Talk:Christianization/Archive 1

Three Cheers: An End to Whitewashed History.
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)


 * Sure, but it's still important to distinguish between what Constantine did and what Theodosius I did. Wesley 16:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup!
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 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 (&#5839;) 09:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * early missionaries
 * Rome
 * Armenia, Georgia, Ethiopia, Syria
 * Roman Empire (Gaul, Germanic, Britannia)
 * Migration period, Goths, Lombards, Slavs,
 * Middle Ages, Crusades, Scandinavia, Hungarians, Balts, Finns, Reconquista
 * Reformation, heretic movements, forced conversion, Jews, Russian Empire
 * Colonialism, Jesuits, Africa, Americas, Far East
 * Modern proselytization, SIL, Chick tracts, etc.


 * I don't know if inserting all those subsections has made the article more readable. I still think, it is an improvement; at least now I would have found the article on the Christianization of Scandinavia. -Zara1709 19:52, 14 March 2007 (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.

Wholesale deletions
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)


 * The "See also" section does really need trimming. Jkelly 00:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with the "major dates of conversion" map? It looks okay. Isopropyl 00:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On second glance, it does look kind of amateurish...maybe if it were cleaned up a little? Isopropyl 00:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it was removed, but it may be a copyvio, as a derivative work of some other map. I am not entirely comfortable believing that the entire map was drawn by the uploader.  Jkelly 00:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, duh, good point :) Isopropyl 00:31, 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
 * Did you in fact draw the entire map from scratch? If you just superimposed text on an existing map, it is a possible copyright violation. Isopropyl 14:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

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.
 * Please stop inserting horizontal rules. Did you get the image from the main UN site? The maps section explicitly states that
 * 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.
 * Please provide proof that the map is in fact in the public domain. Also, it'd be nice if you could remove the watermarking. Isopropyl 16:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the copyright violation or not, this map should not be put into article because it is fairly misleading and full of errors. Just the fact that it gives the boundaries of modern, 21th century states while it speaks about Christianization during almost 2000 years should make anyone suspicious. For instance, on the map of (fairly norhtern) Russia it states from 800 by Germanic Kievan Rus state and later on by Byzantine monks (esepcialy St. Cyril and Method). Not a word of that is true. First of all, there is a lot of controversy wether should the rulers of Kievan Rus be considered Germanic. Political correctnes aside, that leaves us with question of historical correctnes: a) Kievan Rus was officialy Christianized in late 10th century, literaly over night, by quick and abrupt act of Vladimir the Great. b) Neither Constantine nor Method never set foot in Russia. Their great mission to convert the Slavs started in late 800s in Slavic state known as Great Moravia, which was roughly in the area of modern-day Hungary. By all accounts their efforts were fairly succesful, and the Slavs in the area were Christianized by the begining of 10th century - 100 year earlier than the map mentions. True, Hungarians, who conquered the lands of Great Moravia at the time, were Christianized only after 1000, but I think it is worthy mentioning that the Christianization of that central part of Europe started fairly earlier - especialy since the mission of Cyril & Method was the very nucleus of conversion of the greatest part of Slavic tribes to Christianity. Furthermore, the area of Bosnia & Herzegovina was definately not Christian from 400s onwards; it was not Christian a 1000 years later! Bosnia remained pagan well into high middle age, and even then, it developed a fairly peculiar sort of Bogumil heresy with its own, Bosnian church. 'Regular' Christianity didn't arive into the area practicly until the Turskih rule, with the efforts of the Franciscan monks who worked amongst the conquered populations. Holy Roman Empire was not just Austria (whose name, Osterreich, Eastren Realm, acctualy refers to the eastren part of the Empire), but the entire German part of Europe; and it definately did not exist in 500-800, but only from 10th century onward, after the fall and divsion of Carolign empire, invasion of Hungarians, and rise of Otto I. And finaly, without me going on forever about all the inaccurasies, why does the maps show only Europe, even without the entire Mediterranian basin? Through 2000 years, Christianity reached almost all parts of the world, and even in half of that time, it arrived to almost all corners of the Old World. --Hierophant 17:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If anyone is interested, the map in question can still be found at: http://euroheritage.net/html/images/christianhistorymap.jpg It might still be quite useful for writing a section on the Christianization of Europe. -Zara1709 20:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Christianization of Native Americans
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)
 * ...since it's not a native American in the illustration, perhaps your points are less than apt when applied to the attempts at Christianization in India; nevertheless, if you can report the gist of any historian's printed articles that confirm your views, they would make suitable additions here or at the various sub-articles. --Wetman (talk) 20:10, 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)

