What do you think?
Rate this book
Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D. 100-400
How did the early Christian church manage to win its dominant place in the Roman world? In his newest book, an eminent historian of ancient Rome examines this question from a secular―rather than an ecclesiastical―viewpoint. MacMullen’s provocative conclusion is that mass conversions to Christianity were based more on the appeal of miracle or the opportunity for worldly advantages than simply on a “rising tide of Christian piety.”
“Provocative to the Christian religious scholar and the nonreligious historian alike. . . . MacMullen’s style is lucid, and the story of a period with its own innate interest is narrated with compelling feeling. . . . It is an important book, and highly recommended for the general reader of history as well as the Christian who wonders how the ‘Jesus movement’ came, by Constantine’s time, to be the church we know― Choice
“Written in a fresh and vigorous style, . . . [this book] offers an admirable survey of some major aspects of the history [of the early Christian church].”―Robert M. Grant, New York Times Book Review
“Gently provocative. . . . MacMullen has written an instructive and enjoyable book on a great theme.”―Henry Chadwick, Times Literary Supplement
“A carefully argued and well-written study.”―Jackson P. Hershbell, Library Journal
“Provocative to the Christian religious scholar and the nonreligious historian alike. . . . MacMullen’s style is lucid, and the story of a period with its own innate interest is narrated with compelling feeling. . . . It is an important book, and highly recommended for the general reader of history as well as the Christian who wonders how the ‘Jesus movement’ came, by Constantine’s time, to be the church we know― Choice
“Written in a fresh and vigorous style, . . . [this book] offers an admirable survey of some major aspects of the history [of the early Christian church].”―Robert M. Grant, New York Times Book Review
“Gently provocative. . . . MacMullen has written an instructive and enjoyable book on a great theme.”―Henry Chadwick, Times Literary Supplement
“A carefully argued and well-written study.”―Jackson P. Hershbell, Library Journal
184 pages, Paperback
First published July 1, 1984
5 people are currently reading
328 people want to read
About the author
Ramsay MacMullen
32 books24 followersA specialist in Roman social history and the rise of Christianity in the Roman world, Ramsay MacMullen was Dunham Professor of History and Classics at Yale University, where he taught from 1967 until his retirement in 1993. Educated at Phillips Exeter and Harvard, from which he held all three of his degrees, MacMullen taught at the University of Oregon and Brandeis before moving to Yale.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
July 25, 2011
I have to say I am disappointed in this book. Its title and the author's pedigree promise quite a bit, but in the end it delivers only a small package, and not a particularly well-written one at that. For most general readers I would suggest go to the final chapter, his summary, which is the most well-organized and most clearly argued one in the book. Then read as you see fit.
MacMullen is defensive of pagan religion and dismissive of ecclesiastical history of the time period. He seeks to provide a different narrative (most completely revealed in that final chapter) - conversion to Christianity came via claims of the miraculous and attacks on other belief systems, at least until Constantine when money, and then late in the fourth century, coercion, brought additional conversions. It is a narrow, contrary view, for the most part denying or seriously downplaying social connections, charity, intellectual affiliations, the example of martyrs, and missionary or personal witness (at least to anything beyond miraculous power). This is done largely via authoritative denial of their importance (or even existence) from the sources he deemed relevant and reliable. Early on he dismisses Nock's work on conversion, an old, but classic text that covers history from the classical Greeks to late antiquity. MacMullen offers one example of bedouin (not exactly from the center of Roman political or cultural life) conversion from the fifth century (to be obvious, after his book's ending and long after most of the examples from Nock, Augustine excepted) as substantive evidence to destroy Nock's "theological" account of Christian conversion. It is not convincing, more like argument via assertion. Nock may be entirely wrong, but MacMullen does not prove that in this text.
