, at for example Halloween, All Saint's Day etc etc etc. -- Wetman 18:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An ongoing campaign, of which User:Wesley is a (hopefully thoughtless) footsoldier, viz:
Rather than list the obvious, I have re-entered more sensitive text designed to satisfy even the most partisan (Revised to include a more neutral version of Wesley's objection, omitting ascriptions of low motivations):
How can objections be made to that? -- Wetman 20:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is not entirely true. In the early phases of Christianity early christian churches, "basiilicas", were built often built at places of great religious tolerance such as Cenchreae (also transliterated as Kenchreai) and stood next to other temples of worship. The structure of these churches is nearly uniformly that of a basilica (often with a baptistry), which is important to note because the basilica is a Roman public structure very different from the structure of Roman (and Greek) temples. A basilica structure cannot be substituted for a Greek or Roman Temple which requires opennesss to the light (most often with orientation opening to the East where the sunrises) and visibility of the cult statue from front entrance of the temple.
On the otherhand at some sites such as Nemea, a Christian basilica was erected nearby --though not on top of-- a pagan temple. Its from a later date than the one at Cenchreae 5th or 6th century, and although a separate structure from the pagan sanctuary, it was built with blocks taken from the nearby Sanctuary of Zeus.
Regardless, this sentence is vague (does building a new structure next on old one like at nemea count as building on a site consecrated as a Pagan temple?) and characterizes a broad and diverse period of time (500 years) with a generalization that falls apart upon closer inspection of the different time periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.88.77 ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a lot: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The Christianization of the Roman Empire is frequently divided by scholars into the two phases of before and after the conversion of Constantine in 312. Constantine has long been credited with ending the persecution of Christianity and establishing religious tolerance with the Edict of Milan, but the nature of the Edict, and Constantine's faith, are both heavily debated in the twenty-first century. [1] [note 1]
According to Harold A. Drake, Constantine's religious policies did not stem from faith as much as they stemmed from his duty as Emperor to maintain peace in the empire. [1]: 4 Drake asserts that, since Constantine's reign followed Diocletian's failure to enforce a particular religious view, Constantine was able to observe that coercion had not produced peace. [1]: 4 Constantine's religious policy was aimed at including the Church in a broader policy of civic unity. This required some official tolerance of the pagan majority. [5]
Constantine's personal views favored one religion over the other, and he made his revulsion toward sacrifice clear, but contemporary scholars are in general agreement that he did not support the suppression of paganism by force. [6] [7] [8] [9] He never engaged in a purge, [10] there were no pagan martyrs during his reign, [11] [12] and pagans remained in important positions at his court. [6] Constantine ruled for 31 years and never outlawed paganism. In the words of an early edict, he decreed that polytheists could "celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion," so long as they did not force Christians to join them. [11] [13]
Constantine's main approach to religion was to use enticement by making the adoption of Christianity beneficial. [14] "Imperial patronage, legal rights to hold property, and financial assistance" were important contributions to successful Christianization over the next hundred years. [15] However, most scholars also agree it was Constantine who issued the first law against paganism's practice of animal sacrifice. [16] [17] [note 2] These laws menaced death, but during Constantine's reign, no one suffered the death penalty for violating them. [26] [27]: 87, 93 There is no record of anyone being executed for violating religious laws before Tiberius II Constantine at the end of the sixth century (574–582). [27]: 93 Still, classicist Scott Bradbury notes that the complete disappearance of public sacrifice by the mid-fourth century "in many towns and cities must be attributed to the atmosphere created by imperial and episcopal hostility". [28]
In Eusebius' church history, there is a bold claim of a Constantinian campaign against the temples, however, there are discrepancies in the evidence. [29] Temple destruction is attested to in 43 cases in the written sources, but only four have been confirmed by archaeological evidence. [30] Trombley and MacMullen explain that discrepancies between literary sources and archaeological evidence exist because it is common for details in the literary sources to be ambiguous and unclear. [31] [32] For example, Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples, then he said Theodisius destroyed them all, then he said Constantine converted them all to churches. [33]: 246–282 [34] [note 3]
Yet Constantine did destroy some temples. In the previous 300 years, Roman authority had periodically confiscated various church properties, some of which were associated with Christian holy places. For example, Christian historians alleged that Hadrian (2nd century) had, in the military colony of Aelia Capitolina ( Jerusalem), constructed a temple to Aphrodite on the site of the crucifixion of Jesus on Golgotha hill in order to suppress Jewish Christian veneration there. [44] Constantine was vigorous in reclaiming confiscated properties whenever these issues were brought to his attention, and he used reclamation to justify that temple's destruction. [45] [46] [47] [48] Using the vocabulary of reclamation, Constantine acquired several more sites of Christian significance in the Holy Land. At the sacred oak and spring at Mamre, a site venerated and occupied by Jews, Christians and pagans alike, the literature says Constantine ordered the burning of the idols, the destruction of the altar, and erection of a church on the spot of the temple. [49] The archaeology of the site, however, shows that Constantine’s church, along with its attendant buildings, only occupied a peripheral sector of the precinct, leaving the rest unhindered. [50]
Late Antiquity from the third to the sixth centuries was the era of the development of the great Christian narrative, an interpretatio Christiana of the history of humankind. This meant reassessing and relocating past histories, ideas and persons on the historical mental map. In this construction of the past, Christian writers built on the models of the preceding tradition, creating competing chronologies and alternative histories. [51]: 12
In the early fourth century Eusebius wrote Chronici canones in which he developed an elaborate synchronistic chronology wherein he reinterpreted the Greco-Roman past to reflect a Christian perspective. [51]: 11, 28 In the early fifth century Orosius wrote Historiae adversus paganos in response to the charge that the Roman Empire was in misery and ruins because it had converted to Christianity and neglected the old gods. Maijastina Kahlos explains that, "In order to refute these claims, Orosius reviewed the entire history of Rome, demonstrating that the alleged glorious past of Romans in fact consisted of war, despair and suffering. Orosius’s Historiae adversus paganos is a counter-narrative... Instead of a magnificent Roman past, he construes a history in which ... Christ is born and Christianity appears to have appeared ... just when Roman power was at its height – all this according to a divine plan... Both writers took over and reinterpreted the Greco-Roman past to explain and legitimize their own present". [51]: 28
