Customer Reviews

Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D. 100-400

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Ramsay MacMullen, the author of Christianizing the Roman Empire, is the Dunham Professor of History and Classics at Yale University. On January 5, of 2001 he was the recipient of a lifetime Award for Scholarly Distinction from the American Historical Association. The citation begins, "Ramsay MacMullen is the greatest historian of the Roman Empire alive today." Obviously the author is eminently qualified for his research for this work.

Christianity grew dramatically from the day of Pentecost to the year 400 through mass conversations. At the end of the first century, the church held a minimal significance in Roman society. It simply "did not count." Within three centuries it included ten percent of the population and had displaced the other religions of the empire. In Christianizing the Roman Empire MacMullen addresses the factors for this amazing growth. The author demonstrates that these mass conversions first came through the power of miracles and later through the social advantage of becoming a Christian. As such, MacMullen is diminishing the value of Christian piety and the testimony of martyrs as reasons for the mass evangelization.

The book is divided into two sections, which are the times prior to 312 and after 312 (Constantine's "conversion" in 312 and the Edict of Milan in 313). He first examines what Pagans of the culture believed. Then he looks at what Christians presented to the Pagans about this new faith, and how they presented it. The influence of Constantine is examined, as are the non-religious factors that led to conversions. MacMullen then looks at evangelical campaigns after 312, including the conversion of intellectuals. Finally he looks at the quality of the conversions and those that were won through coercion.

I found MacMullen's research and use of sources of the highest quality. The book contains forty-three pages of endnotes and commentary by the author about the endnotes. In addition, the biography is extensive and would be of great value for those desiring to do additional research on the subject. He uses many sources to verify his thesis that Christian miracles during the early years and favored advantage in the former years, rather than Christian love, piety, and courage in martyrdom, resulted in the dramatic growth of the church. MacMullen's research confirmed that Christianity becoming the Roman State religion strongly diluted the spiritual nature of the church.

Christianizing the Roman Empire is an outstanding work of research by an eminently qualified authority. I found the material fascinating. Some of it attacked my pre-conceived notions, while other aspects of the book confirmed my reasoned suspicions. The book is written for those who already have some knowledge and study in church history during this era in Rome. Though MacMullen obviously is writing this book to an educated audience, the writing style is not nearly as high quality as his research. The first two chapters may cause some sincere readers to give up on the book before they have an opportunity to enjoy its valuable contribution. Despite its shortcomings, I would highly recommend Christianizing the Roman Empire to those with a high interest in learning more about this period of Roman and church history.

MacMullen's portraits of how people of the Empire became "Christians" are indelible -- and possibly, to some, disturbing. His account of how masses, crowds, throngs -- were "converted" to Christianity at the same time, on the same occasion, is riveting and thought-provoking. MacMullen describes too the very real, "everyday," yet typically, today, minimized, way miracles led to conversion and the Christianizing of the Roman Empire. Indeed, MacMullen's assessment (buttressed by his nearly exclusive reliance on primary sources) of what conversion meant in the first centuries after Christ is the heart of the book. MacMullen deploys indefatigable erudition (don't shrug off the footnotes: they contain some of the best writing in the book) and expresses himself with style, even grace, a thoughtful man writing authoritatively -- if at times iconoclastically -- about a crucial passage in the development of Christianity and rise of the West.

Many of the reviews below are excellent, so this will be short. Throughout, the book bases its arguments solely on evidence of which there is a paucity for this time period. MacMullens strength however is beyond the examination of the evidence. He appears to set aside any attempt to spiritualize this time period or romanticize the practice of Xianity therein. Some his statements are surprising (e.g., that ater Paul, there is virtually no evidence of itinerant evangelism explicitly aimed at UNbelievers/ NONchristians), and most of these are arguments from silence though very probable in light of other evidence. Overall, this work is thorough, concise, and respectable. It achieves an examination of the early Christian faith as history while repudiating any attempts to use the primitive faith as a modern pulpit from which to preach. The book is quite concise, but its contents are so pithy as to prove to be an inspiration and guide for much further investigation.

Ramsey MacMullen has much to offer contemporary scholarship on the much-discussed and always open-ended problem of Christianization in the Roman Empire. MacMullen systematically renders an insightful overview of the different transitions in the process of Christianization as follows: first the period from New Testament evangelism (as found in the Epistles and the Acts) to Constantine's conversion, and the period following after the emperor's conversion all the way to AD 407. MacMullen does not discount the more customary viewpoints held by scholars such as Edward Gibbon and J.B. Bury, or, for that matter, traditional ecclesiastical interpretation as well; he does add to them though; and this is his most remarkable feat. He manages to maintain a balance between the secular and the ecclesiastical, in turn offering food-for-thought for all readers. Ramsey MacMullen's work deserves praise and possible precedence even over the renowned scholar Peter Brown's works, which bear a similarity to R.M.'s but lack the same objectivity. While his style of prose is a bit unseasonable and skewed at times, the work, overall, will undoubtedly come as a relief and reward to anyone yet to be familiar with it.

I am delighted with this book because it presents the facts
about early christianity without going into a diatribe in
some particular direction. This is a book about the documented
history of christianity -- not pro christian dogma and not
anti-christian diatribe. While documentation is not the end
of every possible controversy (in fact the book brings up new
questions) it is at least helpful to know what information can
in fact be found -- and to know what is not to be found.

WHAT YOU'LL LEARN: In 100 AD Christianity was a minor cult, by 400 AD it was on it's way to converting the vast empire. How? Well, convincing the Emperor (Constantine, 312 AD) and being able to kill people who disagreed helped. But earlier, between 100 and 300, Christian miracle workers won converts. Martyrs were less common and less important than you'd think.