The book is supposed to cover 100-400 AD, but its examples do not seem entirely bound by chronology and the majority come from after Constantine. His abrupt chapter, "Non-Religious Factors in Conversion," is almost entirely about money so should probably be in the singular. He does end this chapter with a comparison of Christian and Islamic conversions. Looking up his sources, he denies any Islamic expertise in the footnotes, instead relying on Lapidus and an article from Levtzion's Conversion to Islam. From them he concludes that social pressure and political and material gain led to conversions in both cases. But the article from Levtzion on Anatolia he quotes instead highlights Turkish immigration, social disruption due to violence, forced conversion and syncreticism. It does not support his conclusions in the least. Lapidus in his most recent work, A History of Islamic Societies, claims that while expediency motivated some, "only with the breakdown of the social and religious structures of non-Muslim communities in the tenth to the twelfth centuries" due to political disruptions did the "mass of Middle Eastern peoples" begin to convert to Islam. These comparison's between Christianity and Islam might fit MacMullen's argument elsewhere, but certainly do not speak about financial gain as motivation for conversion. MacMullen's cavalier use of sources here, where I can verify his comments, reduce the authority I ascribe to his many examples in the text. And this is important because his argumentation is sparse, even assumed and missing in places. Instead he piles on particular details and expects their presence and occasionally his magisterial comments on them to make his argument. They do not.
In the end this brief book (only one hundred and twenty pages) is provocative, but hardly conclusive or complete. MacMullen, in his conclusion admits to sparse sources and obscure information. Nonetheless he ventures forth to authoritatively and gleefully narrow the Christian appeal to superstition, greed, and violence. Several times in the text he alludes to Gerald Strauss's book on the limited effects of Lutheran catechism during the 16th century and ends his book with an obscure reference to it. Like the Strauss book he praises so fulsomely, MacMullen's books offers a corrective, but cannot be taken as the full picture, due both to the nature of the sources and the limited vision of the author.
MacMullen is defensive of pagan religion and dismissive of ecclesiastical history of the time period. He seeks to provide a different narrative (most completely revealed in that final chapter) - conversion to Christianity came via claims of the miraculous and attacks on other belief systems, at least until Constantine when money, and then late in the fourth century, coercion, brought additional conversions. It is a narrow, contrary view, for the most part denying or seriously downplaying social connections, charity, intellectual affiliations, the example of martyrs, and missionary or personal witness (at least to anything beyond miraculous power). This is done largely via authoritative denial of their importance (or even existence) from the sources he deemed relevant and reliable. Early on he dismisses Nock's work on conversion, an old, but classic text that covers history from the classical Greeks to late antiquity. MacMullen offers one example of bedouin (not exactly from the center of Roman political or cultural life) conversion from the fifth century (to be obvious, after his book's ending and long after most of the examples from Nock, Augustine excepted) as substantive evidence to destroy Nock's "theological" account of Christian conversion. It is not convincing, more like argument via assertion. Nock may be entirely wrong, but MacMullen does not prove that in this text.
The book is supposed to cover 100-400 AD, but its examples do not seem entirely bound by chronology and the majority come from after Constantine. His abrupt chapter, "Non-Religious Factors in Conversion," is almost entirely about money so should probably be in the singular. He does end this chapter with a comparison of Christian and Islamic conversions. Looking up his sources, he denies any Islamic expertise in the footnotes, instead relying on Lapidus and an article from Levtzion's Conversion to Islam. From them he concludes that social pressure and political and material gain led to conversions in both cases. But the article from Levtzion on Anatolia he quotes instead highlights Turkish immigration, social disruption due to violence, forced conversion and syncreticism. It does not support his conclusions in the least. Lapidus in his most recent work, A History of Islamic Societies, claims that while expediency motivated some, "only with the breakdown of the social and religious structures of non-Muslim communities in the tenth to the twelfth centuries" due to political disruptions did the "mass of Middle Eastern peoples" begin to convert to Islam. These comparison's between Christianity and Islam might fit MacMullen's argument elsewhere, but certainly do not speak about financial gain as motivation for conversion. MacMullen's cavalier use of sources here, where I can verify his comments, reduce the authority I ascribe to his many examples in the text. And this is important because his argumentation is sparse, even assumed and missing in places. Instead he piles on particular details and expects their presence and occasionally his magisterial comments on them to make his argument. They do not.
