Survival of Greco-Roman paganism

[hwhatting]

A better question is whether Germanic, Slavic, Baltic, or Finnic paganism could have survived (and all things considered, Baltic paganism survived to a surprisingly late date).

I think what happened within the limes was key. The Germans were keen to imitate everything Roman, so adopting some form of Christianity was a given. Ditto with the Slavs and the Greeks. Once the bulk of Europe was Christian, the Balts and Finns ultimately had no choice in the matter. I think Lithuanian religion held out longer because Lithuania was relatively out of the way.

Significant parts of the Germanic peoples were Christianized by a denomination add odds with Roman Orthodoxy, Arianism. But when they took over parts of the Roman empire, they stuck with Arianism at most for a couple of centuries; the loss of Arianism proceded at a pace with the intergration of the Germanic elites and the old Roman elites. Similarly, where Christianity didn't simply spread by conquest to the pagan peoples outside the old Roman empire (e.g., pagan Saxons being conquered and christianized by Carolingian Franks), it was often a question of integration into elite marriage networks. I'm quite sure that the main reason for e.g. Jogaila / Jagiello to become a Christian was not spiritual but because that enabled him to marry queen Jadwiga and become King of Poland. In general, Christians assigned much more importance on other people joining their faith than pagans did, so Christianity basically spread everywhere where it didn't encounter another faith that was itself proselytizing, like Islam, or had inculcated itself against proselytizing religions, like Hinduism had under pressure of Buddhism / Jainism and later Islam, as zompist mentioned.

[keenir]

Due to their unwillingness to recognize and venerate other gods besides the Christian one, Christians couldn't be integrated into the Roman state's system of religions. The problem with the Christians was not per se that they believed in only one god, but that this had the effect that they wouldn't take part in the cults that affirmed the state and were thought as necessary for ensuring the well-being of the state ("If I'm doing the right sacrifices and say the right words, the gods may assist me and my community", see above.) That was a problem with Judaism, too, resulting in the destruction of the Temple, but I guess the fact that Judaism was the religion of a small, mostly ethnically defined group, made that easier to handle.

I used to hear the suggestion that, while Judaism was montheistic by the time of Rome reaching beyond Anatolia into the Middle East, the faith was tolerable to the Romans because it was an ancient faith. Once the Christians started saying they were their own thing, Romans (and others, i suspect) drew the conclusion that the Christians were not an old faith with traditions going back many generations.

[Ares Land]

I used to hear the suggestion that, while Judaism was montheistic by the time of Rome reaching beyond Anatolia into the Middle East, the faith was tolerable to the Romans because it was an ancient faith. Once the Christians started saying they were their own thing, Romans (and others, i suspect) drew the conclusion that the Christians were not an old faith with traditions going back many generations.

I heard that too; the problem with that, though, is that persecutions were at their harshest at a time when distinctions between Christianity and Judaism were possibly still too arcane for the average Roman magistrate.
One theory I read and that sounded plausible is that there was a whole political dimension to early Christianity we lost much evidence for.

[keenir]

I used to hear the suggestion that, while Judaism was montheistic by the time of Rome reaching beyond Anatolia into the Middle East, the faith was tolerable to the Romans because it was an ancient faith. Once the Christians started saying they were their own thing, Romans (and others, i suspect) drew the conclusion that the Christians were not an old faith with traditions going back many generations.

I heard that too; the problem with that, though, is that persecutions were at their harshest at a time when distinctions between Christianity and Judaism were possibly still too arcane for the average Roman magistrate.
One theory I read and that sounded plausible is that there was a whole political dimension to early Christianity we lost much evidence for.

That makes sense; and it meshes nicely with the idea that, while the Romans had to be careful handling Judea (and Samaria, etc) at particular times of the year - such as Passover - with a few exceptions, the Jews were waiting for the Messiah or for the Son Of Man to come down and take action against all enemies (Son Of Man =/= Son Of God)...whereas the Christians were at times apocalyptic, with their own kingdom en route (which could be taken as treason)

[hwhatting]

Well, there is the point that Christianity preached equality, and that in said kingdom of God the meek and powerless, as long as they believed, would be favoured above the rich and powerful of this world, and that those rich and powerful had to become poor and humble to be accepted. That was what made it attractive to slaves and women, and was quite subversive, and having to weasel its way out of some very clear statements to that regard was a consequence and price the Church had to pay for becoming established.

[keenir]

Well, there is the point that Christianity preached equality,

ehhhh...it did, and it at the same time, preached that, if the master and slave were both members of the faithful, it'd be nice if the master was kind and generous to their slave co-religionist, but they were still staying master and slave.

[hwhatting]

ehhhh...it did, and it at the same time, preached that, if the master and slave were both members of the faithful, it'd be nice if the master was kind and generous to their slave co-religionist, but they were still staying master and slave.

Well, that's already the start of the weaseling out