Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire

The concept of Christianization embodies a multifaceted social process that underpinned the whole of Late Antique society. It functions in modern studies as an umbrella term for a hugely diverse set of motivations and ideologies.[1]^:19 Historians assert that Christianization did not bring about the death of pagan culture. Many cults were already in decline long before the Christian emperors because, after the invasions of the late 3rd century, resources for the restoration of the great temple complexes dried up.[9][10][11][12]^:559–560 [13]^:49 Some aspects of pagan religion declined while those aspects of pagan practice which were popular were maintained, often beneath a Christian veneer. This appears to be the case for all aspects of society touched by religion, from methods of worship, to the decorative arts, to architecture.[1]^:23 Walter Kaegi depicts the world of Late Antiquity as one in which paganism had stagnated as it failed to challenge the emergence of Christianity and failed to adjust successfully to its less favourable position.[14] Roger S. Bagnall cautions that “One should not assume that the decline of pagan religion and the rise of Christianity are simply related, like children at opposite ends of a see-saw”.[15]

The largely hagiographic literary sources have had great influence on perceptions of this period, to the extent that the impression of conflict they create has been assumed on an empire-wide level.[1]^:68 However, archaeologist Richard Bayliss says archaeological evidence indicates the decline of paganism in many places throughout the empire, for example Athens, was relatively non-confrontational.[1]^:65 While some historians have focused on the cataclysmic events such as the destruction of the Serapeum at Alexandria, there are in reality, only a handful of documented examples of temples being entirely destroyed through such aggression.[1]^:49 Demolition of a temple was a major exercise, not easily carried out by a mob armed with cudgels. Bayliss says that means the archaeological evidence might show Christian responsibility for the destruction of temples has been exaggerated.[1]^:70 As Peter Brown points out with regard to Libanius’ anger: “we know of many such acts of iconoclasm and arson because well-placed persons still felt free to present these incidents as flagrant departures from a more orderly norm.”[16]^:49 Other scholars have lent considerable weight to the notion that the boundaries between pagan and Christian communities in the 4th century were not as stark as some prior historians have claimed and that open conflict was actually something of a rarity.[17][18][19][20]

Contemporary archaeology indicates the Late Antique period was a time when a series of devastating earthquakes shook the eastern Mediterranean. [21] Ephesus apparently suffered severely from an earthquake and was never properly repaired, as no funds were available. Earthquakes in the early 4th century appear to have destroyed the Temple of Apollo and other public buildings at Hyle near Paphos in Cyprus. Neither the temple nor the theatre were subsequently rebuilt.[21]^:80 [22] Oriens and North Africa appear to have been hit by a series of earthquakes in the 360s, with a particularly devastating and famous quake recorded in 365.[23] Determining whether damage done to a temple was by earthquake or Christians is often difficult.[1]^:61

Contemporary scholarship indicates there is no single narrative of the end of paganism; it varied from place to place.[24]^:54 Temple destructions and conversions are attested, but in very small numbers. In most regions away from the imperial court, the end of paganism was both gradual and untraumatic.[24]^:156,221[25]^:5,41 The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity says that "Torture and murder were not the inevitable result of the rise of Christianity." [26]^:861 Instead, there was fluidity in the boundaries between the communities and "coexistence with a competitive spirit."[25]^:7 Brown says that "In most areas, polytheists were not molested, and, apart from a few ugly incidents of local violence, Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence."[16]^:643 Those pagans who remained devoted the longest were the hard-core traditionalists who proved difficult to convert through ordinary means. They existed in sufficient numbers to preserve a broad spectrum of pagan practices into the 6th century and even beyond in some places.[1]^:19

Constantine, though he made his allegiance clear, did not outlaw 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.[27] However, in a letter to the King of Persia, Constantine wrote how he shunned the "abominable blood and hateful odors" of pagan sacrifices, and instead worshiped the High God "on bended knee".[28][29] [30] Constantine would sporadically prohibit public sacrifice and close pagan temples; very little pressure, however, was put on individual pagans, and there were no pagan martyrs.[27] Lives were lost around the imperial court, but there is no evidence of judicial killings for illegal sacrifices before Tiberius Constantine (574-582).[24]^:xxiv

