Christianity was not "insignificant until backed by Constantine"

[Vouthon]

On a different debate thread, I happened to read a poster arguing: "Christianity was insignificant until backed by Constantine".

This seems to be an exceedingly common assumption made by many people, one that has entered 'popular wisdom' - but it's also fundamentally wrong. I very much disagree with this contention that Christianity was 'insignificant' as a social phenomenon in the Roman Empire until the Constantinian shift.

Early Christianity, in the first three centuries, was largely an urban religion - successfully spreading to and diffused throughout cities, such as the capital Rome itself; Corinth; Galatia; Alexandria; Carthage; Phrygia and so on. The lion's share of Christian growth also occurred in the eastern part of the Empire. In his Dialogue with Trypho, the patristic author Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165) felt confident enough to boast:

there is not a single race of human beings, barbarians, Greeks, or whatever name you please to call them, nomads (ἁμαξοβίων‎) or vagrants (ἀοίκων‎ καλουμένων‎) or herdsmen living in tents (ἐν‎ σκηνα‎ῖς‎ κτηνοτρόφων‎ ε‎ὐχα‎ὶ) where prayers in the name of Jesus are not offered up​

Later in the third century, Tertullian (155-240 CE) offered a similar assessment of the Christian presence in the empire, inveighing: “we have filled every place among you—cities (urbes), islands (insulas), fortresses (castella), towns (municipia), market-places (conciliabula), the very camp (castra ipsa), tribes (tribus), companies (decurias), palace (palatium), senate (senatum), forum (forum)—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods."

At the beginning of the same text, Tertullian noted: “The outcry is that the State is infested with Christians—that they are in the fields (agris), in the citadels (castellis), in the islands (insulis).”

Robert Browning says that Christianity in the first three centuries was “essentially an urban religion, spreading from city to city and leaping over the intervening countryside.” Wayne Meeks and Robert Wilken concur, stating emphatically that early Christianity was a “mostly urban” movement, “streetwise and cosmopolitan.” Paul McKechnie wrote that Christians made up a “good-sized minority".

In the mid-90s of the first century, St. Clement of Rome spoke of the apostles preaching “throughout the countryside (χώρας‎) and in the cities (πόλεις‎)". Fifteen years later, the Bithynian Roman governor Pliny, informed the emperor Trajan that Christianity had spread not only to cities (civitates), but also into villages (vicos) and country districts (agros):


Pliny the Younger on Christians - Wikipedia

Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus (now in modern Turkey) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around AD 112 and asked for counsel on dealing with the early Christian community. The letter (Epistulae X.96) details an account of how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations and asks for the Emperor's guidance on how they should be treated.[1][2]

The letter supports the existence of the early Christian Church and its rapid growth and speaks to its belief system. It also provides valuable evidence as to the attitudes of the Roman authorities with regard to early Christianity.[24]​

Pliny and Trajan on the Christians

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians...

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so....

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it.​

If Christianity were 'insignificant' pre-Constantinian patronage from 313 CE onwards with the Edict of Toleration, it would not have attracted such attention and concern from imperial authorities two hundred years earlier in 112 CE, now would it?

According to historical sociologists, there were roughly 6 million Christians in the Empire of some 60 million subjects in the year 300 C.E., or about 10% of the total population of the Roman state. That's hardly negligible.

Moreover, by the second century convert Christians or Christian 'sympathisers' had already wormed their way into the ruling hierarchy.

A paradigmatic example is the Emperor Commodus's concubine, Marcia:


Marcia (mistress of Commodus) - Wikipedia

Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias (died 193) was the mistress and one of the assassins of Roman Emperor Commodus from 182–193. Marcia was the daughter of Marcia Aurelia Sabiniana, a freedwoman of the co-emperor Lucius Verus.[1][2]

Marcia had Christian sympathies and persuaded Commodus to adopt a policy in favor of Christians, and kept close relations with Victor, Bishop of Rome.[2] After Pope Victor I gave her a list she had asked for including all of the Christians sentenced to mine works in Sardinia, she convinced Commodus to allow them to return to Rome.[2][4] Despite the fact that Marcia was not Commodus' legal wife, he treated her like one and was thus greatly influenced by her. The inscription found in Anagnia testifies that the local city council decided to build a monument, commemorating particularly the restoration of baths on her account.[2]​

She saved many Christian lives and her valiant efforts were commended by St. Hippolytus and other Fathers. The second century CE church father St. Hippolytus, in In Cant. 2.18 (the earliest extant patristic commentary on the Song of Songs) congratulates Tamar from the Book of Genesis, who “desired greatly to take hold of [the anointing], and made herself look like a prostitute toward Judah to obtain it” and then compares her with Marcia from his lifetime.

A scholar I have here writes about St. Hippolytus's support for Tamar and Marcia: "The commendation of Tamar points to what must have been the situation of many women in early Christianity forced to endure ambiguous moral situations, who nevertheless were able to take advantage of connections with powerful men. The author of Haer., for example, honorably mentions Marcia, the concubine of Commodus, who was well-placed to obtain the release of Christians deported to the mines in Sardinia (9.12.10)..."

"In the late 2nd century CE, Marcia, a “god-loving θεοφíλa woman” and the principal concubine of the Roman Emperor Commodus, interceded with her lover to free a number of Christian prisoners who had been sentenced to slave labor in the mines of Sardinia...[This] reveals its own story about the nature of early church politics, the complex intrigues of an Emperor’s court at the end of the high empire, and the ability of a lowly concubine to exert political influence and change the course of Western history"​

Marcia's patron was the eunuch who controlled the imperial harem and also himself a Christian presbyter:

"Hippolytus also claims that the Christian eunuch Hyacinthus was Marcia’s foster-father... It is unclear whether Hyacinthus served as a spiritual father to Marcia or actually raised her."

"For Christians (...) life under Commodus was a good deal easier (...) to the point where a eunuch named Hyacinthus became the first (and almost certainly the last) man in history to combine the duties of controller of a 300-strong harem and a presbyter of the Christian Church."​

I invite anyone with an interest to read this recent academic study:


By Reverence, Not Fear: Prestige, Religion, and Autonomic Regulation in the Evolution of Cooperation

A closer look at the rapid rise of Christianity in its first five centuries reveals how Jesus himself as well as the disciples who went on to preach his gospel (i.e., Paul) were successful not only in accumulating followers on his behalf and advocating for prosociality, but also in promoting prosocial behaviors amongst believers, which in turn further drove the growth of the fledgling religion.

In a 260-year period, Christianity rapidly expanded from an obscure Messianic cult movement in the far edge of the Eastern Roman empire to an estimated size of 5–7.5 million members (Stark, 1996). Sociologist Rodney Stark attributes the success of Christianity to several key factors, including the highly prosocial response of Christians to two severe plagues that ravaged the empire between the 1st–5th centuries AD.