In the end this brief book (only one hundred and twenty pages) is provocative, but hardly conclusive or complete. MacMullen, in his conclusion admits to sparse sources and obscure information. Nonetheless he ventures forth to authoritatively and gleefully narrow the Christian appeal to superstition, greed, and violence. Several times in the text he alludes to Gerald Strauss's book on the limited effects of Lutheran catechism during the 16th century and ends his book with an obscure reference to it. Like the Strauss book he praises so fulsomely, MacMullen's books offers a corrective, but cannot be taken as the full picture, due both to the nature of the sources and the limited vision of the author.
April 11, 2013
This is a brief survey of what it meant to be "converted" during the early centuries of Christianity, including the change in conversion's meaning surrounding the time of Constantine.
MacMullen's thesis is "conversion" is an affair involving the intellect and the will only: a person exchanges belief in and allegiance from one god (or gods) to another. Conversion does not necessarily involve either purity of belief or instruction in the new doctrine. It results from the seeing or hearing - in any case, the being-convinced - some kind of miraculous occurrence which indicates that the power and authority of the new god(s) transcend that of the former. This stimulates a change in belief and allegiance.
MacMullen does not write from the inside - from the perspective of a Christian - but as a "detached" scholar whose concern is purely historical interpretation rather than theology. There is certainly value in detachment as far as objectivity, but at the same time true understanding can really only come as seen and known from the inside. For example, MacMullen's understanding of conversion may apply well to the superstitions and practices of paganism - in which conversion is not particularly an internal, spiritual matter but a change in ritual or direction/purpose of ritual. Concerning Christianity, however, it does not take into account the profoundly spiritual, existential, transcendent experience of conversion. Christian conversion is not merely a rejection of old gods and rituals for a new one, or a change in superstitious allegiance from one god or gods to another. Christian conversion comes more as a profoundly inward revelation, which nevertheless originates Outside.
Constantine emerges as somewhat of a more or less "Christianized" pagan who, due to his violent nature, increasingly aligns himself with Christianity and thereby gradually asserts that religion over pagan religions. His successors complete the process, so that Christianity emerges as dominant and suppressive of every other religion. The problem here is that Constantine's conversion was not merely a single moment (whatever the motive behind it, if any) but a lifelong process beginning before and ending long after his vision of the cross prior to the Milvian Bridge battle.
MacMullen's thesis is "conversion" is an affair involving the intellect and the will only: a person exchanges belief in and allegiance from one god (or gods) to another. Conversion does not necessarily involve either purity of belief or instruction in the new doctrine. It results from the seeing or hearing - in any case, the being-convinced - some kind of miraculous occurrence which indicates that the power and authority of the new god(s) transcend that of the former. This stimulates a change in belief and allegiance.
MacMullen does not write from the inside - from the perspective of a Christian - but as a "detached" scholar whose concern is purely historical interpretation rather than theology. There is certainly value in detachment as far as objectivity, but at the same time true understanding can really only come as seen and known from the inside. For example, MacMullen's understanding of conversion may apply well to the superstitions and practices of paganism - in which conversion is not particularly an internal, spiritual matter but a change in ritual or direction/purpose of ritual. Concerning Christianity, however, it does not take into account the profoundly spiritual, existential, transcendent experience of conversion. Christian conversion is not merely a rejection of old gods and rituals for a new one, or a change in superstitious allegiance from one god or gods to another. Christian conversion comes more as a profoundly inward revelation, which nevertheless originates Outside.
Constantine emerges as somewhat of a more or less "Christianized" pagan who, due to his violent nature, increasingly aligns himself with Christianity and thereby gradually asserts that religion over pagan religions. His successors complete the process, so that Christianity emerges as dominant and suppressive of every other religion. The problem here is that Constantine's conversion was not merely a single moment (whatever the motive behind it, if any) but a lifelong process beginning before and ending long after his vision of the cross prior to the Milvian Bridge battle.