MacMullen had devoted a 40 year career to ancient Rome around this time. Every conclusion he draws is based on original ancient sources.

This book is based on non-Christian sources and looks at the early conversions as the ancient non-christians would have understood them. Highly recommended. And yes, it is hard to read.

The book is as good as the other reviews describe. I found it unfortunately ambivalent, though, on certain crucial questions. For example, the author merely insinuates why he believes Constantine converted--for political convenience, to better influence conventions about royal dispensations to religious "chairties", true belief, what? A lot of good questions are posed, but most are answered with negatives; even what positive conclusions he does seem come to are unsatisfying because they still seem at least partly provisional. Interesting sources are used, and authors introduced, but in so small a book (150+ pages) these are more like a nice classical fog around a set of explanations that are pretty familiar. Is this objectivity or indifference? But it's still pretty good because of the number of topics he Does shed light on, and offers an interesting overview of the whole topic that does produce a useful and deep outline. It's just not better than 3 stars.

In the overall, Macmullen usually argues his case well, and give a lot of evidence, brushing a convincing explanation, for example:
- showing how Christians would refrain from "(publicly) evangelizing" because of the persecutions
- rejecting the role of Christian love and support. this was also present within the pagan cults (for their members)
showing the keyrole of apologetics and the conversion of the intellectuals and philosophers, and of influential people, until the conversion of Constantine, which resulted in the conversion of the empire.

He seems however to speculate about the motives of conversions of the low-class people, or of the overachievers seeking gain after the conversion of Constantine. He has no good arguments for such socio- historical reconstructions, because of lack of evidence; but seems quite certain that this is how things must have happened, and he may be right. Other assertions seem gratuitous, when he for example writes that Christians destroyed as much of the artistic treasures of their world (after the christianization) as the barbarians did.

Other good books on this subject. which I have: Timothy's The Early Christian Apologists; The Early Church and Graeco- Roman Thought (ed. by E. Ferguson).

Ramsay MacMullen, a Professor Emeritus of History at Yale, has a talent for making events in the remote past accessible to readers who have any interest in history. In other words, you don't have to be an academic specialist to appreciate MacMullen's books- if you enjoy history in general, you'll get something out of them. Luckily, I am very interested in church history and history of religion, so MacMullen really appeals to me. I enjoyed "Voting About God in Early Church Councils" and "Christianity and Paganism." "Christianizing the Roman Empire" is another good, if a bit too breezy, work of early Christian history.

MacMullen's object is not so much to give a comprehensive history of the church from 100-400- that has been done elsewhere. His object is, as the title implies, to investigate how Christianity spread so rapidly. During the first couple of hundred years or so, it was a largely marginal religion. MacMullen sees the conversion of Constantine as a major factor, as many historians do, but he does not just say that Constantine converted and then the whole empire became Christian. First, after the Battle of Milvian Bridge, when he claimed to have seen the cross in the sky and converted to Christianity, he still associated himself with Pagan gods (such as Sol Invictus) up to his death. Nonetheless, Constantine did something crucial that enabled the rapid spread of the new religion- he gave tax exempt status to Christian clergy and gave funds for the building of churches. So the financial prospects clearly would have been attractive to many prospective converts- Pagans still had to pay taxes on their temples. Furthermore, with Christians no longer needing to worship in houses or be clandestine, they could interact with their neighbors, and so their "memes" would spread. According to MacMullen, the majority of the Christians at the time were soldiers, laborers, or had some kind of urban employment, so they would be very connected to their Pagan counterparts. Here are the other main factors MacMullen lists:

* Miracle stories- In Pagan culture at the time, miracles were an important aspect. A god working a miracle meant that you had to pay homage to it, so claiming that there was one particular god who was above all the others, and indeed who was able to do things that the pagan gods couldn't, would have had wide appeal. The author tells about Gregory the Wonder-Worker and others- the Peter Popoffs of the day.

* Coercion- Roving mobs (mainly monks) constantly attacked and destroyed Pagan temples and shrines. After Theodosius' decree in 381, Pagan worship effectively became illegal, though it persisted well into Justinian's time. At any rate, when Pagan objects of worship were attacked with no apparent retribution from the gods, the conclusion was that the new religion was the more powerful one.

My only complaint is that the contents are bit dense. In other words, MacMullen, though engaging, puts so much information into the pages that those not familiar with the time period will have to continually re-read many pages. Further, I wish he would have explored why Constantine might have converted in the first place, or at least speculated. Aide from that, this is a good history book that should give anyone, regardless of religion, much to think about.

Having read the other reviews cited here, I generally agree with them all. MacMullen presents a somewhat unorthodox though well documented account of why pagans converted to Christianity. He focuses on more self-serving motives, of course, and thus the picture he paints is not terribly flattering toward the early Church. But it also seems that he generalizes from a small collection of literary sources of a specific genre - it is more likely, in my mind, that the more common conversions simply occurred in ways which were not dramatic enough to merit documentation (exercises of charity, e.g.). (Those more predisposed toward religion may fault MacMullen for overlooking the most obvious motive for conversion - supernatural grace - but he is certainly right, as an historian, to limit himself to more easily documented motives!) But my chief problem with the book was that it seemed, well, rambling. It was difficult to trace a coherent argument in the book as a whole, or even in any one particular chapter, and I found myself 'getting the point' that he was trying to make, only several days afterwards, when I had reflected on the books contents. I think the book would have been better served with a very clear, concise thesis at the beginning, with a more clearly defined argument throughout. This being said, I concur with all the other reviews about high value of the books content.