IntroductIon

Stephen Mitchell and Peter Van nuffelen

Monotheism, defined as belief in the powers of a unique, supreme divinity, although not necessarily to the exclusion of all other gods, underpinned most forms of religion in the roman world of the fourth and fifth centuries A.d. the spread of monotheism as a reli-gious phenomenon in the early centuries of the empire understand-ably owed much to the impetus that it derived from Judaism and christianity. However, the effect of the constantinian revolution in particular can be seen as catalytic. Whereas religious activity around 250 A.d. was still dominated by the practices and beliefs associated with polytheistic paganism, organised around the temples, festivals and priesthoods of the old gods, by 400 A.d. these have receded almost completely from the view provided by our, admittedly mostly christian, sources. Public religious activity was now largely christian, organised and promoted by bishops and their clergy, located in churches, and observing an new sacred calendar.

non-believers came to terms with this transformation of public religion by focusing their own beliefs not on the multitude of pagan gods, but on the idea of the oneness of god. to construct this idea of a unique, all-powerful divinity, they drew on a rich Greek philo-sophical tradition, stretching beyond the birth of christianity to early Greek thought. It is thus hardly surprising that christian think-ers of the fourth and fifth centuries were eager to interpret such philo-phical writings as a preparation for understanding the Gospels, a praeparatio evangelica.

However, fourth century pagan religious literature, as well as other evidence for non-christian belief and activity, which developed in response to the political and social changes of the fourth century, needs to be interpreted on its own terms, not viewed from a christian perspective, or with the hindsight of history. the papers in this vol-ume deal with religious ideas that sprang from this milieu and aim to interpret them in their contemporary context. Both the writers of the period and their modern interpreters are engaged in a debate about

2 S. Mitchell and P. Van nuffelen

1 Augustine, Ep. 16.1. tr. G. clark (modified). 2 E.g. Zeller 1862; nilsson 1963; Simon 1973.

the nature of monotheism: what ideas were entailed by beliefs in one god? How did these affect the choices and behaviour of worshippers? And what impact did this have on the moral and political framework within which society evolved? In contrast to the second and third centuries, much of this debate was open and explicit, as christians and pagans articulated their ideas in ways that showed a full aware-ness of their respective positions. the stakes were high, even if the outcome of christian triumph now seems to have been inevitable.

MonotheiSM and religiouS change

Around 390, a correspondent of Augustine, Maximus of Madaura, explained to the future bishop of Hippo what traditional worship really was about:

Greece tells the story, without firm evidence, that Mount olympus is the dwelling-place of the gods. But that the forum of our city is occu-pied by a gathering of saviour gods, we see and asert. Who is so insane, so deluded, as to deny the utter certainty that there is one highest God, without beginning, without offspring in nature, like a great and glorious father? We invoke under many names his powers that are diffused through the created world, because, obviously, none of us knows his name: God is the name common to all religions. So it is that while we honour his parts (so to speak) separately, with various supplications, we are clearly worshipping him in his entirety.1

this emphatic statement of belief in a single highest God reinter-prets traditional worship as actually directed at various aspects of that God. Maximus’ indignation about the possible denial of the lat-ter’s existence suggests that he expected all self-respecting ‘pagans’ to share his interpretation. Whether this was actually the case is another matter, but the letter clearly illustrates that “monotheistic” beliefs were widely current beyond christianity and Judaism in Late Antiq-uity.

the presence of monotheistic tendencies in ancient thought has long been recognised,2 and it has recently been argued that they manifested themselves in actual religious practice from the first

introduction 3

3 See in particular Mitchell 1999 and the papers forthcoming in Mitchell and Van nuffelen. 4 cf. Athanassiadi and Frede 1999:20; Wallraff 2003:165; Fürst 2006a. 5 E.g. drake 2000:136-139; Wallraff 2002; Fürst 2006b: 329-332; Fürst 2006a:516. they were anticipated by Battifol 1913. 6 See the recent synthesis by Girardet 2006. 7 Stroumsa 2005. the importance of ‘holy books’ in later neoplatonism has also been stressed by Athanassiadi 2006. 8 For a critique on the idea of decline of sacrifice before the end of the fourth century, see Belayche 2005b. 9 For different assessments of religious change in the roman Empire, see rives 1999; Ando 2008; north 2009.

