This is an interesting debate but I also think that we shouldn't get bogged down by discussions on what the Catholic
church has borrowed from the polytheism of the
Roman empire. Whether attributes from
personifications e.g. St. Catherine's wheel or even wider questions such as the appearance of Jesus
Christ being based on Bacchus/Apollo or
other gods. There are
plenty of books out there suggesting interesting hypotheses...
I too am fascinated by what Barnes might have to say. I must add, however, that I am distrustful of some of the sources. It is a plain truth that the winners write the histories and easy to suggest, because
Julia Domna is alleged to have
had discussions on the nature of religion with
Christian ambassadors, that
Severus was friendly to them.
Gallienus is an odd case in any event and information is so scant on this period that again it is easy to suggest that he was also pro-Christian. Eusebius would have preserved that letter wouldn't he? Or got hold of a latter-day copy to prove Gallienus' friendship to Christianity.
This probably all sounds rather cynical but, as a historian, I've always liked to look at the sources themselves and consider their validity before questioning what their interpreters might say about those sources. I
still regularly hear people arguing about the 3rd and early 4th century on the basis of the
Scriptores Historiae Augustae, a late 4th century compilation of fictional nonsense (in the main). That is like
writing a
history of 21st century British
history on the basis of excerpts from
Private Eye or the
Sun gossip
column. Whether
Tetricus was alleged to have eaten somebody's child or David Cameron was, the point remains the same...
There are various points where we do know what happened;
Theodosius I's Edicts
De Templis in 391 (where public worship of the old gods was forbidden) and in 392 (where private worship was outlawed) form clear (very late) dates by which we can judge what was actually happening. These are interestingly mirrored by first hand accounts of the destruction (by a bunch of fairly extremist Christians) of the temple of
Serapis and so we can form an idea that (in the more Christianised cities of the Greek East - a generalisation which I
hope you'll allow me) Theodosius' legislation was rather popular. I don't think it was popular in other areas - as perhaps Eugenius' revolt (backed by
his Master of Soldiers Arbogastes) in the Western Provinces in 392 suggests.
Anyway, this isn't the place for an essay - I too am interested by what this book will say. It certainly doesn't flow (from the introductory thesis) with the stream I've bathed in...
Regards,
Adrianus
