Editing Theodosius I (section)

==Religious policy==
{{See also|Christianization of the Roman Empire as diffusion of innovation}}

===Arianism and orthodoxy===
{{Coatrack section|date=April 2025|details=the first five paragraphs are dedicated to theology and little about Theodosius}}
[[File:Homilies of Gregory the Theologian gr. 510, f 491.jpg|thumb|Theodosius appointing [[Gregory of Nazianzus]] as [[Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople|Patriarch]] in 380. Scene from the 9th-century [[Paris Gregory]].]]
It is traditionally stated that the Arian Controversy, a dispute concerning the nature of the divine trinity, and its accompanying struggles for political influence, started in Alexandria during the reign of [[Constantine the Great]] between a presbyter, [[Arius]] of Alexandria, and his bishop, Alexander of Alexandria. However, “many of the issues raised by the controversy were under lively discussion ''before'' Arius and Alexander publicly clashed.”<ref>Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland (1988). ''The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy'', 318–381. T. & T. Clark. p. 52 {{ISBN?}}</ref> “The views of Arius were such as … to bring into unavoidable prominence a doctrinal crisis which had gradually been gathering. … He was the spark that started the explosion. But in himself he was of ''no great significance''.”<ref>Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland (1988). ''The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy'', 318–381. T. & T. Clark. p. xvii</ref>

It is also traditionally stated that Alexander represented orthodoxy and that, when he died, his successor, Athanasius, became the representative of orthodoxy. In reality, “Nicene apologists … turn ‘Arianism' into a self-conscious sect – as if the boundaries of Catholic identity were firmly and clearly drawn in advance. But the whole history of Arius and of Arianism reminds us that this was not so.”<ref>Williams, Rowan, ''Arius: Heresy and Tradition'' (Revised ed.). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. (2002), p. 83 {{ISBN?}}</ref> (RW, 83) The Arian Controversy "is not the story of a defence of orthodoxy, but of a ''search'' for orthodoxy."<ref>Hanson, Richard Patrick Crosland (1988). ''The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy'', 318–381. T. & T. Clark. pp. xix–xx {{ISBN?}}</ref>

Arius asserted that God the Father created the Son. This meant the Son, though still seen as divine, was not equal to the Father, because he had a beginning, and was not eternal. "The controversy had spread from Alexandria into almost all the African regions and was considered a disturbance of the public order by the Roman Empire." (Eusebius of Caesarea in [[Life of Constantine|The Life of Constantine]])

Constantine had tried to settle the issues at the [[First Council of Nicaea|Council of Nicaea]], but as [[Arnold Hugh Martin Jones]] states: "The rules laid down at Nicaea were not universally accepted".<ref name="Arnold Hugh Martin Jones">{{cite book |last1=Jones |first1=Arnold Hugh Martin |title=The Later Roman Empire, 284–602: A Social Economic and Administrative Survey|volume=2 |date=1986 |publisher=Taylor & Francis |isbn=978-0-8018-3354-0 |page=880 |edition=Reprint}}</ref> After the [[Nicene Creed]] was formulated in 325, many in the church reacted strongly against the word "[[Homoousion|''homoousios'']]" in the Creed, and therefore Councils at Ariminum (Rimini), Nike (southeast of Adrianople), and Constantinople, held in 359–60 by Emperor Constantius II, formulated creeds that were intended to replace or revise the Nicene Creed; in particular, to find alternatives for "homoousios." These councils are no longer regarded as Ecumenical Councils in the tradition of the Church; their creeds, which are at odds with the Nicene Creed, are known as [[Arian creeds|Arian Creeds]].

During this time, [[Athanasius of Alexandria|Athanasius]] was at the center of the controversy and became the "champion of orthodoxy" after Alexander died.<ref name="Ray">{{cite journal|last=Ray|first=J. David|title=Nicea and its aftermath: A Historical Survey of the First Ecumenical Council and the Ensuing Conflicts|journal=Ashland Theological Journal| year=2007| url=https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ashland_theological_journal/39-1_019.pdf}}</ref>{{rp|28–29, 31}} To Athanasius, Arius's interpretation of Jesus's nature ([[Homoiousian]]), that the Father and Son are similar but not identical in substance, could not explain how Jesus could accomplish the redemption of humankind which is the foundational principle of Christianity. "According to Athanasius, God had to become human so that humans could become divin&nbsp; ... That led him to conclude that the divine nature in Jesus was identical to that of the Father, and that Father and Son have the same substance" (''[[Homoousian|homoousios]]'').<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|title=The Arian controversy|author1-last=Stefon|author1-first=Matt|author2-last=Hillerbrand|author2-first= Hans|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christology/The-Arian-controversy|access-date=16 May 2021|encyclopedia= Encyclopedia Britannica}}</ref> Athanasius's teaching was a major influence in the West, especially on Theodosius I.<ref name="Olson">{{cite book|last=Olson|first=Roger E.|title=The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform |publisher=InterVarsity Press |location=Downer's Grove, IN|year=1999|page=172|isbn=978-0-8308-1505-0}}</ref>{{rp|20}}