Despite the ongoing presence of a Christian majority, Christian literature of the fourth century does not focus on converting pagans. [52] Instead, it depicts Constantine's conversion as evidence of the Christian god's final triumph in Heaven over the pagan gods. [53] Brown indicates that, as a result of this "triumphalism," paganism was seen as vanquished. [54] [55] There was no need and no determination to use the laws to convert unbelievers. It was sufficient that non-Christians should keep a low profile and not disturb the rhetoric of triumph. [56] Based on the sheer number of laws directed against it, Michele R. Salzman indicates that heresy was the greatest concern for most Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries including Constantine. [57] [55] According to Peter Brown, "It would be a full two centuries before Justinian would envisage the compulsory baptism of remaining polytheists, and a further century until Heraclius and the Visigothic kings of Spain would attempt to baptize the Jews. In the fourth century, such ambitious schemes were impossible". [52]
Historian John Curran writes that, under Constantine's successors, Christianization of Roman society proceeded by fits and starts. [58] [note 4] Paganism in a broader sense did not end when public sacrifice did. [61] [62] Historian Peter Brown explains that polytheists were accustomed to offering prayers to the gods in many ways and places that did not include sacrifice, that pollution was only associated with sacrifice, and that the ban on sacrifice had fixed boundaries and limits. [63] Paganism continued, co-existing with Christianity despite official threats, occasional mob violence, [note 5] and Constantine's confiscation of temple treasures for his new capitol. Paganism remained widespread into the early fifth century continuing in parts of the empire into the 600s. [66] [note 6]
In the centuries following his death, Theodosius gained a reputation as the champion of orthodoxy and the vanquisher of paganism. Modern historians see this as a later interpretation of history by Christian writers rather than actual history. [84] [85] [86] [note 7] Theodosius reiterated his Christian predecessors' support of Christianity and bans on animal sacrifice, divination, and apostasy. A number of laws against these practices were issued towards the end of his reign in 391 and 392, however recent historians have tended to downplay the role of the emperor's 'copious legislation' as limited in effect. [94] [95] [96] [note 8]
Most legislation was aimed at heretics not pagans. Contemporary scholarship indicates the Edict of Thessalonica (380) was about opposing Arianism, establishing unity in Christianity, and suppressing heresy. [102] As German ancient historian Karl Leo Noethlichs writes, the Edict of Thessalonica was neither anti-pagan nor antisemitic; it did not declare Christianity to be the official religion of the empire; and it gave no advantage to Christians over other faiths. [103] [note 9] Cameron writes that Theodosius did 'certainly not' ban paganism. [110]
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. [111] Theodosius also nominated the last pair of pagan consuls in Roman history ( Tatianus and Symmachus) in 391. [112] In his 2020 biography of Theodosius, Mark Hebblewhite concludes that Theodosius never saw himself, or advertised himself, as a destroyer of the old cults. The emperor's efforts at promoting Christianization were "targeted, tactical, and nuanced". They were intended to prevent political instability and religious discord and promote the peace. [113] [114]
Theodosius allowed other pagan practices to be performed publicly and temples to remain open. [115] [116] [96] He also voiced his support for the preservation of temple buildings, but nonetheless failed to prevent the damaging of several holy sites in the eastern provinces. [96] [117] [118] Following the death in 388 of Cynegius, the praetorian prefect thought to be responsible for that vandalization, Theodosius replaced him with a moderate pagan who subsequently moved to protect the temples. [33]: 53 [113] [119] 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. [120] [121]: 63 [31]
I think (I hope) these are all the references:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)References
Thompson
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EusebiusSchaff
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Garth Fowden
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The nature of Roman culture contributed to its Christianization: religious syncretism, Roman political culture, a common language, and Hellenist philosophy made Christianization of the Roman empire easier than in places like Persia or China. [1] The relative ease of travel that was enabled by universal currency, a system of laws, relative internal security, and good roads aided the process of Christianization as well. Judaism was also significantly important to the spread of Christianity. Evidence clearly shows the Jewish Diaspora communities were where Christians gave many of their earliest sermons. [2]
The two religious traditions co-existed and largely tolerated each other throughout most of the fourth and fifth centuries. [3] [4] [5] Christianization had worked in both directions transforming the structure and ideals of both the Church and the Empire through this long period of symbiosis. [6] By the time a fifth-century pope attempted to denounce the Lupercalia as 'pagan superstition', religion scholar Elizabeth Clark says "it fell on deaf ears". [7] In Historian R. A. Markus's reading of events, this marked a colonization (the appropriation of something belonging to others for one's own use) by Christians of pagan values and practices. [8] For Alan Cameron, the mixed culture that included the continuation of the circuses, amphitheaters and games – sans sacrifice – on into the sixth century involved the secularization of paganism rather than appropriation by Christianity. [9] [note 10]
Up to the time of Justin I and Justinian I (527 to 565), there was some toleration for all religions; there were anti-sacrifice laws, but they were not enforced. Thus, up into the sixth century, there still existed centers of paganism in Athens, Gaza, Alexandria, and elsewhere. [28] [note 11] Brown points out that, even though the imperial laws against sacrifice were not enforced, they did have a cumulative effect: by 425, they had set in place a religious ordering of society with Catholics at the center and others at the periphery. [31] That ordering would thereafter prove to be an inseparable adjunct of imperial rule, in the empire itself and, later, in the sub-imperial states of the west. [31]
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. [31] Christian writers and imperial legislators alike drew on a rhetoric of incessant conquest and reconquest that affected every facet of upper-class society. [32] These Christian sources with their violent rhetoric, have had great influence on modern perceptions of this period. [33] However, outside of violent rhetoric, non-Christian (non-heretical) groups of pagans and Jews lived peacefully alongside their Christian neighbors through a tolerance based on contempt throughout most of Late Antiquity. [34] [35]
Christianization changed between the fifth and eighth centuries. The weight of wealth after the fifth century turned Christianity in a new direction. [36] [note 12] This period shifted away from the "massive" Greek and Roman secularism common to John Chrysostom's and Augustine's fourth century world. By the time of Pope Gregory I (540 – 604), "there was little room for the secular" in it. [39]
