Pagan History

About the Pagan History Website

Stating the questions to be answered

This website addresses the question of "what is Paganism?" More specifically it is concerned with the question of "where does Paganism come from?" The importance of taking a historical approach to the question of the nature of Paganism is indicated by the different ways in which the word Paganism is used.

"Paganism" can refer to all of the religions of North Africa, the Middle East and Europe prior to their "replacement" (to put it politely) by Christianity and/or Islam. This includes, but is not limited to, all of the religions of the Roman Empire that predate the beginnings of Christianity. It also includes the religions that continued to exist during the time when Paganism and Christianity existed side by side. This can be called "historical Paganism."

But "Paganism" can also refer to a contemporary religious movement that defies precise definition (although in this way it is no different from any other religion) - but that can be defined by self-attribution. That is, there are today people who call themselves Pagan and/or Neopagan - and it is these people we are talking about when we use the words "Pagan" or "Paganism". Sometimes these "Pagans" also call themselves Wiccans, Druids, Witches, Magicians, Reconstructionists, Shamans, etc. This can be called "modern Paganism."

So the $64K question is: what is the relationship between modern Paganism and historical Paganism? At least three answers can be given to that question:
(1) There is no relationship whatsoever between modern Paganism and historical Paganism.
(2) Modern Paganism is a seamless and direct continuation of historical Paganism.
(3) Modern Paganism has a degree of relatedness to historical Paganism that is at the very least comparable to the relatedness between modern Christianity and early Christianity, or between modern Reform Judaism and the religion of Abraham.

The Fairness Doctrine

Ronald Hutton, among others, claims that modern Paganism is a thoroughly modern phenomenon unrelated to historical Paganism. Hutton and those who agree with him invariably fail to take into account the inevitable changes that take place in any religion with time, as well as the inevitable variablity that always exists within any given religion. In order to avoid such naive mistakes, it is only necessary to apply two simple principles:
(1) Nothing should be required of Paganism, as a religion, that is not required of Christianity or any other religion.
(2) Anything that is allowed for Christianity (or any other religion) should also be allowed for Paganism.

Any failure to consistently observe these principles immediately reveals an underlying bias against Paganism. And any argument of the sort that "Paganism is just a modern fad, and not a genuinely ancient religion" can, and in fact, must be, discounted if it comes from such a clearly biased source.

The application of both principles is easily illustrated. Do we accept that a Presbyterian is a Christian? Everyone knows that Presbyterianism began during the 16th century in Scotland - but does anyone insist that Presbyterians must be considered the followers of a Scottish religion that is 400 years old? Or do we, quite reasonably, agree with the Presbyterians that they are followers of Christianity - which is approximately 2000 years old and started in Palestine? In the case of Presbyterianism, no one would insist that we must "prove" that Jesus was a Presbyterian. Presbyterians do not claim, nor do they feel any need to claim, that there is a "continuous" tradition of people who precisely follow their current liturgy and organizational forms - going back to Jesus himself. This illustrates principle (1) above.

The second principle is illustrated by the factionalism of modern Christianity and the lack of any coherent definition of what a Christian is. Many Christians do not accept the Trinity, for example. Many Christians do not include any kind of "Mass" as part of their religious observance. Some Christians sects do without any clergy whatsoever - while others have highly structred priesthoods. Arian Christianity (which was brutally repressed long ago - but which has continued to have it's self-proclaimed adherents, including Isaac Newton, for example) rejects the doctrine that Jesus was Divine. If we include Christian Scientists, Mormons, Copts, Quakers, Pentacostalists, Spiritualists, etc, we will never be able to "define" Christianity - other than to say that those who wish to call themselves Christian should be given the benefit of the doubt. Which is exactly what is done in practice for Christianity - and the same flexibility should be allowed for Paganism.

Christians versus Pagans

In the year 325, when the Emperor Constantine killed off the last of his rivals and became the first Christian Emperor, there were 100's of different religions in the Roman Empire. A little over 200 years later the Emperor Justinian systematically closed any remaining loopholes or ambiguities in the laws prohibiting all religions other than Christianity. During the two intervening centuries Christian Emperors had ruled at all times except for the brief reign of Julian "the Apostate" from 361-363. There is no question that from Constantine to Justinian there was a steep decline in Paganism, and that historical evidence of the practice of Pagan religions becomes more and more difficult to find in the centuries after Justinian.

The simplest and most straightforward explanation of "what happened to Paganism?" is that Paganism declined because of the persecution it experienced at the hands of the Roman state starting with Constantine. Christians have never much liked this explanation - they have preferred to think that conversion to their religion was always voluntary and heartfelt. This point of view is perfectly understandable - and even excusable in a way. Members of any given religion will generally wish to interpret history in ways that do not make their religion look bad - this should surprise no one.

But what about "scholars" who claim that there never existed a conflict between Paganism and Christianity? Is there any explanation, or excuse, for that? G.W. Bowersock, who is one of the most important living scholars of Late Antiquity, actually goes so far as to claim that the Emperor Julian cannot be taken seriously as a Pagan opponent of Christianity - because, according to Bowersock, Julian's was a faux Paganism, merely Christianity stood on it's head. According to this "black is white/arbeit macht frei" logic, Pagans did not oppose Christianity, and, therefore, anyone who opposed Christianity could not have been a Pagan!

A Choice of Metanarratives

Did Paganism jump or was it pushed? The Christian metanarrative of Late Antiquity goes something like this: Paganism, having already become bedridden and senile, died quietly in it's sleep. The degree of shamelessness manifested by the tellers of this tall tale ranges from those who unabashedly announce that the Incarnation of Christ was the single most important event in all of human history, and that God intentionally created the Roman Empire in order to pave the way for Christianity - to, well, more subtley rendered scenarios that end up concluding exactly the same thing.

The Pagan metanarrative of Late Antiquity is simply that Christians did exactly what they proudly declared that they had done: suppressed the Pagan religions. This also corresponds to the accounts of Pagans, such as Libanius, who continued to plead on behalf of "the Temples" even decades after the death of Juian. So (1) the Christians "confessed", (2) we have eyewitnesses - and (3) in addition there is a mountain of circumstantial evidence (means, motive, opportunity). The means were the state apparatus or the Roman empire, the motive was the self-declared Christian "mission" to extirpate (that is their word) all competing religions, the opportunity was provided by the ascendency of Constantine to the throne in 325.

Which metanarrative we choose decisively determines what we believe the fate of Paganism was once it disappears (if it ever truly does) from the historical record. If Paganism had simply run it's course, and if the triumph of Christianity was due to it's inherently greater appeal and spiritual and moral superiority, then perhaps the simplistic theory that Paganism just vanished is reasonable. But if we see a Paganism that fought vigorously to survive, then it is likely that it continued to survive in clandestine forms long after Justinian's "Code" went into effect.

Finally, if for some reason you are curious about the author of these diatribes, then please look here.