On 28 February 380, Theodosius issued the [[Edict of Thessalonica]], a decree addressed to the city of [[Constantinople]], determining that only Christians who believed in the [[consubstantiality]] of [[God the Father]], [[God the Son|Son]] and [[Holy Spirit in Christianity|Holy Spirit]] could style themselves "[[Catholicity|catholic]]" and have their own places of worship officially recognized as "churches"; deviants were labeled heretics and described as "out of their minds and insane".{{sfn|Errington|2006|p=217}}{{sfn|Sáry|2019| p=70}}{{efn-lr|This text has been translated to English by Clyde Pharr in the following way: Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius Augustuses An Edict to the People of the City of Constantinople. It is Our will that all the peoples who are ruled by the administration of Our Clemency shall practice that religion which the divine Peter the Apostle transmitted to the Romans, as the religion which he introduced makes clear even unto this day. It is evident that this is the religion that is followed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity; that is, according to the apostolic discipline and the evangelic doctrine, we shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment. Given on the third day before the kalends of March at Thessalonica in the year of the fifth consulship of Gratian Augustus and the first consulship of Theodosius Augustus. – 28 February 380.<ref>C. Pharr (tr.), ''The Theodosian Code and Novels and the Sirmondian Constitutions'', (Princeton, 1952), 440.</ref>}}

Recent scholarship has tended to reject former views that the edict was a key step in establishing Christianity as the official religion of the Empire, since it was aimed exclusively at Constantinople and seems to have gone largely unnoticed by contemporaries outside the capital.{{sfn|Errington|1997|pp=410–415}}{{sfn|Hebblewhite|p=82}} For example, German ancient historian {{ill|Karl Leo Noethlichs|de}} writes that the Edict of Thessalonica was neither anti-pagan nor [[Antisemitism|antisemitic]]; it did not declare Christianity to be the official religion of the empire; and it gave no advantage to Christians over other faiths.{{sfn|Sáry|2019|pp=72–74; fn. 32, 33, 34; 77}} It is clear from mandates issued in the years after 380 that Theodosius had made no requirement for pagans or Jews to convert to Christianity.{{sfn|Sáry|2019|p=73}}{{efn-lr| Hungarian legal scholar Pál Sáry explains that, "In 393, the emperor was gravely disturbed that the Jewish assemblies had been forbidden in certain places. For this reason, he stated with emphasis that the sect of the Jews was forbidden by no law. It is also important to note that during the reign of Theodosius pagans were continuously appointed to prominent positions and pagan aristocrats remained in high offices."{{sfn|Sáry|2019| p=73}} The Edict applied only to Christians, and within that group, only to Arians.{{sfn|Sáry|2019|pp=73, 77}} It declared those Christians who refused the Nicene faith to be ''infames'', and prohibited them from using Christian churches. Sáry uses this example: "After his arrival in Constantinople, Theodosius offered to confirm the Arian bishop Demophilus in his see, if he would accept the Nicene Creed. After Demophilus refused the offer, the emperor immediately directed him to surrender all his churches to the Catholics."{{sfn|Sáry|2019| p=79}} Christianity became the religion of the Late Empire through a long evolutionary process, of which the Edict of Thessalonica was only a small part.{{sfn|Sáry|2019|pp=77, 78–79}}}} Nonetheless, the edict is the first known secular Roman law to positively define a religious orthodoxy.{{sfn|Errington|2006|p=217}}

