Christianity and the Pagan:

Christianity and the Pagan:

Religious Transformation and Resilience

in Late Roman Antiquity

and New World Spanish Colonialism

Rhianna C. Rogers and Jennifer L. Blank

Florida Atlantic University

Introduction

Historically speaking, ethnocentric interpretations of history have tended to promote a marginalized view of non-European, “pagan” peoples. Plagued by an engrained sense of cultural and religious superiority, both Late Antiquity and Colonial theologians promoted negative idyllic interpretations of religions they deemed outside of the Christian ethos. As a result, religious ideologies that were not considered “to be the word of God” by the Christian, white, male, Northern European aristocracy were considered to be barbaric, pagan, and irrational. In essence, one can argue that scholars in these eras intentionally propagated Eurocentric ideas of cultural supremacy in order to promote imperialistic notions of “proper” religious, theological, and social customs. However, history has tended to overlook the ways in which groups resisted religious reformation. Looking at both periods in conjunction, the authors of this paper attempt to illustrate the tactics used by religious theologians to eradicate paganism as well as illustrate the forms of religious resistance employed by non-Christian groups in order to retain aspects of their proto-Christian beliefs.

Specifically looking at the biases of prominent documents used in Late Antiquity Roman scholarship and the rhetoric used by fifteenth and century sixteenth Spanish theologians, the authors of this text will attempt to deconstruct the negative connotations in early religious dogma by placing non-Europeans[1] (i.e., New World natives, Old World barbarians) into a more objective historical framework. By applying Christian theology to early Aztec and Manichean scholarship, the authors of this document will attempt to address the central themes impacting the transformation and resilience of both social groups. More specifically, answer the questions: In what way did the Late Antiquity Roman and fifteenth and sixteenth century Spanish Catholic theologians attempt to demonize Manichean and Aztec religious practices in order to promote their own religious interpretations? Second, did both groups resist this occurrence? Overall, it is the aim of the writers of this paper to address these questions from a more objective and inclusive perspective of the past, one which addresses the ramifications of Christianity on pagan cultures in both New World and Old World contexts.

The Manichean Ethos and Christian Dogma

To begin with, a major selling point for non-Christians to take part in pagan, Gnostic religious practices was based on the inherent dualistic tendencies presented in their proto-Christian traditions.[2] Generally speaking, people searching for answers to the complexities of life were drawn to the rationalizations presented in Manichean religious thought. Based on the pluralist principles present in Manichaeism, non-Christians were given a logical explanation for the presence of good and evil, one which explained both the philosophical justifications for dualistic tendencies in life and the spiritual explanations of the non-physical world. Stemming from the fact that the majority of the concepts in Christian doctrine were easily adapted to pagan traditions (i.e., the concept of salvation, the Trinity, and the concept of an all-powerful God), Manicheans were able to reasonably maneuver pluralistic views into a traditionally monotheistic context.

However, in the eyes of the Manicheans, Christianity contained a major flaw, that is, the illogical rationalization of evil. Manicheans did not understand how an omnipotent, all encompassing being could choose to let the presence of evil exist in the world and give it the power to corrupt the universe. As such, they believed the only logical explanation was that evil itself was another omnipotent being, one that was outside the control of the former. Therefore, the Manicheans’ felt that Christianity provided neither a justification nor an explanation for the existence of evil; thus, the religion failed to provide a logical reason for the negative qualities present in society, which they felt needed to be rectified. This is not to say that Christianity did not contain physical representations of evil (e.g., Satan and demons), rather Manicheans believed that Christianity contained an inherent contradiction in its theological makeup. According to the Christology of Late Antiquity Rome, the prevailing doctrine argued that God was not responsible for the existence of evil. In the context of Manichean thought, this seemed irrational because they felt a benevolent God would not allow for or wish evil upon His followers.

