(10 votes, average: 4.90 out of 5)
Loading...I was very excited when I learned that Paula Fredriksen, one of top scholars of early Christianity of our generation, was producing an introduction to the development of Christianity over its first five-hundred years. I frequently get asked by reader where they can go for an competent and readable overview of the major issues, and, well, there simply has not been a single source to suggest. Her book came out a few months ago, and it has lived up to its billing. It’s called Ancient Christianities: The First Five Hundred Years, and you can get it most anywhere.
I’ve asked Paula to give us some sense of the book, and she has graciously provided three posts on it. Here is the first. As you’ll see, it is intriguing and not what many readers will expect!
******************************
People often speak of “the triumph of Christianity” as if “Christianity” were one single, uniform thing from the mission of Jesus on through to the conversion of Constantine – and, indeed, on into our own day. They see Jesus and Paul as its originators. They imagine both ancient Jews and Christians, in contrast to pagan contemporaries, as “monotheists.” They envisage a standing antagonism between “Judaism” and the Christian message – beginning with Jesus, continuing with Paul, and characterizing relations throughout Roman antiquity. They think that Christians were almost continuously “persecuted” by Rome until Constantine’s dramatic change of heart. They conceptualize “religion” as something other than and contrasting to politics.
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!
This a most interesting blog post and I’m grateful for the insight. It long supports the feelings I had about early day origins of Christianity. I have seen a few others reference that what we see today in no way represents the original church. I’m looking forward to reading more about this.
Thank you for this! I am immediately purchasing this book. Can’t wait to read it.
Would it be fair to describe many early Christian communities (e.g. Paul’s churches) as mystery cults?
I’m not sure what you mean by “mystery cults,” so I cannot answer your question. Something like the cult of Mithras or of Isis were certainly different in many respects from Paul’s ekklesiai, which were pneumatically-hypercharged charismatic assemblies, not well organized cultic organizations.
Yes, I was referring to mystery religions like the cults of Mithras and Isis. I’m working my way through Carrier’s “On the Historicity of Jesus,” and he makes a case that early Christianities were mystery cults, so I wanted to get your take on this claim.
He mentions, for example, that all mystery cults were syncretisms of Hellenism with the religion of another culture, that they all involved ritual initiation (e.g. baptism) into mysteries, promised salvation through a savior deity—who obtained salvation for the cult’s initiates through suffering (often called passion), and shifted focus from the well-being of the community to the salvation of the individual. Paul often refers to Christian doctrines as “mysteries” (e.g. 1 Cor 4:1), and speaks of secret doctrines that should only be presented to those who are “mature.”
Carrier concedes that one can point out things about Christianity that were not true of other mystery cults, but that the same could be said of the cult of Mithras or Isis. (For more, see Carrier pp. 96-124.)
NYT columnist Ross Douthat’s column (03/29/2025) tells readers that a recent New Yorker column titled ”
We’re Still Not Done With Jesus” misinforms readers because “Entirely absent is any meaningful treatment of the arguments for taking the Gospels seriously as what they claim to be: eyewitness accounts, or syntheses of eyewitness accounts, with a straightforward claim to basic historical credibility.” Bart, as someone who has spent many hours and days with your many books, blogs and podcasts, I feel that Douthat’s efforts to tell less informed readers that serious (academic experts) Biblical scholars such as you still believe that the gospels are actually eyewitness accounts, is really grossly misrepresenting the reality of overwhelming expert consensus that they are definitely NOT. I would love to see you write a letter to the editor to counter this. Or even a full article. NYT has a lot of readers that deserve to learn the truth about the opinions of top scholars.
I AGREE: Bart, write a letter to the NYT!