centuries A.d. onwards.3 Indeed, monotheism has been described as a “trend” in religion under the roman Empire4 and widespread monotheism, shared by the various religious communities and philo-sophies of the Mediterranean, has become an important part in explanations of the conversion of constantine.5 Indeed, the language used by constantine in his communication with non-christians clearly draws on shared conceptions of a highest God, whatever his precise identity may be.6

not everyone will agree that monotheism has to be a central ele-ment in an account of religious change in the roman Empire. In a suggestive essay, G. Stroumsa has suggested that more important were the rise of a new concept of the self, the focus on a holy book, and the spiritualisation of sacrifice, which lead to the formation of communities based on a shared faith.7 Full of stimulating sugges-tions, some elements of his argument are fragile. For example, the traditional conception of sacrifice as a material act remained very much alive in the fourth century A.d., even among philosophers, as the example of the emperor Julian well illustrates.8 nevertheless, Stroumsa’s essay can serve as a useful remainder that “a trend towards monotheism” cannot exhaust the analysis of religious change.9 But as a term indicating a set of changes that affected the traditional, poly-theistic conception of the divine, it may be useful to describe at least part of the process.

the conceptual issues involved in the use of the term “monotheism” when studying ancient religion are discussed in greater detail in the volume One God. Studies in Pagan Monotheism and Related Religious Ideas in the Roman Empire, also edited by S. Mitchell and P. Van nuffelen. Just as that volume, which focuses on the roman Empire

4 S. Mitchell and P. Van nuffelen

10 See also Corpus Hermeticum (e.g. 16.3.).

in the first three centuries A.d., contains a variety of approaches to apparently “monotheistic” phenomena in Greco-roman religion, the authors in this volume also engage critically with the concept “mono-theism” in the context of the ancient Mediterranean. nevertheless, most agree that it is a useful heuristic tool to help us understand one aspect of religion in the roman Empire.

Such an approach is not without creating its own set of problems. For one thing, it puts the vexed question of the relation between Greco-roman religion, and Judaism and christianity again on the foreground. If the movement towards monotheism is a widespread trend existing within “paganism,” then this cannot be explained merely by the possible influence of Judaism and christianity on tra-ditional religions of the Mediterranean. there is evidence for numer-ous contacts between these religions, which can be found groups such as the so-called Godfearers, the naassenes and the Montanists, each the result of a fascinating encounter between Greco-roman, christian, and Jewish forms of religion.10 Yet, such relatively small groups can hardly be described as agents of change. rather, they are the result of the general proximity in which the various religions in the ancient world existed. But proximity does not just stimulate exchange: it also leads to the re-affirmation of one’s own identity. Indeed, christian orthodoxy was defined by singling out marginal groups such as those cited above as “heresies.” In the roman empire contacts between religions generated a complex social dynamic, which could drive groups apart or bring them together according to circumstances.

this double dynamic of proximity and distance can also be identi-fied on the level of doctrine. Statements such as that of Maximus of Madaura give the impression that little separated christians and “pagans.” Indeed, this was one of the main theses put forward by P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede in their introduction to Pagan Mono-theism in Late Antiquity (1999). this may be true if one looks at a limited set of theoretical propositions made by christians and Greco-roman philosophers. But such a perspective is too restricted. In his exchange with a prominent christian scholar, Maximus was clearly intent on minimising the gap between his own religious thought and that of his correspondent, especially in the light of imperial

introduction 5

11 Edwards 2000; Wallraff 2003b:532-533; Fürst 2006a:518; Gasparro 2003a:127. 12 Edwards 2004. 13 For recent assessments see drake 2000; Girardet 2006; Lenski 2006; Van dam 2007; Veyne 2007. 14 cameron 2003.

endorsement of christianity. Various reviewers of the volume edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede have drawn attention to crucial differences between philosophical monotheism and chris-tianity11 and such as view has been most forcefully put forward by M. Edwards.12 He emphasises the important differences between neoplatonism and christianity, especially the idea of incarnation and the refusal of image worship in christianity, and denies that neoplatonism was much concerned with worship. Although his rejection of “pagan monotheism” is too categorical in that it seems to adopt a strictly Judeao-christian definition of monotheism, his emphasis on what differentiates christianity and Greco-roman reli-gion is an important correction to the idea of close similarity put forward by P. Athanassiadi and M. Frede.