Illustrations
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)

Christianisation is not identical to persecution
This article is severely POV-pushing the opposite. 68.110.8.21 18:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell me about it. I am trying to get the article Persecution of Germanic Pagans NPOV on this for almost five months now. -Zara1709 16:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Historical persecution by Christians is basically a pov fork of this one. We need to NPOV both, and probably merge them. dab (𒁳) 09:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comments here. The article includes way too much speculation on the reasons for conversion (which seem to be  inevitably material in nature -- e.g. Baptism of Poland section) and should include references to positive cultural changes as well (e.g. abolishing existing practices of Child_sacrifice and other pagan rituals).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobnitzem (talk • contribs) 20:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Satanic panic much? Child sacrifice was not an element of any known form of Northern European paganism. bloodofox: 03:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, there have actually been cases of pagan buriel rites in which slaves (or children of slaves) were buried as company for someone on the afterlife (there is case of this discussed in in the introduction by Padberg). There were definitely positive aspects of Christianization, like the abolishment of Slavery (which lasted until the 16th century). But I can't work this into the article - I just don't have the time. Anyway, this article and the Historical persecution by Christians need to be keeped seperately. Aside from the late antiquity section, I should have gotten the POV largely out of the article, and then these are almost completely different topics (the main issue in 'religious persecution by Christians' took place after the Reformation.) Zara1709 09:46, 14 November 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)


 * human sacrifice and execution of heretics can by no means be compared or referred as the same thing with different terminology. Execution of heretics occured rather rarely(about 2 to 5 % of all accused when talking about the medieval inquisition) and could be avoided by rejecting heretical opinions. It was just about "crime" and punishment and belongs to the category of justice not religion. But there was no legal way to escape human sacrifice in a pagan society when you were chosen. Using the logic of the above comment even death penalty in the modern USA may be referred to as a form of human sacrifice(which in fact isn't). Both Christians and Pagans practised death penalty but some Pagans also made human sacrifices in adition to death penalty. Christianity never practised human sacrifices. And that's where Christianisation made a progress.  Isidoros47 (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Abolishment of slavery?? Both testaments of the Bible are full of passages that portray slavery as normal and accepted (Jesus doesn't even oppose it, in fact he works it into his parables), and Christians in the United States had practiced slavery for a long time before it was abolished here.  I definitely do not see how Christianization brought about the end of slavery.


 * To disagree with you, the first recorded abolition of slavery occured in the Christian kingdom of Hungary with St.Stephen I. as king. 213.160.188.217 (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In many places including Africa and the Americas, Christianity brought with it conservative, repressive, even oppressive sexual norms. Some indigenous cultures had no concept of homophobia or transphobia before Christianization.  Some had more equitable roles for men and women.


 * And I agree that an objective historian would not make a moral distinction between human sacrifice and the killing of heathens and heretics. If you want to compare atrocities, some Pagan cultures may have practiced human sacrifice, but Christians came to the United States and massacred most of the indigenous people here, then forced the rest into Christian schools to assimilate to their culture.


 * Christianization is a very complex issue, it is not identical to "persecution" but if you're going to go about judging history by today's moral standards, depending on what group you belonged to (gays, atheists, scientists, Native Americans, etc.), it did indeed take the form of persecution much of the time.


 * There must be a way to objectively analyze those effects, and not gloss over or forget the atrocities, nor ignore any advancements. But I would suggest avoiding making any blanket statement like "Christianization led to the abolishment of slavery", because it's simply not true.VatoFirme (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be improved
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)

Frankish Empire
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;


 * It describes the Frankish Empire, are we to presume this is the empire of Charlemagne?
 * This very loose empire consisted of a myriad of different parts who became Christian at different times, in particular the Bohemians, Saxons and Wends so this portion is far too simplistic.
 * I am fairly sure that the Franks themselves had become Christian before the dissolution of the Roman Empire in 476AD, they were Arians an heretical branch of Christianity but Christians none-the-less. (I'll look this up in Gibbons). James Frankcom (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * "Fairly sure"? does "conversion of Clovis" ring a distant bell? As for Gibbon, let me recommend Ramsay McMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire AD 100-400.-Wetman (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

A grand exercise in denial

 * There was hardly a European country that was not converted to Christianity by force. Maybe not Ireland. Once the leaders were converted, the populace was forced to convert. Getting a clear view of the history of Christian violence is a huge issue today in view of all the saber-rattling about Muslim violence. We should not make moral judgments about people before we see the extent of what they have done.

