Greek/Roman and Mediterranean paganism was really killed by human spiritual crisis in the West?

[RyuDrago]

Normally I always heard that the crisis of paganism (and polytheism) in the Roman Empire was generated by a sense of growing insatisfaction of various social strates towards the traditional religions, which allowed new ones (Christianity, but also Mithraism, and Zoroastrianism) to fill this lost gap. But I feel this explanation wouldn't be sufficient, like I missing something or not fully understand. After all this crisis started in a moment of relative peace and prosperity in the Mediterranean basin and in the Middle East, ruled by the Romans and the Sassanids. How could this historical conjuncture, where humans lived their highest level of civilization so far, provoking such a cultural crisis on the other side?

I can eventually think some of the causes were the philosophical development turned towards a more doubtful inclination of the certainties so far, the issue of slavery in the Empire, and other, but then I am thinking of previous empires respect to Rome where despite living such high standards didn't have decisive religious crisis, starting from Egypt. Sure, there was the Atonian parenthesis, but it was short and contained and Egyptian cults resisted till Hellenistic age and more, when Egypt as ruled by a local dynasty was gone by a long time; and probably could have lasted more, if the knowledge of hieroglyphs wouldn't have been lost. Or China, where Buddhism penetrated only after 8th century and even so coexisted with local religions and in the same India, the rise of Buddhism didn't eradicate Hinduism but rather allowed a dual coexistance.

More than Persia in itself, where Zoroastrianism essentially synchronized with Mazdaism, the most similar case to Rome where a deep religious crisis happened is the Middle East, where the Mesopotamian and Anatolian cults felt at a certain point in disgrace and decline, in this case by Hellenist influence, where the assimilation was much stronger and I am guessing the progressive abandon of cuneiform contributed on this.

Summarizing, what did have the Roman Empire to face such a religious crisis which other Imperial states of the time didn't have?

 

[Grey Wolf]

Isn't one major element that the emperor patronising a particular religion not only gave it status (which is ephemeral) but also gave it the political equivalent of being an ally? Those who are ambitious at this time would then follow the religion that the emperor is supporting and effectively abandon older practices.

I also think this has probably been going on for millennia, but that obviously being pre-lierate we just see the indications without the story

 

[Averrhoes]

Mithraism was not a religion with a set code of beliefs like Christianity or Manichaeism was, it was simply a supplementary add-on to traditional paganism, similar to the cults of Sol Invictus and Isis. Zoroastrianism on the other hand was seldom even practiced in the Greco-Roman world; it was nearly an ethnic religion that heavily relied on the state that controlled Iran. Even then, Mesopotamia, which had been under Iranian rule for centuries, remained pagan until its direct conversion to Christianity and Mandeanism, with little evidence of Zoroastrianism being practiced by the native population.

It's also not like the Greco-Roman world suddenly adopted monotheism in the form of Christianity overnight. Nobody actually believed in the myths and stories of the various gods and heroes; they were almost like folktales to them. Nonetheless, they continued to carry out ancient rites and rituals because it was the continuation of the mos maiorum, the source of Roman social order itself, very similar to Confucianism. Cicero himself says "that no one is so foolish as to believe in the terrors of Hades or the existence of Scyllas, centaurs or other composite creatures". The "cultural crisis" in the Greco-Roman world wasn't caused by the philosophical questioning of institutions such as slavery, but rather theological developments in philosophy that had been undergoing since the 5th century BC. Plato is perhaps the most important man in this regard, as his theory of the Demiurge gradually led to the foundation of Neoplatonism, which was the most notable philosophy to take hold during the Roman Empire. Neoplatonic ideas easily merged with that of early Christianity, with some early Church Fathers even claiming that philosophers such as Socrates and Plato were unknowingly Christian. All of this led to the gradual acceptance and eventually adoption of Christianity across the Mediterranean.

 

[Salvador79]

Why is it a crisis when parts of a society no longer practice or believe in the religious myths and cultic practices of earlier generations?

I don't know if people in Greco-Roman antiquity really saw their times as positive as @RyuDrago portrayed them. But I know that_today_, humankind enjoys the highest average living standards of all times, and there are quite a few people around (including me) who are not religious. They don't necessarily feel that something's lacking in their lives or that they're straying from their cultural traditions or whatever. (At least I don't.)

