The Emergence of Imperial Monotheism and the Changing Nature of Religious Multiplicity in the (Eastern) Roman Empire, Fourth to Sixth Century CE
The significance of the so-called “Constantinian turn”, which initiated the transformation of the Imperium Romanum into a Christian empire, is undisputed. Under Emperor Constantine (r. 306/324–337 CE), the Christian churches turned from a persecuted community into a not only tolerated, but even privileged religious institution. Both Christian and “pagan” interpretations of the visions of the Divine existed, which Constantine is said to have experienced before defeating his rival Maxentius in the Battle of Pons Mulvius in Rome (October 28, 312 CE). His personal view of these events and beliefs derived from them remain contentious (Girardet 2010; Edwards 2015). Even before, in the third century CE, the character of the imperial office in the Roman Empire had changed. Also as a reaction to its constant threat through attempts of usurpation from the rows of the military, it was increasingly elevated into the sacral sphere (cf. also Kaldellis 2015, 174–176). With this, a tightening of the punishment of religious deviance went hand in hand. Already Emperor Decius between 249 and 251 CE initiated a first extensive persecution of the now widespread Christian faith, another one followed under Emperor Valerian in 257/258 CE. During the reign of Diocletian (r. 284–305 CE) and the regime of the four emperors (Tetrarchs) initiated by him in order to stabilise the Empire after the “military anarchy” of the preceding 50 years, efforts to preserve the traditional cults, which were also aimed at the worship of the emperors, intensified. These efforts were first directed against the Manichaeans, a dualistic religious community originating in Sasanian Persia (see Canepa in this volume).
- In 303 CE, legislation against the Christians followed, ordering their removal from offices and honours (in the army and administration), the destruction of churches and copies of the Holy Scriptures and, in cases of perpetual resistance and refusal of sacrifice, decreeing death. It was most intense in the east of the empire, where the largest Christian communities were to be found (Jones 1964, 70–76; Pfeilschifter 2014, 35–42; Höfert 2015, 96– 97). It was also in the eastern parts, that the “Tolerance Edict” of 311 CE proclaimed by Emperor Galerius shortly before his death ended the persecutions of Christians.
- The full freedom of faith was then granted by the Emperors Constantine I in the west and Licinius in the east to all subjects in 313 CE in the famous “Edict of Milan”. Furthermore, Constantine I provided Christian churches with extensive privileges in his realm: in 319 CE, the Christian clerics were exempted from all tax obligations. In 321 CE, the Sunday rest was legally enshrined. At the same time, the emperor became not onlyapatron, but also a leader of the church: already in 314 CE he confirmed the vote of a council convened by him in Arles (in Southern France), which condemned the doctrine of the Donatists. This Christian church had emerged in North Africa and opposed the resumption of clerics who had renounced their faith during the pre-ceding period of persecution (yet, despite the synod′s verdict, Donatism would thrive in North Africa until the sixth century CE). The favouritism of Christians by Constantine, however, aroused the distrust of Licinius. As the tensions between the two emperors intensified, Licinius violently attacked the Christians, which served as a casus belli for Constantine. After his victory in 324 CE, Constantine I ruled over the entire Empire and perpetuated his triumph with the laying of the cornerstone of a new capital at the Bosporus, integrating the ancient Greek colony of Byzantium (hence the name of the emerging Christian Roman Empire in the East in later scholarship). Constantinople was not planned as a purely Christian city, but received also pagan monuments in addition to churches. The direction of imperial favour and the increasing influence of Christianity became clearly visible in public space, however, with church buildings in both the new and the old capital (Rome), and in Jerusalem (Edwards 2015; Girardet 2010; Mitsiou and Preiser-Kapeller 2016).