Bdubay (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Revert by Editor2020
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)


 * That's a direct quote, which means it shouldn't be changed. Editor2020, Talk 01:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A more prosaic definition
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)

Uhm, Romania?
Hello, Christianization of Romania? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2ED6:9470:41AE:33AC:E90C:ECDB (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added tag to http://uhi.academia.edu/documents/0065/1378/Sanmark2004_OPIA34.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050919184336/http://192.167.112.135/NewPages/TESTIAM/AM99/14.pdf to http://192.167.112.135/NewPages/TESTIAM/AM99/14.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Spelling?
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)


 * What other articles use is irrelevant: both spellings are considered equally acceptable for the encyclopaedia as a whole (that is, consistency between articles is not needed, nor is the spelling conventions used elsewhere a valid factor in determining which to use in any other given articles). Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Old Prussian "Genocide" POV
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)
 * I have removed the portion about Old Prussians. They would be an obscure example for a lede and most importantly they seem to have assimilated rather exterminated. That said, "Often the conversion of the ruler was followed by the compulsory baptism of his subjects, often resulting in genocide and ethnic cleansing of whole nations." still does not make sense. Mass killing of opponents and people who refused to convert, okay, that seems a plausible scenario. 195.169.52.55 (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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)

Ancient
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: Please, if anyone has a problem with this change, do say so. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing tag
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)


 * If I don't get any input in a couple more days, I will go ahead and do this.
 * In the ante-Nicene period, I would like to add to the discussion of syncretism as beginning in the second century, while not using the term "syncretism" itself, because it is a power word and should therefore be avoided. Christianization was always a parallel process of absorbing aspects of indigenous religion at the same time indigenous religion absorbed Christianity. My goal is to add specific examples of this "exchange" in each of the categories (if I don't tire of this before finishing).
 * This section describes Christianity of this period as inclusive, but it was also highly exclusive. That needs adding because both of those concepts are inherent in Christianity and both impacted Christianization throughout history. Picking one aspect to focus on will skew everything with a POV.
 * As the foundational period, this section is too short. Christianization begins here.
 * I do understand this is a controversial topic - though it needn't be really - but there is strong feeling associated with it. Those feelings are clear from the article itself, and that needs some adjusting as well. I will come back with an actual rewrite and post it here, with sources, before inserting anything in this article in an effort to minimize conflict. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, here is what I want to insert. I changed the section title, because "Ancient" is the term most commonly used in scholarship of the period, but I am not hard-over on that if anyone objects. It is longer than what is there, but that is fitting for the foundation period. I believe it covers the pertinent aspects of Christianization in a balanced neutral manner, but if anyone has any objections - with source support - I am happy to do all possible to accommodate other views. If I don't get any objections, I will go ahead and insert in a couple days. The Bold is there only on this talk page.

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. Christianization of the early Roman Empire was the cumulative result of multiple individual behaviors. This emergence was 'self-organized', distributed away from any central authority, and was based on common causes. 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. Scholars agree there was a significant rise thereafter in the absolute number of Christians in the third century.

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). These were put into writing, distributed (KJV Acts 16:4–5) by messengers present at the Council, and were received as an encouragement. 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. Early Christian communities were highly inclusive in terms of social stratification and other social categories. 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. 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.

Ante-Nicaean Christianity was also highly exclusive. Believing was the crucial and defining characteristic that set a "high boundary" that strongly excluded the "unbeliever". Keith Hopkins asserts: "It is this exclusivism, idealized or practiced, which marks Christianity off from most other religious groups in the ancient world". 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. 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’. 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. 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). 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.