In these centuries, Ancient Christianity, (as it had existed in the Western empire with some religious competition, toleration and secularism), came to an end. [40] [39] Most scholars agree the 7th and 8th centuries are when the 'end of the ancient world' is most conclusive and well documented. [41]: 85 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 East. [42] This Byzantine papacy, along with losses to Islam, and changes within Christianity itself, transformed Christianity into its medieval form as exemplified by the creation of the Papal state and the alliance between the papacy and the militant Frankish king Charlemagne. [43] [44] [45]
In the first half of the sixth century, the eastern emperor Justinian I ( r. 527–565) came to Rome to liberate it from barbarians leading to a guerrilla war that lasted nearly 20 years. [46] After fighting ended, Justinian used what is known as a Pragmatic Sanction to assert control. [47] The Sanction effectively removed the supports that had allowed the senatorial aristocracy to retain power. [48] The political and social influence of the Senate's aristocratic members began to disappear from civic life in Rome. By 630, the Senate had fully ceased to exist, and its building was converted into a church. [48] Bishops stepped into civic leadership in their place. [48] The position and influence of the pope rose. [49] By the eighth century, papal control of Rome was fully established. Italy can be said to have become a Christian country. [48]
Under Justinian, "the full force of imperial legislation against deviants of all kinds, particularly religious" ones, was applied in practice, writes Judith Herrin. [50]: 213 According to Anthony Kaldellis, Justinian is remembered as "the last Roman emperor of ecumenical importance", yet it is as the emperor who sought to extend Roman authority around the Mediterranean, that he is often seen as a tyrant and despot. [51] [52] Justinian sought to centralize imperial government, became increasingly autocratic, and "nothing could be done", (not even in the Church), that was contrary to the emperor's will and command. [53]
Where Constantine had granted the right to all to follow freely whatever religion they wished through the Edict of Milan, Justinian's religious policy reflected his conviction that a unified Empire presupposed unity of faith. [54] [55] The church was prevented from using physical force to convert non-believers, especially Jews who were protected by law, but Justinian did use social boycotting, repressive law and his own personal interference in the affairs of others, such as instructing the Jews on how to practice their religion. [56] The Samaritans had been in the same category as Jews, a permitted religion under Roman law, but in 529 Samaritans rose in revolt, were "ruthlessly crushed" and lost their status. Justinian persecuted them thereafter with rigorous edicts. [57]
He purged the bureaucracy of those who disagreed with him. [58] Imperial laws that had been laid down by pagan Emperors like Diocletian and Maximian to persecute Christians were used against the Manicheans. [59]: 285 Judith Lieu writes that, "By the sixth century, anathematized, vilified as a 'defilement', its leaders beheaded, their followers exiled, impoverished or also slain, Manichaeism was extinguished, and with its books destroyed, left only its name to the Christian world as a term of abuse for dualisms generally". [60] In Kaldellis' estimation, "Few emperors had started so many wars or tried to enforce cultural and religious uniformity with such zeal". [61] [62] [63] [64]
Herrin asserts that, under Justinian, this involved considerable destruction. [65] The decree of 528 had already barred pagans from state office when, decades later, Justinian ordered a "persecution of surviving Hellenes, accompanied by the burning of pagan books, pictures and statues" which took place at the Kynêgion. [65] Herrin says it is difficult to assess the degree to which Christians are responsible for the losses of ancient documents in many cases, but in the mid-sixth century, active persecution in Constantinople destroyed many ancient texts. [65]
Reformatting native religious and cultural activities and beliefs into a Christianized form was officially sanctioned; preserved in the Venerable Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum is a letter from Pope Gregory I (540-604) to Mellitus (d.604), arguing that conversions were easier if people were allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditions, while claiming that the traditions were in honor of the Christian God, "to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God". [66]
References
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I'm glad to see that the actions of Constantine are no longer being whitewashed. It's important to report the historical facts as they are, not just the history that lets people feel good about themselves and their history. The people who write American History text books could learn a lot from this! -- Lucavix 11:10, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
the article needs serious re-organization. At present it reads like a random collection of trivia and anecdotes. After some general musings, we speak about Poland for some reason, then about Druids and the Goths, then back to the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Then we mention some Roman festivals, then some Celtic festivals, and again some Roman festivals. What this article needs is a clear layout of time and space. "Christianization" has been occurring for 2000 years, and it is continuing today. We need:
Yes, this is a lot of material. Which means Wikipedia:Summary style, we already have lots of sub-articles, like Constantine I and Christianity, Germanic Christianity, Anglo-Saxon mission, Hiberno-Scottish mission, Christianization of Bulgaria, Baptism of Poland, etc. I daresay all the material required is already on Wikipedia, it just needs to be ordered properly here. dab (ᛏ) 09:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
euroheritage.net on the added map:
I added a History of European Christianization timeline, as commentary above requested. Being my first contribution to the site, I hope it will not be deemed inappropriate. If something is erroneous to you, please notify me for change.
Please do not remove large sections of the page without explaining your reasoning. Remember to use edit summaries. Isopropyl 00:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
What was wrong with the "major dates of conversion" map? It looks okay. Isopropyl 00:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
From my experience a good half of the maps and charts throughout this site are drawn by the uploaders. It is whimsical to me why my map is an exception. If the clarity errors were fixed (which they have been now), placing this map in the article would turn it from a very marginal and poor article into a clear, historically-guided article. The map can be verified on every Wikipedia history page I checked under each nation's article, as I expected people to complain. Wikipedia demands "verifiabilty" not "truth" as the help sections even say. It is unreal why a historically-factual map (or as historical as this site can possibly be, usually dubious from my experience) cannot be used to help convey the content.
The clarity errors have been fixed based upon the issues informed to me. If there is another issue you see, let me fix it, then I will add it into the article for continuity.
Map of Major European Christianization Dates
The map template is from the United Nations, and as I read, it is for public use. Other charts and maps used throughout this site also use a template and superimpose historically legitimate information on top. As many people commented above, something like this is really needed for this article.
COPYRIGHT NOTICE: Unless otherwise noted, the maps included on this web site are produced by the Cartographic Section and are copyrighted by the United Nations. Reproduction of any part without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Reproduction of any part without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful.