March 24, 2021
a slog of a read. a nasty, brutish, boring, deadening, murderous, offensive, slog of a read.
August 9, 2020
Mixed feelings. So, MacMullen does a good job at explaining how paganism was totally different from Christianity, and also what led to massive conversion after Constantine. The answer to the latter question is pretty much what you would expect: once state authority starts propagating and financing one particular religion, and at the same time discriminates against all other cults, well, things usually play out the same way (see for instance the spread of Christianity in the middle ages, or that of Islam etc). What MacMullen doesn't explain, however, is what the hell led to Constantine's seeing an opportunity in going about converting his empire in the first place. So, how was it possible that paganism lost a lot of ground even at the time when the Church was a bottom-up movement, at times, persecuted against, at times, severely? Why is it that Graeco-roman paganism, itself rather well entrenched, itself institutionalized (although lacking other shit, say, official doctrine) was just abandoned by so many people? Sure, sources are scarce. But still, this unfortunately unanswered question was the one that really interested me - hence the mixed feelings. Nevertheless, the book is great, written with style and elegance, and pretty funny at times too.
December 2, 2018
This is a fascinating book that attempts to answer the question: How did the Christian faith go from being a faith held by a tiny persecuted minority to having a dominant place in society by the end of the fourth century? MacMullen is a social historian of the Roman Empire, which means that he conducts historical analysis from below, looking at it from the point of view of the masses, rather than looking at history (as is traditionally done) from the point of view of the elite and the politically powerful.
In order to answer his research question, MacMullen must examine the question of “conversion.” What did it mean for a pagan to convert to Christianity? He defines conversion as “that change of belief by which a person accepted the reality and supreme power of God and determined to obey him” (p. 5). This definition is deliberately focused on the abandonment of the old Greek and Roman gods and a new belief in the one true God, together with a determination to obey God. This is a historian’s definition, not a theologian’s. It leaves out a number of crucial elements: faith in Christ, the doctrinal contents of the Christian creed, baptism, and adherence to the church. These things may come later, but the initial break with paganism, and its concrete manifestation (no longer honoring the old gods), is what MacMullen wants to analyze historically.
How did the the mass of Roman society become converted or Christianized in late antiquity? MacMullen catalogs a variety of forces, but the two that stood out to me were the following:
First, the role of holy men who challenged paganism. MacMullen highlights stories of holy men (ascetics) like Gregory the Wonder-worker who would go around the countryside challenging the pagans in spiritual “shoot outs” between the true God and the gods of the pagans, which were viewed as nothing less than demons. When the pagan populace saw that these holy men breaking down pagan idols, and nothing happened, or when they saw demons being cast out, they sometimes gave up their pagan beliefs and converted on the spot. There is another story when a band of bedouins converted at the sight of the bearded Simeon Stylites on his famous pillar in the hot blazing Syrian sun. The bedouins immediately gave up the worship of Aphrodite and promised to never again eat camel meat! Stories such as this can be multiplied.
Second, the role of the Christian Roman Emperors as patrons of the church with all that that implied in terms of monetary support and prestige. MacMullen places great weight on the conversion of Constantine in AD 312 and its after-effects throughout the fourth century. As Christianity became more and more favored and sanctioned by the Roman Imperial government, it grew in influence and power in society. The Empire offered financial rewards and jobs in the government to professing Christians. It gave hugely valuable tax exemptions to churches and bishops. Eventually by the end of the fourth century, the Empire used increasingly coercive methods, outlawing pagan worship, and taking over pagan temples. Ultimately, the Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire in AD 380.