Power and PoleMic

the closeness or distance between paganism and christianity is not merely an issue of the precise definition of modern concepts and ancient philosophical conceptions. the relationship between these religious orientations was profoundly transformed by a political act: constantine’s public conversion and the ensuing advantages for christianity. Whatever the precise nature and motivation of con-stantine’s turn towards christianity,13 it became a turning point in history. Later christian authors would see constantine’s conversion as the beginning of the triumph of their faith and the victory over paganism. Soon christianity became the dominating religion in the public sphere, and the combined resources of legislation, preaching and social pressure shaped an empire that by the fifth century A.d. largely looked christian. thus, when pagan authors enter into debate with christianity at the end of the fourth century and later, they were taking part in a public discourse largely dominated by christi-anity.14 As we have learned from M. Foucault, such a grip on the

6 S. Mitchell and P. Van nuffelen

15 Hahn 2004; Gaddis 2005 (who focuses on the discourse that justified violence); Salzman 2006. For an interpretation that argues for a “persecution” of non-christians, see Athanassiadi 1993. 16 See the literature cited by drake 1996:4 n. 3, and the papers in Fernández ubiña and Marcos 2007. 17 drake 1996 and 2000. From a more theoretical perspective and in engage-ment with Peterson 1935, Fürst 2007 argues that the key difference between christians and pagans is not a difference in conception of the divine but the ideas about social and political justice implied in each of these world views. 18 See cameron 1993; Miles 1999; Frazer and digeser 2006; Sandwell 2007; Siniossoglou 2008. 19 dillon 2007:137-8.

public discourse is a form of power and generates violence, on at least two levels.

the most obvious level is that of actual violence directed against pagans: the destruction of temples, attacks on individuals, or state repression of illicit cultic acts. the extent and frequency of such vio-lent expression of intolerance are hard to gauge, but current scholar-ship tends to reject the idea of a systematic persecution of non-christians across the Empire and rather favours explanations that focus on the specific social and political context of each incident.15 nevertheless, even limited acts of violence contributed to the mar-ginalisation of non-christian populations. It is often assumed that intolerance was a natural consequence of christian monotheism and its exclusivism.16 Yet, as has been argued by H.A. drake, such a posi-tion disregards the specific historical and social contexts that shaped late antique intolerance and reduces it to an a-historical formula.17

“real” violence is largely absent from this volume, which focuses more on conflict at a different level: that of discourse itself. recent scholarship has emphasised that in Late Antiquity group identity was defined and challenged through the spoken and written word. Preachers addressed sermons to their congregations to keep them in the bosom of the “orthodox” church, and apologists challenged “pagan” understandings of their own history and religion.18 After constantine’s conversion, christianity soon started to dominate public discourse, imposing a different referential framework on pagan intellectuals. Although neoplatonic philosophers could still express their religious ideas and even carry out religious acts in the fifth and early sixth century,19 it became very hard for them to engage in a truly philosophical dialogue with christian adversaries, who had

introduction 7

20 Edwards, Goodman and Price 1999; Kahlos 2007; Siniossoglou 2008. 21 Wallraff 2003 and 2004 are careful attempts to see parallels and contrasts in christian and Greco-roman conceptions of the divine. 22 nilsson 1963; Simon 1973. 23 Frede, Athanassiadi 1999:7; Price 2003:192. 24 Porphyry, C. Christ. Frg. 76 (Harnack); Maximus of Madaura in Augustine, Ep. 16.

appropriated Plato for their own designs and had developed an arsenal of stock arguments against paganism.20 In the context of this volume, it is important to realise that the biblical condemnation of idolatry, as appropriated by christianity, made all compromise impossible with the neoplatonic world view that defended traditional Greco-roman rites and rituals, even though the latter may have harboured a largely monotheistic conception of the divine. christian culture borrowed extensively from Greco-roman culture and especially Platonism, but tended to emphasise the differences not the similari-ties21 — just as pagan apologists, such as Porphyry and Julian, con-sidered christianity an alien intruder in Greek culture.