According to [[Robinson Thornton]], Theodosius began taking steps to repress Arianism immediately after his baptism in 380.<ref name="Robinson Thornton">{{cite book |last1=Thornton |first1=Robinson |title=St. Ambrose: His Life, Times, and Teaching |date=1879 |publisher=Harvard University}}</ref>{{rp|39}} On 26 November 380, two days after he had arrived in Constantinople, Theodosius expelled the Homoian bishop, [[Demophilus of Constantinople]], and appointed [[Meletius of Antioch|Meletius]] patriarch of Antioch, and [[Gregory of Nazianzus]], one of the [[Cappadocian Fathers]] from [[Cappadocia]] (today in Turkey), patriarch of Constantinople. Theodosius had just been baptized, by bishop [[Ascholius|Ascholius of Thessalonica]], during a severe illness.{{sfn|Glenn|1995|p=164}}

In May 381, Theodosius summoned [[First Council of Constantinople|a new ecumenical council at Constantinople]] to repair the schism between East and West on the basis of Nicene orthodoxy.{{sfn|Williams|Friell|1995|p=54}} The council went on to define orthodoxy, including the Third Person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, as equal to the Father and 'proceeding' from Him.{{sfn|Williams|Friell|1995|p=55}} The council also "condemned the Apollonarian and Macedonian heresies, clarified jurisdictions of the bishops according to the civil boundaries of dioceses. and ruled that Constantinople was second in precedence to Rome."{{sfn|Williams|Friell|1995|p=55}}

===Policy towards paganism===
{{main|Persecution of pagans under Theodosius I}}
{{See also|Persecution of pagans in the late Roman Empire}}
Theodosius seems to have adopted a cautious policy toward traditional non-Christian cults, reiterating his Christian predecessors' bans on animal sacrifice, divination, and apostasy, while allowing other pagan practices to be performed publicly and temples to remain open.{{sfn|Kahlos|p=35 (and note 45)}}{{sfn|Errington|2006|pp=245, 251}}{{sfn|Woods|2023|loc=Religious Policy}} He also voiced his support for the preservation of temple buildings, but nonetheless failed to prevent the damaging of many holy sites, images and objects of piety by Christian zealots, some including even his own officials.{{sfn|Woods|2023|loc=Religious Policy}}{{sfn|Errington|2006|p=249}}{{sfn|MacMullen|1984|p=90}} Theodosius also turned pagan holidays into workdays, but the festivals associated with them continued.{{sfn|Graf|pp=229–232}} A number of laws against paganism were issued towards the end of his reign, in 391 and 392, but historians have tended to downplay their practical effects and even the emperor's direct role in them.{{sfn|McLynn|1994|pp=330–333}}{{sfn|Errington|2006|pp=247–248}}{{sfn|Woods|2023|loc=Religious Policy}} Modern scholars think there is little if any evidence Theodosius pursued an active and sustained policy against the traditional cults.{{sfn|Hebblewhite|loc=chapter 8}}{{sfn|Cameron|pp=65–66}}{{sfn|Errington|2006|pp=248–249, 251}}

There is evidence that Theodosius took care to prevent the empire's still substantial pagan population from feeling ill-disposed toward his rule. Following the death in 388 of his praetorian prefect, [[Maternus Cynegius|Cynegius]], who had vandalized a number of pagan shrines in the eastern provinces, Theodosius replaced him with a moderate pagan who subsequently moved to protect the temples.<ref name="Trombley">Trombley, Frank R. Hellenic Religion and Christianization, c. 370–529. Netherlands, Brill Academic Publishers, 2001. {{ISBN?}}</ref>{{rp|53}}{{sfn|Hebblewhite|loc=chapter 8}}{{sfn|Cameron|p=57}} During his first official tour of Italy (389–391), the emperor won over the influential pagan lobby in the Roman Senate by appointing its foremost members to important administrative posts.{{sfn|Cameron|pp=56, 64}} Theodosius also nominated the last pair of pagan consuls in Roman history ([[Eutolmius Tatianus|Tatianus]] and [[Quintus Aurelius Symmachus Eusebius|Symmachus]]) in 391.{{sfn|Bagnall|Cameron|Schwartz|Worp|p=317}}