And Christianity wasn't coming in to fill a void. It became state ideology and it became the structure through which charity was funelled. So both those people who wanted to get somewhere with their careers, and those people who needed help were well-advised to at least pretend to be good faithful Christians. And then, inertia kicks in, this is how culture works: pragmatic factual structures are being exalted, they're cloaked and legitimised and explained in the words and minds of following generations, which doesn't mean people are really spiritually fulfilled now while they weren't before, over time they just embraced a new cultural identity.

 

[ar-pharazon]

Christianity didn't become supported by the state until the 3rd century. In the first century Christanity was the religion of the downtrodden, poor and slaves(it also appealed to women at the time as well).

Christianity was at various times persecuted by the Roman emperors-most often because they refused to acknowledge the cult of the emperor.

@Averrhoes-that's an interesting quote but is Cicero referring to everybody in the Greco Roman world or just the educated upper classes?

 

[Herman Gigglethorpe]

that's an interesting quote but is Cicero referring to everybody in the Greco Roman world or just the educated upper classes?

That's what I want to know. Cicero was a famous skeptic, but did the plebeians and slaves feel the same way?

 

[ar-pharazon]

Not just the plebeians and slaves-a Greek fisher in the Peloponnese, or farmer in Epirus take those stories and accounts seriously?

I'd think they would.

 

[Averrhoes]

That's what I want to know. Cicero was a famous skeptic, but did the plebeians and slaves feel the same way?

Not just the plebeians and slaves-a Greek fisher in the Peloponnese, or farmer in Epirus take those stories and accounts seriously?

I'd think they would.

The full quote is "Cicero asserts that no one (not even old women and boys) is so foolish as to believe in the terrors of Hades or the existence of Scyllas, centaurs or other composite creatures, but, on the other hand, the orator elsewhere complains of the superstitious and credulous character of the people." The "superstition" Cicero is referring to here most likely means practices such as divination and fortune telling, rather than belief in the myths. What needs to be understood is that the epics of Homer were studied because it was simply the most outstanding and prestigious set of poetry in the Greco-Roman world; they never thought of it as some religious or sacred text.

 

[ar-pharazon]

The full quote is "Cicero asserts that no one (not even old women and boys) is so foolish as to believe in the terrors of Hades or the existence of Scyllas, centaurs or other composite creatures, but, on the other hand, the orator elsewhere complains of the superstitious and credulous character of the people." The "superstition" Cicero is referring to here most likely means practices such as divination and fortune telling, rather than belief in the myths. What needs to be understood is that the epics of Homer were studied because it was simply the most outstanding and prestigious set of poetry in the Greco-Roman world; they never thought of it as some religious or sacred text.

Are you saying that Greco Roman's didn't believe that the gods existed or were real and answered prayers?

 

[Kerney]

Christianity didn't become supported by the state until the 3rd century. In the first century Christanity was the religion of the downtrodden, poor and slaves(it also appealed to women at the time as well).

Christianity was at various times persecuted by the Roman emperors-most often because they refused to acknowledge the cult of the emperor.

@Averrhoes-that's an interesting quote but is Cicero referring to everybody in the Greco Roman world or just the educated upper classes?

I suspect the best analogy for 1st century Christians, rather than the poor and downtrodden was the weird and somewhat eccentric of which some happened to poor, slaves or downtrodden. Paul's letter to Corinthians quite frankly reminds me of the comments some Wiccans I know complaining about other Wiccans making asses of themselves and rocking the boat just for the sake of rocking the boat rather than any important religious principals. Appulius' The Golden Ass also has a probable 'Christian' (wife of a magistrate I think) who is the classical equivalent of a New Age Crystal worshiper. By the early 300s Christians had graduated from being the Wiccans or the Hare Krishna of the classical world to being the Mormons in terms of respectablity.

And I strongly believe that they would have gotten no further without Constantine and that Salvador79 essentially spells out what actually happened more or less.

Needless to say, there have been many arguments on these forums about this, with one faction seeing it my way more or less and others claiming Christian triumph was "inevitable" more or less. I don't think anyone has made an argument that isn't biased either consciously or unconsciously by their opinion of Christianity.

But the so called 'crisis' probably would not be seen as a crisis in retrospect but for Constantine the Great backing Christianity. If he had been Constantine the sorta okay or Constantine the frakin disaster Christianity would have been dumped.

As a result, I think it is very possible ATL historians might be merely talking about a few weird cults in the early imperial centuries and there would still be Vestal Virgins in Rome, an Oracle at Delphi, and festivals to Athena in Athens just like there are 3000 year old Hindu festivals in India.