The Manicheans believed that this theological flaw, coupled with the idea of an independently functioning evil entity (i.e., Satan), allowed both pagans and Gnostic sects two logical explanations for evil: (1) it gave them the ability to actively take part in defeating evil and overcoming its control, and (2) it allowed them to justify a dualistic representation of two, equally all-powerful gods that existed outside the realm of human control (i.e., God and Satan). As such, Manichean beliefs allowed for the incorporation of pagan dualism as a rationalization for good and evil. In essence, Mani was able to link his dualist theology to Christianity as a result of the presence of Satan in Christian dogma and the lack of its clarity in an orthodox religious context. As such, his interpretation of evil coupled with the omission of a clearly defined framework for it in Christian orthodoxy provided Mani and his followers with a more logical foundation for the presence of two, all-powerful gods. As a result, Manichean thought garnered a more substantial following during the foundational period of Christianity and continued its influence well into the Middle Ages.[3]

Although Manichean doctrine differs drastically from Christian dogma, the Manicheans were able to effectively manipulate both theologies into a dualistic religion. One example can be seen in the Manichean interpretation of asceticism. In Manichaeism, followers believed that physical pleasures should be avoided, in life, at all costs. More specifically, they argued that all things in the physical world, (e.g., food, clothing, marriage, plants, animals), were inherently evil and, as such, taking part in activities that promoted the preservation or advancement of this world would help the all-powerful evil being (Angra-Mainyu, the god of evil and darkness) to succeed in defeating the all-powerful good being (Ahura-Mazda, the god of good and light). According to their religious cosmology, in order to achieve salvation, one must strive to decrease the power and influence of Angra-Mainyu (i.e., evil) in a worldly context. This is done solely by adhering to the tenants of Ahura-Mazda (i.e., good). However, this idea was more complicated by the fact that within this faith, evil was directly correlated to humanities’ connection to matter. Meaning, humans exist in this world as a result of evil taking good (i.e., the soul and spirit) and combining it with evil (i.e., matter). As a result, humans, in a physical context, are inherently evil and prone to sin and morally corrupt behavior; conversely, humans are inherently good, in a spiritual context, based on the soul’s connection to Ahura-Mazda.

In addition, Manicheans viewed evil, Angra-Mainyu, as an existing counterpart to good, Ahura-Mazda, thus making life a continual struggle between good and evil. As such, humanity’s purpose in the physical world was to separate the spirit from both matter and darkness and restore it back to its purist form. This is not to say that the Manicheans did not believe in an engrained necessity for evil, rather they felt that both good and evil should exist in separate realms in order to prevent the perpetuation of evil in this world. Manicheans believed that the presence of evil in the world was a direct result of Angra-Mainyu’s creation of the physical world. Therefore, the only way to prevent evil in Manichean thought was for this world to end and good and evil to return to their separate realms, never to mix again. In essence, Manichaeaism encompassed the essence of dualistic thought, that is, in order for the religion to properly function there needed to exist two, independently functional realms (darkness and light) with equally important and powerful gods (Ahura-Mazda and Angra-Mainyu) who were able to exist throughout eternity together in mutual autonomy.

An interesting comparison that can be used to illustrate the incorporation of Christian and pagan thought lies in Augustine’s conscience and unconscious links between Manichaeism, and Late Antiquity Roman Christianity. It is important to note the differentiation between Augustine’s unconscious incorporation of Manichaeaism and his conscience incorporation of Neo-Platonic thought into Christianity. As previously mentioned, prior to his conversion in A.D. 384, Augustine practiced Manichaeism. Although he later denounced his Manichean beliefs, many of Augustine’s writings incorporated dualistic aspects in Manichean philosophy. As footnoted in an earlier section, Augustinian works, such as Confessions and City of God, incorporated pluralistic views of Christianity in order to appeal to potential pagan coverts and unify the Church.

