Editing Christianization (section)

=== Roman Empire to Early Middle Ages (1 to 800) ===
{{Main|Early Christianity|Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire|Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation}}
{{See also|Early centers of Christianity#Rome}}

==== Christianization without coercion ====
{{Main|Persecution of Christians}}
There is agreement among twenty-first century scholars that Christianization of the Roman Empire in its first three centuries did not happen by imposition.{{sfn|Runciman|2004|p=6}} Christianization emerged naturally as the cumulative result of multiple individual decisions and behaviors.{{sfn|Collar|2013|p=6}} 
[[File:Distribution of the documented presence of Christian congregations in the first three centuries.tif|upright=1.5|thumb|Distribution of [[Demography of the Roman Empire|Christian congregations in Roman territories]] during each of the first three centuries AD{{sfn|Fousek et al|2018}}|alt=this is a map showing how and where congregations formed in the first three centuries]]

While enduring three centuries of on-again, off-again persecution, from differing levels of government ranging from local to imperial, Christianity had remained 'self-organized' and without central authority.{{sfn|Collar|2013|pp=6, 36, 39}} In this manner, it reached an important [[Threshold model|threshold of success]] between 150 and 250, when it moved from less than 50,000 adherents to over a million, and became self-sustaining and able to generate further growth.{{sfn|Collar|2013|p=325}}{{sfn|Harnett|2017|pp=200, 217}}{{sfn|Hopkins|1998|p=193}}{{sfn|Runciman|2004|page=3}} There was a significant rise in the absolute number of Christians in the third century.{{sfn|Runciman|2004|p=4}}

==== Constantine and the goal of Christianization====
{{main|Historiography of Christianization of the Roman Empire}}
The Christianization of the [[Roman Empire]] is frequently divided by scholars into the two phases of before and after the conversion of [[Constantine I (emperor)|Constantine]] in 312.{{sfn|Siecienski|2017|p=3}}{{refn|group=note|There have, historically, been many different scholarly views on Constantine's religious policies.{{sfn|Drake|1995|pp=2, 15}} For example [[Jacob Burckhardt]] has characterized Constantine as being "essentially unreligious" and as using the Church solely to support his power and ambition. Drake asserts, "critical reaction against Burckhardt's anachronistic reading has been decisive".{{sfn|Drake|1995|pp=1, 2}} According to Burckhardt, being Christian automatically meant being intolerant, while Drake says that assumes a uniformity of belief within Christianity that does not exist in the historical record.{{sfn|Drake|1995|p=3}}{{paragraph break}} 
Brown calls Constantine's conversion a "very Roman conversion".{{sfn|Brown|2012|p=61}} "He had risen to power in a series of deathly civil wars, destroyed the system of divided empire, believed the Christian God had brought him victory, and therefore regarded that god as the proper recipient of religio".{{sfn|Brown|2012|p=61}} Brown says Constantine was over 40, had most likely been a traditional polytheist, and was a savvy and ruthless politician when he declared himself a Christian.{{sfn|Brown|2012|pp=60–61}} }} 
Constantine did not support the suppression of paganism by force.{{sfn|Leithart|2010|p=302}}{{sfn|Wiemer|1994|p=523}}{{sfn|Drake|1995|pp=7–9}}{{sfn|Bradbury|1994|pp=122–126}} He never engaged in a [[purge]],{{sfn|Leithart|2010|p=304}} and there were no pagan martyrs during his reign.{{sfn|Brown|2003|p=74}}{{sfn|Thompson|2005|pp=87, 93}} Pagans remained in important positions at his court.{{sfn|Leithart|2010|p=302}} Constantine ruled for 31 years and despite personal animosity toward paganism, he never outlawed paganism.{{sfn|Brown|2003|p=74}}{{sfn|Drake|1995|pp=3, 7}} Making the adoption of Christianity beneficial was Constantine's primary approach to religion, and imperial favor was important to successful Christianization over the next century.{{sfn|Bayliss|2004|p=243}}{{sfn|Southern|2015|pp=455–457}} Yet, Constantine did not institute many christianizing changes, and those measures he did enact did little to Christianize civic culture.{{sfn|Lim|2012|pp=499-500}}