She seems to believe it was all Christianity metamorphosing thru the centuries… but that’s not true. Genuine Christianity ended in the early 2nd century. Christian’s were people who had been considered dead under the law of Moses and its curse and were restored to eternal life (a restored relationship with their god) via Christ’s new covenant (Rom 11:26-27, Heb 8:8). They (including the gentiles Paul was seeking) were descendants of the twelve tribes of Israel who were dispersed among the nations and were being gathered into Christ before the end of the age of the old covenant religious system and temple community. That’s what the New Testament is about.
Some were referred to as gentiles (Ethnos) because they had stopped being Torah observant and had stopped practicing circumcision. Paul was seeking this group of gentiles, not all gentiles everywhere.
After the need for the gospel ended in AD70, Greek so-called ‘church fathers’ hijacked bits and pieces of Israel’s redemptive narrative and adapted it to their Greek culture. Theirs was just one of many competing faux versions of what would later become an institutionalized, non-Israelite faux Christian cult that excluded Jews from its version of salvation.
You reiterate Jason Staples’ position on Paul’s mission/idea of Israel. It’s an intriguing idea, but not one I subscribe to. Gentiles are gentiles physei, “by nature” for Paul, and Jews are Jews physei, “by nature”: what he’s saying there is that the ethne whom he is going to are essentially different (Paul’s an ethnic essentialist) from Jews. He’s going to the nations, not to lost/lapsed Israelites, in my view.
Paul himself is within, not outside of, Greek culture.
Respectfully, that’s not accurate. I’m wholly against Staples view. Staples recent work concludes that non-Israelites would become the “all Israel” meant to be saved according to Paul’s doctrine. There are serious problems with that, the least of which is that nobody changes their DNA to become someone else.
The better explanation is the IO (Israel Only) view that Paul was seeking a group of Ethnos from within the greater population of Ethnos, unfaithful Israelites who had been dispersed among the nations, distinct from Jews because they were no longer under the law.
That was part of his mandate
Acts 26:6–7 “And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain…”
In Paul’s opinion, the twelve tribes were still in view. The “hope of Israel” (Acts 28:20) was still his concern even in Rome, long after his commission to go to the so-called “gentiles”.
Paul quoted from OT texts pertaining to the restoration of Israel in his letters because that’s what the mission was. In Paul’s mind, Gentiles who believed were those Israelites. At the end of the story, you only see Israelites sealed, saved and restored.
I apologize for misconstruing your remarks in re Staples’ reconstruction. I hesitate to lean on Acts very hard: as a text written several generations after Paul, the author cewtainkt wasn’t quoting him verbatim. (Making up speeches for various characters in ancient histories was perfectly kosher.) Finally, given that Paul consistently distinguishes gentiles-in-Christ from redeemed Israel (e.g., Rom 15: 9-12), it’s hard for me to see how he blends the in-Christ groups into IO.
I agree with your view on the reliability of Acts. However, IO isn’t concerned with matters of textual criticism. Your comment assumes that Paul’s gentiles are ethnically non-Israelite. But Paul often uses the term ethnē (nations) in a way that mirrors the Hebrew prophets, who spoke of scattered, covenant-breaking Israel as dwelling among the nations.
In Romans 9:24, Paul quotes Hosea 1:9-11, which is about the northern tribes of Israel and applies it to the people being called “gentiles”.
In Romans 11, Paul quotes from Genesis 48:19, which pertains to Ephraim, who was predicted to become a ‘fullness of nations’. Paul is essentially saying “When the scattered of Ephraim are restored, all Israel will be saved”.
In Romans 15, Paul quotes from Isaiah 11:10, which pertains to dispersed Israelites. Paul sees dispersed Israelites as being among the “Ethnos” (nations).
Paul was not distinguishing “Gentiles-in-Christ” from Israel proper. He’s referring to dispersed Israelites that OT scriptures predicted would be gathered and restored. Paul assumed that mission himself, though others were reaching out to the twelve tribes (Jesus, James 1:1, 1 Peter 1:1). At the end of the story, only Israelites are seen as being gathered before the throne (Rev 7).