In addition, Augustine used the Manichean thought of asceticism to prevent non-traditional pagan and Christian people from sinning. As mentioned earlier, followers of Manichaeaism believed that asceticism was the idea that physical pleasures should be avoided, in life, at all costs. Augustine believed that refraining from the physical world and its pleasures would provide believers with deeper spiritual fulfillment and create a stronger bond with God. Based on Manichean principles of the evil, one can argue that Augustine used Satan as a powerful being who had the ability to manipulate and tempt human beings to commit evil acts; that his unintentional elevation of Satan to the role of evil incarnate was due to the dualistic nature of gods in his Manichean background. In addition, the evaluation of Satan allowed Augustine to partially explain the existence of evil and justify the foundations of Christian doctrine. Building on a general crusading mindset in the Late Antiquity Christian religious hierarchy, Augustine’s theology promoted the conversion of pagan followers and recognized the necessity for controlling the populace and converting them to the orthodox view of “proper” Christianity. In the process, Augustine’s unintentional incorporation of Manichaeanist doctrine (i.e., the concepts of dualism, asceticism, and evil) combined with his evangelical goals to inadvertently promote a pluralistic interpretation of Christianity.

Another interesting connection to pluralistic views of Christian theology, and one that will later be expounded upon in Aztec religious context, is the Manichean interpretation of Adam and Eve. In the orthodox, biblical account of Adam and Eve, God states, “You may freely eat any fruit in the Garden except fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. If you eat of its fruit, you will surely die.”[4] As this quote implies, God gave humans free-will and the capacity for good and evil (i.e., sin). An interesting point one can surmise from this quote is that even within the orthodox context, dualistic tendencies were inherent in the scriptures. In Manichaeism, the incorporation of “good and evil” in the context of knowledge illustrates a subconscious balance between the two and an inherent understanding that knowledge brings intelligent rationality. Furthermore, Satan, the protagonist of evil and sin in the physical world, was able to convince both Adam and Eve to eat from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge, thus breaking the covenant placed on them by God. As stated in Genesis 3:22-24:

Then the Lord God said, the people have become as we are, knowing everything, both good and evil … So the Lord God banished Adam and his wife from the Garden of Eden and he sent Adam out to cultivate the ground from which he had been made.[5]

Based on their failure to uphold the covenant, Adam and Eve were subsequently cast out of Paradise and thrust into a world of evil and sin. As this quote further illustrates, “good and evil,” as separate entities were an intrinsic part of the orthodox Christian cosmology. Mani expounded upon the dualistic tendencies in this account by reversing the roles of God and the serpent (Satan). In the Manichean version of original sin, the Creator God was equivalent to evil and Jesus was, in fact, the serpent. The serpent successfully convinced Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge and enlighten themselves about both the existence of and the reciprocal nature of good and evil. In doing so, the serpent, in this case Jesus, acted as the facilitator of knowledge for Adam and Eve. In Manichean thought, this action was viewed positively, making the serpent the representation of good and “God” the representation of evil. As a result of the serpent’s action, Adam and Eve learned the process necessary to separate the soul from matter and the innate evil present in their bodies.

Generally speaking, the Manichean creation story argued that light and dark particles blended together to form the universe. This commingling of light and dark particles, the essence of good and evil, perpetuated the dualistic nature within the physical world. As mentioned earlier, the combination of dark and light was never supposed to occur, and, in order for the balance of the cosmos to return to its rightful state, dark and light particles needed to be separated permanently. An interesting comparison between Manichean thought and Christian thought can be expressed through this theory. In orthodox Christianity, biblical scripture argues that one day evil will be permanently destroyed and good will reign supreme. In the Manichean schematic, Christianity lacked a clear explanation for this occurrence and the reason for its necessity. For most pagans, the balance in the universe, that is, the need for both good and evil, was crucial for a balanced, well-functioning world.

Manichaeaism offered the best resolution for this dilemma, rather than promote an incomplete understanding for evil, they argued for a logical framework that explained both the blending of different faiths and appealed to those trained in the classical and pagan religions. Thus, Manichaeaism argued that their views were less contradictory, making it easier to convert pagans. As Pavry explains “The westward spread of Manichaeaism was certainly rapid. It penetrated as far as Gaul and Spain, and at Rome its influence was considerable.” In the context of Late Antiquity Rome, the appeal of Manichaeaism appeared much stronger than that of orthodox Christianity.

The Aztec Ethos and the process of Christian Hispanization

Like the Manicheans, Aztec religiosity was a combination of previously constructed pagan religious traditions and Christian rhetoric. To begin with, it is important to understand pre-Columbian Aztec religion in order to understand its later incorporation of Christianity. In the process of assuming control over Mesoamerica and the religious authority of their pre-Columbian ancestors, the Aztecs used both cosmic dualism and polytheistic religious beliefs to establish dominance in the region.