Constantine ordered the pillaging and the tearing down of pagan temples, and he destroyed some sanctuaries, including the prestigious one of Asclepias at Cilician Aegeae, but he was generally not in favor of suppression of paganism by force.[31]^:523 Wiemer writes that pillaging was done in order to supply Constantine's new capital rather than because of anti-paganism.[31]^:522[2][3][4] Lenski says Constantinople was "literally crammed with statuary gathered, in Jerome's words, by 'the virtual denuding' of every city in the East."[32]^:263 Wiemer reports Libanius saying that Constantine mostly refrained from interfering with or altering the traditional forms of worship. This reflects a persistent pagan tradition that Constantine did not persecute pagans.[31]^:522 Constantine's main approach to the pagans was to use enticement by making the adoption of Christianity beneficial.[1]^:243

Using the same vocabulary of restoration he had used for the Aelia Capitolina, Constantine acquired sites of Christian significance in the Holy Land for the purpose of constructing churches. Most of these sites had been “polluted” by pagan shrines and needed "desacrilization" or deconsecration before they could be used.[1]^:39,40 (The practice of "cleansing" a sacred site of its previous spiritual influences was not limited to Christians.) According to the historical writings of Prudentius, the deconsecration of a temple merely required the removal of the cult statue and altar. However, this was often extended to the removal or even destruction of other statues and icons, votive stelae and all other internal imagery and decoration. Such objects were not always destroyed. Some were relocated and displayed as works of art. For example, the Parthenon frieze was preserved after the Christian conversion of the temple, although in modified form.[33] At the sacred oak and spring at Mambre, a site venerated and occupied by both Jews and pagans alike, Constantine apparently ordered the burning of the idols, the destruction of the altar, and erection of a church. The archaeology of the site, however, demonstrates that Constantine’s church along with its attendant buildings, only occupied a peripheral sector of the precinct, leaving the rest unhindered.[1]^:31

The construction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and other churches built by Constantine in connection with his mother's visit, were only the beginning. By the end of the Byzantine period that Constantine began (325 - 614 AD), Mark A. Meyers writes that approximately 400 churches and chapels, along with over a hundred new synagogues, had been built in Palestine and Jordan.[34]^:285-287 According to French historian Gilbert Dagron, there were fewer temples constructed after the building craze of the 2nd century ended. However, Constantine’s reign did not comprise the end of temple construction. In addition to destroying temples, he both permitted and commissioned temple construction.[35]^:374 The dedication of new temples is attested in the historical and archaeological records until the end of the 4th century.[36]^:37

Church historians writing after his death wrote that Constantine converted to Christianity and was baptised on his deathbed, thus making him the first Christian emperor.[37][38] Noel Lenski writes that the myth of Constantine being baptized by Pope Sylvester developed toward the end of the fifth century in a romantic depiction of Sylvester's life which has survived as the Actus beati Sylvestri papai (CPL 2235).[32]^:299 Lenski says this story absolved the medieval church of a major embarassment: Constantine's baptism by an Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia which occurred while on campaign to Persia. Lenski says Constantine swung through the Holy Land with the intent of being baptized in the Jordan river, but he became deathly ill at Nicomedia where he was swiftly baptized. He died shortly thereafter on May 22, 337 at a suburban villa named Achyron.[32]^:81

Ban on sacrifices

Scott Bradbury writes that Constantine's policies toward pagans are "ambiguous and elusive" and that no aspect has been more controversial than the claim he banned blood sacrifices. Sources on this are contradictory: Eusebbius says he did; Labanius says it was Constantius II who did so and not Constantine I.[39]^:120 [2][3][4] According to R. Malcolm Errington, in Book 2 of Eusebius' De vita Constantini, chapter 44, Eusebius explicitly states that Constantine wrote a new law "appointing mainly Christian governors and also a law forbidding any remaining pagan officials from sacrificing in their official capacity." [40]^:310 (The next law (in 45.1) recommends the erection or extension of church buildings, but says nothing of restricting temple constructions or their destruction.[40]^:310) Other significant evidence fails to support Eusebius' claim of an end to sacrifice. Constantine, in his Letter to the Eastern Provincials, never mentions any law against sacrifices. Errington says it is generally seen that the Letter's purpose "is to flatter and praise the Christians, to show the personal commitment of the emperor to their cause, while at the same time preventing a crusade against the unbelieving."[40]^:312 Archaeologist Luke Lavan writes that blood sacrifice was already declining in popularity, just as construction of new temples was also declining, but that this seems to have little to do with anti-paganism.[24]^:xlvii

