A similar process took place in the Americas. Amerindians during colonization mixed their own traditions with Christianity, Creating essentially folk Christianity. Same thing happened in Ireland. Like worship of the Virgin Mary became super important in the Spanish colonies, somewhat eclipsing Jesus, and once it became something the natives claimed for themselves, the missionaries could hardly target the worship of their own religion effectively. Not that they didn't try

I wish more people where familiar with the story of Juan Diego. The whole interplay between native religion, christianity, and the emergent local traditions and identity are not clear cut. Nice little blog post about it

I recently went to visit the Basilica of Guadalupe in Mexico City with my host family. As we walked around the massive campus of the basilica, my host mother explained to me the background of this immensely important religious site. In 1531, in the midst of the Spanish colonization of Mexico, there was an indigenous man named Juan Diego who claimed that the Virgin Mary had appeared to him in the mountains on the outskirts of Mexico City and instructed him to build a church there. He went to tell the local Catholic bishop, but the bishop told him that he must bring proof. According to the story, Juan Diego returned to the place of the initial sighting, and the virgin appeared to him again. Following her instructions, Juan Diego collected some roses from the garden, wrapped them in his tilma (a type of indigenous cloth), and took them to the bishop. When he unfolded the cloth, the roses transformed into an idol of the Virgin Mary. The religious community heralded the event as a miracle and built a basilica near the place where the sighting took place. Since then, a new basilica and a number of other churches and shrines have been constructed, creating an entire campus of religious attractions. Every year, millions of people visit the basilica from all over the world. While there, I saw elderly women coming from miles away on their hands and knees, a sort of pilgrimage of suffering to honor the Virgin Mary.

The story of the Virgin of Guadalupe is more complicated than it might seem. After my host mother explained everything to me, her two adult children pulled me aside to clarify a few things. They told me that, according to many historians, the Spanish crown fabricated the story of the Virgin of Guadalupe in order to help convert indigenous peoples to Catholicism. The hill of Tepeyac, where Juan Diego supposedly saw the Virgin Mary, was originally a pilgrimage site for honoring one of the indigenous gods, Tonantzin. Many believe that the story was a way to draw the indigenous away from their old gods and encourage the Christian faith. If this is true, then the Spanish executed the plan masterfully. The Virgin of Guadalupe was and always has been known in Mexico as “La Morenita.” Morenita, which literally means “little brown girl,” is a term of affection that connotes the virgin’s racial identity as a mestiza, a mix between Spanish and indigenous heritage. Thus, the Virgin of Guadalupe is the ultimate symbol of religious syncretism and mestizaje in Mexico. The virgin symbolizes the successful, and of course forced, integration of Spanish Catholicism and local indigenous religions. In addition, she is the champion of la mestizaje, the mixing of races that resulted from the Spanish colonization.

On one hand, the Virgin of Guadalupe has been a positive symbol for Mexico. She was an icon of the movement of independence from Spain. In 1810, Miguel Hidalgo and his army chanted “Death to the Spaniards and Long Live the Virgin” as they marched into battle. In more recent history, the virgin has become a symbol of unity for the Mexican people. She is Mexico: Catholic, mestizo, faithful, rooted in tradition.

But the Virgin of Guadalupe, and what she stands for, is also a lie. The myth seeks to champion Catholicism, while hiding the legacy of violence on which the process of conversion was built. And the unifying mestiza identity that she represents obscures the existence of other marginalized racial groups in Mexico. If you ask a Mexican about race, most will tell you that it’s not a problem because everyone is mestizo. But pure-blooded indigenous groups continue to live in the south of the country and continue to suffer from racial discrimination. They represent a reminder of the violent Spanish colonization that the Mexican government seeks to forget.

The Virgin of Guadalupe is a Mexican celebrity. She comforts people in times of need, and she gives a sense of pride to the Mexican people. For that reason, I would never challenge her existence or her symbolism to someone like my host mother, who I respect and care for. But I think it’s important to acknowledge the ways the Virgin of Guadalupe is harmful for the country. She represents a religious and racial identity that has been forced upon the Mexican people, and she is an example of how the Spanish colonization continues to plague Mexico even today.

I think Christianity was somewhat different to alot of the other religions which the Romans easily assimilated out of realpolitik and by the classic interpretatio graeca. Like Judaism, adherence to Christianity precludes (in theory) adherence to any other source of divinity than the one true God, and the more metaphysical, moral and emotionally intense (in some respects) relationship that Jews and Christians imagined themselves as having to God were very distinct from the more formally legalistic and communal relationship that normal Romans understood as the relation to their gods, especially earlier on, in the Republic and early Empire, prior to the deepening of Greek, Egyptian and Semitic mystical influences on Roman religion. As institutions in Rome were understood to be, by their very nature, sacred (instituted by the constant will of the many gods and by Aeneas - son of Venus - and Romulus - son of Mars - to not recognize, for instance, the divinity of Roman gods of the Emperor, or of the sacred institutions was understood as a political challenge to the Empire. When you read Roman Latin texts about the Jewish rebellions it often sounds very similar to the way that modern imperialists speak about liberation or 'terrorist' movements.

Once Christianity started becoming popular, it was not perceived by the more traditionalist Romans as equivalent to the assimilation of other Gods, because it could not be assimilated to their religious ideology. It was often very scandalous when not only slaves, but aristocratic women would be found to have secretly converted to Christianity. Of course we're talking about a long period of time, i.e. from the death of Christ to 313 AD, before Christiantiy achieved something like a priviledged or dominant position in the Empire, so we shoudln't generalize about this whole length of time as if the relationship of different changing sections of the Roman social body were not themselves understanding relationships to eachother and to religions, themselves changing (notably when Christianity became less Jewish and more gentile). You are of course correct that culturally Christians translated many figures and symbols into analogous Christian ones, most obviously certain festivals and the saints, as has always happened when Christianity was been introduced or imposed on non-Christian groups such as in Africa or the Americas.

This is why the Jews and Christians had a uniquely controveral status within the Roman Empire. The Zealot revolt was the most spectacular example of this against Rome, and in many was a genuinely revolutionary movement. The Essenes and Christians who followed represent a less violent revolutionary opposition to Imperial Roman power, but were still very controversial, hence the repeated (albeit often exagerated) purges of Christians. It's not to difficult to understand why Jesus would be controversial if he was saying anything like what he's presented as saying in the New Testament.

I had forgotten the Odin example but that's really fascinating. I think similar syncretic cases have been found in Scandinavia. From what I understand, it seems that the Scandanavian aristocracy were, similarly to Rome, the immediate force behind the conversion to Christianity, in that it seems that there was something like a domino-effect in which the aristocracy came to see it was in their interest to convert to Christianity, which further increased the incentives for the remaining pagans aristocrats, the reasons likely meaning economic, military and political. Given lack of sources and data it's impossible to say to what extent this was also due to a pressure from the lower classes due to conversion of farmers, artisans, builders and slaves to Christianity, whereas in the Roman case we know that it seemed initially to have been most popular amongst the lower classes and the subaltern.