Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

[sionnach]

People in general are relatively reluctant to give up beliefs they are familiar to adopt a new religion yet from what we know of the transition in Ireland and the British Isles was relatively peaceful event with less resistance than might be expected for such a dramatic change? We know the Christian missionaries targeted the people of power as the way to spread the faith and to ultimately eliminate the pagan religions. It would seem that this all occurred with little opposition from what is recorded but was the transition so complete as it has been suggested?

[Briton]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

Well, I would suggest, and this is not an evidence based assertion, but an educated guess, that the leaders gave it up because adopting Christianity would open up trade opportunities and, for most people, wealth is more important than religion.

The common people likely had no choice but to attend church, not just to keep up appearances but it would have been the law. Early Christianity wasn't particularly interested in religious tolerance.

I will point out that the concept of Celtic paganism in Britain is problematic, as whilst we adopted some European deities, some were wholly unique to Britain, such as Sulis and Brigantia. In fact, in archaeology, there are two camps, one that says there is "no such thing" as "the Celts", let alone in Britain (the Britons called themselves Priteni in the first century BC when discovered by the Greeks) and one that says Britain was "Celtic". The former group has more backing behind it than the latter, but classical anthropology was not what it is today so it's complex.

For this reason, I refer to the beliefs of the Iron Age polytheism as British paganism, on the basis that "British" stems from a proto-Celtic (a group of related languages, spoken even by those who are not one whole ethnic group) word. The Britons were never called Celts by the Classical geographers such as the Greeks and Romans, but the Britons / British. Ethnically, they were, as a whole, not the same as the Europeans of the time, but they, and their culture, grew out of the Bronze Age, rather than due to a flow of immigrants of Europe. Like farming, we adopted their religion, but the people not so much.

I think an equally interesting question to this is why the British people adopted the continental deities, and moved into deity worship, of which there is no strong evidence before the Iron Age.

[DavidMcCann]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

Coincidentally I've just finished Religion in Late Roman Britain by Dorothy Watts. She uses archeological evidence to show that there was a movement to Christianity starting in the reign of Constantine, but that it peaked about 350 and a reaction set in. There are even two cases of churches being converted into temples!

Conversions are often motivated by the desire to keep ones head down. In Italy, decoration on sculptured sarcophagi switched from 90% pagan to 90% Christian in two generations (Last Pagans of Rome by Alan Cameron). These were used by people who were prominent enough to feel the need to conform (unlike the peasantry) but not powerful enough to disregard the powers that be (unlike the aristocracy).

The attitudes of local officials obviously counted. Some might still be pagan themselves, some might just be tolerant. Britain also seems to have lacked the monks who were violent enforcers of Christianity in some areas.

[DragonsFriend]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

There were likely those people who "adopted" Christianity for pragmatic reasons and kept practicing the theology they had practiced before. Christianity adopted quite a few of the "pagan" holidays (holy days?) which made it easier to appear to be Christian and still practice their pre-Christian beliefs.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

The sacral nature of kingship was probably important. The luck of the people was bound up with the luck of its king. Therefore bad luck (drought, war, famine, plague) could be blamed on the king - and sometimes this led to the king being killed and replaced. Christian missionaries could (and apparently did) promise and end to this, which was a pretty big incentive to kings to convert. And once the king converted (at least in AS England) his people tended to follow.

As for the monks - after the first few years these were mostly English. There were real problems with language especially when Theodore became Archbishop of Canterbury. And the monks actually did a lot of backsliding, and their own clergy didn't really trust them.

Also issues such as book land and book right led to some very strange monasteries being set up... and gesiths could turn themselves into Abbots overnight.

[sionnach]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

One possibility is there may have been little change in the way the majority believed. The main targets were the people of power at least in the beginning and the important aspects of the sacred nature of the land and the people were probably retained. I suspect the gods and goddesses were more abstract and not so personal thus replacing the name would be less of an issue if the main rituals and honoring the land were retained. The advantage to the those in power is easy to see why they changed since the Roman Church was organized with hierarchy which would place the the kings closer to God. A slower transition would lead to more blending of the beliefs which is seen in the folklore.