I have changed the caption of the painting of the execution of a native American to indicate the Christianization of native Americans was "sometimes" a violent and coercive process. The previous statement that it was "mostly" violent and coercive is false. Roughly speaking, in some parts of Latin America, such as Mexico, Christianity was indeed imposed by violence, and Indians who resisted too openly were burned at the stake. However, generally speaking, in North America conversion was not imposed by violence or even coercion, and this is true of parts of Latin America as well. The history of the Christianization of the Americas is actually quite complex and varied. (By way of example, where I live the Carrier people actually sent a delegation in 1865 to demand a priest and converted voluntarily. This was by no means a unique event. Such requests were apparently often motivated by the belief that the priests controlled the devastating diseases that native shamans were unsuccessful in dealing with.) Bill ( talk) 18:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Can I just say something? What the hell has been written in here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.224.204 ( talk) 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
we should be careful with plastering this article with romantic paintings. It's okay to convey a notion of how Christanization was perceived in the 19th century, but it is misleading to use them as if they were illustrating the actual events. Thus, the caption of "a 19th-century representation of the 'docile heathen'", but adding the caption "the conversion of Native Americans was sometimes a violent and coercive process" to Image:Persecution of Native American religion.PNG is disingenious. If anything, parallel the first caption with "a 19th-century representation of Hispanic fanatical evangelism" or similar. -- dab (𒁳) 10:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
This article is severely POV-pushing the opposite. 68.110.8.21 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Nobody (serious) disputes there were vast positive effects going along with Christianization. Abolition of "child sacrifice" still isn't a very good example of them. This is needlessly polemic. Human sacrifice in tribal societies is a rationalization of a sound anthropological impetus to kill. For the detached ethnologist, it is really much the same if people are killed for better harvest or because of heresy. Of course executions of heretics aren't commonly referred to as "human sacrifice", but that's just terminology. Benefits and drawbacks of Christianization are elsewhere. dab (𒁳) 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Especially the section on the cross which is bad historical POV. The cross as a symbol did exist in pre-Nicean Christianity, there are quite a few references to Christians making the sign of the cross. Tertullian (2nd-3rd century) said "we ware are foreheads out with the sign of the cross." This would hardly suggest that the cross "was not particularly associated with Christianity before the 4th century." And what do we base " Constantine I is widely considered to have introduced the symbol into Christianity" this statement on? Perhaps we might just add "Constantine made Jesus divine and invented Sunday worship" while we're at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.174.185 ( talk) 01:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a cursory glance at the part of this wiki describing the christianization of the Frankish Empire and it is immediately apparent that this section is entirely unreferenced, over simplistic and glaringly wrong. To surmise;
Bdubay ( talk) 02:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi all, please look at the revert Editor2020 did on me, and read the sentence segment, "whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them". It is ungrammatical and should be changed. To use "are" we need to apply the present progressive tense with the gerund "permitting". If we keep " permitted" as s/he reverted to, then "are" needs to be deleted. Mistakefinder ( talk) 06:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The term "Christianization" or "Christianize" is a also a colloquialism meaning to beat the stuffings out of people until they confess their error and adopt the correct (Christian) belief. As in " A come-to-Jesus" experience. Also adopted by Jews, as in: "Izzie got Christianized yesterday; he's still in hospital". Or today: "I Christianized the little brute. Won't be snatching any more purses".
2601:8:8280:9C8:C4AD:F02F:EFD7:6C11 ( talk) 21:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Christianization of Romania? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB ( talk) 02:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Christianization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://uhi.academia.edu/documents/0065/1378/Sanmark2004_OPIA34.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I went through and made sure we were using more consistent spelling. Previsouly we had a mix of both the 'ize' and 'ise' ways to spell such words. Being that the page title uses a 'z' and American English in general makes use of the 'z' rather than 's' in these words, I have taken the liberty of changing the spelling on the page. Feel free to revert it if its not acceptable, but it looks really odd seeing both spellings next to eachother, so I'd advise you pick one. Most of the other wikipedia articles make use of 'Christianised', so maybe that would've been better for Wikipedia consistency, but then the title of this page would need to change, and I have no idea how to do that. 71.120.201.39 18:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that the title should be changed to Christianisation. 220.238.175.61 ( talk) 06:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Someone possibly antitheist appears to have made a bad faith edit in the lead claiming that Christianisation was tantamount to "genocide" in Old Prussia.
Un like the Soviet genocide or Reign of Terror perpetrated by antitheists/ communists/ anarchists/ other radical left ideologues, and while the Armenian genocide and Assyrian Genocide continue to be denied by "secular" Turkish "nationalists", there is no such thing as a Old Prussian Genocide there in wiki as of today. This is one of the reasons why Larry Sanger a wiki co-founder and an agnostic fled this website.
The wiki article on genocide itself states for an event in history to be called genocide it needs to confirmed as such by UN conventions
There's no doubt that Old Prussian pagans may have been oppressed and ethnically cleansed/ assimilated in pre-modern times by Christian zealots and bigots in the Dark Ages of the mediaeval Europe, but the "genocide" term often used for mass killings in the modern era only. Until someone can show that the UN recognises it as such, the "genocide" claim is probably just another anticlerical or fiberal polemics and rhetorics that's been grossly exaggerated. Nolicmahr ( talk) 06:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
For discussion: Special:Diff/1045367969 Nolicmahr ( talk) 06:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Sehamahmadd. Peer reviewers:
Angelv03.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 17:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
I am changing the first section's title, from early to ancient, but I am quite willing not to do so, if someone feels strongly about it. Ancient is technically the more correct term as far as modern scholarship goes, but since we are not bound by that, early also works. Taking the easiest path to an explanation, I chose the first sentence in the article
Ancient Rome here on WP. It reads thusly: In modern historiography, ancient Rome refers to Roman civilization from the founding of the city of Rome in the 8th century BC to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD. It encompasses the Roman Kingdom(753–509 BC), Roman Republic (509–27 BC) and Roman Empire (27 BC–476 AD) until the fall of the western empire.
Please, if anyone has a problem with this change, do say so. Thank you!