Constantine had to deal with another debate within the church, which revolved around the doctrine of the Priest Arius from Alexandria. He asserted that Jesus Christ, as a creature, was only similar to God-Father, but not the same; the father alone is God (Berndt and Steinacher 2014). To clarify this question, Constantine in 325 CE rallied a general (“ecumenical”) Council of more than 200 bishops to Nicaea in northwestern Asia Minor. At the council, the doctrine of Arius was condemned and contrasted with the dogma of the triune God in the identity of God-Father, God-Son and God-Holy Spirit. With the council, the imperial office had established itself as a crucial element in the structure of the church; Christian authors developed a Christian image of the imperial office and tried to integrate the empire into the divine plan of salvation. Garth Fowden and most recently Almut Höfert used the term “imperial monotheism”: “one god, one emperor as an image of God, one world empire, one faith” (Fowden 1993; Höfert 2015, 129–150). Yet, the debate over the so-called “Arianism” (as the one on Donatism, see above) right from the beginning also pointed out the limits of imperial influence in matters of doctrine, for the teaching of Arius did not disappear at all, but continued to find adherents (Piétri and Piétri 1996, 271–344; Dagron 2003; Morrisson 2004, 58–64, 88–90; Berndt and Steinacher 2014). Even Constantine I himself later showed sympathy for the Arian position, as did one of his sons and successors Constantius II (r. 337–361 CE). Constantius II, however, equally could not enforce his preferred interpretation of faith against the resistance of the followers of the doctrine of Trinity.
Despite these conflicts, the influence of Christianity and the number of its adherents among the elite of the empire grew steadily. This also Constantius′ II nephew Julian (r. 361–363 CE), by Christian chroniclers called “the apostate”, had to acknowledge, who turned to a Neoplatonic-philosophically oriented “paganism” and after his ascendance to power in the entire empire in 361 tried to reduce the influence of Christians in public life, in education and in the charitable sector. His early death on a campaign against the Sasanian Persians in June 363 CE put an end to all these efforts (Cameron 1994, 105–119; Piétri and Piétri 1996, 396–413; Demandt 2007, 119–135; Pfeilschifter 2014, 90–100). The Emperors Iovian (r. 363–364) and Valens (r. 364–378) in turn professed Christianity again, Valens in its Arian form. However, the Trinitarian doctrine gained the upper hand also through the influence of personalities such as the so-called “three Cappadocian church fathers” (Basil of Kaisareia, Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa), again demonstrating the potential for a challenge of imperial religious politics by charismatic figures (Piétri and Piétri 1996, 417–449; Pfeilschifter 2014, 101–103). At the same time, decisive steps were taken towards a final Christianisation of the empire. Emperor Theodosius I, who was the first emperor to be already baptised during his reign, assembled a second ecumenical council in Constantinople in 381 CE, in which an updated version of the Creed of Nicaea was declared binding for the entire imperial church. In a law in 391 CE, not only the practice of contradictory beliefs was forbidden, but also the imperial support of all non-Christian cults. Christianity thus became the only state-sponsored religion, the Christians by these decades presumably represented the majority of population in the empire (Piétri and Piétri 1996, 450–471; Morrison 2004, 63–64; Pfeilschifter 2014, 108–120).
There, Emperor Theodosius I by the influential Bishop Ambrose in 390 CE was forced to publicly repent after imperial troops had bloodily quelled a rebellion in Thessaloniki, killing more than 7,000 Christians. As became evident, a baptised emperor, whose legitimation increasingly relied upon his (“correct/orthodox”) Christian belief, could now also be compelled to obey the rules of the church (Kaiser 2014, 52–54; Grünbart 2014, 16). There were also divergent developments in the ecclesiastical debates, not least because of the different linguistic conditions (dominance of Latin in the West, of Greek in the East), but with the most severe theological disputes being fought within the Church of the East in the following centuries. These revolved mainly around the relationship of divine and human nature in Jesus Christ (“Christology”) (Winkelmann 1980). Disputes over faith were entangled with conflicts between the rival patriarchates (i. e., hierarchs claiming supervision over a larger number of bishoprics in the surrounding provinces) in the “mega-cities” of the East, Alexandria in Egypt, Antioch in Syria and Constantinople, which had emerged as the highest echelon within the episcopal hierarchy. Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria (in office 412–444) acted as an advocate of a doctrine of “one nature” (in Greek “Miaphysitism”, also referred to by opponents as “Monophysitism”), according to which the divine and the human in Christ would have formed one nature. Therefore, Mary could also be called “Theotokos” (in Greek literally the “God-bearer”). The Patriarch of Constantinople Nestorius (in office 428–431) turned against this formulation and proposed a doctrine of two natures (divine and human). In contrast, the strict separation of the two natures and the assumption of two persons in Christ attributed to Nestorius and his followers by Cyril and his party at the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus 431 and at later occasions cannot be proved in retrospect.