====Temple destruction====
{{further information|Christianity and paganism#Temple destruction{{!}} Temple destruction}}
Contemporary archaeology has found that the area with the most destruction against temples by Christians took place in the territory around Constantinople in the diocese of Orientis (the East) under Theodosius's prefect, Maternus Cynegius, where archaeological digs have discovered several destroyed temples. Theodosius officially supported temple preservation, but [[Garth Fowden]] says Cynegius did not limit himself to Theodosius's official policy, but instead, commissioned temple destruction on a wide scale, even employing the military under his command for this purpose.<ref name="Garth Fowden">{{cite journal |last1=Fowden |first1=Garth |title=Bishops and Temples in the Eastern Roman Empire A.D. 320–435 |journal=The Journal of Theological Studies |date=1978 |volume=29 |issue=1 |pages=53–78 |publisher=Oxford University Press|doi=10.1093/jts/XXIX.1.53 |jstor=23960254}}</ref>{{rp|63}}{{sfn|Bayliss|p=67}} Christopher Haas also says Cynegius oversaw temple closings, the prohibition of sacrifices, and the destruction of temples in Osrhoene, Carrhae, and Beroea.<ref name="Haas2002">{{cite book |last1=Haas |first1=Christopher |title=Alexandria in Late Antiquity Topography and Social Conflict |date=2002 |publisher=Johns Hopkins University Press |isbn=978-0801870330}}</ref>{{rp|160–162}}

Earlier scholars believed Cynegius's actions were just part of a tide of violence against temples that continued throughout the 390s.<ref name="Brownpowerandpersuasion"/>{{rp|114}} <ref name="Saradi-Mendelovici">{{cite journal |last=Saradi-Mendelovici |first=Helen |title=Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries |journal=Dumbarton Oaks Papers |volume=44 |date=1990 |pages=47–61 |doi=10.2307/1291617 |jstor=1291617}}</ref>{{rp|47}}<ref name="Grindle1892pp29-30">Grindle, Gilbert (1892) ''The Destruction of Paganism in the Roman Empire'', pp. 29–30.</ref><ref name="LifeStMartin">{{cite web|title=Life of St. Martin |url=http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/npnf2-11/sulpitiu/lifeofst.html#14|website=www.users.csbsju.edu|access-date=9 April 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060909225230/http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/npnf2-11/sulpitiu/lifeofst.html#14|archive-date=9 September 2006|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Gibbonch28">Gibbon, Edward  ''The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'', ch. 28</ref><ref name="CathEnc1912Theophilus">[[Catholic Encyclopedia]] (1912) article on ''Theophilus'', New Advent Web Site.</ref> However, recent archaeological discoveries have undermined this view. The archaeological evidence for the violent destruction of temples in the fourth and early fifth centuries around the entire Mediterranean is limited to a handful of sites. Temple destruction is attested to in 43 cases in the written sources, but only 4 of them were confirmed by archaeological evidence.{{sfn|Lavan|Mulryan|2011|p=xxiv}} Trombley and MacMullen say part of what creates this discrepancy are details in the historical sources that are commonly ambiguous and unclear.<ref>Trombley, F. R. 1995a. Hellenic Religion and Christianization, c. 370–529. New York. I. 166-8, II. 335–336</ref> For example, Malalas claimed Constantine destroyed all the temples, then he said Theodosius did, then he said Constantine converted them all to churches.<ref Name="Trombley"/>{{rp|246–282}}{{sfn|Bayliss|p=110}} There is no evidence of any desire on the part of the emperor to institute a systematic destruction of temples anywhere in the Theodosian Code, and no evidence in the archaeological record that extensive temple destruction ever took place.{{sfn|Lavan|Mulryan|2011|p=xxx}}<ref name="Garth Fowden"/>{{rp|63}}{{sfn|MacMullen|1984}}

====Theodosian decrees====
According to ''[[The Cambridge Ancient History]]'', the [[Codex Theodosianus|Theodosian Law Code]] is a set of laws, originally dated from Constantine to Theodosius I, that were gathered together, organized by theme, and reissued throughout the empire between 389 and 391.<ref>Curran, John (1998). "From Jovian to Theodosius". In Cameron, Averil; Garnsey, Peter (eds.). The Cambridge Ancient History: The Late Empire, A.D. 337–425. XIII (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 78–110. {{ISBN|978-0521302005}}.</ref>  [[Jill Harries]] explains that, in their original forms, these laws were created by different emperors and governors to resolve the issues of a particular place at a particular time. They were not intended as general laws.{{sfn|Harries|Wood|1993|pp=5–16|loc="Introduction"'}}  Local politics and culture had produced divergent attitudes, and as a result, these laws present a series of conflicting opinions: for example, some laws called for the complete destruction of the temples and others for their preservation.<ref name="Saradi-Mendelovici"/>{{rp|47}} French historian of Antiquity, {{ill|Philippe Fleury|fr}}, observes that ''[[Ammianus Marcellinus]]'' says this legal complexity produced corruption, forgery of rescripts, falsified appeals, and costly judicial delays.<ref name="Fleury">Philippe Fleury. Les textes techniques de l’Antiquité. Sources, études et perspectives. Euphrosyne. Revista de filologia clássica, 1990, pp. 359–394. ffhal-01609488f</ref>