The Antonine Plague swept through Roman Empire from 165 to 180, resulting in the loss of an estimated quarter to a third of the entire empire’s population during the first plague (Boak, 1947; Russell, 1958; Gilliam, 1961; McNeill, 1976). By the end of the second plague, the Plague of Cyprian from 251 to 266, classical society was severely “disrupted and demoralized” (Stark, 1996, p. 74). During this time, Pagan leaders and government officials offered no assistance or care for the sick, while Christianity – still a minor but increasingly growing movement – did.

There are also pagan accounts of how the responses of the two groups differed. The Christian movement continued to grow after the plagues and by 313 it was enough of a force that the emperor Constantine finally made it a legal religion in the empire with his Edict of Milan.​

 

[Sunstone]

I agree with Pliny that the "superstition" was "contagious".

 

[danieldemol]

...According to historical sociologists, there were roughly 6 million Christians in the Empire of some 60 million subjects in the year 300 C.E., or about 10% of the total population of the Roman state. That's hardly negligible...

Sorry Vouthon,
It was possibly me who made the claim your OP is referring to.

Shoghi Effendi states, "Is it not a fact that no more than a twentieth part of the subjects of the Roman Empire had enlisted themselves under the standard of Christ before the conversion of Constantine?"1

So you see I was possibly misled by the lack of knowledge of those who came before me.

—————
1 Shoghi Effendi, "The World Order of Bahá’u’lláh"
. ㊪ sacred-traditions.org

 

[YoursTrue]

On a different debate thread, I happened to read a poster arguing: "Christianity was insignificant until backed by Constantine".

This seems to be an exceedingly common assumption made by many people, one that has entered 'popular wisdom' - but it's also fundamentally wrong. I very much disagree with this contention that Christianity was 'insignificant' as a social phenomenon in the Roman Empire until the Constantinian shift.

Early Christianity, in the first three centuries, was largely an urban religion - successfully spreading to and diffused throughout cities, such as the capital Rome itself; Corinth; Galatia; Alexandria; Carthage; Phrygia and so on. The lion's share of Christian growth also occurred in the eastern part of the Empire. In his Dialogue with Trypho, the patristic author Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165) felt confident enough to boast:

there is not a single race of human beings, barbarians, Greeks, or whatever name you please to call them, nomads (ἁμαξοβίων‎) or vagrants (ἀοίκων‎ καλουμένων‎) or herdsmen living in tents (ἐν‎ σκηνα‎ῖς‎ κτηνοτρόφων‎ ε‎ὐχα‎ὶ) where prayers in the name of Jesus are not offered up​

Later in the third century, Tertullian (155-240 CE) offered a similar assessment of the Christian presence in the empire, inveighing: “we have filled every place among you—cities (urbes), islands (insulas), fortresses (castella), towns (municipia), market-places (conciliabula), the very camp (castra ipsa), tribes (tribus), companies (decurias), palace (palatium), senate (senatum), forum (forum)—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods."

At the beginning of the same text, Tertullian noted: “The outcry is that the State is infested with Christians—that they are in the fields (agris), in the citadels (castellis), in the islands (insulis).”

Robert Browning says that Christianity in the first three centuries was “essentially an urban religion, spreading from city to city and leaping over the intervening countryside.” Wayne Meeks and Robert Wilken concur, stating emphatically that early Christianity was a “mostly urban” movement, “streetwise and cosmopolitan.” Paul McKechnie wrote that Christians made up a “good-sized minority".

In the mid-90s of the first century, St. Clement of Rome spoke of the apostles preaching “throughout the countryside (χώρας‎) and in the cities (πόλεις‎)". Fifteen years later, the Bithynian Roman governor Pliny, informed the emperor Trajan that Christianity had spread not only to cities (civitates), but also into villages (vicos) and country districts (agros):


Pliny the Younger on Christians - Wikipedia

Pliny the Younger, the Roman governor of Bithynia and Pontus (now in modern Turkey) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan around AD 112 and asked for counsel on dealing with the early Christian community. The letter (Epistulae X.96) details an account of how Pliny conducted trials of suspected Christians who appeared before him as a result of anonymous accusations and asks for the Emperor's guidance on how they should be treated.[1][2]

The letter supports the existence of the early Christian Church and its rapid growth and speaks to its belief system. It also provides valuable evidence as to the attitudes of the Roman authorities with regard to early Christianity.[24]​

Pliny and Trajan on the Christians

It is my practice, my lord, to refer to you all matters concerning which I am in doubt. For who can better give guidance to my hesitation or inform my ignorance? I have never participated in trials of Christians...

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so....

I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it.​

If Christianity were 'insignificant' pre-Constantinian patronage from 313 CE onwards with the Edict of Toleration, it would not have attracted such attention and concern from imperial authorities two hundred years earlier in 112 CE, now would it?

According to historical sociologists, there were roughly 6 million Christians in the Empire of some 60 million subjects in the year 300 C.E., or about 10% of the total population of the Roman state. That's hardly negligible.

Moreover, by the second century convert Christians or Christian 'sympathisers' had already wormed their way into the ruling hierarchy.

A paradigmatic example is the Emperor Commodus's concubine, Marcia:


Marcia (mistress of Commodus) - Wikipedia

Marcia Aurelia Ceionia Demetrias (died 193) was the mistress and one of the assassins of Roman Emperor Commodus from 182–193. Marcia was the daughter of Marcia Aurelia Sabiniana, a freedwoman of the co-emperor Lucius Verus.[1][2]

Marcia had Christian sympathies and persuaded Commodus to adopt a policy in favor of Christians, and kept close relations with Victor, Bishop of Rome.[2] After Pope Victor I gave her a list she had asked for including all of the Christians sentenced to mine works in Sardinia, she convinced Commodus to allow them to return to Rome.[2][4] Despite the fact that Marcia was not Commodus' legal wife, he treated her like one and was thus greatly influenced by her. The inscription found in Anagnia testifies that the local city council decided to build a monument, commemorating particularly the restoration of baths on her account.[2]​

She saved many Christian lives and her valiant efforts were commended by St. Hippolytus and other Fathers. The second century CE church father St. Hippolytus, in In Cant. 2.18 (the earliest extant patristic commentary on the Song of Songs) congratulates Tamar from the Book of Genesis, who “desired greatly to take hold of [the anointing], and made herself look like a prostitute toward Judah to obtain it” and then compares her with Marcia from his lifetime.