Christianization was not a one-way process. There was instead a parallelism in the processes of Christianization in that Christianity absorbed indigenous elements just as indigenous religions absorbed aspects of Christianity. Salzman has shown that, in the process of converting the Roman Empire's aristocracy, Christianity was also shaped by the values of that aristocracy. Polytheism openly adopted aspects of the new religion transforming and adapting them to fit. Several early Christian writers, including Justin (2nd century), Tertullian, and Origen (3rd century) wrote of Mithraists copying Christian beliefs. The Neoplatonist movement began with Plotinus in mid–third century Egypt. 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.

In 301, Armenia became the first kingdom in history to adopt Christianity as an official state religion. 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.

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. 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.

Scholars do not agree on the date, but most assert 337 as the year Mirian III of Iberia (present-day Georgia) adopted Christianity. 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. Fifth, 8th, and 12th century accounts of the conversion of Georgia reveal how pre-Christian practices were taken up and reinterpreted by Christian narrators. In 325, The Kingdom of Aksum (Modern Ethiopia and Eritrea) became the second country to declare Christianity as its official state religion.

References:

Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Pinging everyone who has ever commented on this article: Sehamahmadd, Angelv03, PrimeBOT, User:Dogface, User:Brian Kendig, Wetman, 71.120.201.39, Firejuggler86, Wesley, Tuomas, Johan Magnus, dab, Zara1709, Isopropyl, Jkelly, Hierophant, Bdubay, 68.110.8.21, Frobnitzem, bloodofox:, Isidoros47, VatoFirme, James Frankcom, Mistakefinder, Editor2020,  InternetArchiveBot , and Nolicmahr. Some of these are no doubt inactive, and I missed a few with no user names attached, but I do think that's the longest list I have ever put on one of these talk page previews. Please comment if you care about these changes. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, I couldn't even find my name as having commented on this page, but this does seem the sort of page I would have commented on at some point! A few notes:
 * Be bold, and I think you're fine in that your changes appear to be mostly focused on one specific section. Still, to make it easier to see your changes, you may want to split them across multiple commits: one for rewriting the 'Early Christianity' section, another for moving the introductory paragraph, &c. That way it might be more clear that you're modifying more than replacing the article.
 * You said "I changed the section title, because 'Ancient' is the term most commonly used in scholarship of the period." That's not the colloquial use of 'ancient' (m-w.com says it's more to do with ' the earliest known civilizations'), but if it's more correct in this article's context, I recommend using it along with an explanation of why it's the appropriate word here.
 * Thank you for putting in the effort to improve this article! - Brian Kendig (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Brian Kendig YAY! Somebody answered - and w/o even getting a ping! That's awesome. Thank you!
 * I do agree with you and be bold generally speaking, but in controversial articles such as this one, I have found that offering a preview saves lots of unwelcome surprise for the editors who have already bled for this article. It helps prevent hurt feelings, angst and outright conflict. It is always my goal to make things as easy for others as possible while also maintaining integrity of content. I will do as you suggest and split my changes just in case it does make a difference for someone. Thank you.
 * Beginning here also makes it possible for me to explain, ahead of time, that this is not intended as a one time or a one section edit. I have every intention of having some input to most of this article - even if it is just adding citations for what is there - so that I can legitimately remove that tag. I hate tags. I will do it a bit at a time, but it is needed throughout.
 * There are multiple claims w/o citation, which tends to reflect personal beliefs and leads to errors in fact. What I have covered here so far was lacking in NPOV and due weight in its original form, but the Late Antiquity section is much worse. I found 9 errors in fact, and 2 claims that are questionable, and an absence of current scholarship almost entirely - with no real explanation of the process of change! Where in that section is Christianization/syncretism actually discussed?
 * You are wanted as a contributor! Please continue to participate as you are willing and able! Don't be afraid to edit content - with sources!
 * I will also follow your advice on explaining the use of ancient - here I assume?
 * Thank you as well! This was really great of you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for championing this article, and for doing in a way that's considerate of your fellow editors. I still encourage you to go ahead and make the changes you feel improve the article -- sometimes the best way to find out whether someone has a problem with your changes is to go through with them and then invite discussion afterwards (the "it's easier to get forgiveness than permission" approach). I don't feel knowledgeable enough about the subject matter to make value judgments on it, but if you are able to see assertions with bias and without citations, please go right ahead and remove 'em; the article is better off without them. (And about explaining the use of 'ancient', I meant in the article not the talk page!) Brian Kendig (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So. The first section is in, with the addition of a definition up front. I am now working on what I know will be the most controversial section - Late Antiquity. There are currently 8 statements that are either partially or wholly contradicted in current scholarship. I am including responses to 6 of them in the text itself, as they are current issues, but the other two I will simply post here - along with the suggested rewrite. Hah! I see my explanation of Ancient is useless because it's about Ancient Rome not Ancient Christianity!! What can I say? Going from one article to another sometimes befuddles the brain. I'll fix it!  I am almost ready to post the next section. Thank you! I appreciate such positivity! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Late Antiquity
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". and  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. p. 191.