When Constantine dedicated Constantinople, two Neoplatonist friends - Sopater and Praetextus - were present. A year and a half later, on Monday 11 May 330, when the festival of Saint Mocius was celebrated, the city was finally dedicated. The goddess Tyche was invited to come and live in the city, and her statue was placed in the hand of the statue of the emperor that was on top of the Column of Constantine, on the Forum with the same name. Although by now Constantine openly supported Christianity, the city still offered room to pagan religions: there were shrines for the Dioscuri and Tyche. Hans-Ulrich Wiemer says there is good reason to believe the ancestral temples of Helios, Artemis and Aphrodite remained functioning in Constantinople as well.[31]^:523 The Acropolis, with its ancient pagan temples, was left as it was. As for worshipping the emperor, Constantine's mausoleum gave him a Christ-like status: his tomb was set amid 12 monuments, each containing relics of one of the Apostles.[41]

Early coin of Constantine commemorating the pagan cult of Sol Invictus

Many historians, including MacMullen, have seen the seeds of future persecution by the state in Constantine's more belligerent utterances regarding the old religion.[2] Other historians emphasize that de facto paganism "was tolerated in the period from Constantine to Gratian. Emperors were tolerant in deed, if not always in word."[42]

Church restrictions opposing the pillaging of pagan temples by Christians were in place even while the Christians were being persecuted by the pagans. Spanish bishops in AD 305 decreed that anyone who broke idols and was killed while doing so was not formally to be counted as a martyr, as the provocation was too blatant.[43]

Constantine became the first Emperor in the Christian era to persecute specific groups of Christians, the Donatists, in order to enforce religious unity.[44] In north Africa, after the Diocletian persecution of the third century, many of those who had recanted wanted to return to the church. Donatists refused to accept them back as clergy and remained resentful toward the Roman government. Catholics wanted to wipe the slate clean and accommodate the new government. The Donatists withdrew and began setting up their own churches. For the next almost three decades, Donatists fomented protests and street violence, refused compromise, attacked random Catholics without warning, often doing serious and unprovoked bodily harm such as beating people with clubs, cutting off their hands and feet, and gouging out eyes.[45]^{:172,173,222,242,254} Attempts to reconcile the Donatists, made by Constantine, the Popes and councils, Augustine and other religious leaders, all failed. Between 393 and 398, Augustine began defending persecution by the imperial authorities because of the ongoing violence, saying that, "if the kings of this world could legislate against pagans and poisoners, they could do so against heretics as well." [45]^:241 As emperor, Constantine's responsibility was to keep the peace and maintain order, yet he continued to use what tolerance the Roman state could in dealing with the violent criminal Donatists. Noel Lenski says: "Constantine had learned from Christians the principle that true belief cannot be coerced. Ironically, what he taught them in return was the important role deity played in the Late Roman version of national security and the many benefits that accrued from participation in that relationship." [32]^:130-132

A cult statue of the deified Augustus, disfigured by a Christian cross carved into the emperor's forehead.

The anti-paganism policy of Constantius II lasted from 337 till 361. In 341, the abolition of public sacrifice appears in the Code for the first time,[5] and the first law ordering the closure of temples was issued in 346.[54]^:36[5][38] Laws against sacrifice were particularly vehement. This was in keeping with his personal maxim: "Cesset superstitio; sacrificiorum aboleatur insania" (Let superstition cease; let the folly of sacrifices be abolished).[55]

In the year 353 Constantius prohibited pagan sacrifice under the penalty of death.[3] Laws dating from 356 on prescribed the death penalty for anyone who performed or attended pagan sacrifices or worshipped idols.[5][56][57] Constantius carried out an active campaign against magicians, astrologers and other diviners. This may also be due to his becoming fearful that others might use these means to make someone else emperor.[58] Temples were shut down,[3][38] and the Altar of Victory was removed from the Senate.[6]

There was mob violence aimed at destroying, pillaging, desecrating, and vandalizing many of the ancient pagan temples, tombs and monuments.[59][60][61][62] Peter Brown says these episodes "rubbed against the grain of social order and discipline" creating a “fog-bank of tacit disapproval” for such activities, from Christian as well as pagan sources.[16]^:50 [63]^:45–88 The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity says that, "Rather than illuminating a deep current of intolerance within pagan and Christian communities, these events primarily reveal the intolerance of fanatics."[26]^:861

