INTRODUCTION

In part III we explored the relationship between Libanius' and Chrysostom's understandings of religious identity/allegiance and social organization. This was a question of how far constructions of identity could be seen to translate into social organization but at the same time was also a question of the relationship between text and social practice. We saw in chapter 7 that Chrysostom sought to construct a sense of community for his audience through his preaching and the Christian ritual of baptism and that it is possible to suggest that a ‘textual community’ could have grown up around his preaching. However, we also saw that there was little basis for such a textual community: it was impossible to associate one consistent audience with Chrysostom's preaching, and his audiences did not appear to have formed any permanent social organization based on their Christianity. Instead, a more ‘fuzzy’ model of Christianity in Antioch was suggested, in which individuals had varying degrees of commitment and could interact socially with non-Christians. In chapter 8 we saw that the notion that Libanius' writings give any real evidence of a 'pagan faction or ‘group’ should also be questioned. It was argued that loyalty to the emperor Julian and his religious policy should not be taken as the basis for a ‘pagan faction’ around Libanius, because Libanius had goals other than representing his relationship with Julian ‘as it really was’.