Since it's been discounted it seemed appropriate to simply leave it out.

The second is the article's claim that This is just a mistake. Those early Christians who were educated had all been classically educated as Romans. Scourfield, on page 3 of 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. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Next installment
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.


 * Somebody, anybody, please! The Paradigm shift only really requires the first two paragraphs and the rest could be in a note, which would make it all less cumbersome. But it seems so significant! Does anyone else have an opinion on this? Personal feelings welcome! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

"There is no evidence to indicate that conversion through force was an accepted method of Christianization at any point in this era"
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)


 * Atanar Oh thank goodness someone finally showed up to participate! I am glad of it, glad you are here, and glad to deal with this issue. I appreciate that this is an altered perspective from the old point of view, and it is often difficult for people to wrap their minds around. The statement in the article is indeed a denial of that expected perspective. It is discussed to some limited degree in the section on Constantine and in note #6 in the article, but there is so much material on this now that it is pretty much irrefutable.


 * Sacrifice and magic were outlawed everywhere, not paganism in general; paganism continued. Plus there is consensus among scholars that the laws were not enforced. They could not have much impact without enforcement. Constantine used force against the Donatists but not against pagans. This article references Leithart's biography of Cpnstantine, on page 302, as saying Constantine did not adopt a policy of forced conversion. Other places in the book he discusses the writings of Constantine's contemporary Lactantius on church policy against the use of force. Weimer and Thompson are harder to access, since they are in a German book, but I was able to through the library. Weimar discusses another contemporary of Constantine, Libanius, as also saying Constantine did not use force. There are also two more references in the text. There are also more references available. Hal Drake discusses "proof" that Constantine did not use force in the fact that the radical Christian Firmicus Maternus wrote twice calling for exactly that, and there is no reason for that if it was already being done. see pages 136-138. Bradbury, Errington, Brown, Salzman - all of them say the same nowadays. Jewish scholarship focuses on the policy of proseletyzing as negative for Jews, but also does not claim conversion by force until Visigothic Spain in the seventh century.


 * I think MacMullen is the one lone voice in opposition, his work is mostly old, and his minority view is discussed in that same note. This section is just too long to discuss all minority views in the text.


 * "This era" is specified in the heading.


 * Ah, but I haven't gotten to the middle ages yet. What is true of one age is not necessarily true of another - or place - or person. Christianity went through radical change when the Byzantines took over, and again after the 1200s when the church became largely secular. There is no doubt it was a persecuting entity in the middle ages, on its own behalf, and by lending its support to the secular governments who used persecution to centralize power. But that is all yet to come and not present in the fourth or fifth centuries. Things started changing under the Byzantine Justinian I. And that is coming up in the next section.


 * I hope this helps. I am glad for your participation. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Atanar I have now created a new section on the topic of force. I will add more on down in the article when it becomes chronologically correct to do so. It is an important topic and pertinent to this article. I am trying to be very careful and am using multiple sources for all of this. I welcome your input. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

New tag
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'm back now and will continue working on citing this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Holiday
I will be mostly gone from WP for the next two weeks. Happy holidays everyone! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Finished, finie, finita, complevit, ✅!
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)

Standardisation of references
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)