In general, the Aztecs believed that the world was constructed around the physical and spiritual characteristics of the environment. Plants, animals, humans, and gods all coexisted within the cosmos in order to form a celestial plane which embodied all actions in life and society. As such, humans were expected to interact with spiritual and physical objects in order to maintain the balance between life, the spirit world, and nature. Like the pluralistic nature of Manichaeism, Aztec religion believed in the need to rationalize the unknown. As did the Manicheans, the Aztecs searched for answers to the complexities of life through their religious beliefs. Based on the pluralist principles present in Aztec religion, natives created logical explanations for the presence of good and evil which explained both the physical justifications for pluralistic tendencies in life and the spiritual explanations of the physical and non-physical worlds.

In the context of Aztec cosmology and creation, the concept of the world is organized into a complex cyclical interpretation of life, death, destruction, and rebirth. Based on the acculturation of Mesoamerican myths, the Aztecs believed that the world (known as Tlaltecuhtli) had past through three previous creations, all of which ended with the angering of the gods and the destruction of the world and its inhabitants. According to pre-Columbian Aztec sources, the last Creation of the world, prior to the world of the pre-Columbian Aztecs, ended with a great flood, the falling of the sky, and creation of an all-encompassing darkness.[6] As scholar Franke Neumann states:

[In Aztec cosmology,] there were several successive worlds or “suns,” each possessing its own span of time, and each ending inevitably in catastrophe. Miguel Leon Portilla has pointed out that the story of the “suns” clearly demonstrates the existence of five cosmological categories: (1) the search for a universal foundation, (2) the division of cosmic history into ages or cycles, (3) the notion of the existence of primordial elements, (4) the division of the cosmos into quadrants, and (5) the understanding of cosmic events within a framework of perpetual struggle.[7]

Modern research suggests that this perpetual struggle ended only when a balance was created between man, life, and the gods. In addition, the Aztecs believed that the pre-Columbian world in which they existed relied primarily on their ability to: (1) please the gods, (2) ritualistically worship them, and (3) preserve their world in its original form. Believing the world was a gift from the gods, the Aztecs believed it their duty to maintain it through a process of reciprocity (i.e., cosmic dualism[8]) and religious balance between the gods and man. Displeasing the gods, in any way, would result in the destruction of their world and themselves.

As the previous paragraph suggested, the Aztecs considered themselves an integral part of the cosmos. The gods bequeathed the world to natives, providing they maintain the balance of nature (i.e., caring for, protecting, and keeping world sacred). As such, man interacted with the world both spiritually and physically in order to ensure its longevity. As the Codex Telleriano-Remensis suggests, the Aztecs believed that the cosmological balance of the world resided in man’s ability to protect and worship the earth as well as the gods who watch over it. Therefore, in order for life to properly function, there needed to be a spiritual and physical balance between the environment, humans, and the spirit world.[9] This dualistic balance focused on a hierarchical view of life, which reflected the reciprocating nature of the world and the creatures who occupied it. This concept was personified through the great bisexual creator deity, Ometeotl or “Dual Divinity.”[10] As archaeologist Michael Coe states:

The bewildering multiplicity of Mexican gods was to these thinkers [the Aztecs] but an embodiment of one comic principle of duality: the unity of opposites, as personified in the great bisexual deity, Ometeotl or “Dual Divinity”…In Aztec philosophy…Ometeotl presided over [all aspects of the] layered universe…[11]

Although at first glance, a bisexual god does not seem comparable to Manichean dualistic thought; in the Aztec reality, dualism functioned as the basis for all life in much the same was as the Manicheans. The existence of a dualistic god, which contained both male and female traits, illustrated that the embodiment of dualism lay at the very foundations of a reciprocating and harmonious universe. In both contexts, each group believed that in order to function properly, there needed to be a balance in life that accounted for both the actions in the physical and spiritual realms. Thus, cosmic dualism in both the Aztec and Manichean contexts illustrated a general need for plurality and a shared emphasis on a reciprocating system of balance.

