AD 381

AD 381:
Heretics, Pagans,
and the Christian State




This book about religion and state in the Roman Empire during the fourth century AD is written by the British historian Charles Freeman, who is the author of several books about the ancient world, including The Horses of St. Mark’s and Sites of Antiquity.

As the title says, Freeman believes the year 381 is an important turning point, but before we get so far, he presents some historical background. We hear, for instance, about Emperor Constantine and his victory over Maxentius in 312 and his victory over Licinius in 324. In both cases Constantine claimed that the Christian god was behind his victory.

The early Christians had many problems; some were external: from time to time they were persecuted by the pagan authorities. Other problems were internal: the Christians could not agree on how to define key elements of their own religion – a major question was how to define and explain the Holy Trinity - so several groups emerged. We hear about Donatus and his followers, the Donatists. We hear about Arius and his followers, the Arians. We also hear about Augustine of Hippo, who strongly denounced members of these and other groups as heretics.

Constantine recognised Christianity in the name of tolerance, but when it came to Christianity, he was not tolerant at all. He recognised only one version of this religion: his own. From Constantine and onwards, Christians were being persecuted by Christians, because the orthodox saw the others as heretics, i.e. they followed a “false” version of Christianity.

For more information about this topic please turn to Paul Stephenson, Constantine: Unconquered Emperor, Christian Victor, Quercus (2009).

[One relevant question never really explored in Freeman’s book is why the Christians were so obsessed with orthodoxy (having only one version of the faith). The Roman Empire tolerated many different religions (that is one reason why it lasted as long as it did). Why could it not tolerate different versions of Christianity? Why could one group of Christians not be happy with what they had? Why did they have to be unhappy, just because another group of Christians had a different interpretation of the Holy Scriptures?]

The historical background is useful when we get to the central part of the book where Freeman tries to explain how, why and when Emperor Theodosius declared (his own version of) Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, while all other religions were banned and (sometimes violently) suppressed.

According to Freeman, it happened in AD 381. This year appears in the title of the book and in the headline of chapter VII.

I am not convinced.

But even though I do not agree with him, I have to say that Freeman is a great writer, because he gives the reader the evidence needed to question and refute his claim.

The year 381 is in my opinion an unfortunate choice for several reasons:

(1) Theodosius issued several decrees, edicts, laws, and letters about Christianity before and after 381. On page 25 the author quotes an edict issued in January 380. In chapter IX “The Assault on Paganism” he mentions several laws issued in 391 and 392. Christianity did not become the official religion of the Roman Empire at one particular moment; it was a process which took place over a period of several years.

(2) In his conclusion Freeman emphasizes that the emperor (and not the church) was the driving force behind the dramatic changes. Accordingly, there is no reason to connect the turning point with the church council of 381.

(3) Whatever Theodosius did in 381, he had to undo it two years later. On page 101 we are told that the emperor had to change his mind:

“Things got so bad that Theodosius was forced to backtrack… This was a remarkable volte-face.”

 

In view of this statement, how can Freeman claim that 381 is the turning point?

(4) In the beginning of his career Theodosius merely controlled the eastern empire, and not the whole empire, so even if we accept the year 381, it is not fair to say that Christianity became the official religion of the whole empire in 381.

If I reject the year 381, what do I suggest instead?

I could make a case for 387 (based on page 116). On this page Freeman seems to tell us that Theodosius gained control of the western empire in that year, so from then on his laws could be enforced all over the empire. But I do not want to do this.

Instead I will make a case for 391 and/or 392 (based on chapter IX). During those years Theodosius issued several drastic laws about religion, and it seems the legal process of introducing orthodox Christianity and banning all other religions was completed by then.

Let me add one more point: on the back cover of the book there are some lines about the events of 381 followed by a reference to ancient Egypt: 

“Not since the attempt of the pharaoh Akhenaten to impose his god Aten on his Egyptian subjects in the fourteenth century BC had there been such a wide sweeping programme of religious coercion.” 

The reference to ancient Egypt appears in the book, with almost the same words, but not in chapter VII, which covers the year 381. It appears in chapter IX, in which the author presents the laws issued in 391 and 392.

In this way Freeman’s text refutes his own case (381), while it supports my suggestion to use the year 391 and/or 392 instead.

This is an interesting book with many good observations. But the year chosen for the title is wrong - or at least doubtful - and some relevant questions are never really explored. Therefore I think it deserves a rating of four stars.

* * *

 

Charles Freeman,
AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State,
Pimlico (2008, 2009), 252 pages

 

* * *