The triumph of the one-nature doctrine within the Roman Empire, however, did not last long. A few years after the death of Cyril, another council convened in Chalcedon (at the Asian side of the Bosporus vis-à-vis Constantinople) in 451 CE, at which a doctrine of two natures (Dyophysitism) was made binding. As the Council declared, there was a divine and a human nature in Christ, “unmixed, unchanged, undivided and unseparated” (Grillmeier 1989–2002; Mitsiou and PreiserKapeller 2016). Again, the imperial centre could by no means enforce the general recognition of the Council′s decisions; especially in the rich provinces of Egypt and Syria, but also in parts of Asia Minor, the doctrine of one nature remained strong. There, doctrinal opposition mixed also with elements of regional identity, as became evident with the emergence of Coptic, Syriac or Armenian as languages of liturgy and of Christian literature in addition to and competition with Greek. The decision of Chalcedon in contrast was supported by the sole Patriarch of the West in Rome, Pope Leo I (in office 440–461) (Piétri 2001, 90–113, 120–129; Morrison 2004, 69–7). On languages in the Eastern Roman Empire, cf. esp. Millar 2006, esp. 93–115.
Patriarchal and selected episcopal sees:
At the same time, the emperors of the East also had to deal with the threat doctrinal differences within the church and accompanying social unrest and even violent conflicts between competing groups could pose for the integrity of their polity. Emperor Zeno (r. 474–491) and Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople (in office 471–489) in 484 CE initiated a compromise attempt to quell the debate about the relationship of natures in Jesus Christ (with the so-called “Henotikon” edict, trying to reconcile the dogmatic differences between the supporters of the Council of Chalcedon and its opponents). While some relaxation was achieved with the miaphysite communities in the eastern provinces, the popes refused any deviation from Chalcedon. The consequence was the so-called “Acacian schism”, which divided the churches of Rome (since 476 under the rule of Germanic princes) and Constantinople until 519 CE (Piétri 2001, 131–137, 180–209; Kötter 2013; Feld 2005, 287–297; Pfeilschifter 2014, 178–180).
In 519 CE, Emperor Justin I again took a swing in church politics away from the compromise formula of the “Henotikon” towards a clear Chalcedonian line. The schism with the papacy in Rome was thus ended (in 526 Pope John I even visited Constantinople), but the conflict with the followers of Miaphysitism in the Eastern provinces rekindled (Piétri 2001, 146–152). Justin I in August 527 was succeeded by his nephew Justinian I (r. 527–565 CE). The newcomer was filled with a special sense of mission; he described himself in the prologue of one of his many laws as “appointed by God to govern our kingdom, which has been given to us by heavenly sovereignty” (and thus located his position beyond the mere earthly election by the senate, people and army, although also these “pillars” of the regime were evoked in other texts) (Leppin 2011, 89–91; Meier 2003, 104–135; Höfert 2015, 182– 197). The first phase of Justinian’s government was also characterised by a tremendous zeal for reform. His goals included the “completion” of the Christianisation of the Empire and the final suppression of “paganism”. This was marked by the closure of remaining prominent “pagan” institutions such as the Academy (originally founded by Plato) in Athens in 529 CE or the Isis Temple on the Nile island of Philae in southern Egypt. Not only followers of pagan cults were persecuted, but also those of Christian “heresies” such as the Montanists or Arians or of special religious groups such as the Manichaeans or the Samaritans (a community related to Judaism). The Samaritans for instance were not allowed any more to hand down or to inherit property.
