Loading...If only one form of early Christianity won the contest for domination, what were the results — what the gains and losses from that “triumph”? And what would have happened to world history if things had gone in another direction? This is my third and final post on my book Lost Christianities, taken from its Introduction (Oxford Press, 2003).
*******************************
The Stakes of the Conflict
Before launching into the investigation, I should perhaps say a word about what is, or at least what was, at stake. Throughout the course of our study I will be asking the question: what if it had been otherwise? What if some other form of Christianity had become dominant, instead of the one that did?[1]
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I once read an alternative history that suggested, had Alexander the Great failed to conquer the Persian Empire, it could have expanded into Europe and Zoroastrianism might have become the World’s dominant religion.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas…. (Don Meredith!)
All this talk about what if this or that happened reminds me of a favorite author of mine: Harry Turtledove. He has written a number of books based n alternative history. What if the South had won the Civil War? What if Truman had agreed with General MacArthur and bombed Chinese bases involved in the Korean war with nuclear weapons? What if the Spanish Armada had succeeded in invading and occupying Great Britain in 1588?
While not related to this blog, i recommend his reading as an escapist alternative to tough political issues, pressing economic matters and the serious and intense discussions on the Bart Ehrman blog.
Maybe Turtledove will write an alternate history where some of these matters such as alternative Christianities and/or the idea that Christianity itself never developed any longevity. I should write him and suggest it.
We need some relaxation from all of this !
Hah. It places us squarely in the realm of the unanswerable, but I love speculation about alternate possible outcomes, partly because it forces us to take into account all of the deeply interwoven causal strands available to us…surprised that I haven’t had history teachers assign essay questions like “if x hadn’t happened, how would the world differ from how it currently is” Or if x hadn’t existed, would y take its place?
It’s like that old question (It may have been Voltaire IIRC asking about Christ even): if so and so never existed, man would have to invent him”. However, if he had been invented entirely, as you and other NT scholars have convinced me, they probably wouldn’t have: had him be from Nazareth; die on a cross; be baptized by someone they to somehow show was the lesser of the two (in contradiction to Jesus’ own words!); invent a brother famous in Jerusalem/any other person or place in his life readers could easily fact-check, etc.
Yet, it makes these things in Jesus’ life almost seem incidental (except culture/era)- as though history was primed for someone – anyone- to play the role of Christ.
If Alexander hadn’t conquered the Persian Empire, I wonder if Judaism could have given rise to another sect that appeals to gentiles and would have spread east through that empire instead of west through Roman lands.
Only one issue though. Zoroastrians don’t accept converts!
My favorite “What if?” Is what would have happened if the Jesus movement had remained a Jewish sect or if Christianity had died aborning? Would some other totalizing system have dominated the West? Or, failing that, how would unobstructed paganism have mutated over the centuries?
Would that we knew.
Certainly worth pondering. A related question might more easily lend itself to answers: why did (“orthodox”) Christianity win? Here perhaps more may be said – with, of course, developmental uncertainties. My best guess is that the dominant branch, much influenced by Paul, preached (sometimes perhaps w/o direct precedent) a set of doctrines/practices tailor-made for the new (esp. post-Alexandrian) realities – ideas that grappled with really fundamental social issues that were in essential need of new thinking. These would include, I’d suggest: a rejection of kinship (hence tribe), sacred land and temple, a re-definition of God’s chosen people to match, a reconceptualization of tribal kingship as universal kingship (and how to get there), a story explaining the soteriological role of messiahship shaped to such a context, and a newly minted vision of the eschaton. Down in the weeds a bit, such doctrines as those of the Incarnation, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and the Eucharist were not only formulated in support, but formulated in such a way as to admit of detailed and flexible theoretical conceptualization. Well, that’s a mouth-full. It also took a lot of heavy intellectual lifting.
I think that modern Hinduism gives us a few clues
A question that has been troubling me for a little while is why would two authors, having a gospel in hand (Mark), copying most of it, want to make up another one. I understand their circumstances were different and they were answering to these. Were they writing up what they thought Jesus should have said in order to address these new situations, not caring that he actually did not?
Can they be considered forgeries, although soft ones, just tweaking the narrative enough to suit their views?
If so, why would the oldest gospel not also be a tweaked narrative, having some shreds of historical facts, maybe, but mainly being an account designed to sell some viewpoint? Another “soft” forgery?
I seem to remember there is a composition of what is considered to be the most probable historical data that can be extracted from the New Testament. Where can we get that?
There are numerous studies that try to establish what is historical in the Gospels and what not. My account is in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. Matthew and Luke used several sources, not just Mark, and are using them to retell the story of Jesus in order to lay out their understanding of his significance, emphasizing aspects not emphasized as much in Mark. Just as people do today when they take an account of something that happened and expand or shorten or alter it in order to what they’re interested in saying about it.
Do these other sources that Matthew and Luke used, explain the difference in interpretation of who and what Jesus was? My understanding is that they do not.