 * On what basis could anyone possibly object? This is amazingly wonderfully helpful - a truly great gift - wait, has someone been mean to you? Tell me and I will hunt them down! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Different editors have very, very slightly differing ideas about how formatting should be done. And as with anything that is barely discernable and has no real effect it can cause vicious and life long vendettas. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Human beings are beyond explaining aren't they? Well, I for one admire your abilities and your work and most of all your spirit of helpfulness and cooperation. They are obviously lunatics, but lord knows the world is full of those! You take care of yourself and let your friends help. The world is a crazy place and there's nowhere crazier than wikipedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * All done now, do try and keeping tidy ;). -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:22, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I do try, I swear I do, I just suck at what you are brilliant at. I think I've done everything right only to have bright red letters follow me. I note there are 5 citations w/o page numbers - how do I manage to do stuff like that? Ah - not all of it is mine! Praise God hallelujah!! I'm not the only idiot here! Some days that's the best I can say...  Thank you again and again for all your help and hard work. I think you're amazing - and you can tell - I really do need you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well we compliment each over, because I suck at writing articles. And as always I'm willing to help, just drop me a note if you need anything. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You make me smile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was about to get back to Berkhofer! Really! It was late, I was tired, I went to bed with every intention of coming back... now I don't have to. So thank you. I can hardly believe it's done. 6 months. Crazy huh? Now it needs reevaluation - not a start class anymore. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Happy to hear it's finally done! (Are you sure this time? :) -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 22:44, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I just had to go remove 6 references to content I had also cut back on. It is sometimes hard to tell the difference between further support and a big ol' rabbit hole. I try to keep things on point but sometimes I just run on and on...
 * Maybe it's never really done, but maybe I am finally done with it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Splitting proposal
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)


 * Against This article does not require splitting based on size. Check Page Size for: Prose size (text only): 85 kB (13529 words) "readable prose size". It is not required by WP, and would not be an improvement, since splitting would prevent a full presentation of the topic and thereby mislead readers. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. I'll close this discussion, I didn't know there was a way to see that lol. Sorry to be a bother! Treetoes023 (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

GA
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)

Untitled
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)

Denial
"the practice of converting pagan cult practices, pagan religious imagery, pagan sites and the pagan calendar to Christian uses."


 * Is there any evidence that the Roman Catholic Church denies every detail in the article? I sincerely doubt this; it looks like a sidelong ad hominem attack. Even if this were true at one point in time, as soon as someone adds some detail which the RCC does not deny, the blanket statement at the top of the article would become false. Therefore I'm removing it. Wesley 17:53, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)


 * The point was that such blanket statements are bound to be wrong, sooner or later. I'm sure the fact checking at those articles will continue. ;-) Wesley 06:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An ongoing campaign, of which User:Wesley is a (hopefully thoughtless) footsoldier, viz:


 * "Edit" at Halloween: "The holiday was a day of religious festivities in various northern European pagan traditions, until it was appropriated by Christian missionaries (along with Christmas and Easter, two other traditional northern European pagan holidays)" (italics suppressed) --Wetman 20:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't looked at either article recently. However, the dating of Easter is obviously related to the dating of the Jewish Passover to begin with, and Christmas' connection with Saturnalia etc. is debatable either way. Neither is an open and shut case for either side. Wesley 23:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A better idea, revised
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):
 * Such pagan precedents for Christian practice tend to be downplayed or even sometimes dismissed by Christian, particularly Roman Catholic apologists. On the other hand, these historical precedents may be played up by atheists wishing to discredit Christianity, thus the subject is sensitive both for the Christian faithful and for the historian 

How can objections be made to that? --Wetman 20:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. If we're going to discuss how groups respond to these claims, what about adding something about these precedents being played up by atheists wishing to discredit Christianity, and by Protestants wishing to discredit earlier expressions of Christianity? Wesley 23:00, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you serious, or trolling? /Tuomas 00:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, a little both. I think it's trolling/POV to point out how Christians are "sensitive" to this subject. I don't dispute that Christians, including myself, are sensitive to this subject. I do question the appropriateness of including that in the article. But rather than ask that this text be deleted, I'm instead proposing that additional balancing text be added, namely, an equally neutral observation that atheists and protestants do seem to play up these sorts of 'precedents', as a way of discrediting earlier forms of Christianity. So really, my proposal is perfectly serious. Thanks for asking. Wesley 05:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, a classical our camp of the world vs. your camp of the world battle ;-)
 * As a former student of theology (yeah, yeah, ...only a year, but anyway) in a country with a firmly established protestant state church, I remember nothing of neither protestant nor catholic teachers playing down the amalgamation of previous and introduced religious concepts.
 * &mdash; Not the opposite either, I would wish to say, but I have nothing to compare with, so I don't say that. :-) Theories and research on the "inheritance" of annual feasts, that in most cultures have either a religious or semi-religious connotation, is as far as I understand one of the branches of Sociology of Religion.
 * --Johan Magnus 06:07, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Please comment on the revision above. I see no reason that this attempt at suppression can't be overcome in the interests of a genuinely neutral point-of-view and historical accuracy. The Roman Catholic response might be entered separately, as a rebuttal. --06:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Few Christian churches built in the first half millennium of the established Christian Church were not built upon sites already consecrated as pagan temples ...
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)
 * This has since been rewritten in more detail. -- Beland (talk) 01:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