Jenhawk777 (
talk) 19:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
In an effort to remove the tag from this article, I am going to attempt to address its issues. I would like to begin by moving the introductory paragraph concerning the Interpretatio Christiana to its appropriate chronological location. As an introductory comment, it appears to describe all the eras that follow - including the centuries before it existed. It therefore reads like an agenda - something that this article is trying to prove - and is not NPOV. Syncretism also deserves a much longer and more detailed discussion. I would appreciate any and all comments. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 05:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 16:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Ancient (Ante-Nicaean) Christianity
Christianization began slowly, amidst opposition in the Roman Empire, in the province of Judaea, in the region of Palestine, around 30–40 AD. There is agreement among twenty-first century scholars that Christianization of the Roman Empire did not happen by imposition from rulers to the ruled in the centuries preceding Constantine (315). Instead, it was acquired by one person from another, through imitation, and learning what constituted Christian self-identification. [1] Christianization of the early Roman Empire was the cumulative result of multiple individual behaviors. [2] This emergence was 'self-organized', distributed away from any central authority, and was based on common causes. [3] Christianity reached critical mass, (when there were enough adopters for it to be self-sustaining and able to generate further growth), in the hundred years between 150 to 250 when it moved from less than 50,000 adherents to over a million. [4] [5] [6] [7] Scholars agree there was a significant rise thereafter in the absolute number of Christians in the third century. [8]
The Council of Jerusalem (around 50 AD) agreed the lack of circumcision could not be a basis for excluding Gentile believers from membership in the Jesus community. They instructed converts to avoid "pollution of idols, fornication, things strangled, and blood" ( KJV, Acts 15:20–21). [9] These were put into writing, distributed ( KJV Acts 16:4–5) by messengers present at the Council, and were received as an encouragement. [9]: 257 The Apostolic Decree helped to establish Ancient Christianity as unhindered by either ethnic or geographical ties. Christianity was experienced as a new start, and was open to 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 including those who might have lacked literacy. [10] Early Christian communities were highly inclusive in terms of social stratification and other social categories. [11]: 79 Heterogeneity characterized the groups formed by Paul the Apostle, and the role of women was much greater than in either of the forms of Judaism or paganism in existence at the time. [11]: 81 Early Christians were told to love others, even enemies, and Christians of all classes and sorts called each other " brother" and " sister". Recent research has shown it was the formal unconditional altruism of early Christianity that accounts for much of its otherwise surprising degree of success. [12]
Ante-Nicaean Christianity was also highly exclusive. [13] Believing was the crucial and defining characteristic that set a "high boundary" that strongly excluded the " unbeliever". [13] Keith Hopkins asserts: "It is this exclusivism, idealized or practiced, which marks Christianity off from most other religious groups in the ancient world". [14] In the eyes of many non-believers, Christianity was an unacceptable form of superstitio; its founder had been executed by Roman authority, it was seen as having fallen away from the faith of the Jews, and could, therefore, claim no legitimate authority. [15] In response, some second-century apologists took the approach of referring to Christians as another genos or race, with their own history, and legitimate religious practices. This 'third race' concept may have originated in accusations from outsiders such as Suetonius, (Nero 16.2.), who described Christians in a derogatory manner as ‘a genus of people' who held a 'new and mischievous superstitio’. [16] In the Epistle to Diognetus, an extant late second century letter to a Roman official, the anonymous author observes that early Christians functioned as if they were a separate "third race": a nation within a nation. The Christian apologist Tertullian in his ad nationes (1.8; cf. 1.20), mocked the accusation that ‘we are called a third race’, yet there is also ambivalence, since he takes some pride in the uniqueness it represents. [17] 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). [18] In Daniel Praet's view, the exclusivity of Christian monotheism formed an important part of its success, enabling it to maintain its independence in a society that syncretized religion. [19]
Christianization was not a one-way process. [20] There was instead a parallelism in the processes of Christianization in that Christianity absorbed indigenous elements just as indigenous religions absorbed aspects of Christianity. [21] Salzman has shown that, in the process of converting the Roman Empire's aristocracy, Christianity was also shaped by the values of that aristocracy. [22] Polytheism openly adopted aspects of the new religion transforming and adapting them to fit. [23] Several early Christian writers, including Justin (2nd century), Tertullian, and Origen (3rd century) wrote of Mithraists copying Christian beliefs. [24] The Neoplatonist movement began with Plotinus in mid–third century Egypt. [25] Christian thought had already been influenced by Plato through the church Fathers (see: Clement of Alexandria). By the fifth–century, "Neoplatonism had undergone a process of theologizing", and this evolution in Platonic thought was accompanied by an increased influence on Christianity. [26]
In 301, Armenia became the first kingdom in history to adopt Christianity as an official state religion. [27] The transformations taking place in these centuries of the Roman Empire had been slower to catch on in Caucasia. Indigenous writing did not begin till the fifth century, there was an absence of large cities, and many institutions such as monasticism did not exist in Caucasia until the seventh century. [28]
Scholarly consensus places the Christianization of the Armenian and Georgian elites in the first half of the fourth century, although Armenian tradition says Christianization began in the first century through the Apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew. [29] This is said to have eventually led to the conversion of the Arsacid family, (the royal house of Armenia), through St. Gregory the Illuminator in the early fourth century. [29]
Scholars do not agree on the date, but most assert 337 as the year Mirian III of Iberia (present-day Georgia) adopted Christianity. [30] According to medieval Georgian narratives, Christianization there began with the Apostle Andrew the First-called and culminated in the evangelization of Iberia through the efforts of a captive woman known in Iberian tradition as "Nona" in the fourth century. [31] Fifth, 8th, and 12th century accounts of the conversion of Georgia reveal how pre-Christian practices were taken up and reinterpreted by Christian narrators. [32]
In 325, The Kingdom of Aksum (Modern Ethiopia and Eritrea) became the second country to declare Christianity as its official state religion.
References:
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 20:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This is the period in classical history that is more studied than any other, has more written about it, and contains more controversy than any other period. Combine that with it being foundational to everything that comes after it, and it will be easy to understand why this section will be the longest in the entire article. In an effort to shorten it a little, I have put current discussion of controversial material in notes and put the majority view in the text itself. There are 8 problematic and unsupported statements in the current version, 6 of which are in the text, but 2 of them seemed to have little to do with Christianization, so I simply left them out. If anyone objects they can be added back with current scholarship, but in my view, they don't justify the additional length. They are:
The Battle of Frigidus and pagan revival. Most contemporary scholars no longer think a pagan "revival" as such occurred, and see the story as "romantic myth". [1]: 2 and [2] : 78 Two "newly relevant texts – John Chrysostom's Homily 6, adversus Catharos (PG 63: 491–492) and the Consultationes Zacchei et Apollonii, re-dated to the 390s, reinforce the view that religion was not the key ideological element" in the Battle of the Frigidus. [3] p. 191.
Since it's been discounted it seemed appropriate to simply leave it out.
The second is the article's claim that By this time the Christian hierarchy had adopted classical education and culture as the marks of the civilized person, thus bringing the two social groups into alliance.
This is just a mistake. Those early Christians who were educated had all been classically educated as Romans. Scourfield, on page 3 of
[4] discusses Cameron's argument that "Roman culture was all the culture there was" as irrefutable. For educated pagans and educated Christians the classical texts used for educational purposes were the same texts. The new religion did not form outside Roman culture, it formed within it. Different it was in many ways, but its adherents and its organizational structures were products of the same world that produced those who opposed it.
But this has little to do with Christianization - that I can see - so I just left it out.
If anyone objects, yada yada.
I am posting part of the suggested replacement for Late Antiquity in the following section, separate from this, so it can be all discussed separately as needed. After that, I will follow with more on the Germanic peoples, and the Fifth century by itself, and that will close out Late Antiquity.