So I gather your explanation goes like this: As time passed followers gradually modified their understanding of Jesus, previous ones having some failings revealing themselves as expectations were not met, thus giving rise to new narratives wording things slightly differently to account for this “better” understanding. The authors were not willfully distorting the previous writings, but simply updating them in accord with what they thought should have been written in the first place.
In my opinion, some of them were surely well intentioned, but knowing human nature, I bet some of those authors lied and forged without a qualm. Are there not added passages to the numerous versions we have that show ill intent, an attempt to mislead purposefully?
Yes, sure, any alternative information included by a Gospel fronm a different source necessarily changes their story of Jesus in one way or another. And no, I don’t know of any evidence of ill-intent. I’m not opposed to it in principle, but I don’t see any indication of it.
Reading about this first century Mark papyrus hoax seems to support the idea that some Christians, now and thus probably then, are willing to forge documents with ill intent!
But I also read your explanation that for Christians what you actually believe has a bearing on your standing with God. This brings in a new perspective I did not consider before. Interesting. Is it the same with the Jewish religion? You do say it was new in the Greco-Roman world. But with the Jews?
Most Jews in antiquity did not think of “salvation” as involving life after death; it was something God provided for his faithful here and now, and almost never based on what someone believed but on how they lived.
No, they don’t. they may have helped them reinforce their views, but there’s more to their changes of perspective than the use of different sources.
I think Paul may have been the key. Without his fervor and widespread ministry Christianity in whatever form might have remained a much more localized phenomenon or perhaps even faded away altogether. If he had bought into a different form of Christianity and promoted that one in the same fashion maybe that form would have taken hold. Without Paul though, who knows. Things would almost certainly be different.
On a completely different topic: I’m working my way through old (old!) blog posts, and came across Bart’s reading a paper at the Life of Brian and the Historical Jesus conference.
I’ve tried to watch The Life of Brian but can’t understand the accent at all. I turned on Closed Captioning, but the A.I. doesn’t understand the accent either.
Does anyone know of a transcript of Monty Python’s Life of Brian?
Thanks to all.
(Google it): http://montypython.50webs.com/Life_of_Brian.htm
Here’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!
Whatever “Christianity” had won out – in other words, regardless the Christology – don’t you think history would have developed similarly? I don’t think any of the beliefs would have mattered had there not been men in Rome with organizational skills, charisma, and connection to the Roman elite. I don’t think the specifics of what they believed mattered as much as the organization that developed and the power garnered by those in charge. Constantine would have picked whatever religion offered him the best structure for control of the empire. PS: Some of the beliefs (even Arianism) might have been easier to swallow than the illogical concept of three in one and one in three. Christianity might have spread even faster and held on longer to some areas (i.e. those that turned to Islam) with a Christology easier to talk about.
Dr. Ehrman,
Do scholars have an estimate of the number of potential Christianities that were still in play when Constantine made “Christianity” the state religion?
Did he have to choose among more than one, or did the war of attrition among the various Christianities give him only one choice?
Not really. I suppose it depends on how one counts.
Dr. Ehrman, forgive me. I don’t know how to interpret “…it depends on how one counts.”
Is Jewish Christianity *one* alternative form of Christianity or four, five, or more? Is Gnosticism one thing or half a dozen things or twenty things or thirty-six things or….? Depends how you count.
Dr Ehrman- Re: ‘Is Jewish Christianity *one* alternative form of Christianity or four, five, or more?’ In the modern iteration of “Jewish-Christianity” (Talmidaism), we already have a couple of sects (Ebionites and Massorites), and we feel that it is important that we get along. We’ve made an agreement that we should never hate on each other, but love one another as Jesus taught. Furthermore, our broader ethos is that we should foster peaceful co-existence with all religions, in our efforts to spread the peace of God’s Kingdom. Religion today has become so much about what people hate, and it doesn’t have to be that way. The nature of human beings is that there will always be differences, and we can’t stop differences of opinion from happening – diversity and difference is the strength of the human species. Bottom line is that we are not trying to ‘win out’, we are trying to lower the ideological temperature so to speak, so that everyone wins
If some other form of Christianity had won, Christmas Carols would be different.
And who knows what Santa would be like…
Thanks Prof. Ehrman. I’ve really enjoyed this series of posts and will be picking up Lost Christianities.
Had the Yaldabaoth (sp?) creation myth prevailed, do you think it may have been a more acceptable explanation of suffering in the world than the most commonly accepted Judeo-Christian myth?
Best,
Bill
I would say it’s internally coherent at least.
Do you see the new kingdom being described in Rev 22:1-9 as being the same as Rev 21:10- 22:5? Or John describing two different places?
You’ll need to summarize the views of these verses that you suspect may be divergent for others to know what we’re referring to.
Well I see them so far, as being detailed as two different places entirely ,a study of the topic and original language as far as I can tell doesn’t rule this out. Surprisingly I haven’t come across any work that explores this view. I know people pick-up on things differently as they read or mis-read. I just wanted your opinion off the top of your head, a simple, yes it’s possible or no it’s impossible or the usual we don’t know a, maybe yes, maybe no, would be a big help. Thank You for your time Bart.