All in all, this is a fascinating read. It gives you a side of church history that is honestly a little uncomfortable. Nevertheless, it reminds us that the God uses historical, social, and even political processes to spread the gospel. Jesus said it would be this way. The kingdom would grow like leaven until it leavens the whole batch of dough. The kingdom is like a mustard seed that grows until it becomes a large tree, and even the birds of the air nest in its branches.
In order to answer his research question, MacMullen must examine the question of “conversion.” What did it mean for a pagan to convert to Christianity? He defines conversion as “that change of belief by which a person accepted the reality and supreme power of God and determined to obey him” (p. 5). This definition is deliberately focused on the abandonment of the old Greek and Roman gods and a new belief in the one true God, together with a determination to obey God. This is a historian’s definition, not a theologian’s. It leaves out a number of crucial elements: faith in Christ, the doctrinal contents of the Christian creed, baptism, and adherence to the church. These things may come later, but the initial break with paganism, and its concrete manifestation (no longer honoring the old gods), is what MacMullen wants to analyze historically.
How did the the mass of Roman society become converted or Christianized in late antiquity? MacMullen catalogs a variety of forces, but the two that stood out to me were the following:
First, the role of holy men who challenged paganism. MacMullen highlights stories of holy men (ascetics) like Gregory the Wonder-worker who would go around the countryside challenging the pagans in spiritual “shoot outs” between the true God and the gods of the pagans, which were viewed as nothing less than demons. When the pagan populace saw that these holy men breaking down pagan idols, and nothing happened, or when they saw demons being cast out, they sometimes gave up their pagan beliefs and converted on the spot. There is another story when a band of bedouins converted at the sight of the bearded Simeon Stylites on his famous pillar in the hot blazing Syrian sun. The bedouins immediately gave up the worship of Aphrodite and promised to never again eat camel meat! Stories such as this can be multiplied.
Second, the role of the Christian Roman Emperors as patrons of the church with all that that implied in terms of monetary support and prestige. MacMullen places great weight on the conversion of Constantine in AD 312 and its after-effects throughout the fourth century. As Christianity became more and more favored and sanctioned by the Roman Imperial government, it grew in influence and power in society. The Empire offered financial rewards and jobs in the government to professing Christians. It gave hugely valuable tax exemptions to churches and bishops. Eventually by the end of the fourth century, the Empire used increasingly coercive methods, outlawing pagan worship, and taking over pagan temples. Ultimately, the Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire in AD 380.
All in all, this is a fascinating read. It gives you a side of church history that is honestly a little uncomfortable. Nevertheless, it reminds us that the God uses historical, social, and even political processes to spread the gospel. Jesus said it would be this way. The kingdom would grow like leaven until it leavens the whole batch of dough. The kingdom is like a mustard seed that grows until it becomes a large tree, and even the birds of the air nest in its branches.
March 24, 2024
MacMullen penned this book during the later years of his tenure as a Professor of History and Classics at Yale University. His erudition and confidence in his subject matter are evident. I gleaned many new details from this book. However, his discursive writing style and frequent use of shorthand may not appeal to all readers.
His notes are not always clear, and there is a disappointing disproportion in the chronicling of history between A.D. 100 and 400. Eight percent of the emphasis is given to years after 300 A.D. Despite his vast knowledge, the book doesn't achieve much, in my opinion. To oversimplify MacMullen's argument, he seems to view pre-Constantine Christianity as an infectious disease spreading invisibly through society, similar to the growth of the Chinese Communist Party from its founding in 1920/21 to the onset of the Chinese civil war in 1945. He suggests that the turning point for early Christianity was the year 312/3, when Christian churches could operate openly without fear and retaliate against paganism with imperial coercion.
Rodney Stark, despite having less expertise on the topic, offers a more persuasive framework for comprehending the practical reasons behind Diocletian's Great Persecution in 303 A.D. and Constantine's official acceptance of Christianity. To justify the divergent political actions of these two emperors, Christianity must have already become a "majority religion". This implies that, despite enduring widespread suppression and discrimination, early Christianity must have found a way to grow exponentially. However, MacMullen fails to convincingly explain how this faith could appeal to the masses to such an extent that by 300 A.D., Christians had become a significant force, prompting both Diocletian and Constantine I to drastic political actions.
his writing (the train of his thoughts is neither structured academically nor clearly connected in points for readers’ digest.