the modern notion of monotheism is framed by this polemic. As is well-known, our instinctive association of monotheism with christianity and that of polytheism with paganism is shaped by the christian opposition of monotheism to the polytheism of Greek and roman culture. It is striking how many other elements of pagan-christian polemic still surface in modern discussions of monotheism. Monotheistic tendencies in paganism, for example, have long been studied by scholars as a preparation for christianity: monotheism in Greek and roman culture was seen as reducing the differences with christianity and making the latter more easily acceptable for classical culture.22 this is a permutation of the perspective adopted by, among others, Eusebius of caesarea in his Praeparatio evangelica and Augustine in the City of God, who both detected some truthful ele-ments in Platonism. rather than taking such a teleological perspec-tive, scholarship needs to stress the importance of such tendencies in their own right. Another example is the argument developed by some scholars that christianity is not really monotheistic, as it knows the worship of angels and saints, not to mention the trinity.23 Such an argument was part and parcel of anti-christian polemic in Late Antiquity,24 and tends to disregard the importance monotheism had as part of the self-description of christianity.

8 S. Mitchell and P. Van nuffelen

25 See now in particular Kobusch and Erler 2002. 26 See e.g. Mitchell 1995; rutgers 1995 and 1999; rothaus 2002; Markschies 2002.

Belief and worShiP

this volume does not attempt to develop a narrative that assesses the importance of pagan monotheism in Late Antiquity, nor does it wish to establish the term as the best possible to describe religious change in Late Antiquity. the aim is not to offer a comparative assessment of the metaphysical conceptions of the divine found in this period.25 It largely leaves aside evidence for the coming together of christians, Jews, and pagans in social life.26 rather, through a series of case-studies, it aims to set in clear relief the key issues in the debate between pagans and christians in Late Antiquity. It focuses on the discourses employed on each side in the debate in order to achieve a better understanding of our modern notion of monotheism. Although pre-constantinian christianity is explored as well, the focus is in particular on the century between 350-450, when it seems that the lines of the debate were drawn for the years to come.

As is well known, christian apologists tended to oppose their own monotheistic faith to the polytheism of the culture surrounding them. But this was often done in a language and with concepts that derived from Greco-roman philosophical thought and polemic. three interlocking themes are explored by the papers that make up this volume. First, what common ground existed between pagans and christians, both in terms of actual conceptions of the divine and the ways in which these were expressed? christians adopted much of the philosophical thought of their contemporaries, but also appropri-ated some of the texts of Greco-roman culture, such as orphic texts or the Sibylline oracles. the latter were then adapted and interpreted as providing proof for christianity’s doctrines. Such common ground, however, was rarely recognised. rather, the sharp tools of polemic were exploited in order to differentiate pagan from christian traditions. the second theme of this book is thus how polemic and rhetoric shape the opinions about the divine that can be found in the sources.

But, thirdly, polemic does not just obscure proximity and shared ideas: it also lies bare some of the fault-lines that were inherent in

introduction 9

Late Antique thinking about the divine. the papers that approach pagan monotheism from a christian perspective and those that do so from a neoplatonist one, emphasise the key issue of the relationship between traditional Greco-roman religion and philosophy. Indeed, the attempt to keep together philosophy and traditional religion is typical for Late Antique pagan monotheism: religon is re-interpreted in the light of philosophy to render it less controversial. But this relationship was never unproblematic for neoplatonists who needed constantly to re-interpret their own religious traditions in order to reconcile them with their philosophies. christian polemic aimed pre-cisely at separating the two in order to destroy the credit that paganism could derive from philosophical views. the main christian strategy was to argue that Platonist philosophy has identified some truths (which were actually derived from the Moses and the Jewish tradi-tion), but that philosophers did not dare to proclaim these openly, because they were afraid of how superstitious people would react to them. this allows Augustine, the most consummate of polemicists, to draw a sharp contrast between, on the one hand, christianity which has a sound doctrine and a cult that is accessible for all, and pagan philosophy, which keeps its limited truths to itself and aban-dons ordinary people to the superstition of Greco-roman religion.