In addition, the Aztecs used cosmic dualism to justify the construction of their capital Tenochitlan and the development and expansion of their empire. As the Codex Mendoza explains, the Aztecs believed the universe was divided into four quarters, each quarter representing the four directions of the world. More specifically, the Codex illustrated the relationship between four reciprocating concepts of life, death, war, and peace. Following this rationale, Tenochtitlan was divided into four equal parts, each representing a cardinal direction and the four direct offspring of Ometeotl. Known as the Tezcatlipocas, these quarters represented all that was good and bad in the physical and spiritual worlds; in the north was the Black Tezcatlipoca (the god “Smoking Mirror” who represented war, death, evil and sorcery), in the south was the Blue Tezcatlipoca (the god Huitzilopochtli who represent warriors, honor, and the sun), in the east was the Red Tezcatlipoca (the god Xipe Totec who represented the spring season, blood, and renewal) and in the west was White Tezcatlipoca (the god Quetzalcoatl who represented life, the priesthood and peace). As such, each direction was associated with a spiritual deity as well as various social concepts, illustrating the need for social balances in Aztec life and religion.

Following this generalized concept of cosmic dualism, the Aztecs aspired to create a symbiotic society which incorporated mutual reciprocity and the gendered deities. For example, through the acculturation of the Mesoamerican god Huitzilopochtli, the Aztecs, as a warrior-based society, were able to substantiate their claims to authority in the region. Building all aspects of their society on militarism, Huitzilopochtli functioned as the principle deity of Aztec warriors and an integral figure in their pantheon of gods. Archaeologist Ross Hassig has argued that continual shifts in alliances and incessant warring between communities turned the Mexican Valley into an area of chaos and corruption.^{^[12]} As the Aztecs emerged as a new social group in the vast Mesoamerican region, territorial claims to rule continued and social chaos ensued. As such, the Aztecs needed a source of validation to reinforced their ability to control and pacify the region. Using the acculturated Mexican god Huitzilopochtli as their guide, the Aztecs were able to gain political control of the region based on visions given by their tribal deities and their ancestral claims to the Toltecs and Teotihuanacos. In doing so, the Aztecs embodied themselves as the supreme rulers of the Mexican region and the inheritors of Mesoamerican religiosity. During the process of pacification, the Aztecs incorporated acculturated notions of good and evil to justify their conquests. Attempting to unite its peoples under one, universal religion, the Aztecs manipulated religion into a tool for political gain.

Arguably, one example can be seen through the personifications of Coatlicue, Mother Earth, and her son Huitzilopochtli, the Aztec god of warriors. As the personification of both good and evil, Coatlicue represented the principle manifestation of Mother Earth (e.g., life, birth, and happiness) and the Underworld (e.g., death, pain, and sacrifice). In addition, Coatlicue also represented the female aspect of the creator god Ometeotl, thus illustrating the balance needed between genders. Both the god of warriors and the physical manifestation of the sun, Huitzilopochtli acted as the physical and spiritual guide for both life (as the giver of light) and death (as one of the enforcers of his mother’s Underworld and human mortality). In the overall context of duality, the importance of Coatlicue and Huitzilopochtli resides in the pluralistic attributes they represented in Aztec cosmology. Based on the fact that both gods are inherently dualistic in and of themselves, their presence in the Aztec pantheon of gods represented a necessary balance between two polar opposites; exemplifying the overall personification of a harmonious Mesoamerican universe. In essence, the Aztecs were able to build a vast empire in less than two centuries and to rise as a religiously syncretic culture with acculturated values, centuries of Mesoamerican beliefs, and dualistic social and religious practices.