A scholar I have here writes about St. Hippolytus's support for Tamar and Marcia: "The commendation of Tamar points to what must have been the situation of many women in early Christianity forced to endure ambiguous moral situations, who nevertheless were able to take advantage of connections with powerful men. The author of Haer., for example, honorably mentions Marcia, the concubine of Commodus, who was well-placed to obtain the release of Christians deported to the mines in Sardinia (9.12.10)..."

"In the late 2nd century CE, Marcia, a “god-loving θεοφíλa woman” and the principal concubine of the Roman Emperor Commodus, interceded with her lover to free a number of Christian prisoners who had been sentenced to slave labor in the mines of Sardinia...[This] reveals its own story about the nature of early church politics, the complex intrigues of an Emperor’s court at the end of the high empire, and the ability of a lowly concubine to exert political influence and change the course of Western history"​

Marcia's patron was the eunuch who controlled the imperial harem and also himself a Christian presbyter:

"Hippolytus also claims that the Christian eunuch Hyacinthus was Marcia’s foster-father... It is unclear whether Hyacinthus served as a spiritual father to Marcia or actually raised her."

"For Christians (...) life under Commodus was a good deal easier (...) to the point where a eunuch named Hyacinthus became the first (and almost certainly the last) man in history to combine the duties of controller of a 300-strong harem and a presbyter of the Christian Church."​

I invite anyone with an interest to read this recent academic study:


By Reverence, Not Fear: Prestige, Religion, and Autonomic Regulation in the Evolution of Cooperation

A closer look at the rapid rise of Christianity in its first five centuries reveals how Jesus himself as well as the disciples who went on to preach his gospel (i.e., Paul) were successful not only in accumulating followers on his behalf and advocating for prosociality, but also in promoting prosocial behaviors amongst believers, which in turn further drove the growth of the fledgling religion.

In a 260-year period, Christianity rapidly expanded from an obscure Messianic cult movement in the far edge of the Eastern Roman empire to an estimated size of 5–7.5 million members (Stark, 1996). Sociologist Rodney Stark attributes the success of Christianity to several key factors, including the highly prosocial response of Christians to two severe plagues that ravaged the empire between the 1st–5th centuries AD.

The Antonine Plague swept through Roman Empire from 165 to 180, resulting in the loss of an estimated quarter to a third of the entire empire’s population during the first plague (Boak, 1947; Russell, 1958; Gilliam, 1961; McNeill, 1976). By the end of the second plague, the Plague of Cyprian from 251 to 266, classical society was severely “disrupted and demoralized” (Stark, 1996, p. 74). During this time, Pagan leaders and government officials offered no assistance or care for the sick, while Christianity – still a minor but increasingly growing movement – did.

There are also pagan accounts of how the responses of the two groups differed. The Christian movement continued to grow after the plagues and by 313 it was enough of a force that the emperor Constantine finally made it a legal religion in the empire with his Edict of Milan.​

The history is quite interesting. The tumult in Constantine's time was enough to force him to make a decision amongst those claiming to be Christian.

 

[sun rise]

They asserted, however, that the sum and substance of their fault or error had been that they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so....

Would that more who call themselves Christians today would "bind themselves" to developing positive virtues.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Your post was a fitting accompaniment to this little bowl of cherry ice. I suppose I have a few observations, but I'm not really geared to debate you, I don't think

Early Christianity, in the first three centuries, was largely an urban religion - successfully spreading to and diffused throughout cities, such as the capital Rome itself; Corinth; Galatia; Alexandria; Carthage; Phrygia and so on. The lion's share of Christian growth also occurred in the eastern part of the Empire. In his Dialogue with Trypho, the patristic author Justin Martyr (c. 100 – c. 165) felt confident enough to boast:

Those people he talked about weren't urban people though.. maybe he was just boasting, so maybe he didn't really know? I recently read a bunch of Islamic travel accounts, and they described all kind of religions

Tertullian (155-240 CE)

That guy sure lived a long time, what's his secret to longevity

She saved many Christian lives and her valiant efforts were commended by St. Hippolytus and other Fathers. The second century CE church father St. Hippolytus, in In Cant. 2.18 (the earliest extant patristic commentary on the Song of Songs) congratulates Tamar from the Book of Genesis, who “desired greatly to take hold of [the anointing], and made herself look like a prostitute toward Judah to obtain it” and then compares her with Marcia from his lifetime.

At first pass on her story, I think maybe there are a few things about it that seem kind of morally wide. I had thought that Paul stated that Christians were supposed to obey their government.. I think maybe trying to get between a man and his legal wife, also seems morally conspicuous.. I wonder what her views were on labor, exactly.. did she believe slavery should be abolished, or did she possibly think that someone should go in place of the Christians, in that context? How many Christians were thoroughly educated about their doctrine, at that time? Or does it matter.. maybe they trusted more in their intuition, or their gut.. If they were masses of them under slavery, it probably wasn't as much of an intellectual connection for them

According to historical sociologists, there were roughly 6 million Christians in the Empire of some 60 million subjects in the year 300 C.E., or about 10% of the total population of the Roman state. That's hardly negligible.

I kind of wonder if that seems kind of scaled up? Rome itself probably didn't even break 10 million at that time, I doubt it ... And then people on the outside were probably often only nominally 'Roman' in terms of culture

 

[oldbadger]

Well, I expect that Christianity had indeed spread through the Roman Empire by the fourth century. I expect it would not have been noticed if it had been insignificant.

Saul was contracted by the Priesthood to go in to Syria and break up Christian groups very early on, probably because they weren't attending the Temple and paying dues and taxes, is my guess. It's usually all about money and/or control.

So.... yeah....... Christianity had become a problem, hence the sentences to the mines, slavery, executions, public spectacles.

A couple of points. ..... I notice that Christians were reported thus:-
......they were accustomed to meet on a fixed day before dawn and sing responsively a hymn to Christ as to a god, and to bind themselves by oath, not to some crime, but not to commit fraud, theft, or adultery, not falsify their trust, nor to refuse to return a trust when called upon to do so....

Now what a pity that these bindings were not continued. The prisons of full of such failures today, ..... no?

And...... you refer to a 'Recent Academic Study which mentions, initially, I expect, that Christianity was an:-

........ obscure Messianic cult movement in the far edge of the Eastern Roman empire.

Yes! Just so. That fits with Saul's early contract, and fits with the situation just after Jesus's death/disappearance. Nothing much wrong there.

But this ........
A closer look at the rapid rise of Christianity in its first five centuries reveals how Jesus himself as well as the disciples who went on to preach his gospel (i.e., Paul) were successful not only in accumulating followers on his behalf and advocating for prosociality, but also in promoting prosocial behaviors amongst believers, which in turn further drove the growth of the fledgling religion.

