Bishops on Religious Koineand Religious Dissent,
350 – 423 CE
In the cities of the fourth-century empire, it was the bishop who claimed that he
had the authority – spiritual, ascetic, and pragmatic (Rapp 2005: 16 –22) – to deal
with the twin issues discussed in this chapter, notably the possibility of a shared reli-
gious koinewith pagans and tolerance for religious dissent within and without the
Christian community. The growing importance of the church as an institution in
the cities across the empire lent weight to the authority of the bishops. By the end
of the fourth century, some bishops claimed priority even over and above the emperor
as the ultimate arbiter about what was and what was not acceptable Christianity.
We can begin by looking at what I have defined as the public religious koinemani-
fested by public cult festivals and practices, especially blood sacrifice. By the last decades
of the fourth century, the bishops uniformly opposed state support for these activit-
ies. Perhaps the clearest and best-attested example of their position is the rejoinder
of the bishop of Milan, Ambrose, to the pagan senator Symmachus’ request for the
return of the Altar of Victory; in matters of religion, this bishop stated, the bishop,
not the emperor, has the right to decide (Ambrosius, Epist.17.13). Ambrose claimed
that it was not tolerable for pagans to sacrifice in the presence of Christian senators
(Ambrosius, Epist.18.31). Symmachus had crafted an eloquent plea for tolerance for
the pre-existing religious koine: “It is reasonable to regard as identical that which all
worship. We look on the same stars; we share the same heaven; the same world enfolds
us. What difference does it make by what system of knowledge each man sees the
truth? Man cannot come to so profound a mystery by one road alone” (Symmachus,
Relatio3.10). In response, Ambrose proclaimed the superiority of Christians, who
“have found through the real wisdom and truth of God” the path that pagans could
only vaguely hint at (Ambrosius Epist.18.31). Any notion of shared religiosity or
tolerance for religious difference or dissent was denied.
Not only the pagan religious ceremonies but also the civic festivals, games, and
circuses were now deemed unacceptable even as “entertainments” by many a late
fourth-century bishop. Perhaps the best-known expression of this opposition was arti-
culated by John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, in his homily Contra ludos
et theatra(PG 56, 263–70). In opposing the games and the theater, Chrysostom
was joined by other bishops and monks who, by the end of the fourth century, had
become, like Augustine, increasingly intolerant of Christians who participated in civic
banquets or went to the shows. In sermons delivered in Carthage and Bulla Regia
from 399 on, Augustine “lament[s] over Christians who fill the theaters on the
festivals of Babylon; over the fortunes squandered by the rich on the shows while
Christ’s poor go hungry; and is constantly exhorting Christians to turn from the enjoy-
ment of the great civic occasions (munera) to the enjoyment of spiritual delights”
(Markus 1990: 117–18, citing, among other texts Aug. Sermo 51.1, 32.20;
Enarratio in Psalmos61.10, 102.28, 80.23). In opposing the spectacles, bishops took
a somewhat different position from that of the emperors whose laws had attempted
to desacralize and hence continue the games and circuses. In this regard, the
122 Michele Renee Salzman