The Theodosian Law Code has long been one of the principal historical sources for the study of Late Antiquity.<ref name="Lepelly">Lepelley, C. 1992. "The survival and fall of the classical city in Late Roman Africa". In J. Rich (ed.) ''The City in Late Antiquity''. London and New York, pp. 50–76.</ref> Gibbon described the Theodosian decrees, in his ''Memoires'', as a work of history rather than jurisprudence.<ref>Roland Quinault, [[Rosamond McKitterick]]. Edward Gibbon and Empire. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2002. {{ISBN|978-0-521-52505-3}} p. 25</ref> Brown says the language of these laws is uniformly vehement, and penalties are harsh and frequently horrifying, leading some historians, such as [[Ramsay MacMullen]], to see them as a 'declaration of war' on traditional religious practices.<ref name="Ramsay MacMullen1981">{{cite book |last1=MacMullen |first1=Ramsay |title=Paganism in the Roman Empire |date=1981 |publisher=Yale University Press |isbn=978-0-300-02984-0 |edition=unabridged}}</ref>{{rp|100}}<ref name="Brownconflict">Brown, Peter. "Christianization and religious conflict". The Cambridge Ancient History 13 (1998): 337–425.</ref>{{rp|638}} It is a common belief the laws marked a turning point in the decline of paganism.<ref name="Trombley"/>{{rp|12}}

Yet, many contemporary scholars such as Lepelly, Brown and Cameron, question the use of the Code, a legal document, not an actual historical work, for understanding history.<ref name="Lepelly"/>{{sfn|Harries|Wood|1993|pp=95|loc="Introductory Note"}} One of many problems with using the Theodosian Code as a record of history is described by archaeologists Luke Lavan and Michael Mulryan. They explain that the Code can be seen to document "Christian ambition" but not historic reality.{{sfn|Lavan|Mulryan|2011|p=xxii}}<ref name="Lepelly"/> The overtly violent fourth century that one would expect to find from taking the laws at face value is not supported by archaeological evidence from around the Mediterranean.<ref name="Mulryan">{{cite journal|last=Mulryan|first=Michael|title='Paganism' In Late Antiquity: Regional Studies And Material Culture|journal=Brill|year=2011|pages=41–86|isbn=9789004210394 |url=https://brill.com/view/book/edcoll/9789004210394/Bej.9789004192379.i-643_003.xml}}</ref>{{rp|41}}{{sfn|Lavan|Mulryan|2011|pp=xxi, 138}}{{sfn|Errington|1997|p=398}}

====End of paganism====
The picture of Theodosius as "the most pious emperor", who presided over the end of paganism through the aggressive application of law and coercion – a view which [[Robert Malcolm Errington|R. Malcolm Errington]]  says "has dominated the European historical tradition almost to this day" – was first written by Theodoret who, in Errington's view, had a habit of ignoring facts and cherry picking.{{sfn|Errington|1997|p=409}} In the centuries following his death, Theodosius gained a reputation as the champion of orthodoxy and the vanquisher of paganism, but modern historians see this as a later interpretation of history by Christian writers rather than actual history.{{sfn|Errington|2006|pp=248–249}}{{sfn|Cameron|p=74}}{{sfn|Hebblewhite|loc=chapter 8}}{{Efn-lr|Cameron explains that, since Theodosius's predecessors [[Constantine I|Constantine]], [[Constantius II|Constantius]], and [[Valens]] had all been [[semi-Arian]]s, it fell to the orthodox Theodosius to receive from Christian literary tradition most of the credit for the final triumph of Christianity.{{sfn|Cameron|p=74 (and note 177)}} Numerous literary sources, both Christian and even pagan, attributed to Theodosius – probably mistakenly, possibly intentionally – initiatives such as the withdrawal of state funding to pagan cults (this measure belongs to [[Gratian]]) and the demolition of temples (for which there is no primary evidence in the law codes or  archaeology).{{sfn|Cameron|pp=46–47, 72}} Theodosius has long been associated with the ending of the Vestal virgins, but twenty-first century scholarship asserts they continued until 415 and suffered no more under Theodosius than they had since Gratian restricted their finances.{{sfn|Testa|2007|p=260}}