........... was surely decided by a Christian Student? Paul never was any kind of disciple, rather an apostle, and Jesus was certainly not preaching any kind of Christianity as it became, but for exactly the same objectives as the Baptist, to cut off funds from the Temple and it's surrounding suburbs, the whole of it ripping off peasant classes of their hard earned money. The Priesthood and all was just a corrupt bunch of quisling hypocrites. That's what the real Jesus was campaigning against. imo.

 

[Estro Felino]

Christianity died in 380, when Theodosius promulgated several edicts, the most famous of which was that of Thessaloniki, which outlawed Christian heresies and other pagan religions.

The mercilessness towards the Pagan Rome provoked the fall of the Empire. A incredibly valuable cultural heritage destroyed throughout few years. Statues, temples, icons, etc.

The only pagan temples which remained intact were those transformed into Churches. Like the Pantheon in Rome and some others.

When a religion goes political , it loses any sparkling of spirituality.
So, back to the thread topic: Early Christianity was surely more authentic

 

[metis]

All religions evolve over time, and Christianity is no exception. New situations demanded new adjustments. Constantine's adjustments of the Church were immense and far reaching, and we can argue over which were good, which were bad, and which fell into the gray areas.

However, what often gets lost in these discussions on this is that Constantine was not a theologian and he recognized that fact, thus the Council of Nicaea in 325 c.e. involved 1800 bishops. One major accomplishment was the selection of the Christian canon since there had been hot debates over which group had the "right" Bible. The vast majority of Christians nowadays use what the Council chose.

I post the above largely because so many take either black or white sides on this. This was a long drawn out and monumental event that was controversial then and still controversial now.

 

[Vouthon]

Christianity died in 380, when Theodosius promulgated several edicts, the most famous of which was that of Thessaloniki, which outlawed Christian heresies and other pagan religions.

The mercilessness towards the Pagan Rome provoked the fall of the Empire. A incredibly valuable cultural heritage destroyed throughout few years. Statues, temples, icons, etc.

While I think you have a very fair point in arguing that Christianity was transformed - and in a number of ways, arguably, into a less benign religion than in its pre-Theodosian branches - as a result of its institutionalization as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 380 CE (I agree quite a lot with that assessment), I'm also inclined to quibble with and seriously question some elements of your underlying 'historiography' here: which seem to be indebted to Edward Gibbon's eighteenth century enlightenment era project, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789).

(Wikipedia is our friend on this one, given the copious references on this - so I'm happy to cite it in this case for 'ease' of reference.)

Many of the conclusions in that work, which claimed (among many other influential arguments) that early Christianity was the coefficient cause of the 'decline' of Roman Empire, have been completely overturned by 20th century scholarship.

In brief, the Empire was already in dire straits - internally cracking at the seams through civil war and imperial expansionism from within, and barbarian migrations from without its ever-expanding borders - long before Christianity reached the apogee of its success, such that it could be declared the state creed in place of Roman paganism and the divine Caesar cult.

The crisis of the third century had nothing to do with Christianity, then a significant minority religion of perhaps some 5 million adherents or so:


Crisis of the Third Century - Wikipedia

The Crisis of the Third Century, also known as Military Anarchy or the Imperial Crisis (235–284 AD), was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of barbarian invasions and migrations into the Roman territory, civil wars, peasant rebellions, political instability (with multiple usurpers competing for power), Roman reliance on (and growing influence of) barbarian mercenaries known as foederati and commanders nominally working for Rome (but increasingly independent), plague, debasement of currency, and economic depression.

The crisis began with the assassination of Emperor Severus Alexander by his own troops in 235. This initiated a 50-year period during which there were at least 26 claimants to the title of emperor, mostly prominent Roman army generals, who assumed imperial power over all or part of the Empire. The same number of men became accepted by the Roman Senate as emperor during this period and so became legitimate emperors.
​

The fall of the Western Roman Empire - ultimately, two hundred years after the Imperial civil war era of 235-284 - in the year 475 CE, had absolutely nothing to do with the religious affiliation of the state's inhabitants. The state fell under the onslaught of repeated waves of migration from barbarian German tribal peoples.

It was just a very typical case of civilizational decline owing to a vicious cocktail of environmental (plagues, natural disasters), social (uncontrolled Germanic migration) and political (inability to retain centralized rule over the two halves of a much too large polity, hence the division into Western and Eastern portions in the Diocletian Tetrarchy at the end of the crisis in 293 CE) turmoil.

In fact, Christianity can be said to have saved and preserved Roman civilisation from the brink of utter collapse.

When Constantine legalised Christianity in 313 CE and professed his own adherence to it whilst continuing to tolerate paganism and other creeds under his reign, along with making the new city of Constantinople on the Bosporus the new capital of the Eastern portion of the Empire, historians now consider what he did to have been a stroke of political genius.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE hashed out a religious settlement that 99% of today's modern Christians (Catholic, Protestant, EO or OO) still abide by. One creed for one empire worshipping one God through one Lord Jesus Christ under one emperor. Pagan religion had no ability to provide an anchor of security so rock solid for the survival of a polity.

The Christian 'half' of the Empire in the East (where Christianity had grown most substantially, increasingly becoming the majority faith) persisted with its capital Constantinople as the leading world power and bastion of Christianized Graeco-Roman culture for centuries to come - enduring for well over another thousand years until the armies of Sultan Mehmed, in the name of Islamic civilization and the prophet Muhammad, conquered 'Rum' with the fall of Constantinople in 1453:


Byzantine Empire - Wikipedia

The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople (modern Istanbul, formerly Byzantium). It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453.[1] During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe. "Byzantine Empire" is a term created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire...

Several signal events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the period of transition during which the Roman Empire's Greek East and Latin West diverged. Constantine I (r. 324–337) reorganised the empire, made Constantinople the new capital and legalised Christianity. Under Theodosius I (r. 379–395), Christianity became the state religion and other religious practices were proscribed. In the reign of Heraclius (r. 610–641), the Empire's military and administration were restructured and adopted Greek for official use in place of Latin.[3]

Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.[4]
​

In the West, as the barbarian hordes from Germania kept sweeping into the Empire and sacking its major cities including Rome itself, Christianity again acted as a 'safeguard' against the total annihilation of the Roman cultural legacy: because the German tribespeople that invaded had already converted to a form of Christianity, Arianism:


Christianisation of the Germanic peoples - Wikipedia

In the 4th century, the early process of Christianization of the various Germanic people was partly facilitated by the prestige of the Christian Roman Empire among European pagans. Until the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Germanic tribes who had migrated there (with the exceptions of the Saxons, Franks, and Lombards, see below) had converted to Christianity.[1] Many of them, notably the Goths and Vandals, adopted Arianism instead of the Trinitarian (a.k.a. Nicene or orthodox) beliefs that were dogmatically defined by the church in the Nicene Creed.[1] ​

(continued....)