 

[Max Sinister]

Maybe it's like this - if you have shitty emperors and the empire seems to be going down the drain no matter how much you pray and sacrifice to the traditional gods (and the emperor),you'll lose your faith even if you've never read a skeptical philosopher (Diagoras!).

 

[ar-pharazon]

I suspect the best analogy for 1st century Christians, rather than the poor and downtrodden was the weird and somewhat eccentric of which some happened to poor, slaves or downtrodden. Paul's letter to Corinthians quite frankly reminds me of the comments some Wiccans I know complaining about other Wiccans making asses of themselves and rocking the boat just for the sake of rocking the boat rather than any important religious principals. Appulius' The Golden Ass also has a probable 'Christian' (wife of a magistrate I think) who is the classical equivalent of a New Age Crystal worshiper. By the early 300s Christians had graduated from being the Wiccans or the Hare Krishna of the classical world to being the Mormons in terms of respectablity.

And I strongly believe that they would have gotten no further without Constantine and that Salvador79 essentially spells out what actually happened more or less.

Needless to say, there have been many arguments on these forums about this, with one faction seeing it my way more or less and others claiming Christian triumph was "inevitable" more or less. I don't think anyone has made an argument that isn't biased either consciously or unconsciously by their opinion of Christianity.

But the so called 'crisis' probably would not be seen as a crisis in retrospect but for Constantine the Great backing Christianity. If he had been Constantine the sorta okay or Constantine the frakin disaster Christianity would have been dumped.

As a result, I think it is very possible ATL historians might be merely talking about a few weird cults in the early imperial centuries and there would still be Vestal Virgins in Rome, an Oracle at Delphi, and festivals to Athena in Athens just like there are 3000 year old Hindu festivals in India.

Christianity benefited from constantine's backing but it would not have "gotten no farther" without him.

Christianity spread even without the support of the state or even in opposition to it.

By the end of the first century Christians had reached India and Ethiopia. And by the second century had reached Western Europe.

Christianity was from its very foundation an energetic missionary religion. This wouldn't change even if the state had not given its support.

 

[Averrhoes]

Are you saying that Greco Roman's didn't believe that the gods existed or were real and answered prayers?

Certainly a good portion of them didn't believe that the gods intervened in the physical world or even existed at all; these people were called Epicureans. Followers of Plato and Aristotle believed in a "Demiurge" or "Prime Mover", a God-figure who created the universe and set everything into motion. Neoplatonism, the later school of Platonism, gradually merged with Christianity and even attacked the same people (Gnostics, who believed that the Demiurge was evil). The Stoics believed in the more impersonal idea that God was in everything, very similar to Hinduism.

Neoplatonists believed that all the gods and goddesses were simply different names for the Demiurge. Plato himself believed that the gods as portrayed in the myths were not perfect, not benevolent, and irrational; therefore the myths were lies, and at worst, blasphemy. Later on, Platonists concluded that the myths were nothing more than folktales, and they instead interpreted it allegorically and concluded that it had philosophical truths.

The Stoics were perhaps the most compatible philosophy in the context of Homer and Hesiod's myths. However, Cicero, a Stoic himself, says that the myths shouldn't literally be believed. Although the Stoics thought that God is the universe and everything in it, they also believed that God is unknowable; so the best way to worship God would be to worship the traditional gods of Greco-Roman paganism. Cicero also viewed it as a source of social order, similar to Confucianism.

Most people practicing pagan rituals in the Mediterranean during this time period were doing so for the sake of tradition and upholding the mos maiorum. It was part of civic life to do so; what a person believed in their private life was another thing entirely. It's the reason why Christians were persecuted when they refused to honor the Imperial cult, or gods such as Sol Invictus. There was no dogma or set of beliefs like religion as we know it today.

 

[Kerney]

Are you saying that Greco Roman's didn't believe that the gods existed or were real and answered prayers?

I think they saw a lot more metaphor, and seeing Gods in the workings of the world. To get what I'm talking about, I'm writing a novel that plays a lot with polytheistic mindsets. In it, it is revealed that Amatarasu as a Sun Goddess inspired the Manhattan project through dreams and inspiration because she disapproved of Imperial Japan. And all those wildfires in the American West, yes they are natural phenomenon aided by global warming and US Forest Service mismanagement. They are also the fire Jotun gathering for Ragnarok.

I think a lot of man on the street people in the ancient world would think a lot like this.