Like the Manicheans, Aztecs attempted to justify and explain environmental factors through the creation of complex stories, religious beliefs, and rituals. This contributed further to the importance of good and evil in the Aztec religious context. Generally speaking, in order to understand the everyday occurrences in the world, Aztec peoples dedicated a large amount of time to deciphering “unexplainable” environmental factors around them. In essence, natives believed their actions triggered either satisfaction or displeasure from the gods. As a result, the Aztecs created complex stories about the environment in order to explain the physical and spiritual manifestations of good and evil. For example, the Aztecs placed specific emphasis on the birthing process and its relation to the creation of humans and the world. [13]

The Aztecs believed that the emergence of humans and the world were represented as a “birthing” process as well as a religious function; in both cases, they emerge from the inside of a larger entity (i.e., humans emerged from the earth, and the earth from the universe) and both were expected to conduct religious ceremonies in honor of other gods and/or themselves. As mentioned earlier, within the Aztec cosmology, failure to honor the gods would result in dire consequences and probably death. One could argue that adverse reactions from the gods were a direct result of the failure of humans to maintain good actions and the harmonious balance needed in life; conversely, good actions were the avoidance of failure and were associated with acceptance of the gift of life through ritualistic worship. Thus, the Aztecs ascribed a human process to both spiritual and physical contexts in order to better understand and interpret their environment around them. In sum, both the Manicheans and Aztecs believed that both good and bad actions in the physical world influenced the godly actions in the spiritual world, which resulted in consequences for both the physical and spiritual world.

However, with the coming of the Spanish, Eurocentric justifications for the condemnation of non-Christian beliefs and foreign religious ideas caused the transformation of these pre-Columbian Aztec religious traditions. In addition, Spanish imperial policy and law actively promoted the destruction of traditional Aztec religious and social practices, causing the marginalization of the natives as well as the reduction, and, in many cases, the elimination of native religious roles. For example, included in papal interpretations of the Bible were the notions of male dominance and female submission. Resulting from theological Christian understandings of the biblical account of Adam and Eve, women were seen as corrupters of the world and the originators of sin. The church interpreted male dominance as a necessity for controlling women’s misdoings. Man, being God’s first human and the antecedent of female creation, were chosen to lead and handle worldly affairs.^{^[14]} Women were subservient to men and expected to be their companions throughout life. Resulting from the domination of church in European life and society, submissive roles for women were considered as socially acceptable and God-ordained. Combining church limitations on social, religious, and political roles, along with its ability to effectively manipulate European thoughts about the world around them, the papacy was able to exclude alternate interpretations of religion, culture, and gender-based roles on the sole basis of preventing abominations against God. In essence, Spanish law and religious practice restricted the dualistic principles reflected in traditional Aztec religion in order to promote andocentric views of proper European societal roles (i.e., constrained roles for female). However, the Aztecs were able to combat this ideal, as a later section will discuss (e.g. Our Lady of Guadalupe).

A major factor triggering the transformation of Aztec religion and gender roles was the European adaptation of Aristotle’s idea of natural slavery.^{^[15]} The idea that some humans, in this case the Aztecs, were incapable of rational and moral choices was a revised version of the Greek philosopher’s thought that had been incorporated in medieval and Renaissance philosophies. The Spanish believed that the barbarous patterns present in Aztec social structures and belief systems illustrated the Aristotelian implications of an irrational ‘natural’ man, and justified the destruction of Aztec culture.^{^[16]}

Therefore, the mistreatment and disregard of traditional Aztecs beliefs and gender relations became acceptable measures in the overall process of Hispanizing the Aztecs. Christianity became a central factor in the destruction of traditional Aztec societal constructs and helped impose the predominantly patriarchical Spanish institutions on the Aztec nation. The destruction of the Aztec religious tradition enabled Spanish conquerors to achieve their goals of native domination and territorial expansion. Without the removal of Aztec dualistic religious beliefs, cultural dominion over the native peoples would have been exceedingly problematic, if not impossible. The destruction of dualism coupled with the disease and warfare helped the Spanish to implement Eurocentric views of proper social and religious practices (i.e., Christianity)

Overall, the introduction of dominant Christian beliefs in colonial religious, social, and political settings forced the overall transformation of dualistic and pluralistic religious interpretations in Aztec society. Resulting from the forced Hispanization of Aztecs and the destruction of pagan customs in the Spanish New World, Aztec roles were drastically diminished in the colonial Mexican world. In sum, the culmination of Spanish thought, and the justifiable elements of societal domination dictated by European imperialistic tactics of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, transformed the Aztecs into a socially exploitable society and created enterprises for Spanish religious domination.