 

[Vouthon]

Thus, only a few centuries after the collapse of the Western portion of the empire, the Roman papacy 'revived' its legacy by crowning the Frankish Germanic emperor Charlemagne the new 'Augustus' in the west to rival the Byzantine emperor in the east and thus free the Roman pontiffs from the interference of the Eastern Roman Emperor's Exarch in Ravenna, his representative in Italy:


Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia

The Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor was a ceremony in which the ruler of Western Europe's then-largest political entity received the Imperial Regalia at the hands of the Pope, symbolizing both the pope's right to crown Christian sovereigns and also the emperor's role as protector of the Roman Catholic Church. The Holy Roman Empresses were crowned as well.

The Holy Roman Empire was established in the year 800 under Charlemagne. Later emperors were also crowned by the pope or other Catholic bishops. The papal coronation was required to acquire the Imperial title until 1508, when Pope Julius II recognized the right of Germanic monarchs elected by the prince-electors to use the Imperial title. Charles V became the last Holy Roman Emperor to be crowned by a pope, by Clement VII at Bologna, in 1530. Thereafter, until the abolition of the empire in 1806, no further crownings by the Pope were held.[N 1] Later rulers simply proclaimed themselves Imperator Electus Romanorum or "Elected Emperor of the Romans" after their election and coronation as German king, without the ultimate formality of an imperial coronation by the Pope in Rome.​

Consider that via St. Jerome translation of the Hebrew Tanakh and Greek New Testament into Latin in his Vulgate that the Roman Catholic Church transformed 'Latin' from being the vernacular tongue of a dying Roman civilisation into an enduring sacred liturgical language equivalent to Greek in the Christian East and later Arabic amongst Muslims:


Vulgate - Wikipedia

The Vulgate (/ˈvʌlɡeɪt, -ɡət/; Biblia Vulgāta, Latin pronunciation: [bɪbˈli.a wʊlˈɡaːta]) is a late-4th-century Latin translation of the Bible. It was to become the Catholic Church's officially promulgated Latin version of the Bible during the 16th century and is still used in the Latin Church alongside the Hebrew and Greek sources.​

Latin Church - Wikipedia

The Latin Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church or the Western Church,[N 1] is the largest particular church sui iuris of the Catholic Church, and employs the Latin liturgical rites. It is one of 24 such churches, the 23 others forming the Eastern Catholic Churches. It is headed by the bishop of Rome, the pope​

Roman Rite - Wikipedia

The Roman Rite (Latin: Ritus Romanus)[1] is the main liturgical rite of the Latin or Western Church, the largest of the sui iuris particular Churches that make up the Catholic Church. It developed in the Latin language in the city of Rome and, while distinct Latin liturgical rites such as the Ambrosian Rite remain, the Roman Rite has over time been adopted almost everywhere in the Western Church.

n medieval times there were very many local variants, even if they did not all amount to distinct rites, but uniformity grew as a result of the invention of printing and in obedience to the decrees of the 1545–1563 Council of Trent (see Quo primum). Several Latin liturgical rites that survived into the 20th century were abandoned voluntarily in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. The Roman Rite is now the most widespread liturgical rite not only in the Latin Church but in Christianity as a whole.

The Roman Rite has been adapted over the centuries and the history of its Eucharistic liturgy can be divided into three stages: the Pre-Tridentine Mass, Tridentine Mass and Mass of Paul VI. It is now normally celebrated in the form promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1969 and revised by Pope John Paul II in 2002, but use of the 1962 Roman Missal remains authorized as an extraordinary form under the conditions indicated in the 2007 papal document Summorum Pontificum.​

(continued...)

 

[Vouthon]

The tradition of the Roman rite of the Latin Church has preserved the legacy of 'Roman culture' unbroken for two thousand years after the Western half of the empire collapsed.

Christianity is the Roman Empire's most enduring cultural legacy and the most longstanding single 'institution' lasting till today from Roman imperial times, is the Papacy:


History of the Papacy in Rome - Rome after the fall of the Empire

When Romulus Augustulus was overthrown in the west by Odoacer, the Germanic King, in 476CE, the Papacy gained authority over the following years.

In 751 AD, Rome was sieged by the Lombards. Previously, the city had been part of the Byzantine Empire. In 756 AD, Pepin the Short, King of the Franks, invaded Italy, freeing Rome from the Lombards and giving large regions of Italy to the Pope. This is how the Papal States arouse and gave the papacy a power it had not yet had.

The spread of Christianity gave the Bishop of Rome great religious and political strength and Rome became the center of Christianity. Until Rome was declared capital of the Kingdom of Italy, Rome was the capital of the Papal States.

​

Pope - Wikipedia

In 380, the Edict of Thessalonica declared Nicene Christianity to be the state religion of the empire, with the name "Catholic Christians" reserved for those who accepted that faith.[55][56] While the civil power in the Eastern Roman Empire controlled the church, and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, the capital, wielded much power,[57] in the Western Roman Empire, the Bishops of Rome were able to consolidate the influence and power they already possessed.[57] After the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, barbarian tribes were converted to Arian Christianity or Catholicism;[58] Clovis I, king of the Franks, was the first important barbarian ruler to convert to Catholicism rather than Arianism, allying himself with the papacy. Other tribes, such as the Visigoths, later abandoned Arianism in favour of Catholicism.[58]

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the pope served as a source of authority and continuity. Pope Gregory I (c 540–604) administered the church with strict reform. From an ancient senatorial family, Gregory worked with the stern judgement and discipline typical of ancient Roman rule.

Gregory's successors were largely dominated by the Exarch of Ravenna, the Byzantine emperor's representative in the Italian Peninsula. These humiliations, the weakening of the Byzantine Empire in the face of the Muslim conquests, and the inability of the emperor to protect the papal estates against the Lombards, made Pope Stephen II turn from Emperor Constantine V. He appealed to the Franks to protect his lands. Pepin the Short subdued the Lombards and donated Italian land to the papacy. When Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne (800) as Roman Emperor, he established the precedent that, in Western Europe, no man would be emperor without being crowned by a Pope.[59]

​

(continued...)

 

[Vouthon]

Accordingly, Pope Francis delivered his Latin 'Urbi et Orbi' Christmas address yesterday. Consider:


Urbi et Orbi - Wikipedia

Urbi et Orbi ('to the city [of Rome] and to the world') denotes a papal address and apostolic blessing given by the pope on certain solemn occasions.