Thereby my personal rating for what could have been a stellar book consists of one major point of deduction due to the loose ends untied said here, and another one due to less-than-ideal structure of writng.
His notes are not always clear, and there is a disappointing disproportion in the chronicling of history between A.D. 100 and 400. Eight percent of the emphasis is given to years after 300 A.D. Despite his vast knowledge, the book doesn't achieve much, in my opinion. To oversimplify MacMullen's argument, he seems to view pre-Constantine Christianity as an infectious disease spreading invisibly through society, similar to the growth of the Chinese Communist Party from its founding in 1920/21 to the onset of the Chinese civil war in 1945. He suggests that the turning point for early Christianity was the year 312/3, when Christian churches could operate openly without fear and retaliate against paganism with imperial coercion.
Rodney Stark, despite having less expertise on the topic, offers a more persuasive framework for comprehending the practical reasons behind Diocletian's Great Persecution in 303 A.D. and Constantine's official acceptance of Christianity. To justify the divergent political actions of these two emperors, Christianity must have already become a "majority religion". This implies that, despite enduring widespread suppression and discrimination, early Christianity must have found a way to grow exponentially. However, MacMullen fails to convincingly explain how this faith could appeal to the masses to such an extent that by 300 A.D., Christians had become a significant force, prompting both Diocletian and Constantine I to drastic political actions.
his writing (the train of his thoughts is neither structured academically nor clearly connected in points for readers’ digest.
Thereby my personal rating for what could have been a stellar book consists of one major point of deduction due to the loose ends untied said here, and another one due to less-than-ideal structure of writng.
March 8, 2021
With the full understanding that this is a difficult time to write about I still found it - compared to other books on similar topics - hard to read. I felt the writer's frustration in capturing the challenges this time period presents and the vast quantity of information we simply don't have good data to support. I thought Mr.MacMullen did a nice job never-the-less.
November 21, 2019
Four stars (i.e., for me, “excellent”) but with some misgivings. The book is written in a very personal, somewhat eccentric style, it seems to me. However he does seem to be a substantial scholar of the subject, and he does address it as advertised. I’ll be doing some further reading.
December 19, 2025
Disappointing
June 12, 2024
This book is a bit too cynical for my taste. Regardless, it was still interesting and highlighted aspects of the conversion of Rome often missed. The big difference between this being 3 and 4 stars appeared on page 30. The author’s interpretation of Tertulian is entirely self-serving and hardly a necessary interpretation. Further, this is basically the extent of his take on martyrs which is woefully lacking. Nonetheless, this book has some value in expanding our attention to the fact that sometimes religion is in fact downstream of politics, a notion the modern church would do well to learn from.
October 27, 2015
A dispassionate, evidence-based appraisal of how the church managed to grow so explosively between A.D. 100-400. He self-consciously avoids theological matters and keeps the examination on historical matters. The strength of the approach is that it exposes the theological biases of competing approaches. The weakness is that truth is part theological -- and so he forces himself to avoid some matters that really might bear on his examination.
Very dry, but well worth reading.
Very dry, but well worth reading.
July 6, 2015
MacMullen tries to see religion through the eyes of Romans. In his view, Christianity first spread through the demonstration of miracles--a concept that Pagans could understand--"your God is more powerful than my God." But then, MacMullen believes, Constantine converted and there started to be financial and social benefits to conversion. He looks at the role of coercion in conversion as well. An interesting, short book.
Read
June 1, 2011MacMullen's is the best study of this period. It's an essential volume for the student of late antiquity or early Christianity, but is suitable for the general reader as well.
Read
March 4, 2016byzantium, late-antiquity, byz-la-ema-owned
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews