Christianity, Empire, and the Making of Religion in Late Antiquity (review)

As this reviewer has already noted (HTR 102 [2009]: 170 n. 2), this is one of the best books published in recent decades which analyze the works of Porphyry of Tyre and their place in the period just before the reign of Constantine. Schott analyzes how Porphyry and the Christian writers Lactantius, Eusebius, and Constantine employed their respective polemical arguments based on their search for a "universal philosophy" that transcended ethnic and cultural particularity. The underlying principle for pagan polemics and Christian apologetics was the need of the Roman Empire to control the various ethnic groups that inhabited its provinces: "Ethnography and universal history sought a comprehension of diversity homologous to the imperial desire for control of diverse territories and peoples" (166).

In Chapter One, Schott shows how Greek philosophers (e.g., Posidonius, Plutarch, Numenius) sought to "distill a universal philosophy that transcended ethnic and cultural specificity" (11). Early Christian apologists (Justin, Tatian) rediscovered the "ur-theology" of Paul which posited the one Creator of the universe. This enabled them to abandon the errors of polytheism and claim to possess the only universal philosophy which transcended cultural particularity. The chapter ends with an analysis of Celsus's definition of Christian exclusivity as rebellion against ancestral religious customs.

Chapter Two deals with Porphyry of Tyre. Schott argues that Porphyry's polemical methodology was centered in "a philosophy that transcended cultural and ethnic particularity" (54). The Philosophy from Oracles and Against the Christians reveal a polemical argument which was developed in conjunction with imperial power and identity politics, with the former aimed at offering a "universal philosophy" and attacking the Christians' rival claims to a universal truth.

Chapter Three is devoted to Lactantius's Divine Institutes. Lactantius employed Hermes, contemporary oracles of Apollo, and the Sibylline oracles, and Schott concludes that the Christian Cicero understood history as "a grand history of religions" (96), and thus the traditional pagan cults had a demonic origin. Porphyry failed to recognize the universal validity of Christianity. Lactantius perceived the success of Constantine's reign as being due to the simultaneous acknowledgement that Christianity was the vera religio and the cults of the gentes were falsae religiones.

Chapter Four focuses on how Constantine's Oration to the Saints and imperial letters employed Christian apologetics to create an "ideology of Christian imperialism" (113) based on a Christian paideia revealed for all people which further served as a unifying force transcending the erroneous traditions of specific peoples. Included in the latter were Greek philosophers like Porphyry who failed to find the universal philosophy because they were too attached to the error of traditional ancestral customs.

Chapter Five contains so much that is commendable, not the least of which is the inclusion by Schott of the often ignored and very significant Theophany of Eusebius, though the Praeparatio and Demonstratio are the main focus. Eusebius wrote them in response to Porphyry's attack upon Christian identity and argued that the anti-Christian writer contradicted himself and failed to acknowledge that the Christian religion is the "true universal philosophy" (140). In the works written after Constantine emerged as the church's benefactor (e.g., Theophany), Eusebius changed his understanding of the interrelationship between empire and church. He now perceived the imperial conquest of peoples and Christian evangelism as "two prongs in the same offensive against native error and barbarism" (157).

An epilogue shows how the subjugation by Christian European colonialism of native cultures in the early modern period might have developed from the interrelationship between Roman imperialism and Christian apologetics of the fourth century c.e. Both served as markers of cultural identity and were based on imperial powers. An appendix very convincingly elaborates upon the evidence addressed in earlier chapters of a close connection between Porphyry's anti-Christian works and the policies of the Diocletianic persecution, as well as the identification of Lactantius's unnamed philosopher (div. inst. 5.2) with Porphyry...