Conclusion

As the authors of this paper intended to argue, Church rhetoric in both Late Roman Antiquity and New World Spanish Colonialism promoted idealized interpretations of non-Christian religious practices and their destruction in the European context. In addition, this paper has shown the paralleling tactics used by non-Christian religious to manipulate, both physically and mentally, Christian rhetoric in order to meet their own societal needs. At the same time, this paper has shown that the same engrained sense of cultural and religious superiority in Christianity both manipulated and condemned pagan groups also enabled them retain aspects of their proto-Christian paganism.. Although scholars in both Late Antiquity Rome and Colonial New Spain argued that Christian theologians and intellectuals used religo-centric determinants to undermine and transform pagan and Gnostic religious beliefs, many of these groups were able to resist complete eradication and maintain power in both eras.

In the process, this text has also shed light on some factors which contributed to the representation, or lack of, in non-Christian cultures in both New World and Old World contexts. Specifically, it illustrated the way in which Late Antiquity Roman theologians demonized Manichean practices in order to promote their own religious interpretations; and it showed how religious and intellectual rhetoric of fifteenth and sixteenth century Spanish Catholicism promoted the transformation of Aztec culture. In both instances, Manichean and Aztec religious practices were deemed by the Christian faith as weak, flawed, and incapable of true Christian salvation. More specifically, this text demonstrated how the church intentionally propagated Eurocentric ideas of cultural and religious superiority in order to promote imperialistic notions of “proper” religious beliefs, and to destroy the practice of paganism.

In both cases, Manichean and Aztec resilience, overtime, enabled both groups to retain certain aspects of their pagan systems of dualistic reciprocity. Obtaining control over economic, political, and religious practices at certain levels (e.g., the Aztecs were able to reinstate their traditional religious practices at the local level and the Manichean dualistic practices persisted well into the Middle Ages) both groups were able to re-implement aspects of cosmic dualism, despite the creation of various Christian institutions of control. Based on the fact that the Aztecs existed as both an imperialistic empire and a facilitator of syncretic Mesoamerican religious views, they were more capable of manipulating Christianity into their cultural framework (e.g., Our Lady of Guadalupe). In the Manichean case, the acculturation of different religious traditions (i.e., Zoroastrianism and Buddhism) allowed them to function outside of traditional orthodoxy of the Catholic Church. In essence, both groups combined traditional pagan mythological beliefs with Christian interpretations of the spiritual and physical worlds to once again bring about the manifestation of pagan, polytheistic practices in an orthodox, monotheistic Christian setting. (With further research, these ideas will be expounded upon in a subsequent text, which will include both Manichean and Aztec religious resilience.)

Hoping to clarify certain misconceptions within the field of Aztec and Manichean historical studies, the authors of this document identified specific factors causing the transformation and resilience of both groups. In doing so, it sheds light on the importance of pagan religious prior to and following their manipulation under Christian orthodoxy. Based on the implementation of more objective interpretations of the past, modern works, such as the ones quoted in this text, have expressed the malleability of Christian law and theology and the way in which pagans manipulated it, thus, retaining aspects of their proto-Christian religious authority. Only recently have historians begun revising the idealized Christian, white, male, Northern European interpretation of history and the facts surrounding marginalized groups (e.g., Manicheans and Aztecs).

Examining both the Christology of the time and socially constructed aspects of European life influencing the transformation of both the Aztec and Manichean worlds, this text has shed light on an aspect of history typically ignored by mainstream historical scholarship. The overall aim of this paper was to aid in the understanding of both groups in a non-traditional, historical context. Rather than perpetuate the biased histories previously associated with them, the authors of this text attempted to discuss two specific groups from different eras in history in order to illustrate the value of comparative works. In the process, this text will hopefully contribute to an ongoing discussion of the importance of marginalized groups in a globalized, comparative framework. It is the hope of both authors that this text has helped deconstruct previously subjective historical interpretations of these eras and has shed light on the actualities of religious resistance in these cultures.