I may be wrong but from what I remember the early church was conducted in Latin and the church kept the bible in Latin making the gospels out of the reach for most of the people. This would also slow the change in religious beliefs.

[Briton]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

You're not wrong at all. Mass was conducted in Latin (out of the reach of the common people, hence murals to a) teach them good Christian morals and b) prevent them from dying of boredom on their feet) and the first English Bible came about in the 16th century. Tyndale, the man who put it together, was strangled to death and then burnt at the stake by the church. Lovely.

We can suspect and postulate until we're blue in the face, but there is no indication on how committed the people were to their beliefs, whether they practiced it in secret, or were happy to try something new, gifted to them by the opulence of Rome: well, if they believe in the Christian God, that must be why they've palaces of gold, right?

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

You're not wrong at all. Mass was conducted in Latin (out of the reach of the common people, hence murals to a) teach them good Christian morals and b) prevent them from dying of boredom on their feet) and the first English Bible came about in the 16th century. Tyndale, the man who put it together, was strangled to death and then burnt at the stake by the church. Lovely.

We can suspect and postulate until we're blue in the face, but there is no indication on how committed the people were to their beliefs, whether they practiced it in secret, or were happy to try something new, gifted to them by the opulence of Rome: well, if they believe in the Christian God, that must be why they've palaces of gold, right?

Actually various parts of the Bible were translated into Old English/Anglo-Saxon at one point, and they make for an interesting read. Quite why this stopped we're not certain.

Rome had a very tenuous hold on the early Church in England. It was by no means a clear run thing... Bishops were forced to flee, and many did not trust their clergy further than they could throw them.

I think one of the best indications that all was not well, was the number of ecclesiastical canons (statues) and penitentials that raged against pagan practices.

[monsno_leedra]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

Been some time since I though about this one but I do seem to recall the Celtic Church retained a lot of the older stuff and Celtic ways. So even as the church came in it didn't so much destroy and replace as it supposedly joined. Believe comparison wise it would be like looking at the modern Coptic Church in Egypt. Has all the Christian presence but also retained a lot of the older practices and beliefs. Some older aspects from the people, location and some from earlier phases of the church's development itself.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

Its very important to actually pinpoint what the Celtic Church was. Do we mean the Church in Ireland? Or in England? Because if we mean specifically England, we're going to be talking about LPRIA (Late pre-Roman Iron Age and it's conversion to Christianity - then it was pretty much wiped out)then the coming of the Anglo-Saxons.
I've heard people refer to things like the Lindisfarne Gospels as Celtic. Actually no, they weren't. It's really all quite messy!

[DavidMcCann]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

In the Roman Empire, Latin (like Arabic today) meant one thing when you wrote and another when you spoke. Before the reforms of Charlemagne, the service seems to have been read in the vernacular, even though written in the literary language.

People with a Protestant background get excited about the use of their native language, but it's no big deal. Muslims pray in Arabic; Hindus use Sanskrit mantras; Russian services are conducted in Old Bulgarian! Most people would pick up the main Latin prayers; I can still do it: Pater noster, qui est in caelis ... Ave Maria, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. ... Credo in unum Deum, Pater omnipotentem ...

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

Actually, Greek tended to be the spoken language in much of the Roman Empire. Spoke Greek, wrote Latin.

Bede wrote in Latin first and was then translated into Old English.

[Briton]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

Its very important to actually pinpoint what the Celtic Church was. Do we mean the Church in Ireland? Or in England? Because if we mean specifically England, we're going to be talking about LPRIA (Late pre-Roman Iron Age and it's conversion to Christianity - then it was pretty much wiped out)then the coming of the Anglo-Saxons.
I've heard people refer to things like the Lindisfarne Gospels as Celtic. Actually no, they weren't. It's really all quite messy!