According to historian Michelle Renee Salzman, there is no evidence to indicate that conversion of pagans through force was an accepted method of Christianization at any point in Late Antiquity. Evidence indicates all uses of imperial force concerning religion were aimed at heretics (who were already Christian) such as the [[Donatism|Donatists]] and the [[Manichaeism|Manichaeans]] and not at non-believers such as Jews or pagans.{{sfn|Stocking|2000|p=135 fn.68}}{{sfn|García-Arenal|Glazer-Eytan|2019|p=19}}{{sfn|Salzman|2006|pp=268–269}}{{sfn|Marcos|2013|pp=1–16}}{{refn|group=note|In his 1984 book, ''Christianizing the Roman Empire: (A.D. 100–400)'', and again in 1997, [[Ramsay MacMullen]] argues that widespread Christian anti–pagan violence, as well as persecution from a "bloodthirsty" and violent Constantine (and his successors), caused the Christianization of the Roman Empire in the fourth century.{{sfn|MacMullen|1984|pp=46–50}}{{sfn|Salzman|2006|p=265}}  Salzman describes MacMullen's book as "controversial".{{sfn|Salzman|2006|p=265}} In a review of it, T. D. Barnes has written that MacMullen's book treats "non-Christian evidence as better and more reliable than Christian evidence", generalizes from pagan polemics as if they were unchallenged fact, misses important facts entirely, and shows an important selectivity in his choices of what ancient and modern works he discusses.{{sfn|Barnes|1985|p=496}}{{paragraph break}} 
[[David Bentley Hart]] also gives a detailed discussion of MacMullen's "careless misuse of textual evidence".{{sfn|Hart|2009|pp=148–152}}{{paragraph break}}
Schwarz says MacMullen is an example of a modern minimalist.{{sfn|Schwartz|2005|pp=150–151}} Schwarz suggests that minimalism is beginning to show signs of decline because it tends to understate the significance of some human actions, and so makes assumptions that are hard to support.{{sfn|Schwartz|2005|p=152}} As a result, "MacMullen's account of Christianization as basically an aggregation of accidents and contingencies" is not broadly supported.{{sfn|Schwartz|2005|pp=150–152}}{{paragraph break}}
In [[Gaul]], some of the most influential textual sources on pagan-Christian violence concerns [[Martin of Tours|Martin, Bishop of Tours]] ({{Circa|371}}–397), the Pannonian ex-soldier who is "solely credited in the historical record as the militant converter of Gaul".{{sfn|Salzman|2006|pp=278–279}}{{paragraph break}} 
These texts have been criticized for lacking historical veracity, even by ancient critics, but they are still useful for illuminating views of violence held in late fourth century Gaul.{{sfn|Salzman|2006|p=279}}{{paragraph break}} 
The portion of the sources devoted to attacks on pagans is limited, and they all revolve around Martin using his miraculous powers to overturn pagan shrines and idols, but not to ever threaten or harm people.{{sfn|Salzman|2006|p=280}}{{paragraph break}} 
Salzman concludes "None of Martin's interventions led to the deaths of any Gauls, pagan or Christian. Even if one doubts the exact veracity of these incidents, the assertion that Martin preferred non-violent conversion techniques says much about the norms for conversion in Gaul" at the time Martin's biography was written.{{sfn|Salzman|2006|p=282}}{{paragraph break}}
Archaeologist David Riggs writes that evidence from [[North Africa]] reveals a tolerance of [[religious pluralism]] and a vitality of traditional paganism much more than it shows any form of religious violence or coercion: "persuasion, such as the propagation of Christian [[apologetics]], appears to have played a more critical role in the eventual "triumph of Christianity" than was previously assumed".{{sfn|Riggs|2006|pp=297, 308}}{{sfn|Salzman|Sághy|Testa|2016|p=2}}{{paragraph break}}

According to Raymond Van Dam, "an approach which emphasizes conflict flounders as a means for explaining both the initial attractions of a new cult like Christianity, as well as, more importantly, its persistence".{{sfn|Van Dam|1985|p=2}} In the twenty first century, this model of early Christianization has become marginalized.{{sfn|Scourfield|2007|pp=2–4}}}}

However, Constantine must have written the laws that threatened and menaced pagans who continued to practice sacrifice. The element of pagan culture most abhorrent to Christians was sacrifice, and altars used for it were routinely smashed. Christians were deeply offended by the blood of slaughtered victims as they were reminded of their own past sufferings associated with such altars.{{sfn|Bradbury|1995|pp=331, 346}} Richard Lim writes that "Putting an end to blood sacrifice ... thus became the singular goal of Christianization (Barnes 1984; Bradbury 1994, 1995)".{{sfn|Lim|2012|p=498}}

There is no evidence that any of the horrific punishments included in the laws against sacrifice were ever enacted.{{sfn|Digeser|2000|pp=168–169}} 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).{{sfn|Thompson|2005|p=93}} Still, 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".{{sfn|Bradbury|1995|pp=345–356}}

==== Christianization with coercion under Justinian I ====
{{Main|Justinian I}}
[[File:Mosaic of Justinianus I - Basilica San Vitale (Ravenna).jpg|thumb|Mosaic of Justinian I in the Basilica San Vitale in Ravenna|alt=photo of a mosaic of Justinianus I from the Basilica San Vitale]]
The religious policy of the Eastern emperor Justinian I (527 to 565) reflected his conviction that a unified Empire presupposed unity of faith.{{sfn|Irmscher|1988|p=165}}{{sfn|Anastos|1967|pp=13–41}} Justinian's efforts at requiring and enforcing this have led [[Anthony Kaldellis]] to write that Justinian is often seen as a tyrant and despot.{{sfn|Kaldellis|2012|pp=1–3}} Unlike Constantine, Justinian did purge the bureaucracy of those who disagreed with him.{{sfn|Kaldellis|2012|p=2}}{{sfn|Stern|1998|p=151}} He sought to centralize imperial government, became increasingly autocratic, and according to the historian [[Giovanni Domenico Mansi|Giovanni Mansi]], "nothing could be done", not even in the Church, that was contrary to the emperor's will and command.{{sfn|Mansi|1762|p=970B}} In Kaldellis' estimation, "Few emperors had started so many wars or tried to enforce cultural and religious uniformity with such zeal".{{sfn|Kaldellis|2012|p=3}}{{sfn|Irmscher|1988|p=166}}{{sfn|Lichtenberger|Raja|2018|pp=85–98}}
[[File:Justinien 527-565.svg|thumb|The extent of the Byzantine Empire under Justinian's uncle Justin I is shown in the darker color. The lighter color shows the conquests of his successor, Justinian I also known as Justinian the Great|alt=this is a map showing the area that Justinian I conquered]]