I intend to separate out the 6th-8th centuries from the next section, because that is when Ancient Christianity turned into medieval Christianity and changed because of Byzantine influence. The priorities and methods of Christianization changed pretty dramatically in that period.
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 18:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
This next section is really long, but personally, I think it needs to be. Much of the stuff on Justinian could be put in a note, but it seems like it's important enough to be in the article itself. Please tell me if there are objections. Article content is always improved when it includes the differing perspectives of multiple editors. (I have shortened the specific country entries accordingly)
Don't worry about the red references, they are already in the bibliography of the article itself, and won't be red there.
This reads like an overspecific dementi. How narrow does one need to define terms to say that paganism, which in practice was outlawed everywhere and punished if found out, and those methods pushed by force, not forced conversion? And not to mention that you have to define "this era" to specifically end before the massive amounts of forced conversion that we know happened in the early medieval period. Should manipulative language like that really be on wikipedia? Atanar ( talk) 18:29, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Since I have gotten almost no response to pre-posting material here, and since it makes it more difficult for me, I have now posted an under construction tag and will move to working directly in the article from now on. Any objections at any time can and should be brought here. Thank you Jenhawk777 ( talk) 06:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
I am currently out of town and inactive for a few days so please don’t remove the tag because nothing is happening. I will be back next week. I have opted to leave Serbia and Croatia as is because they are properly sourced. Will move on to sourcing next section next week. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 14:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
I will be mostly gone from WP for the next two weeks. Happy holidays everyone! Jenhawk777 ( talk) 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
It has taken 6 months, with an occasional break, to completely source and remove all tags from this article. I have done my best and hope it meets with approval and general support. If there are any problems, I am more than willing to compromise, confer and negotiate in good WP style. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 22:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The article currently uses a mix of short form references and inline citations. I intend to standardise them to all use {{ sfn}} templates. I believe this acceptable under the third point of "Generally considered helpful" in WP:CITEVAR, but I've posted this first in case anyone objects. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 19:47, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I propose that the information about the Christianization of Europe be split into a separate article titled " Christianisation of Europe", primarily the sections § Christianization of Europe (6th–9th centuries) and § Christianization of Europe (10th - 14th centuries). This article is 209 kB large, which is more than enough to split on size alone, and both the amount and quality of the information that will be split are high enough as well. Per WP:SIZESPLIT. Treetoes023 ( talk) 22:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
After working on this article for 6 months, sourcing it meticulously and removing all tags, I have now nominated it for GA. For those who first began what is a phenomenal piece of work and for those of us who supplied the final flourishes, please support this effort in any way you can. Thank you. Jenhawk777 ( talk) 17:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
This entry contains material suppressed at Halloween by User:Dogface and User:Brian Kendig. Readers should be aware that the Roman Catholic Church denies the very basis of this article. Consult "history" at the top of the entry page to see whether useful material has been suppressed.
"Christianization is also a term used for "baptized paganism"" I moved this apparent solecism here. Wetman 00:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
"the practice of converting pagan cult practices, pagan religious imagery, pagan sites and the pagan calendar to Christian uses."
Excellent! That's in matters of cult, images, sites and calendar. Then we shall see no more reverting of any of this factual material at Wikipedia, at for example Halloween, All Saint's Day etc etc etc. -- Wetman 18:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
An ongoing campaign, of which User:Wesley is a (hopefully thoughtless) footsoldier, viz:
Rather than list the obvious, I have re-entered more sensitive text designed to satisfy even the most partisan (Revised to include a more neutral version of Wesley's objection, omitting ascriptions of low motivations):
How can objections be made to that? -- Wetman 20:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is not entirely true. In the early phases of Christianity early christian churches, "basiilicas", were built often built at places of great religious tolerance such as Cenchreae (also transliterated as Kenchreai) and stood next to other temples of worship. The structure of these churches is nearly uniformly that of a basilica (often with a baptistry), which is important to note because the basilica is a Roman public structure very different from the structure of Roman (and Greek) temples. A basilica structure cannot be substituted for a Greek or Roman Temple which requires opennesss to the light (most often with orientation opening to the East where the sunrises) and visibility of the cult statue from front entrance of the temple.
On the otherhand at some sites such as Nemea, a Christian basilica was erected nearby --though not on top of-- a pagan temple. Its from a later date than the one at Cenchreae 5th or 6th century, and although a separate structure from the pagan sanctuary, it was built with blocks taken from the nearby Sanctuary of Zeus.
Regardless, this sentence is vague (does building a new structure next on old one like at nemea count as building on a site consecrated as a Pagan temple?) and characterizes a broad and diverse period of time (500 years) with a generalization that falls apart upon closer inspection of the different time periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.88.77 ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I know this is a lot: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
The Christianization of the Roman Empire is frequently divided by scholars into the two phases of before and after the conversion of Constantine in 312. Constantine has long been credited with ending the persecution of Christianity and establishing religious tolerance with the Edict of Milan, but the nature of the Edict, and Constantine's faith, are both heavily debated in the twenty-first century. [1] [note 1]
According to Harold A. Drake, Constantine's religious policies did not stem from faith as much as they stemmed from his duty as Emperor to maintain peace in the empire. [1]: 4 Drake asserts that, since Constantine's reign followed Diocletian's failure to enforce a particular religious view, Constantine was able to observe that coercion had not produced peace. [1]: 4 Constantine's religious policy was aimed at including the Church in a broader policy of civic unity. This required some official tolerance of the pagan majority. [5]
Constantine's personal views favored one religion over the other, and he made his revulsion toward sacrifice clear, but contemporary scholars are in general agreement that he did not support the suppression of paganism by force. [6] [7] [8] [9] He never engaged in a purge, [10] there were no pagan martyrs during his reign, [11] [12] and pagans remained in important positions at his court. [6] Constantine ruled for 31 years and never outlawed paganism. In the words of an early edict, he decreed that polytheists could "celebrate the rites of an outmoded illusion," so long as they did not force Christians to join them. [11] [13]