 

[ar-pharazon]

Certainly a good portion of them didn't believe that the gods intervened in the physical world or even existed at all; these people were called Epicureans. Followers of Plato and Aristotle believed in a "Demiurge" or "Prime Mover", a God-figure who created the universe and set everything into motion. Neoplatonism, the later school of Platonism, gradually merged with Christianity and even attacked the same people (Gnostics, who believed that the Demiurge was evil). The Stoics believed in the more impersonal idea that God was in everything, very similar to Hinduism.

Neoplatonists believed that all the gods and goddesses were simply different names for the Demiurge. Plato himself believed that the gods as portrayed in the myths were not perfect, not benevolent, and irrational; therefore the myths were lies, and at worst, blasphemy. Later on, Platonists concluded that while the myths were nothing more than folktales, they instead interpreted it allegorically and concluded that it had philosophical truths.

The Stoics were perhaps the most compatible philosophy in the context of Homer and Hesiod's myths. However, Cicero, a Stoic himself, says that the myths shouldn't literally be believed. Although the Stoics thought that God is the universe and everything in it, they also believed that God is unknowable; so the best way to worship God would be to worship the traditional gods of Greco-Roman paganism. Cicero also viewed it as a source of social order, similar to Confucianism.

Most people practicing pagan rituals in the Mediterranean during this time period were doing so for the sake of tradition and upholding the mos maiorum. It was part of civic life to do so; what a person believed in their private life was another thing entirely. It's the reason why Christians were persecuted when they refused to honor the Imperial cult, or gods such as Sol Invictus. There was no dogma or set of beliefs like religion as we know it today.

I'm familiar with all those groups and their ideas.

I'm not talking about the philosophers and intellectuals of the Greco Roman world-I'm talking about the common farmers, slaves, sailors, fishermen, the urban poor in Rome, etc...

Not the philosophers or the educated.

What did they think regarding the gods?

 

[Kerney]

Christianity benefited from constantine's backing but it would not have "gotten no farther" without him.

Christianity spread even without the support of the state or even in opposition to it.

By the end of the first century Christians had reached India and Ethiopia. And by the second century had reached Western Europe.

Christianity was from its very foundation an energetic missionary religion. This wouldn't change even if the state had not given its support.

And this is the argument l have been talking about going back and forth on these subjects on these boards whenever early Christianity comes up.

And like I said, I don't think Christianity could have overcome entrenched power in the long term without Imperial backing.

I'm also tired of arguing this for now and I have better things to do than talking past someone and neither of us agreeing. Have a nice day.

Edit: I also explained as best I can the mentality of polytheism and while I gave examples from my fiction. However, its what I've picked up spending time in Japan among Shintoists, among Native Americans, and others. It probably has a lot of common ground with other polytheists

 

[Max Sinister]

Nassim Nicholas Taleb (who's a Levantine Christian himself) claims that Christianity won against paganism just because of stubbornness. The Romans kept making the tolerant offer "we'll add your Jesus to our pantheon, and you take some of our gods in return", but the Christians stubbornly declined, the Romans weren't happy ("oh, so our gods aren't good enough for you?"), but the Christians weren't moved.

 

[Philippe le Bel]

The Greeks viewed their gods as more human, very human in fact. Just one big dysfunctional family with the power to cause thousands of deaths, curse people, etc., no big deal. The Roman view of the gods was more complex, inherited partially from the Etruscans, and the ancient Latins, part of the reason I hate when people say that Roman religion was basically Greek. The Romans had the concept of numina, that every living thing and inanimate object had its own spirit, had its own "want". Stones want to stub your toe or hit hard, the river wants to drown you, etc. Of course it's more complicated than that but you get the gist, especially when you consider all their odd gods and rituals. Gods of crossroads, gods of opening and closing doors, gods of keeping the jars unbroken, all kinds of bizarre stuff, little superstitions and rituals.

That's what I want to know. Cicero was a famous skeptic, but did the plebeians and slaves feel the same way?

Cicero was a plebeian.

 

[ar-pharazon]

Speaking of Roman religion it's often said that it was imported from the Greeks wholesale. And while that isn't true what was pre Greek contact Roman religion like?

The religion of the Roman monarchy? Early republic? And the ancient Latins?

 

[Mikestone8]

And I strongly believe that they would have gotten no further without Constantine

What do you mean by "get no further"?

It had been growing steadily for 300 years. That growth would presumably continue with or without Constantine. Any reason for it not to?

And like I said, I don't think Christianity could have overcome entrenched power in the long term without Imperial backing

But had it not been steadily growing already, would it ever have got the imperial backing?