IOguy, you have an interesting idea about what Paul’s mission really was, and your supporting citations are clever, but I’m afraid it doesn’t make any sense to me.
You completely ignore the fact that the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom (Israel) and the resulting exile and dispersion of the so-called “Ten Lost Tribes” occurred circa 720 BCE. That’s over *seven centuries* before Paul’s mission to the gentiles.
How much do you know about who your own ancestors were and what god they worshipped in 1325 CE, seven centuries in our past? It’s very unlikely that the scattered descendants of Israel’s defeated people would know more about their distant ancestors than you do about yours. Few, if any, would still be Jews, or even aware of that heritage.
There would be no way Paul could recognize them as the targets of the task you’ve imagined for him.
It may not make sense to you from an historical perspective, but this isn’t an historical perspective. It’s a covenantal perspective based on what the scriptures say, not what historians say. It’s irrelevant if the ten tribes existed or not. In the narrative, Jesus, James, Peter, John and Paul all believed they did. That’s what counts.
In Romans 9:24–26, Paul applies Hosea’s prophecy (originally about the northern kingdom’s restoration) to the “gentiles” of his day coming to faith.Why? Because he believed that his “gentiles” were the dispersed Israelites Hosea foresaw—estranged, paganized, and “not My people (Hosea 1:9-11).”
If these gentiles weren’t Israelites, Paul is proof-texting prophecy completely out of context. But if Paul believed they were dispersed Israelites, Paul is showing that God’s covenant promises were being fulfilled in real time. And that was his mandate.
Acts 26:6–7 “And now I am standing trial for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers; the promise to which our twelve tribes hope to attain…”
Non-Israelites weren’t in view. The gentiles Paul was seeking were a group of gentiles within the wider population of gentiles, descendants of the tribes of Israel whom he knew from the scriptures were dispersed among the nations.
Also, you said “ There would be no way Paul could recognize them as the targets of the task you’ve imagined for him”
According to the narrative, there was criteria by which it could be determined that a person was a descendant of the tribes of Israel.
1. According to Paul (Gal 3:29) if a person’s response to Paul’s message was faith, then it demonstrated that they were physical descendants of Abraham.
2. And that a person showed evidence of having the Holy Spirit, whether it be speaking in tongues, healing others of physical ailments or other alleged manifestations. For example, the Holy Spirit was predicted to be poured out onto Israelites per Joel 2:28.
The context of Joel 2:28 pertains to a judgement on Israelites. In Acts 2, Peter cites Joel 2:28 and says “this is that which was spoken by Joel”.
In short… Jesus’s ministry was to his people, Israel. It began with Jews, and expected “other sheep” (other Israelites) to come in later. Paul’s ministry began with Jews and later included non-Jewish descendants of the tribes of Israel whom he knew had been dispersed among the nations.
you are very incorrect: Genuine Christianity ended in the early 2nd century.
what was Christianity back then? From Revelation 2 & 3. I understand it as a believer that was part of the chosen 3 churches were there by luck of the leadership. Nothing was established.
CHRISTIANITY was not developed in or near Israel. It developed after the NT was collected
We have little idea what God honored this new faith or as it was known in the 2nd Century- a CULT.
https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/13-12.htm 12 Now we see but a dim reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Few Christians are acquainted with the concept of Christianities. I became acquainted partly because of BE, but also because of his friend Dale Martin. I find myself somewhat adrift. I am more James than Paul, as I feel the former is truer than the latter. Sure, I read N.T. Wright, and I love it when he tells an audience of American evangelicals that, no, grandma is not in heaven, grandma has to wait with the rest of us for the resurrection of the body at the end of time. But a strict interpretation of Paul (Wright) doesn’t make up for what seems an obvious drift away from the teachings of Jesus to where we are today. Alas, the American experiment in democracy as envisioned by our founders has drifted away too, partly because of evangelical Christians. Christianity is malleable, democracy is malleable. Christianities. Democracies.