Constantine's main approach to religion was to use enticement by making the adoption of Christianity beneficial. [14] "Imperial patronage, legal rights to hold property, and financial assistance" were important contributions to successful Christianization over the next hundred years. [15] However, most scholars also agree it was Constantine who issued the first law against paganism's practice of animal sacrifice. [16] [17] [note 2] These laws menaced death, but during Constantine's reign, no one suffered the death penalty for violating them. [26] [27]: 87, 93 There is no record of anyone being executed for violating religious laws before Tiberius II Constantine at the end of the sixth century (574–582). [27]: 93 Still, classicist Scott Bradbury notes that the complete disappearance of public sacrifice by the mid-fourth century "in many towns and cities must be attributed to the atmosphere created by imperial and episcopal hostility". [28]
In Eusebius' church history, there is a bold claim of a Constantinian campaign against the temples, however, there are discrepancies in the evidence. [29] Temple destruction is attested to in 43 cases in the written sources, but only four have been confirmed by archaeological evidence. [30] Trombley and MacMullen explain that discrepancies between literary sources and archaeological evidence exist because it is common for details in the literary sources to be ambiguous and unclear. [31] [32] For example, Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples, then he said Theodisius destroyed them all, then he said Constantine converted them all to churches. [33]: 246–282 [34] [note 3]
Yet Constantine did destroy some temples. In the previous 300 years, Roman authority had periodically confiscated various church properties, some of which were associated with Christian holy places. For example, Christian historians alleged that Hadrian (2nd century) had, in the military colony of Aelia Capitolina ( Jerusalem), constructed a temple to Aphrodite on the site of the crucifixion of Jesus on Golgotha hill in order to suppress Jewish Christian veneration there. [44] Constantine was vigorous in reclaiming confiscated properties whenever these issues were brought to his attention, and he used reclamation to justify that temple's destruction. [45] [46] [47] [48] Using the vocabulary of reclamation, Constantine acquired several more sites of Christian significance in the Holy Land. At the sacred oak and spring at Mamre, a site venerated and occupied by Jews, Christians and pagans alike, the literature says Constantine ordered the burning of the idols, the destruction of the altar, and erection of a church on the spot of the temple. [49] The archaeology of the site, however, shows that Constantine’s church, along with its attendant buildings, only occupied a peripheral sector of the precinct, leaving the rest unhindered. [50]
Late Antiquity from the third to the sixth centuries was the era of the development of the great Christian narrative, an interpretatio Christiana of the history of humankind. This meant reassessing and relocating past histories, ideas and persons on the historical mental map. In this construction of the past, Christian writers built on the models of the preceding tradition, creating competing chronologies and alternative histories. [51]: 12
In the early fourth century Eusebius wrote Chronici canones in which he developed an elaborate synchronistic chronology wherein he reinterpreted the Greco-Roman past to reflect a Christian perspective. [51]: 11, 28 In the early fifth century Orosius wrote Historiae adversus paganos in response to the charge that the Roman Empire was in misery and ruins because it had converted to Christianity and neglected the old gods. Maijastina Kahlos explains that, "In order to refute these claims, Orosius reviewed the entire history of Rome, demonstrating that the alleged glorious past of Romans in fact consisted of war, despair and suffering. Orosius’s Historiae adversus paganos is a counter-narrative... Instead of a magnificent Roman past, he construes a history in which ... Christ is born and Christianity appears to have appeared ... just when Roman power was at its height – all this according to a divine plan... Both writers took over and reinterpreted the Greco-Roman past to explain and legitimize their own present". [51]: 28
Despite the ongoing presence of a Christian majority, Christian literature of the fourth century does not focus on converting pagans. [52] Instead, it depicts Constantine's conversion as evidence of the Christian god's final triumph in Heaven over the pagan gods. [53] Brown indicates that, as a result of this "triumphalism," paganism was seen as vanquished. [54] [55] There was no need and no determination to use the laws to convert unbelievers. It was sufficient that non-Christians should keep a low profile and not disturb the rhetoric of triumph. [56] Based on the sheer number of laws directed against it, Michele R. Salzman indicates that heresy was the greatest concern for most Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries including Constantine. [57] [55] According to Peter Brown, "It would be a full two centuries before Justinian would envisage the compulsory baptism of remaining polytheists, and a further century until Heraclius and the Visigothic kings of Spain would attempt to baptize the Jews. In the fourth century, such ambitious schemes were impossible". [52]
Historian John Curran writes that, under Constantine's successors, Christianization of Roman society proceeded by fits and starts. [58] [note 4] Paganism in a broader sense did not end when public sacrifice did. [61] [62] Historian Peter Brown explains that polytheists were accustomed to offering prayers to the gods in many ways and places that did not include sacrifice, that pollution was only associated with sacrifice, and that the ban on sacrifice had fixed boundaries and limits. [63] Paganism continued, co-existing with Christianity despite official threats, occasional mob violence, [note 5] and Constantine's confiscation of temple treasures for his new capitol. Paganism remained widespread into the early fifth century continuing in parts of the empire into the 600s. [66] [note 6]
In the centuries following his death, Theodosius gained a reputation as the champion of orthodoxy and the vanquisher of paganism. Modern historians see this as a later interpretation of history by Christian writers rather than actual history. [84] [85] [86] [note 7] Theodosius reiterated his Christian predecessors' support of Christianity and bans on animal sacrifice, divination, and apostasy. A number of laws against these practices were issued towards the end of his reign in 391 and 392, however recent historians have tended to downplay the role of the emperor's 'copious legislation' as limited in effect. [94] [95] [96] [note 8]
Most legislation was aimed at heretics not pagans. Contemporary scholarship indicates the Edict of Thessalonica (380) was about opposing Arianism, establishing unity in Christianity, and suppressing heresy. [102] As German ancient historian Karl Leo Noethlichs writes, the Edict of Thessalonica was neither anti-pagan nor antisemitic; it did not declare Christianity to be the official religion of the empire; and it gave no advantage to Christians over other faiths. [103] [note 9] Cameron writes that Theodosius did 'certainly not' ban paganism. [110]
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. [111] Theodosius also nominated the last pair of pagan consuls in Roman history ( Tatianus and Symmachus) in 391. [112] In his 2020 biography of Theodosius, Mark Hebblewhite concludes that Theodosius never saw himself, or advertised himself, as a destroyer of the old cults. The emperor's efforts at promoting Christianization were "targeted, tactical, and nuanced". They were intended to prevent political instability and religious discord and promote the peace. [113] [114]
Theodosius allowed other pagan practices to be performed publicly and temples to remain open. [115] [116] [96] He also voiced his support for the preservation of temple buildings, but nonetheless failed to prevent the damaging of several holy sites in the eastern provinces. [96] [117] [118] Following the death in 388 of Cynegius, the praetorian prefect thought to be responsible for that vandalization, Theodosius replaced him with a moderate pagan who subsequently moved to protect the temples. [33]: 53 [113] [119] 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. [120] [121]: 63 [31]