Theodosius also probably did not discontinue the [[ancient Olympic Games]], whose last recorded celebration was in 393. Archeological evidence indicates that some games were still held after this date.<ref name="Perrottet2004">{{cite book|author=Tony Perrottet|title=The Naked Olympics: The True Story of the Ancient Games|url=https://archive.org/details/nakedolympicstru00perr|url-access=registration|access-date=1 April 2013|year= 2004|publisher=Random House Digital, Inc.|isbn=978-1-58836-382-4|pages=[https://archive.org/details/nakedolympicstru00perr/page/190 190]–}}</ref><ref>Hamlet, Ingomar. "Theodosius I. And The Olympic Games". Nikephoros 17 (2004): pp. 53–75.</ref> {{ill|Sofie Remijsen|nl}} says there are several reasons to conclude the Olympic games continued after Theodosius I, and came to an end under [[Theodosius II]], by accident, instead. There are two extant scholia on Lucian that connect the end of the games with a fire that burned down the temple of the [[Temple of Olympian Zeus, Athens|Olympian Zeus]] during Theodosius II's reign.<ref name="Remijsen">{{cite book |last1=Remijsen |first1=Sofie |title=The End of Greek Athletics in Late Antiquity |date=2015 |publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref>{{rp|49}} }}

An increase in the variety and abundance of sources has brought about the reinterpretation of religion of this era.{{sfn|Kahlos|p=2}} According to Salzman: "Although the debate on the death of paganism continues, scholars ...by and large, concur that the once dominant notion of overt pagan-Christian religious conflict cannot fully explain the texts and artifacts or the social, religious, and political realities of Late Antique Rome".<ref name="Sághy">''Pagans and Christians in Late Antique Rome: Conflict, Competition, and Coexistence in the Fourth Century''. United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 2016. {{ISBN?}}</ref>{{rp|2}}

Scholars agree that Theodosius gathered copious legislation on religious subjects, and that he continued the practices of his predecessors, prohibiting sacrifices with the intent of divining the future in December of 380, issuing a decree against heretics on 10 January 381, and an edict against [[Manichaeism]] in May of that same year.{{Sfn|Kienast|pp=323–326|loc="Theodosius I"}}<ref name="Tilley1996">{{cite book |editor1-last=Tilley |editor1-first=Maureen A. |title=Donatist Martyr Stories The Church in Conflict in Roman North Africa |date=1996 |publisher=Liverpool University Press |isbn=978-0-85323-931-4}}</ref>{{rp|xxiv}} Theodosius convened the [[First Council of Constantinople]], the second [[ecumenical council]] after Constantine's [[First Council of Nicaea]] in 325; and the Constantinopolitan council which ended on 9 July.{{Sfn|Kienast|pp=323–326|loc="Theodosius I"}} What is important about this, according to Errington, is how much this 'copious legislation' was applied and used, which would show how dependable it is as a reflection of actual history.{{sfn|Errington|1997|p=398}}

Brown asserts that Christians still comprised a minority of the overall population, and local authorities were still mostly pagan and lax in imposing anti-pagan laws; even Christian bishops frequently obstructed their application.{{sfn|Brown|2012|p=639}} Harries says, "The contents of the Code provide details from the canvas but are an unreliable guide, in isolation, to the character of the picture as a whole".{{sfn|Harries|Wood|1993|pp=95|loc="Introductory Note"}} Previously undervalued similarities in language, society, religion, and the arts, as well as current archaeological research, indicate paganism slowly declined, and that it was not forcefully overthrown by Theodosius I in the fourth century.<ref name="OHLA-2015">''The Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity''. United Kingdom, Oxford University Press, 2015.</ref>{{rp|xv}}