Hello!
What is the right interpretation of figures in the Bible (we see it in OT, but also of Paul) that thought of themselves as called by God before they came out of their mothers womb?
What do you think about people using this as an argument against abortion?
Isaiah 49:1 NRSV
[1] Listen to me, O coastlands, pay attention, you peoples from far away! The Lord called me before I was born, while I was in my mother’s womb he named me.
I deal wiht this at length in my course When Does Life Begin, if you want a full answer. Short story: if you actually look closely at what the verses say, they don’t say what people usually say they say. E.g., they say that God knew the person BEFORE he was in his mother’s womb (jer. 1:5). If taken literally, that doesn’t mean the person existed starting with conception but says that he existed BEFORE conception. But few peole think we pre-existed conception. So it’s metaphorical. And Isa. 49: keep reading. It’s not an individual that is being referred to as speaking but the entire nation of Israel
Hi bart
In 1 corintians 15:5 paul clearly says that jesus apeared to the 12 diciples of jesus, but historicly he problebly apeared to peter and mayby james. So does this mean he has not speak with peter apout the other apostles and gets this information from some other source?
We don’t know. But I think when he says the twelve he must mean the twelve (or th e11).
Hi bart
in 1 corinthians 15:5 paul is speaking apout apearenses to the apostles but is it possible that he is writting that jesus apeared not to the 12 but to random teahers called the apostles?
Seems unlikely. He never calls random teachers that.
My community, the Talmidi Jewish community (to which modern Ebionites belong), are made up of 3 groups: Talmidi Israelites (full converts & born Jews); Godfearers (Gentiles who do their best to follow Torah, but are not circumcised); and Talmidi Noahides (Gentiles who don’t practise the rituals or customs of Torah, but follow the ethics of the Israelite faith and of Jesus – they practise their ethics-based faith within the culture of their birth; that’s our answer to the question of, ‘Do you have to convert to Judaism to follow Jesus? No). If we had won out, more native cultures would remain, and there would be no need to convert to Islam (since we accept Yeshua as a fully human prophet); consequently, fundamentalist Islam would not be as strong as it is today. The focus of religion would be more ethics-based and rational, since we are not a fundamentalist religion – the Jewish ideals of social justice, ethical government, and kindness to the poor are of central importance to us, so I also think that the world would be less right-wing, less extremist. We don’t agree with Paul’s theology, so spirituality would be a lot easier to stomach
No other form of Christianity needed to WIN. Reasonably many forms of christianity could co-exist. People could determine which they prefer or choose to not accept any form.
The problem I suppose is that each of the forms of Christianity claimed it was right and the others wrong, which made co-existence difficult since all of them were also out to win converts.
Bart,
Sixty-plus years of research at UVA Medical School Division of Perceptual Studies shows rather convincingly that reincarnation really does happen. The fact that large religions (Hindu among them), with many more than a billion followers in aggregate that have this belief, should not be ignored. So, God did know some of our true spiritual selves before we were conceived by our current parents. Research shows that some of us had another name and another body in another lifetime, remembered events from that life between ages 2 and 6, and then forgot those memories as our brains were flooded by new information. Christianity — nor any other religion — is the source of all knowledge and wisdom. Everyday each us learns new things. Consider the evidence before you reject reincarnation — Read some of what Jim B. Tucker, M.D. has written. Your spiritual self “drives” your body, just as you body drives your car to take your spiritual self wants to go. When your body dies, your spiritual body continues to exist. This is what Christianity and other religions teach. Maybe God reincarnates rather than punishes those who fail to help others.
Bill Steigelmann
As far as reincarnation is concerned: while many religions include such belief structures in their doctrine, any real scientific research to try to prove such doctrine has been inconclusive and/or totally invalid. Studies in the 1970’s at Duke University and I believe also NC Chapel Hill wherein people were taken through so-called past life regression and/or were quizzed with scientific exactness about such experience were inconsistent at best and for the most part fraudulent.
In addition many celebrities such as Shirley Maclaine and Willie Nelson who claim such experiences always imagine themselves as important entities: kings, princesses, ladies in waiting ETC. A real study of the exact doctrines of such religions shows that this importance level would be rare. People who do bad things will come back as a lower life form: birds, insects, rodents ETC.
So here is my immediate past life. I was a slug/snail. I lived in a backyard in St. Louis for two days: 10/06/53-10/08/53. I was doing well until it rained. I came up from just below ground surface for a drink and a dog ate me.
Just for fun, look up Generic Subjective Continuity and/or Tom Clark Naturalism. ” ‘I’ was a slug/snail …” fits perfectly within that (unproveable) hypothesis!
I used to believe in reincarnation years ago. Now I’m more open to traditional Orthodox Jewish views on the afterlife. I’m not Jewish by the way.
Maybe the other way around?
Had this version of Christianity not been commandeered by or adopted by or leveraged by the Roman Empire, it might not have established itself as the official version of Christianity and the dominant religion of the European Middle Ages… and so on.