For the Jews themselves, originally the freedom of worship granted to all citizens of the Roman Empire in the Milan Agreement was also applied. Yet, for Jews the service in the administration or army, public teaching, the conversion of Christians or the construction of synagogues were completely forbidden or hindered, and since Justinian I also the possession of Christian slaves or the testimony in court against Christians were prohibited. For Christian clergy and laypeople, interactions with Jews were legally restricted. Only during periods of severe crises such as in the seventh and eighth centuries, we also hear about imperial attempts to enforce baptism on the Jews in order to appease god with the “purification” of the empire from non-Christians. These initiatives, however, also poorly documented, remained without enduring effects and neither were in the long-term interest of the state nor found the official approval of the church, whose canons only accepted voluntary conversion (Schwartz 2004; Bonfil et al. 2012).
Justinian’s policy was also directed against the followers of the miaphysite doctrine, but in this regard was mitigated by his wife Theodora (d. 548 CE), who showed sympathy for the one-nature-doctrine. She also supported clerics following this dogmatic position, such as Jacob Baradai (d. 578, after him also the name “Jacobite” emerged for the Syrian Orthodox Church), who built up their own church organisation parallel to that of the Chalcedonian imperial church. Thus, in the course of the sixth and seventh century, independent miaphysite churches emerged in Egypt and Syria and outside of the imperial territory in Armenia, Nubia and Ethiopia (Brown 1999, 153–155; Pietri 2001, 426–460; 491–518; Leppin 2011, 92–106).
Aspects of the Christianisation of the (Eastern) Roman Empire between Constantine I and Justinian I
About the numerical development of the Christianisation of the population, we can only guess. Bagnall (2007) based on the onomastics in the papyri estimates the share of Christians in Egypt in 313 CE at about 20%, in 337 CE (when Constantine I died) at about 50%, and at 80% in the early fifth century, when Christianity had become the only state-sponsored religion. Until the end of the fourth century that Christians made up an absolute majority (Salzman 2004). We can therefore expect different rates of Christianisation, depending on the region and social group. In the first centuries, Christianity was above all a religion of the cities; especially in rural areas, where the extensive conversion began relatively late, we have indications of “islands” of paganism for longer times (Cameron 2013).
This scenario is supported by archaeology. Thus, in the fourth century, church buildings were largely confined to the major urban centres; it was not until the early fifth century that a city-wide church infrastructure emerged, even in larger cities such as Ephesus. Still in between 540 and 570 CE, the Monk John of Amida (later miaphysite bishop of Ephesus) claims to have baptized more than 70,000 pagans on several journeys through the west of Asia Minor. Yet even before the final condemnation of pagan cults, their followers were subject to increased restrictions; already under Emperor Constantine I, “pagan” practices that were considered particularly offensive were forbidden, such as magic, extispicy or temple prostitution. Pagans withdrew from public life in their religious practice, as observed, for example, in Aphrodisias in southwestern Asia Minor, where pagan statues and ritual practices were maintained in secluded rooms in private buildings until the late sixth century. In return, new rules applied to the converts to Christianity; both space (through churches and other ecclesiastical monuments and sculptures) and time (through Sunday rest, holidays and Lent) were reordered. Adultery and other violations of Christian faith and morality were increasingly punished by the church (through expulsion from the community or penitential practices), and from the later fourth century onwards also by the Roman state. In late antiquity, however, civil marriage, which was concluded according to Roman law, was still recognized by the church; only in later centuries did Christian marriage law fully develop (Piétri and Piétri 1996, 236, 474–475, 688–699, 735–815; Piétri 2001, 428–429; Rapp 2004, 149–150).
Leave a Reply