Herbermann contends that the anti-paganism legislation had an unfavourable influence on the Middle Ages and become the basis of the Inquisition.[55][64][65][66]

Julian (361-363) attempted to revive paganism during his brief period of rule. Under the equally brief reigns of his successors - Jovian, Valens and Valentinian I (363-378) - persecution of pagans was minimal. Although initially proclaiming religious toleration to all, Bayliss says that within a short period, Julian "emerged as a pagan more puritanical than many of his Christian predecessors." In the later period of his reign, historians such as David Wood assert there was a revival of some persecution against Christians.[1]^:32 [70] On the other hand, H. A. Drake says that "In the eighteen brief months that he ruled between 361 and 363, Julian did not persecute [Christians], as a hostile tradition contends. But he did make clear that the partnership between Rome and Christian bishops forged by Constantine and maintained, despite conflicts over goals, by his son Constantius II, was now at an end, replaced by a government that defined its interests and those of Christianity as antithetical.[71] Julian tried to undermine the church by ordering the construction of churches for Christian “heretical” sects and by destroying orthodox churches.[72][73]

Saint Ambrose and Emperor Theodosius, Anthony van Dyck.

The anti-paganism policies pursued by the emperors Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I may have been influenced by Saint Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan.[7][8][88][89] It may have been under pressure from Ambrose that Theodosius issued the Theodosian Decrees of 391.[8][90] According to Alan Cameron these laws are assumed to be the result of a "dramatic new policy shift" that differed from previous laws in two ways: by going further, and by being enforced and effective.[91]^:60 Yet, Cameron says, "Neither point has ever been explicitly argued or documented; rather, they are simply assumed."[91]^:60

Cameron says this 'dramatic new shift' is usually explained in terms of Theodosius falling under the influence of Bishop Ambrose, which is "often spoken of as though documented fact." Indeed, he says "the assumption is so widespread it would be superfluous to cite authorities. But there is not a shred of evidence for Ambrose exerting any such influence over Theodosius." [91]^{:63 fn.131} Cameron says Ambrose was not Theodosius' counselor and confidant, that on occasion Theodosius purposefully excluded Ambrose and got angry when Ambrose asked something from him.[91]^:63,64 Lavan says Theodosius' anti-pagan laws give a "dramatic view of radical Christian ambition."[24]^:xxii Yet, as Cameron observes, what Theodosius might have wished to do as a Christian, and what practical politics prescribed for an emperor recovering from a civil war, were likely very different.[91]^:64 In Rome, "religion could be tolerated only as long as it contributed to the stability of the state" which would "brook no rival for the allegiance of its subjects. The state was the highest good in a union of state and religion" not the church. [92]^:87

Anti-paganism laws were established and continued on after Theodosius I until the fall of Roman empire in the West. Arcadius,Honorius, Theodosius II, Marcian and Leo I the Thracian reiterated the bans on pagan rites and sacrifices, and increased the penalties. The necessity to do so indicates that the old religion still had many followers. In the later part of the 4th century there were clearly a significant number of pagan sympathizers and crypto-pagans still in positions of power in all levels of the administrative system including positions close to the emperor; even by the 6th century, pagans can still be found in prominent positions of office both locally and in the imperial bureaucracy.[54]^:37-38 From Theodosius on, public sacrifice definitely ended in Constantinople and Antioch, and in those places that were, as Lavan says, "under the emperor's nose." However, away from the imperial court, those efforts were not effective or enduring until the fifth and sixth centuries.[24]^:xxiii

Pagans openly voiced their resentment in historical works, many of which have survived in only a few fragments, such as the writings of Eunapius and Olympiodorus, and some writers blamed the Christian hegemony for the 410 Sack of Rome.[120]^:136 Christians destroyed almost all such political literature and threatened to cut off the hands of any copyist who dared to make new copies.[121]^:4[122] Ramsay MacMullen says this is why "We may fairly accuse the historical record of having failed us, not just in the familiar way, being simply insufficient, but also through being distorted."[121]^:4