= Suggested replacement =

I know this is a lot: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Favoritism, hostility, and iconoclasm
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.

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. 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. 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.

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. He never engaged in a purge, there were no pagan martyrs during his reign, and pagans remained in important positions at his court. 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. Constantine's main approach to religion was to use enticement by making the adoption of Christianity beneficial. "Imperial patronage, legal rights to hold property, and financial assistance" were important contributions to successful Christianization over the next hundred years. However, most scholars also agree it was Constantine who issued the first law against paganism's practice of animal sacrifice. These laws menaced death, but during Constantine's reign, no one suffered the death penalty for violating them. 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). 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".

In Eusebius' church history, there is a bold claim of a Constantinian campaign against the temples, however, there are discrepancies in the evidence. Temple destruction is attested to in 43 cases in the written sources, but only four have been confirmed by archaeological evidence. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

Rewriting history
"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."

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. 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".

Despite the ongoing presence of a Christian majority, Christian literature of the fourth century does not focus on converting pagans. Instead, it depicts Constantine's conversion as evidence of the Christian god's final triumph in Heaven over the pagan gods. Brown indicates that, as a result of this "triumphalism," paganism was seen as vanquished. 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. 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. 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".

Historian John Curran writes that, under Constantine's successors, Christianization of Roman society proceeded by fits and starts. Paganism in a broader sense did not end when public sacrifice did. 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. Paganism continued, co-existing with Christianity despite official threats, occasional mob violence, 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.

Theodosius
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. 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.

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. 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. Cameron writes that Theodosius did 'certainly not' ban paganism.

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. Theodosius also nominated the last pair of pagan consuls in Roman history (Tatianus and Symmachus) in 391. 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.

Theodosius allowed other pagan practices to be performed publicly and temples to remain open. 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. 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. 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.

I think (I hope) these are all the references:































































Romanness, tolerance and intolerance
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. 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.

The two religious traditions co-existed and largely tolerated each other throughout most of the fourth and fifth centuries. Christianization had worked in both directions transforming the structure and ideals of both the Church and the Empire through this long period of symbiosis. 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". 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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. Christian writers and imperial legislators alike drew on a rhetoric of incessant conquest and reconquest that affected every facet of upper-class society. These Christian sources with their violent rhetoric, have had great influence on modern perceptions of this period. 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.

Paradigm shift: Justinian I and the Byzantine papacy
Christianization changed between the fifth and eighth centuries. The weight of wealth after the fifth century turned Christianity in a new direction. 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.

In these centuries, Ancient Christianity, (as it had existed in the Western empire with some religious competition, toleration and secularism), came to an end. Most scholars agree the 7th and 8th centuries are when the 'end of the ancient world' is most conclusive and well documented. 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. 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.

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. After fighting ended, Justinian used what is known as a Pragmatic Sanction to assert control. The Sanction effectively removed the supports that had allowed the senatorial aristocracy to retain power. 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. Bishops stepped into civic leadership in their place. The position and influence of the pope rose. By the eighth century, papal control of Rome was fully established. Italy can be said to have become a Christian country.

Under Justinian, "the full force of imperial legislation against deviants of all kinds, particularly religious" ones, was applied in practice, writes Judith Herrin. 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. 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.

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. 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. 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.

He purged the bureaucracy of those who disagreed with him. Imperial laws that had been laid down by pagan Emperors like Diocletian and Maximian to persecute Christians were used against the Manicheans. 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". In Kaldellis' estimation, "Few emperors had started so many wars or tried to enforce cultural and religious uniformity with such zeal".

Herrin asserts that, under Justinian, this involved considerable destruction. 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. 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.

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".