How did Christianity change Rome?
A complex and nuanced story presented by Peter Brown, a master of history.

The 'Christianization of Rome' is a kind of litmus test.
Depending on how one views this phenomenon, the scholar's religious affiliation, theological sensibility, historical perspective, and political perspective are often subtly revealed in academic circles.
Skeptical secular scholars say that the very phenomenon of the "Christianization of Rome" was in fact an illusion, or that it was the decline of the brilliant Roman civilization.
Some Roman Catholic scholars see it as a gentle transition to the glorious medieval civilization, a demonstration of the Lord's triumph, while others see it as a process in which a pure faith became corrupted by collusion with the empire.
There's some truth to all of this, but these perspectives are all overly simplistic.


Peter Brown, a historian who is considered to have virtually pioneered the study of late antiquity, chooses to deconstruct and reconstruct the problem itself rather than choose a particular interpretive camp.
"When They Finally Changed Rome" is a work that clearly reveals his critical awareness.
Although this book is not particularly thick, based on three lectures given at Cambridge University in 1993, its density of thought rivals that of his representative works, making it an appropriate introductory text to his extensive research.

Modern historians studying the rise of Christianity in the Roman world need not simply follow the simplistic, simplistic interpretations of those who experienced the process in their own time.
In 312, faced with the conversion of Constantine and the subsequent rapid changes, both Christians and pagans had to create narratives to explain the situation.
Christians had to explain their success, and pagans had to excuse their downfall.
The first chapter of this book deals with the Christianization narrative that dominated several Christian communities in the 4th and 5th centuries.
And we look at the process by which social situations and people's minds gradually change.
These changes gave rise to a narrative in the Latin world based on a much more sober perspective than the traditional triumphal narrative.
Rather than being satisfied with the supernatural triumph of Christ, this new perspective noted the pagan influences of the past that were still deeply rooted and influential in the Christian world.

--- p.11

According to the mainstream historical narrative we are familiar with, the ancient polytheistic societies came to an end in a relatively short period of time, between the conversion of Constantine in 312 and the death of Theodosius II in 450, and this end was the result of the long-planned "triumph of monotheism."
It could be said that viewing the 4th century as a period marked by conflict between Christianity and ancient polytheism is along the same lines.
In fact, this understanding is a 'representation' of the religious history constructed by the prominent Christian historians, polemicists, and preachers who emerged in the early fifth century.2 Through this portrayal, they created a firm and uncompromising narrative of the fourth century, which was in fact a "Wavering Century," as Pierre Chuvin so well put it.
Rather than resenting this fact, we should ask and examine why such a clearly Christian-centric perspective was adopted as the way to view contemporary history.

--- p.19~20

Christian authors of the time readily and enthusiastically embraced intolerance toward other religions and beliefs.
This intolerance played a significant role in Christian narratives describing the triumph of the church, and it shocked modern historians with liberal leanings.
However, this appearance should be viewed within the broader historical context as much as possible.
Intolerance toward other religions and beliefs was part of the way late ancient societies exercised power.
Not only in the most blatant forms, but also in the countless, almost unrecorded, silent forms of regulation.
This movement was not determined solely by the emperor's decrees, the high-handed speeches of bishops, or the radical actions of monks.
Rather, at a more fundamental level, what drove this movement was the will to power of the average powerful in late Roman society, who sought to maintain control over the world they ruled.

--- p.102~103