Although our modern perspective is obviously distorted by the ultimate victory of christianity, the strength of christianity seems to have been that it was much more capable than neoplatonism of inte-grating worship with theology. neoplatonist theories were too com-plex to command immediate understanding. Indeed, in christianity ritual and theology had developed side by side as an integrated unity which defined a community, whereas traditional Greco-roman religion developed largely independently from philosophical conceptions of the divine. Moreover, with the exception of the disciples of the various neoplatonic schools, neoplatonism never defined a religious com-munity to the extent that christianity did and certainly had far fewer followers.

thus, the problem at the heart of the debates charted in this volume are not abstract and theological. the questions raised are always embedded in a religious context, with the key question that returns time and again being: Who do I worship? A christian could agree with a Platonist on the description of the highest god, but not on worshipping that god as Juppiter, especially not in the light of the

10 S. Mitchell and P. Van nuffelen

Biblical prohibition of idolatry. the christian refusal to worship a pagan god was in turn (correctly) interpreted by the Platonist as a denial of the value of Greco-roman tradition. debates about mono-theism in Late Antiquity are, thus, not about conceptions of the divine, but directly touch on questions about the religious and cul-tural identity of individuals and groups in Late Antiquity. And that explains the intensity of the polemic.

froM JuStin Martyr to auguStine

Although most contributors agree on the importance of the issues raised by recent research into pagan monotheism, there exists the obvious danger that the term can obscure important differences not only between paganism and christianity, but also within paganism itself. M.V. cerutti argues that Greco-roman conceptions of the divine can be classified as tending towards either hierarchisation or syncretism (“‘Pagan Monotheism’? towards a Historical typology”). the first category can be subdivided, depending on whether an onto-logical continuity between the lower gods and highest god was envis-aged or not. Such a typology is needed, she argues, in order to avoid minimising the differences that existed within paganism. Like other contributors to this volume, she suggests that the term “henotheism” may be useful to draw attention to the differences between such pagan conceptions and the monotheism of Judaism and christianity.

G. Sfameni Gasparro notices the delicate balance between imma-nence and transcendence that characterises pagan theologies (“one God and divine unity. Late Antique theologies between Exclusivism and Inclusiveness”). By drawing on christian authors such as Justin and origen, she shows that philosophical concepts and language, and in particular Platonism, were eagerly adopted by christianity from the outset of its development. What distinguishes christianity from paganism, however, is the fact that christian theology is rooted and embedded in a lived religion with its rituals and structure. theology and ritual cannot be separated: both constantly refer to each other and are essentially mediated through a community in which the believer participates and with which he identifies himself.

the next two papers chart some of the common ground that existed between pagans and christians. B. Selter shows that the idea

introduction 11

of astral immortality, as exemplified in Late roman funerary poems, was shared by pagans and christians alike (“Eadem spectamus astra. Astral immortality as common Ground between Pagan and christian Monotheism”). to express these ideas, they would borrow from the same poetical tradition. M. Herrero demonstrates that orphic texts were used by both Jews and christians to “prove” that monotheism existed among the Greeks (“orphic God(s): theogonies and Hymns as Vehicles of Monotheism”). the literary genres of theogony and hymn, by drawing on poetic images such as incestuous mating, offered an opportunity for expressing monotheism in a polytheistic context. But these genres also limited the freedom of their authors, who were confined by poetic language and imagery. Precisely the malleable nature of the genre and the dependency of Jews and christians on the poetic language and imagery can sometimes make it hard to distinguish between a true orphic text and a forgery. Yet, much of this common ground seems to be more a matter of form rather than substance. the significance of astral immortality had a different meaning in a christian context, even though it could be expressed in the same terms that were used by pagans. Equally, christians using orphic texts ignored the original meaning of such texts. the context in which certain concepts and ideas occur is thus crucial in determining their meaning.

this also holds for oratory. one of the most famous pleas for reli-gious toleration in the fourth century was pronounced by the orator themistius in front of the emperor Valens. I. Sandwell demonstrates that themistius knew how to adapt his speech to the context and the addressee, to the point of referring to the Bible (“Pagan conceptions of Monotheism in the Fourth century: the Example of Libanius and themistius”). But in the case of oratory, power relations may have been as important as genre. With christianity being the domi-nating religion in the empire, orators like themistius tried to avoid contentious issues. Even the less well-connected and more boisterous Libanius would in some instances moderate his language and tone. But because he did not live close to the heart of power, and because many of his speeches were never published, he probably got away with much more than themistius could. their orations testify more to a cohabitation of polytheistic and monotheistic conceptions, which could be drawn on depending on the occasion, than to a straightforward “rise” of monotheism.

12 S. Mitchell and P. Van nuffelen

neoplatonist philosophers in Late Antiquity developed more sys-tematic views about religion and the divine. niketas Siniossoglou sets out the ultimate “weakness” of such constructions (“From Philosophic Monotheism to Imperial Henotheism. Esoteric and Popular religion in Late Antique Platonism”). He shows that within “Hellenic mono-theism” there existed a tension between a philosophical religion, which tended to be monotheistic, and traditional religion, with its variety of gods and rituals. He suggest that “imperial henotheism”, as created by, among others, Julian, attempted to reconcile both by assigning each nation to a god who was finally subordinated to the highest god. But because pagan monotheism was inclusive, it could not defend itself against the strong christian claim that worship should be addressed exclusively to the “true God” — especially in the form of polemical attacks made on paganism by christian apologists.

crystal Addey explores another example of such polemic in her analysis of the fragments of Porhyry’s Philosophy from Oracles, a work that is mainly known through Eusebius of caesarea and Augustine (“Monotheism, Henotheism and Polytheism in Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles”). Whereas Porphyry’s henotheism managed to accom-modate polytheistic traditions, Augustine’s polemic aimed at separat-ing them. the church father assimilates Porphyry’s conception of the divine to his own monotheistic one, and criticises him for adhering to the superstitious beliefs of traditional Greco-roman cult. Porphyry’s attempt to integrate his religious tradition with his philosophical opinions, is branded by Augustine as a sign of insincerity: in the latter’s view, a true philosopher would abandon traditional cult.

the closeness of paganism and christianity may have spurred the occasionally strong-worded polemic that both sides exchanged. But that does not suffice as an explanation. We should not be deceived: even though much of the criticism is topical and must be read in the light of ancient invective, it stems from a profound and important difference. the crucial issue to which both sides keep returning is that of worship, as is shown by M. Kahlos’ overview of the debates in Latin literature between 380 and 430 (“refuting and reclaiming Monotheism: Monotheism in the debate between ‘Pagans’ and christians in 380-430”). theological debates about whether inter-mediate divine beings are either good-natured angels or vicious demons, and are worthy of worship or not, are rooted in the central question: who do we worship?

introduction 13

27 the papers for this volume were first presented at a conference on “Pagan Monotheism in the roman Empire”, held in Exeter 17-20 July 2006 and funded by the Arts and Humanities research council, except those by M.V. cerutti, G.S. Gasparro, I. Sandwell, and G. clark. the chapters by M.V. cerutti and G.S. Gasparro have been translated into English by the editors.

In “Augustine’s Varro and Pagan Monotheism” Gillian clark explores these issues by focusing closely on Augustine’s critique of the republican scholar Varro, one of his main sources for roman religion in De Civitate Dei. Although he can occasionally approve of Varro’s “monotheistic” view of the divine, one of the major differ-ences that Augustine sees with paganism is that christianity tran-scends the distinction between a philosophically informed elite and an ignorant populace: christianity spreads its message of truth to all equally. Paganism, on the contrary, is a religion where a limited understanding of the truth is jealously guarded by a few philosophers who leave the rest of the people to worship demons and “gods behav-ing badly.” Augustine thus presents christianity as a religion that combines true philosophy and sound worship.

concluSion

the papers in this volume provide different perspectives on how the debate between pagans and christians shaped their mutual self-understanding, in social as well as religious terms — if these can be separated in Late Antiquity. By taking “monotheism” as a heuristical tool, they offer insight in how both sides of the religious divide tried to articulate their own positions. drawing on a variety of approaches, this volume does not aim to offer a theoretical definition of what monotheism consisted of in Late Antiquity, but rather to show how the notion of monotheism was shaped by polemic — a heritage still felt in our world of today.27

14