The Triumph of Christianity (3 page)

Mithraism can be considered an additional Oriental religion even though, contrary to long tradition, it was not related to the Persian religion involving the god Mitra, but was of Roman origin—evidence of its existence suddenly appears in the historical record dating from about 90
CE
. Some of the confusion over Mithra’s origins was caused by the fact that Mithraism represented itself as based on the wisdom of Zoroaster and of Persian origin. But this seems to have been a bogus attempt to gain credibility and prestige,
¹⁹
very similar to claims by many modern cults to be descended from various ancient groups such as the Druids.

In any event, Mithraism mainly recruited Roman soldiers, including even a few senior officers. It was a mystery cult that promised an attractive life after death and inspired deep commitment among its male-only members. They were so observant of their oaths of secrecy that very little is known today about Mithraic doctrines, their mysteries, or what went on at their secret meetings. What is known is they met in small caverns constructed for that purpose and the congregations were small since there were only seats for about fifty members. Several hundred of these caverns have been found and a map
²⁰
of the sites shows them to have been located along the frontiers of the empire close by the ruins of old legionary camps and fortresses. No Mithraic caverns have been found in Rome.

Table 1.1 reports the number of known temples in the city of Rome exclusively devoted to each major God in about the year 100
CE
Isis had by far the most (eleven) and Cybele (six) was a strong second. Then came Venus and Jupiter with four each, Fortuna with three, and Apollo and Sol Invictus each had two. Nine other gods had a single temple in Rome. Of course, many other gods had a niche in the Pantheon, and small shrines to various gods were abundant throughout the city. A number of temples also were devoted to “divine” emperors.

Table 1.1: Number of Known Temples Devoted Exclusively to a Major God in the City of Rome (ca. 100
CE
)

Source: Beard, North, and Price,
Religions of Rome
(1998), 1: maps 1 and 2.

The essential question is, why were the Oriental faiths so popular?

A very insightful analysis of why these new religions achieved great popular success in Rome was written a century ago by Franz Cumont (1868–1947), the great Belgian historian.
²¹
Cumont argued that the Oriental religions succeeded because they “gave greater satisfaction.” He believed they did so in three ways, to which I will add a fourth and fifth.

First, according to Cumont, “they appealed more strongly to the senses,” having a far higher content of
emotionalism,
especially in their worship activities. In Rome, the traditional religions mainly involved tepid, civic ceremonies and periodic feasts. They sought to enlist the traditional gods to provide protection and prosperity both for the individual and the community. Mostly this involved public rites conducted by priests and little more than some chanting and a sacrifice. In this way, traditional Roman paganism had relegated religious emotionalism “to the periphery of religious life.”
²²

In contrast, the new faiths stressed celebration, joy, ecstasy, and passion. Music played a leading role in their services—not only flutes and horns, but an abundance of group singing and dancing. As for ecstasy, the behavior of participants in the worship of some of these groups sounds very like modern Pentecostalism—people going into trancelike states and speaking in unknown tongues. As Cumont summed up, the Oriental “religions touched every chord of sensibility and satisfied the thirst for religious emotion that the austere Roman creed had been unable to quench.”
²³

Although Cumont made no mention of it, the chief emotional ingredient lacking in the traditional Roman faiths was
love
. Romans thought the gods might come to their aid, but they did not believe that the gods loved them—indeed Jupiter was depicted as quite unfriendly to human concerns. Consequently, pagan Romans often feared the gods, admired some of them, and envied them all, but they did not love them.

The second advantage of the Oriental faiths was, according to Cumont, their stress on
individualism and virtue
. The traditional gods of Rome were “primarily gods of the state,” not the individual.
²⁴
As did the temple religions of Egypt and Persia, the traditional Roman religions pursued “salvation,” not for the individual, but for the city or state. Moreover, aside from requiring humans to venerate them properly, the Roman gods seemed to care little about human behavior, moral or immoral—“moral offences were not treated as offences against the gods.”
²⁵
Worse, as noted, these gods set bad examples of individual morality.

In contrast, the Oriental religions were not devoted to sanctifying civic affairs, but were instead directed toward the individual’s spiritual life and stressed individual morality, offering various means of atonement—it was not primarily
cities
that were punished or saved;
individuals
could “wash away the impurities of the soul... [and] restore lost purity.”
²⁶
Some paths to atonement were built into the initiation rites of many of these new religions, which stressed purification and the washing away of guilt; various forms of baptism were common. In addition, formal acts of confession were practiced by followers of both Isis and Cybele, but no such practices existed in the traditional temple faiths.
²⁷
Nor was atonement achieved through rites alone; many of the new faiths required acts of self-denial and privation, sometimes even physical suffering—actions that gave credibility to doctrines of individual forgiveness.

Thirdly, Cumont noted that, for a society abundant in historians and written philosophies, it is remarkable that the traditional Roman religions had no
scriptures
. “They had no written works which established their tenets and doctrines, or provided explanation of their rituals or moral prescription for their adherents.”
²⁸
In contrast, the Oriental faiths were religions of the book: Bacchanalian, Cybelene, Isiaic, and Mithraic religions offered written scriptures that “captivated the cultured mind.”
²⁹
Moreover, the new faiths presented a far more rational portrait of the gods—even many worshippers of Cybele, Isis, Bacchus, and Mithras “recognized no other deity but their god,”
³⁰
and if they did not claim theirs was the
only
God, they did regard theirs as a supreme God.