Thus is why the use of the term 'Celtic' is messy. The Celtic church was the churches of Ireland and Britain which used a different dating for Easter, that was the greatest difference, they still venerated Rome and the Pope. The idea that they were significantly kinder to women and anti-Popish was the imagination of the Reformists who conjured up the idea of them as proto-Protestants, which was not the case at all. The British Isles were Celtic in language only, and even now that's a minority. Anglo-Saxon and typically Celtic DNA groups make up a slim minority of British DNA, which is largely Basque in origin. But I digress.

The sum of it is, people were expected to be the religion of the king (isn't that always the way?) because he had to look good to those he was trading with, especially since trading with the Holy Roman empire was really a benefit to Britain, they had to keep with Rome's demands, they didn't have much room for negotiation.

This is a part of Pagan Britain I hope to be moving on to soon, so hopefully will be better informed at a later date.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

Thus is why the use of the term 'Celtic' is messy. The Celtic church was the churches of Ireland and Britain which used a different dating for Easter, that was the greatest difference, they still venerated Rome and the Pope. The idea that they were significantly kinder to women and anti-Popish was the imagination of the Reformists who conjured up the idea of them as proto-Protestants, which was not the case at all. The British Isles were Celtic in language only, and even now that's a minority. Anglo-Saxon and typically Celtic DNA groups make up a slim minority of British DNA, which is largely Basque in origin. But I digress.

The sum of it is, people were expected to be the religion of the king (isn't that always the way?) because he had to look good to those he was trading with, especially since trading with the Holy Roman empire was really a benefit to Britain, they had to keep with Rome's demands, they didn't have much room for negotiation.

This is a part of Pagan Britain I hope to be moving on to soon, so hopefully will be better informed at a later date.

The 'Celtic Church' and the problem of Easter was largely the Anglo-Saxon Church. As for the DNA issues, I think you'll find this article refutes that. https://www.newscientist.com/article...t-not-its-dna/

People didn't convert because they had to look good to those they traded with. They converted for a whole range of complex issues, including the sacral nature of kingship, the way the Church deliberately targeted queens in their conversions, and also because, in the beginning at least, they didn't realise how the Church was going to steal their revenues (basically the kings gave gifts of land for building monasteries, and also allowed the Church to avoid paying taxes.) Gradually this eroded a great deal of secular power.

That said, if we look at the early Anglo-Saxon Church in England, it was nowhere near as dominant as say, the Church in the later medieval period. 'Rome' was far away then. It didn't have that much influence, hence the early English Church was a bit out of step on a number of issues.

[Briton]

Re: Why was the transition from Celtic pagan to Christianity so easily done?

The 'Celtic Church' and the problem of Easter was largely the Anglo-Saxon Church. As for the DNA issues, I think you'll find this article refutes that. https://www.newscientist.com/article...t-not-its-dna/

People didn't convert because they had to look good to those they traded with. They converted for a whole range of complex issues, including the sacral nature of kingship, the way the Church deliberately targeted queens in their conversions, and also because, in the beginning at least, they didn't realise how the Church was going to steal their revenues (basically the kings gave gifts of land for building monasteries, and also allowed the Church to avoid paying taxes.) Gradually this eroded a great deal of secular power.

That said, if we look at the early Anglo-Saxon Church in England, it was nowhere near as dominant as say, the Church in the later medieval period. 'Rome' was far away then. It didn't have that much influence, hence the early English Church was a bit out of step on a number of issues.

I don't really see how that article refutes what I said. The article states that there are various minorities, such as Anglo-Saxon as Viking, which leaves the majority to have arrived after the last Ice Age, moving up from the south of France and Basque as the ice receded.

Anyway, that aside, when I said about "looking good to traders" I was referring to the leaders, my apologies for not being clear. Like you said, the vulgus populus converted based on their king (which is also what I said in my first post). I don't think land theft by the church was a reason for conversion amongst the majority, though, unless you are referring to coercion.