MacMullan says that the Christian record indicates pagans were not only defeated, but fully converted, by the end of the fourth century, but that such was "far from true." He says that Christians, in their triumphant exaggeration and sheer bulk of material, have misrepresented religious history, as evidence shows that paganism continued.[121]^:3-5 Peter Brown writes that the belief Late Antiquity witnessed the death of paganism and the triumph of monotheism, as a succession of Christian emperors from Constantine to Theodosius II played out their God-given role of abolishing paganism, is not actual history but is, instead, a "representation" of the history of the age created by "a brilliant generation of Christian writers, polemicists and preachers in the last decade of this period." [53]^:633 This narrative imposed a firm closure on what, according to Pierre Chuvin, had in reality been a 'wavering century.'[53]^:634[54]

Christian historians wrote vividly dramatized accounts of pious bishops doing battle with temple demons, and much of the framework for understanding this Age is based on the “tabloid-like” accounts of the destruction of the Serapeum in Alexandria, the murder of Hypatia, and the publication of the Theodosian Law Code.[16]^:26,47-54[123] ^:121-123 This is why Robin Lane Fox sees the transition between paganism and Christianity as a "slow process, marked by unforeseen moments of sudden significance."[124]^:11

Although the historical sources are rich with the dramatic episodes of conflict, the destruction of temples, the heroic or villainous activities of bishops and other aspects of urban paganism’s apparent bloody demise, Trombley and MacMullen say that details in the historical sources are commonly ambiguous or unclear. For example, Malalas claimed that Theodosius “razed all the shrines of the Hellenes to the ground” after already stating that Constantine had done the same; he then stated that “he made many other temples into churches”. He claimed that Theodosius I “made the temple of Damascus a Christian church”, whereas the archaeology shows the church was positioned away from the temple, in the corner of the temenos. In another example, according to Procopius, Justinian’s general Narses tore down the temples of Philae. Archaeology has shown quite clearly that what occurred was a very minimalist structural conversion.[36]^:246-282[125]^:158

Despite the episodes of violence that did occur, many cities still had standing temples in the middle of the 5th century. For those that had fallen in the preceding century, the blame cannot be entirely laid at the feet of the Christians. The temples were exposed to the same forces that were gradually changing the cities themselves. [121]^:104 There was a pragmatism to temple conversion as part of the milieu of re-utilisation in late antiquity. Many disused or poorly maintained building plots – not just the sites of temples – were being put to new uses at a time when considerable efforts were being made to rejuvenate urban centers and restore defunct urban monuments. Some laws declared that buildings belonging to known pagans and heretics were to be appropriated by the churches.[126][127][128] Saint Augustine of Hippo exhorted his congregation in Carthage to smash all tangible symbols of paganism they could lay their hands on.[127] However, R. P. C. Hanson maintains that the construction of churches directly from temples did not in fact commence in earnest until the middle of the 5th century.[129]^:257 In Rome the first recorded temple conversion was the Pantheon in 609.[130] ^:65-72

The most destructive conflict between pagans and Christians took place in the diocese of Oriens under the prefecture of Maternus Cynegius (384-88), who apparently commissioned temple destruction on a wide scale, even employing the military under his command for this purpose. However, the historical evidence for destructive action against temples elsewhere in the Mediterranean is limited to only a handful of sites.[1]^:67 In some places temples were preserved for long periods of time after their closure. Despite the contrary picture we get from the historical sources, Bayliss says we should probably accept that "old age and gradual dilapidation were the main contributors to the demise of the temples, and that fewer met their fate through invasion, violence or plunder."[1]^:118

The prefecture of Illyricum appears to have been an attractive post for pagans and sympathisers in the 5th century, and Aphrodisias is known to have housed a substantial population of pagans in late antiquity, including a famous school of philosophy.[131] In Rome, Christianization was hampered significantly by the elites, many of whom remained stalwartly pagan. The institutional cults continued in Rome and its hinterland, funded from private sources, in a considerably reduced form, but still existent, as long as empire lasted.[132]^:228 "We know from discoveries at Aphrodisias that pagans and philosophers were still very much in evidence in the 5th century, and living in some luxury. The discovery of overt pagan statuary and marble altars in a house in the heart of the city of Athens gives a very different impression from that presented by the law codes and literature, of pagans worshipping in secrecy and constant fear of the governor and bishop."[1]^:242