The term Urbi et Orbi evolved from the consciousness of the ancient Roman Empire. In fact it should be expressed by the Pope as the bishop of Rome (urbs = city; urbi the corresponding dative form; compare: urban) as well as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, as it were, includes the whole world (orbis = earth; orbi the corresponding dative form; compare: Orbit).

The Urbi et Orbi address and blessing is the most solemn form of blessing in the Catholic Church, and is reserved for the most solemn occasions. These occasions include Easter, Christmas, and the proclamation of a newly elected pope concluding a conclave.

Urbi et orbi blessings are usually given from the central loggia of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome, at noontime, and are broadcast worldwide through the European Broadcasting Union and other linkups. The address concludes with greetings in many languages in relation to the feast celebrated.

Edict of Thessalonica - Wikipedia.

The Edict of Thessalonica (also known as Cunctos populos), issued on 27 February AD 380 by three reigning Roman Emperors, made Nicene Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.[1] It condemned other Christian creeds such as Arianism as heresies of madmen, and authorized their persecution.

The Edict of Thessalonica was jointly issued by Theodosius I, Gratian, and Valentinian II on 27 February 380.[1] The edict came after Theodosius had been baptized by the bishop Ascholius of Thessalonica upon suffering a severe illness in Thessalonica.[3]

The edict was issued under the influence of Ascholius, and thus of Pope Damasus I, who had appointed him. It re-affirmed a single expression of the Apostolic Faith as legitimate in the Roman Empire, "catholic" (that is, universal)[5][6] and "orthodox" (that is, correct in teaching).[7]

IMPPP. GR(ATI)ANUS, VAL(ENTINI)ANUS ET THE(O)D(OSIUS) AAA. EDICTUM AD POPULUM VRB(IS) CONSTANTINOP(OLITANAE).

Cunctos populos, quos clementiae nostrae regit temperamentum, in tali volumus religione versari, quam divinum Petrum apostolum tradidisse Romanis religio usque ad nunc ab ipso insinuata declarat quamque pontificem Damasum sequi claret et Petrum Aleksandriae episcopum virum apostolicae sanctitatis, hoc est, ut secundum apostolicam disciplinam evangelicamque doctrinam patris et filii et spiritus sancti unam deitatem sub pari maiestate et sub pia trinitate credamus. Hanc legem sequentes Christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti, reliquos vero dementes vesanosque iudicantes haeretici dogmatis infamiam sustinere ‘nec conciliabula eorum ecclesiarum nomen accipere’, divina primum vindicta, post etiam motus nostri, quem ex caelesti arbitro sumpserimus, ultione plectendos.

DAT. III Kal. Mar. THESSAL(ONICAE) GR(ATI)ANO A. V ET THEOD(OSIO) A. I CONSS.

EMPERORS GRATIAN, VALENTINIAN AND THEODOSIUS AUGUSTI. EDICT TO THE PEOPLE OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our Clemency and Moderation, should continue to profess that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition, and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness.

According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity. We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title of Catholic Christians; but as for the others, since, in our judgment they are foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give to their conventicles the name of churches.

GIVEN IN THESSALONICA ON THE THIRD DAY FROM THE CALENDS OF MARCH, DURING THE FIFTH CONSULATE OF GRATIAN AUGUSTUS AND FIRST OF THEODOSIUS AUGUSTUS[4]

— Codex Theodosianus, xvi.1.2​

 

[Estro Felino]

While I think you have a very fair point in arguing that Christianity was transformed - and in a number of ways, arguably, into a less benign religion than in its pre-Theodosian branches - as a result of its institutionalization as the state religion of the Roman Empire in 380 CE (I agree quite a lot with that assessment), I'm also inclined to quibble with and seriously question some elements of your underlying 'historiography' here: which seem to be indebted to Edward Gibbon's eighteenth century enlightenment era project, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (1776–1789).

(Wikipedia is our friend on this one, given the copious references on this - so I'm happy to cite it in this case for 'ease' of reference.)

Many of the conclusions in that work, which claimed (among many other influential arguments) that early Christianity was the coefficient cause of the 'decline' of Roman Empire, have been completely overturned by 20th century scholarship.

In brief, the Empire was already in dire straits - internally cracking at the seams through civil war and imperial expansionism from within, and barbarian migrations from without its ever-expanding borders - long before Christianity reached the apogee of its success, such that it could be declared the state creed in place of Roman paganism and the divine Caesar cult.

The crisis of the third century had nothing to do with Christianity, then a significant minority religion of perhaps some 5 million adherents or so:


Crisis of the Third Century - Wikipedia

The Crisis of the Third Century, also known as Military Anarchy or the Imperial Crisis (235–284 AD), was a period in which the Roman Empire nearly collapsed under the combined pressures of barbarian invasions and migrations into the Roman territory, civil wars, peasant rebellions, political instability (with multiple usurpers competing for power), Roman reliance on (and growing influence of) barbarian mercenaries known as foederati and commanders nominally working for Rome (but increasingly independent), plague, debasement of currency, and economic depression.

The crisis began with the assassination of Emperor Severus Alexander by his own troops in 235. This initiated a 50-year period during which there were at least 26 claimants to the title of emperor, mostly prominent Roman army generals, who assumed imperial power over all or part of the Empire. The same number of men became accepted by the Roman Senate as emperor during this period and so became legitimate emperors.
​

The fall of the Western Roman Empire - ultimately, two hundred years after the Imperial civil war era of 235-284 - in the year 475 CE, had absolutely nothing to do with the religious affiliation of the state's inhabitants. The state fell under the onslaught of repeated waves of migration from barbarian German tribal peoples.

It was just a very typical case of civilizational decline owing to a vicious cocktail of environmental (plagues, natural disasters), social (uncontrolled Germanic migration) and political (inability to retain centralized rule over the two halves of a much too large polity, hence the division into Western and Eastern portions in the Diocletian Tetrarchy at the end of the crisis in 293 CE) turmoil.

In fact, Christianity can be said to have saved and preserved Roman civilisation from the brink of utter collapse.

When Constantine legalised Christianity in 313 CE and professed his own adherence to it whilst continuing to tolerate paganism and other creeds under his reign, along with making the new city of Constantinople on the Bosporus the new capital of the Eastern portion of the Empire, historians now consider what he did to have been a stroke of political genius.

The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE hashed out a religious settlement that 99% of today's modern Christians (Catholic, Protestant, EO or OO) still abide by. One creed for one empire worshipping one God through one Lord Jesus Christ under one emperor. Pagan religion had no ability to provide an anchor of security so rock solid for the survival of a polity.