As Cumont summarized, the new “religions acted upon the senses, the intellect and the conscience at the same time, and therefore gained a hold on the entire man. Compared with the ancient creeds, they appear to have offered greater beauty of ritual, greater truth of doctrine and a far superior morality.... The worship of the Roman gods was a civic duty, the worship of the foreign gods the expression of personal belief.”
³¹

But Cumont failed to recognize two additional factors that were at least as important as the three he noted, and probably even more important:
gender
and
organization
. Although women were permitted to attend “most [pagan] religious occasions... they had little opportunity to take any active religious role”
³²
in the traditional Roman religions. There were some priestesses in various traditional temples, but only in those dedicated to a goddess. Worse yet, priestesses were subject to severe regulations quite unlike anything imposed on priests: Vestal Virgins were buried alive for transgressions! In contrast, many of the Oriental religions offered women substantial religious opportunities as well as far greater security and status within the family.

But it wasn’t only a matter of having scriptures and moral concerns, of singing and speaking in tongues, or even a more equitable view of sex roles that gave the new religions such an advantage. Above all else was their capacity to mobilize a lay following by involving people in
congregations,
in
active
communities
of believers
.

Roman paganism offered very little in the way of community. Most Romans were very irregular and infrequent visitors to the temples. But the Oriental religions expected their followers to worship daily on their own and then to gather for services weekly or even more often. Sheer frequency, let alone the intensity of these gatherings, made these religious groups central to the lives of their adherents. This was something that had not previously existed: “at least until the middle of the Republic, there is no sign in Rome of any specifically religious groups: groups, that is, of men or women who had decided to join together principally on grounds of religious choice.... [T]here were no autonomous religious groups.”
³³
Put another way, the Roman gods had only clients and festivals, not members and regular services. In contrast the Oriental religions “offered a new sense of community... a much stronger type of membership.”
³⁴
As John North expressed it, “the degree of commitment asked of the new member when he joins is patently far higher... [and involves an] intensified awareness to direct personal experience of contact with the divine. The new structure corresponds to the intensification of religious life and to the new place which religious experience will occupy in the life of the initiate.”
³⁵

Thus, followers of the new religions had a singular religious identity. “They could and did identify themselves by their religion as well as by their city or their family, in a way that earlier centuries would not have understood at all.... It is hard to exaggerate the importance of this change.”
³⁶
Although not so exclusive as Judaism, initiates into Bacchanalianism, Mithra, Isiacism, and Cybelene worship were expected to cease temple-hopping and devote themselves fully to their respective deity. To support this commitment they adopted a clear religious identity that required and sustained a closely knit and very active religious community—a congregation, not a clientele. Like the Jews, the followers of the Oriental faiths made their religious group the focus of their social life. In doing so, not only did they strengthen their commitment, but they gained far greater rewards from being committed, as other members rewarded them for it. It is by being set apart and offering opportunities for intense interaction and the formation of close social ties that religious groups generate the highest levels of member commitment and loyalty.
³⁷
But this was also the basis for bitter conflicts with the rulers of Rome.

Fear of Congregations

M
OST
R
OMAN EMPERORS SUSPECTED
that nearly everyone was plotting against them. And rightfully so. Of the seventy-six emperors who took the throne from the reign of Augustus to the ascension of Constantine, only nineteen died natural deaths. Seven were killed in battle, forty-two were murdered, two others probably were murdered, and six were forced to commit suicide. Consequently, emperors feared all formal organizations as providing an opportunity for political conspiracies. Thus, late in the first century
BCE
, edicts were issued regulating the formation of all private gatherings. Under Augustus a “more extensive Law on Associations was passed which required that all associations be authorized by the senate or emperor,”
³⁸
and such permission was seldom granted.
³⁹
Consider that during the first decade of the second century
CE
, Pliny the Younger wrote to the emperor Trajan asking permission to establish a company of volunteer firefighters in Nicomedia, following a serious blaze in that city. The emperor wrote back, denying his request on grounds that “it is societies like these which have been responsible for political disturbances.... If people assemble for a common purpose, whatever name we give them and for whatever reason, they soon turn into a political club.”
⁴⁰

As noted, what most dramatically set the Oriental faiths apart from Roman paganism was their capacity to generate congregations. While people only went to temples, they
belonged
to an Oriental faith. Given the imperial opposition even to volunteer fire departments, religious groups that met once a week or even more often, that swore members to secrecy and did not admit outsiders to their sacred services, could hardly have been ignored. And although it has not generally been noted by religious historians, the Oriental faiths often were viciously persecuted. Not Mithra, of course, since not even the most foolhardy emperors risked offending the army—and still many emperors were murdered by the Praetorians charged with protecting them. But the Bacchanalians, the followers of Isis, and (to a lesser degree) the Cybelenes fell victim to imperial repression, all because of the “sin” of congregationalism.