In 476, the last western emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by Odoacer, who became the first "barbarian" king of Italy. Pagans used the occasion to attempt to revive the old rites. In 484, the Magister militum per Orientem, Illus, revolted against Eastern Emperor Zeno and raised his own candidate, Leontius, to the throne. Illus and Leontius were compelled, however, to flee to a remote Isaurian fortress, where Zeno besieged them for four years. Zeno finally captured them in 488 and promptly had them executed.[133] Following the revolt, Zeno instituted harsh anti-paganism policies. With the failure of the revolt of Leontios, some pagans became disillusioned and became Christian, or pretended to do so, in order to avoid persecution.[134] The subjugation of the Roman Empire to Christianity became complete when the emperor Anastasius I, who came to the throne in 491, was required to sign a written declaration of orthodoxy before his coronation.

Under Pope Gregory I, the caverns, grottoes, crags and glens that had once been used for the worship of the pagan gods were now appropriated by Christianity: "Let altars be built and relics be placed there" wrote Pope Gregory I, "so that [the pagans] have to change from the worship of the daemones to that of the true God."[135][136]

Under Justinian, (527-565), legislation with repeated calls for the cessation of sacrifice continued well into the 6th century. In the Law Codes of Justinian, there is a shift from the generalized legislation characterizing the Theodosian Code to targeted action against individual centres.[14]^:248-9 Through the severe legislation of Justinian, the freedom of conscience that had been the major benchmark set by the Edict of Milan was finally abolished.[54]^:132-48 The gradual transition towards more localized action, corresponds with the period when it seems most conversions of temples to churches were undertaken: the late 5th and 6th centuries.[1]^:72

"The triumph of Catholic Christianity over Roman paganism, heretical Arianism [and] pagan barbarism," asserts Hillgarth[137] "was certainly due in large part to the support it received, first from the declining Roman state and later from the barbarian monarchies."[138]

According to the Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity, (OHLA), scholars of Late Antiquity fall into two categories: "catastrophist" or "long."[26]^:xx The traditional "catastrophic" view argues for a rapid demise of paganism in the fourth century and its violent end sometime in the fifth. Except for the most recent literature, for at least the last 200 years historical scholarship has followed a conceptual scheme in which the persecution of those Mediterranean religions that we now label "paganism" was seen as the result of the religious intolerance inherent in the monotheistic Christian faith. The classic expression of this view occurs in the work of Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. As historian Harold A. Drake puts it, "It is difficult to overestimate the influence of Gibbon's interpretation on subsequent scholarship.".[139] "From Gibbon and Burckhardt to the present day, it has been assumed that the end of paganism was inevitable once confronted by the resolute intolerance of Christianity; that the intervention of the Christian emperors in its suppression were decisive ... that, once they possessed such formidable power, Christians used it to convert as many non-Christians as possible – by threats and disabilities, if not by the direct use of force." [53]^:633,640

The "long" view was first stated by Peter Brown, whom the Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity calls the "pioneer" who began the study of Late Antiquity as a field in itself, and whose work remains seminal. Brown used anthropological models, rather than political or economic ones, to study the cultural history of the period.[26]^:xv He says the gradual conversion taking place in society resulted in the "long slow" demise of polytheism, and explains the Christian writings that claim a swift and decisive victory over paganism are a myth those writers invented.[53]^:634,640,651 Brown says that, after Constantine, Christian writings revolved around the narrative that Christians had invented and imposed claiming that a "mighty conflict had taken place, and the Christian church had emerged as the victor" in Heaven. He adds that Christians thereafter generally objected to anything that called the triumphal narrative into question including the mistreatment of non-Christians.[53]^:634,640,651 Salzman indicates heresy was a higher priority than pagans were for most Christians of the fourth and fifth centuries.[119]^:861

Archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan point out that the traditional catastrophic view is based largely on literary sources, most of which are Christian, and are known to exaggerate and invent the "iconoclastic achievements of radical monks in the service of polemical panygeric."[24]^:xx Lavan and Mulryan indicate that archaeological evidence of religious conflict exists, but not to the degree or intensity previously thought, putting the traditional catastrophic view of "Christian triumphalism" in doubt.[140]^:41 Rita Lizzi Testa, Michele Renee Salzman, and Marianne Sághy quote Alan Cameron as saying the idea of religious conflict as the cause of a swift demise of paganism is pure historiographical construction.[25]^:1

Harold Drake takes issue with the historiography of Gibbon, arguing that while persecution certainly occurred for religious reasons, that the underlying motivation was consolidation of power in the Constantinian dynasty, which was offered in the form of promoting the cult of Christianity to the exclusion of others. He writes that "while there is obviously some truth in the proposition that intolerance follows from the rejection of other gods that lies at the core of monotheistic belief," this alone could neither explain why pagans had previously persecuted Christians, nor why there were "important voices for moderation in the early Christian community."[141] H.A. Drake writes: "Gibbon skirts a serious problem: for three centuries prior to Constantine, the tolerant pagans who people the Decline and Fall were the authors of several major persecutions, in which Christians were the victims."[142] Gibbon, however, implies that such an argument is in itself flawed, in that Christians later exaggerated the depth and magnitude of the persecutions against them. He argues that a diligent review of the earliest Christian source, Eusebius, reveals by his own accounting that less than one hundred Christians were executed in Palestine under Diocletian for refusing civic sacrifices as a test of their loyalty.[143] Attempts at estimating the numbers of Christians persecuted by the Roman empire are inevitably based on inadequate sources, but Yuval Noah Harari, W. C. Frend and contemporary historians generally see Gibbon's number as too low, instead estimating the overall number of martyrs between 5,500 and 6,500, which does not include other types of persecution.[144]^:536-537[145]

It should be remembered, however, that early persecution of Christians did not follow the same prerogatives commonly ascribed to religious persecution in the modern sense, but rather arose from a feeling of "otherness" that Christians aroused in the society of the time, being adverse as they were to participating in the religious life of the Roman empire at large. Private religion, or the sacra privita, was not regulated by the state until the Christianization of the Empire, when paganism was proscribed even within the home. Private religion was the purview of the family and the individual, and varied between various ethnic groups. As such, many pagans were not opposed to Christian theology per se, but rather to the motivations of early Christians, who seemed rather "unpatriotic" in their isolation and aggressiveness towards other faiths. Christians were also seen as being a public embodiment of superstitio; what might be described today as religious zeal, but which also had connotations of magical thinking. While this was usually regarded as a private vice, one which was commonly thought to cause mental instability, it could also been seen as dangerous to the order of society. Romans had previously ascribed superstitio to excessive practice of magic, as well as other religious groups, among them Judaism, which was seen as opposed to the interpretatio romana, under which their public observances would be syncretised and brought into line with Roman practices. Unlike Christianity, however, these groups were not generally seen as threats to traditional Roman religious observance itself, but as obstacles to civic order and Romanization.

David S. Potter observes that, after 312, Rome remained Roman and "religious persecutions continued for much the same reasons as they had during their pagan phase": people felt obligations to their people and god/gods, they believed it was important to show such respect in public acts, they supported the importance of public security, and continued to believe in maintaining the pax deorum: that agreement between heaven and earth that guaranteed the well-being of the city and its empire. [146]^:601

Peter Garnsey strongly disagrees with those who describe the attitude of the "plethora of cults" that are labelled 'Paganism' as "tolerant" or "inclusive."[147] What Ramsay MacMullen wrote, that in its process of expansion, the Roman Empire was "completely tolerant, in heaven as on earth"[148] (with the notable exceptions of the Jews and Christians, Druids, and possibly the followers of Bacchus and Isis[149]^:284), is for Garnsey a simple "misuse of terminology."[150] The foreign gods were not tolerated, but made subject together with their communities when they were conquered. The Romans "cannot be said to have extended to them the same combination of disapproval and acceptance which is toleration."[150]

The example of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, who were seen as "godly emperors (...) serving the church and crushing its enemies," has been cited repeatedly by Christian authors who endorsed an idea of religious persecution.[151] According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen, a council of bishops at Toledo in 681 called on civil authorities to seize and behead all those guilty of non-Christian practices of any sort.[152]

In the 20th century, the Roman Catholic Church issued the decree "Dignitatis Humanae" that fully embraced the right of every human person to religious freedom, as part of the Vatican II council, on 7 December 1965. On 12 March 2000, Pope John Paul II prayed publicly for forgiveness because "Christians have often denied the Gospel; yielding to a mentality of power, they have violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions".[153]

• Decline of Greco-Roman polytheism
• History of Christianity
• History of persecutions by Christians
• Pentarchy
• Religious persecution in the Roman Empire