The Christian 'half' of the Empire in the East (where Christianity had grown most substantially, increasingly becoming the majority faith) persisted with its capital Constantinople as the leading world power and bastion of Christianized Graeco-Roman culture for centuries to come - enduring for well over another thousand years until the armies of Sultan Mehmed, in the name of Islamic civilization and the prophet Muhammad, conquered 'Rum' with the fall of Constantinople in 1453:


Byzantine Empire - Wikipedia

The Byzantine Empire, also referred to as the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantium, was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, when its capital city was Constantinople (modern Istanbul, formerly Byzantium). It survived the fragmentation and fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD and continued to exist for an additional thousand years until it fell to the Ottoman Empire in 1453.[1] During most of its existence, the empire was the most powerful economic, cultural, and military force in Europe. "Byzantine Empire" is a term created after the end of the realm; its citizens continued to refer to their empire simply as the Roman Empire...

Several signal events from the 4th to 6th centuries mark the period of transition during which the Roman Empire's Greek East and Latin West diverged. Constantine I (r. 324–337) reorganised the empire, made Constantinople the new capital and legalised Christianity. Under Theodosius I (r. 379–395), Christianity became the state religion and other religious practices were proscribed. In the reign of Heraclius (r. 610–641), the Empire's military and administration were restructured and adopted Greek for official use in place of Latin.[3]

Although the Roman state continued and its traditions were maintained, modern historians distinguish Byzantium from ancient Rome insofar as it was centred on Constantinople, oriented towards Greek rather than Latin culture and characterised by Eastern Orthodox Christianity.[4]
​

In the West, as the barbarian hordes from Germania kept sweeping into the Empire and sacking its major cities including Rome itself, Christianity again acted as a 'safeguard' against the total annihilation of the Roman cultural legacy: because the German tribespeople that invaded had already converted to a form of Christianity, Arianism:


Christianisation of the Germanic peoples - Wikipedia

In the 4th century, the early process of Christianization of the various Germanic people was partly facilitated by the prestige of the Christian Roman Empire among European pagans. Until the fall of the Western Roman Empire, the Germanic tribes who had migrated there (with the exceptions of the Saxons, Franks, and Lombards, see below) had converted to Christianity.[1] Many of them, notably the Goths and Vandals, adopted Arianism instead of the Trinitarian (a.k.a. Nicene or orthodox) beliefs that were dogmatically defined by the church in the Nicene Creed.[1] ​

(continued....)

I appreciate this very informative and thorough analysis, @Vouthon.
What I meant is : " what if Christianity and Paganism had decided to coexist instead of fighting one another?".
After Constantine, Christianity was really succesful. Was there the need to undo Paganism by force?
I just wonder...maybe the Church would have remained spiritual even in the Middle Ages...who knows.
Pelagius himself noticed so many virtuous people among the Pagans.

 

[metis]

BTW, I think there's one thing that's easy to forget, thus sometimes getting lost in the fray, namely that when we say "Church", instead of automatically thinking "Pope & magisterium", think "Joe & Mary Parishioner in the pews on Sunday". After all, there's vastly more of the latter than the former.

 

[Estro Felino]

I did mean to strengthen the point of your thread, @Vouthon ...not to contradict it.
As you said, Christianity was strong and vivid even before Constantine.
The political power poisoned Christianity a bit.

 

[Vouthon]

What I meant is : " what if Christianity and Paganism had decided to coexist instead of fighting one another?"

Those are excellent questions worthy of deep consideration Estro

Underpinning them is a huge "what if?" though, as with every one of these types of alternate history experiments (fun and compelling as they are!).

One point to note, firstly, is that Constantine himself did not - and indeed had no intention of - suppressing pagan religions 'by force'.

In fact his catechetical instructor in the Christian religion and the appointed tutor of his own son Crispus, had been the Latin Church Father Lactantius - a famous advocate of untrammelled 'freedom of religion' as a natural right (something Tertullian had taught in his Latin theology a century before):

CHURCH FATHERS: Divine Institutes, Book V (Lactantius [c. 250 – c. 325])

There is no occasion for violence and injury, for religion cannot be imposed by force; the matter must be carried on by words rather than by blows, that the will may be affected. Let them unsheath the weapon of their intellect; if their system is true, let it be asserted. We are prepared to hear, if they teach; while they are silent, we certainly pay no credit to them, as we do not yield to them even in their rage.

Let them imitate us in setting forth the system of the whole matter: for we do not entice, as they say; but we teach, we prove, we show. And thus no one is detained by us against his will, for he is unserviceable to God who is destitute of faith and devotedness...

For if you wish to defend religion by bloodshed, and by tortures, and by guilt, it will no longer be defended, but will be polluted and profaned. For nothing is so much a matter of free-will as religion; in which, if the mind of the worshipper is disinclined to it, religion is at once taken away, and ceases to exist.


CHURCH FATHERS: Divine Institutes, Book II (Lactantius [c. 250 – c. 325])

It is therefore right, especially in a matter on which the whole plan of life turns, that every one should place confidence in himself, and use his own judgment and individual capacity for the investigation and weighing of the truth, rather than through confidence in others to be deceived by their errors, as though he himself were without understanding.
​

His student the Emperor Constantine, then enshrined this 'new' principle of religious liberty - for Roman culture had never possessed such a conception, they were 'syncretic' and just incorporated other religions into their own, not believers in 'freedom' - in the Edict of Milan (313): "we thought to arrange that no one whatsoever should be denied the opportunity to give his heart to the observance of the Christian religion, or of that religion which he should think best for himself".

Constantine did not believe in forcing non-Christians to embrace Christianity because he believed, as Lactantius taught him, that religion was an arena for the freewill and could not be coerced. He therefore had no choice, on account of his belief in religious liberty and the pagan beliefs of his subjects, but to continue with the duties of the imperial cult in what was a pagan state. Constantine did not deviate from his belief in non-coercion in religious matters.

Constantine fostered an atmosphere of religious liberty … Since it favored all religions equally, the edict expressed a policy of religious liberty, not toleration. ... All should try to share the benefits of their religious understanding with others, but no one should force his or her truth upon another. … (for according to Constantine)...

"It is one thing acting with free will to enter into contest for immortality, another to compel others to do so by force through the fear of punishment. No one should greatly trouble another, rather, everyone should follow what his soul prefers. ..."
​

This edict is a paradigmatic statement of concord. … Since Constantine hopes that common fellowship and the persuasion "of those who believe" will lead everyone freely to choose (what he called) the straight path, he indicates his wish that religious unity will ultimately evolve.

• Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, in The making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius & Rome

In principle he (Constantine) treated religion as a matter of choice and conscience, an arena free of state meddling...Liberis mentibus — "With Free minds" — all are to worship their Gods. It is a remarkable policy, an unexpected one, since it would have been natural for a ruler after his conversion to Christianity to shift all the previous relations. …

Most of the apologists who defended the Church in the early centuries advocated freedom of religion...the latin rhetor Lactantius developed a theological arguement for religious freedom.

Lactantius was close enough to Constantine later to serve as tutor to the emperor's sons, and his influence is evident in many ways in Constantine's own writings. …

He (Lactantius) asked those who believed in compulsion of religion: "What good can you do, then, if you defile the body but cannot break the will?" It is a surprisingly modern statement, arguing, that religious freedom is the "first freedom", rooted in the very nature of religious life as an exercise of free will...

Under Constantine's policy of concord, the Church was flooded with new converts, not through coercion but by force of Imperial example...

Eventually, Christian Emperors abandoned Constantinian religious policy. ... Constantine favoured the Church but gave serious attention to protecting the rights of non-Christians. One cannot help but muse how European history would have been different if Christians had had the patience to let Constantine's original settlement alone.

• Peter J. Leithart, in Defending Constantine : The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom (2010)

His Church, however, was a different matter: Constantine was happy to let the bishops sort out the nitty-gritty of the theology (he himself was an Arian, not a Trinitarian but he accepted the episcopal decision at the council to reject Arianism as heresy, with humble submission and deference to their spiritual authority as the learned 'experts' of his faith) yet he believed that as Christian Emperor he had the right to intervene in church affairs to help bring about 'concord' amongst Christians. He thus took a vested interest in the dynamics of the inner workings of the Church, which he did not have for paganism.

The great pity, in my judgment at least, is less that the 'Constantinian shift' took place nor that Constantine decided to legalize Christianity and personally affiliate himself with it (for that, in addition to continuing to imperially fund the construction of pagan temples, observing the Roman state religious rites and building Christian houses of worship too, is all he did - Constantine did not make Christianity a state religion or deny his pagan subjects their liberty to practise their rites), rather the real tragedy is that his 'successors' in the imperial office in Constantinople departed from his policy of religious tolerance in favour of enforcement of 'orthodoxy' (right-thinking).

i.e.


Constantine the Great - Wikipedia

Constantine was the first emperor to stop the persecution of Christians and to legalize Christianity, along with all other religions/cults in the Roman Empire. In February 313, he met with Licinius in Milan and developed the Edict of Milan, which stated that Christians should be allowed to follow their faith without oppression.[220] This removed penalties for professing Christianity, under which many had been martyred previously, and it returned confiscated Church property. The edict protected all religions from persecution, not only Christianity, allowing anyone to worship any deity that they chose.

Constantine possibly retained the title of pontifex maximus which emperors bore as heads of the ancient Roman religion until Gratian renounced the title.[223][224] According to Christian writers, Constantine was over 40 when he finally declared himself a Christian, making it clear that he owed his successes to the protection of the Christian High God alone.[225]

He supported the Church financially, built basilicas, granted privileges to clergy (such as exemption from certain taxes), promoted Christians to high office, and returned property confiscated during the long period of persecution.[227]

Constantine the Great and Christianity - Wikipedia

The Edict of Milan went a step further than the earlier Edict of Serdica by Galerius in 311, returning confiscated Church property. This edict made the empire officially neutral with regard to religious worship; it neither made the traditional religions illegal nor made Christianity the state religion, as occurred later with the Edict of Thessalonica of 380. The Edict of Milan did, however, raise the stock of Christianity within the empire and it reaffirmed the importance of religious worship to the welfare of the state.[25] Most influential people in the empire, especially high military officials, had not been converted to Christianity and still participated in the traditional religions of Rome; Constantine's rule exhibited at least a willingness to appease these factions. The Roman coins minted up to eight years after the battle still bore the images of Roman gods.[20] ​

 

[Estro Felino]

Those are excellent questions worthy of deep consideration Estro

Underpinning them is a huge "what if?" though, as with every one of these types of alternate history experiments (fun and compelling as they are!).

One point to note, firstly, is that Constantine himself did not - and indeed had no intention of - suppressing pagan religions 'by force'.

Of course Constantine did not.
I was speaking of Theodosius.

Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire - Wikipedia

 

[Vouthon]

Of course Constantine did not.
I was speaking of Theodosius

On that we are fully agreed, it was a mistake in my judgment too and an attempt to "synonymize" church and state in a deeply interlocked relationship of mutual dependence that arguably corrupted the church with privilege.

For the Roman Empire, though, in pragmatic political terms, the Theodosian settlement arguably secured the survival of the Eastern Empire for the next thousand years, by giving it a measure of religious uniformity and stability centred around the shared worldview and ideology of Nicene Catholic Christianity.

So, one could say that it made sense in the interests of the Roman state, culture, civilizational space and society. The intra-Christian denominational disputes between Catholics and Arians, and Valentinians and Donatists and so on, were very fractious and could have destabilized the fabric of the social order (already buckling as a result of the fragility of imperial rule in the West by the dawn of the fifth century).

Interestingly, Theodosius had been preceded in the West by Valentinian I, a very religiously tolerant and magnanimous Catholic Christian emperor, who had protected pagan and heretical Christian religious freedom:

Valentinian I - Wikipedia

Valentinian was a Christian but permitted liberal religious freedom to all his subjects, proscribing only some forms of rituals such as particular types of sacrifices, and banning the practice of magic. Again, Valentinian steadily set his face against the increasing wealth and worldliness of the clergy. He issued a pointed edict via Pope Damasus I, forbidding the grant of bequests to Christian clergy-men; and another forcing members of the sacerdotal order to discharge the public duties owed on account of their property, or else relinquish it.[53][50]​

What a pity his settlement hadn't endured!

But do I have an instinctive "appreciation" or little hidden bias myself for the less uniform but more idealistic beauty of pre-Nicene Christianity, in terms of its having been uncorrupted by state influence and more guided by sheer conviction in the "ideals" of Christ's teaching? Yes, yes I do in many respects.

Pre-Nicene Christianity is utterly fascinating to study (in its doctrinally fluid complexity) and one cannot but help admiring its "lack" of compromise with temporal politics - as sadly had to occur in post-Nicene Christianity, which had to be the state creed of a vast civilisation and this accommodate it's ideals to the realities of the state.

 

[sojourner]

I wrote a midterm thesis and a final thesis on the subject of church history and the separation of church and state for an advanced church history course in seminary. The first thesis received a B from the professor, who disagreed with my take on the subject, and let me know in the annotations that I needed to rethink my position. I knew I was right, and so defended the same thesis further in my final. I changed the professor’s mind and received an A in the course (that professor was notorious for not giving A’s.) It’s been so many years... wish I knew what I did with that final!