I think (I hope) these are all the references:
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)References
Thompson
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).EusebiusSchaff
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Garth Fowden
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The nature of Roman culture contributed to its Christianization: religious syncretism, Roman political culture, a common language, and Hellenist philosophy made Christianization of the Roman empire easier than in places like Persia or China. [1] The relative ease of travel that was enabled by universal currency, a system of laws, relative internal security, and good roads aided the process of Christianization as well. Judaism was also significantly important to the spread of Christianity. Evidence clearly shows the Jewish Diaspora communities were where Christians gave many of their earliest sermons. [2]
The two religious traditions co-existed and largely tolerated each other throughout most of the fourth and fifth centuries. [3] [4] [5] Christianization had worked in both directions transforming the structure and ideals of both the Church and the Empire through this long period of symbiosis. [6] By the time a fifth-century pope attempted to denounce the Lupercalia as 'pagan superstition', religion scholar Elizabeth Clark says "it fell on deaf ears". [7] In Historian R. A. Markus's reading of events, this marked a colonization (the appropriation of something belonging to others for one's own use) by Christians of pagan values and practices. [8] For Alan Cameron, the mixed culture that included the continuation of the circuses, amphitheaters and games – sans sacrifice – on into the sixth century involved the secularization of paganism rather than appropriation by Christianity. [9] [note 10]
Up to the time of Justin I and Justinian I (527 to 565), there was some toleration for all religions; there were anti-sacrifice laws, but they were not enforced. Thus, up into the sixth century, there still existed centers of paganism in Athens, Gaza, Alexandria, and elsewhere. [28] [note 11] Brown points out that, even though the imperial laws against sacrifice were not enforced, they did have a cumulative effect: by 425, they had set in place a religious ordering of society with Catholics at the center and others at the periphery. [31] That ordering would thereafter prove to be an inseparable adjunct of imperial rule, in the empire itself and, later, in the sub-imperial states of the west. [31]
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. [31] Christian writers and imperial legislators alike drew on a rhetoric of incessant conquest and reconquest that affected every facet of upper-class society. [32] These Christian sources with their violent rhetoric, have had great influence on modern perceptions of this period. [33] However, outside of violent rhetoric, non-Christian (non-heretical) groups of pagans and Jews lived peacefully alongside their Christian neighbors through a tolerance based on contempt throughout most of Late Antiquity. [34] [35]
Christianization changed between the fifth and eighth centuries. The weight of wealth after the fifth century turned Christianity in a new direction. [36] [note 12] This period shifted away from the "massive" Greek and Roman secularism common to John Chrysostom's and Augustine's fourth century world. By the time of Pope Gregory I (540 – 604), "there was little room for the secular" in it. [39]
In these centuries, Ancient Christianity, (as it had existed in the Western empire with some religious competition, toleration and secularism), came to an end. [40] [39] Most scholars agree the 7th and 8th centuries are when the 'end of the ancient world' is most conclusive and well documented. [41]: 85 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 East. [42] This Byzantine papacy, along with losses to Islam, and changes within Christianity itself, transformed Christianity into its medieval form as exemplified by the creation of the Papal state and the alliance between the papacy and the militant Frankish king Charlemagne. [43] [44] [45]
In the first half of the sixth century, the eastern emperor Justinian I ( r. 527–565) came to Rome to liberate it from barbarians leading to a guerrilla war that lasted nearly 20 years. [46] After fighting ended, Justinian used what is known as a Pragmatic Sanction to assert control. [47] The Sanction effectively removed the supports that had allowed the senatorial aristocracy to retain power. [48] The political and social influence of the Senate's aristocratic members began to disappear from civic life in Rome. By 630, the Senate had fully ceased to exist, and its building was converted into a church. [48] Bishops stepped into civic leadership in their place. [48] The position and influence of the pope rose. [49] By the eighth century, papal control of Rome was fully established. Italy can be said to have become a Christian country. [48]
Under Justinian, "the full force of imperial legislation against deviants of all kinds, particularly religious" ones, was applied in practice, writes Judith Herrin. [50]: 213 According to Anthony Kaldellis, Justinian is remembered as "the last Roman emperor of ecumenical importance", yet it is as the emperor who sought to extend Roman authority around the Mediterranean, that he is often seen as a tyrant and despot. [51] [52] Justinian sought to centralize imperial government, became increasingly autocratic, and "nothing could be done", (not even in the Church), that was contrary to the emperor's will and command. [53]
Where Constantine had granted the right to all to follow freely whatever religion they wished through the Edict of Milan, Justinian's religious policy reflected his conviction that a unified Empire presupposed unity of faith. [54] [55] The church was prevented from using physical force to convert non-believers, especially Jews who were protected by law, but Justinian did use social boycotting, repressive law and his own personal interference in the affairs of others, such as instructing the Jews on how to practice their religion. [56] The Samaritans had been in the same category as Jews, a permitted religion under Roman law, but in 529 Samaritans rose in revolt, were "ruthlessly crushed" and lost their status. Justinian persecuted them thereafter with rigorous edicts. [57]
He purged the bureaucracy of those who disagreed with him. [58] Imperial laws that had been laid down by pagan Emperors like Diocletian and Maximian to persecute Christians were used against the Manicheans. [59]: 285 Judith Lieu writes that, "By the sixth century, anathematized, vilified as a 'defilement', its leaders beheaded, their followers exiled, impoverished or also slain, Manichaeism was extinguished, and with its books destroyed, left only its name to the Christian world as a term of abuse for dualisms generally". [60] In Kaldellis' estimation, "Few emperors had started so many wars or tried to enforce cultural and religious uniformity with such zeal". [61] [62] [63] [64]
Herrin asserts that, under Justinian, this involved considerable destruction. [65] The decree of 528 had already barred pagans from state office when, decades later, Justinian ordered a "persecution of surviving Hellenes, accompanied by the burning of pagan books, pictures and statues" which took place at the Kynêgion. [65] Herrin says it is difficult to assess the degree to which Christians are responsible for the losses of ancient documents in many cases, but in the mid-sixth century, active persecution in Constantinople destroyed many ancient texts. [65]
Reformatting native religious and cultural activities and beliefs into a Christianized form was officially sanctioned; preserved in the Venerable Bede's Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum is a letter from Pope Gregory I (540-604) to Mellitus (d.604), arguing that conversions were easier if people were allowed to retain the outward forms of their traditions, while claiming that the traditions were in honor of the Christian God, "to the end that, whilst some gratifications are outwardly permitted them, they may the more easily consent to the inward consolations of the grace of God". [66]
References
Cite error: There are <ref group=note>
tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}}
template (see the
help page).