[philosophty]

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%5Bpre+-+Chris...

Clearly modern scholars disagree with you, and it's not a matter of pearl clutching.

It just doesn't make sense to, for example, define an ancient Roman library as "pagan" (or even "pre-Christian") as if that is its defining characteristic. Unless you happen to be a medieval Christian monk of course, and then it makes complete sense.

[inglor_cz]

Pre-Christian would make a lot of sense for me, precisely because in the Christian era, many of the pagan (!) authors and their works would be considered "problematic", if not outright purge-able.

The content of Roman libraries is likely to depend on their pre-Christian vs. Christian characters.

[colechristensen]

It shouldn't.

Christianity wasnt the official state religion of Rome until 380 CE at which point it only had legal status for 67 years. Christianity wasn't done covering europe until iceland in 1000 CE.

What might count as prechristian wasn't at all clear and depended on where you were and how official you want things to be, it also was absolutely not like flipping a switch or even gradual, it was rocky and complicated.