Maijastina Kahlos writes that the fourth century Roman empire contained a wide variety of religions, cults, sects, beliefs and practices and they all generally co-existed without incident.{{sfn|Kahlos|p=3}} Coexistence did occasionally lead to violence, but such outbreaks were relatively infrequent and localized.{{sfn|Kahlos|p=3}} [[Jan N. Bremmer]] says that "religious violence in Late Antiquity is mostly restricted to violent rhetoric: 'in Antiquity, not all religious violence was that religious, and not all religious violence was that violent'".<ref name="Bremmer">{{cite book|author-last=Bremmer|author-first=Jan N. |editor1-last=Raschle |editor1-first=Christian R. |editor2-last=Dijkstra |editor2-first=Jitse H. F. |title=Religious Violence in the Ancient World From Classical Athens to Late Antiquity |date=2020 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-84921-0|chapter=2}}</ref>{{rp|9}}

The Christian church believed that victory over "false gods" had begun with Jesus and was completed through the conversion of Constantine; it was a victory that took place in heaven, rather than on earth, since Christians were only about 15–18% of the empire's population in the early 300s.<ref name="Stark1996">{{cite book |last1=Stark |first1=Rodney |title=The Rise of Christianity: A Sociologist Reconsiders History |date=1996 |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-02749-4 |edition=1st}}</ref>{{rp|7}}{{sfn|Brown|2012|p=xxxii}} Brown indicates that, as a result of this "triumphalism," paganism was seen as vanquished, and Salzman adds that judging by the sheer number of laws, heresy was a much higher priority than paganism for Christians in the fourth and fifth centuries.{{sfn|Brown|1993|p=90}}{{sfn|Brown|1998|pp=634, 640, 651}}<ref name="Salzman2">{{cite journal |last=Salzman |first=Michele Renee |title=The Evidence for the Conversion of the Roman Empire to Christianity in Book 16 of the 'Theodosian Code' |journal=Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte |volume=42 |issue=3 |date=1993 |pages=362–378 |jstor=4436297}}</ref>{{rp|375}}

Lavan says Christian writers gave the narrative of victory high visibility, but that it does not necessarily correlate to actual conversion rates. There are many signs that a healthy paganism continued into the fifth century, and in some places, into the sixth and beyond.<ref name="Boin">Boin, Douglas. A Social and Cultural History of Late Antiquity. United Kingdom, Wiley, 2018.</ref>{{rp|108–110}}{{sfn|Cameron|pp=4, 112}}{{sfn|Lavan|Mulryan|2011|p=8}}<ref name="Irmscher">{{cite journal|last=Irmscher |first=Johannes|year=1988|title=Non-christians and sectarians under Justinian: the fate of the inculpated |publisher=Parcourir les Collections |journal=Collection de l'Institut des Sciences et Techniques de l'Antiquité|volume=367|pages=165–167|url=https://www.persee.fr/doc/ista_0000-0000_1988_ant_367_1_1722}}</ref>{{Rp|165–167}}<ref name="Mulryan"/>{{rp|41, 156}} According to Brown, Christians objected to anything that called the triumphal narrative into question, and that included the mistreatment of non-Christians. Archaeology indicates that in most regions away from the imperial court, the end of paganism was both gradual and untraumatic.<ref name="Mulryan"/>{{rp|156, 221}}<ref name="Sághy"/>{{rp|5, 41}} The ''Oxford Handbook of Late Antiquity'' says that "Torture and murder were not the inevitable result of the rise of Christianity."<ref name="OHLA-2015"/>{{rp|861}} Instead, there was fluidity in the boundaries between the communities and "coexistence with a competitive spirit."<ref name="Sághy"/>{{rp|7}} Brown says that "In most areas, polytheists were not molested, and, apart from a few ugly incidents of local violence, Jewish communities also enjoyed a century of stable, even privileged, existence."{{sfn|Brown|2012|p=643}}

While conceding that Theodosius's reign may have been a watershed in the decline of the old religions, Cameron downplays the role of the emperor's 'copious legislation' as limited in effect, and writes that Theodosius did 'certainly not' ban paganism.{{sfn|Cameron|pp=60, 65, 68–73}} In his 2020 biography of Theodosius, Mark Hebblewhite concludes that Theodosius never saw or advertised himself as a destroyer of the old cults; rather, the emperor's efforts to promote Christianity were cautious,{{sfn|Errington|2006|p=251}} 'targeted, tactical, and nuanced', and intended to prevent political instability and religious discord.{{sfn|Hebblewhite|loc=chapter 8}}