I cannot bear to talk about drifting democracies just now. NT Wright’s interpretations are not “strict”; they are Evangelical of a certain slant.
Such great information density in your post, Dr. Frederiksen!
“Indeed, there are many gods and many lords” he tells his Corinthian audience (1 Cor 8:5: “lords” is another word for “gods”). These gods are daimonia, lesser gods compared with the god of Israel.”
Paul worships Yahweh/Adonai (and 2 Cor 4:4, ‘god of this world’ is giving gnosticism) but I don’t think Jesus’s greater god is Yahweh/Adonai. I think Jesus marks a return to the Creator god of water absolution whose stories are mirrored in Genesis. That is Ea/Hayya, an epithet meaning The Living [God].
ANE custom has the patrilineal god as the greater god while retaining the matrilineal god. When instructing the Jewish public on Judaism, Jesus always says “your God” and, “What did Moses tell *you* to do?” Not “our God” and “What did Moses tell *us* to do?” Only in private with disciples does Jesus say, “our God.”
In the Harawn Gawaitha, the Mandaean authors state that they worshipped Adonai *until* Jesus. Why is he the break?
Obviously at some point they famously repudiate Jesus, but there’s plenty of times in the ANE where a King of Kings gets repudiated — it’s simply because they or their dynasty loses territory.
And it continues today! Imagine my surprise when I heard that Catholics are not Christian (according to Baptists)!
Hello. Kind of a 3-Part question for Bart on the historicity of the Judas betrayal narrative. Sorry just have a lot to ask since it’s an interesting question.
1. You’ve brought up Matthew 19:28 as something Jesus certainly would have said since it says Judas would have a throne when the Son of Man comes, however i wish to raise a counterargument, is it possible that this verse is simply an instance of editorial fatigue with Matthew writing a verse to make the disciples look better in contrast to Mark without realizing the contradiction with Mark’s Judas betrayal narrative.
2. Do you think the Judas betrayal story historicity is undermined by Mark’s harsh treatment of the disciples in his story. The argument is that because it fits Mark’s rhetorical emphasis and the story originates with him (assuming John got this from Mark) that we should be doubtful of this tradition.
3. Does 1 Clement and Paul not mentioning Judas hurt the historicity argument in your view. 1 Clement is filled with example of inter-community treachery yet never mentions Judas. 1 Clement and Paul is the real crux of why i think Judas is a Markan myth. Thanks for all your time. Cheers!
I assume that you meant to post these questions to Bart, not to me.
“Editorial fatigue” can be mobilized whenever and wherever we hit a speed-bump in the ancient texts that we read; thus, I would hesitate to invoke it. I think that Matthew rehabilitates the disciples because, with the shift from second generation (Mk) to (at least) third generation (Mt), the disciples have transitioned from failures to founders. I am agnostic about the Judas stories. You’re right: had Paul mentioned it, the story would be on firmer historical footing.
I’ve just finished reading Pamela Eisenbaum’s book, Paul Was Not A Christian, which I highly recommend to everyone. I’m sure that Ms. Fredriksen would agree that Eisenbaum, among other scholars, is seminal in helping us exorcise the idea that Paul abandoned his Jewish faith. The big question that both these scholars present to me is whether Paul believed that Jesus was God. My understanding is that Jesus as God came much later in Christianity with the development of the Trinity; but for Paul, while the faithfulness of Jesus enabled Gentiles, the nations, to be saved from the coming eschaton, he believed that Jesus was subordinate to God.
I think you got this right. Jesus is clearly a divine figure for Paul (he pre-exists in god-form, Phil 2:6; he has a body of pneuma/”spirit” a “glorious body”, and he is immortal. But Paul never says that Jesus is a god. The Trinitarian formulations that you mention — identifying Jesus as divine as God the Father — took centuries to evolve, and as all the argument at Nicaea evinces, theologians held a variety of ideas on the topic. In Jewish parlance, “messiah” is subordinate to God, and in Mediterranean culture generally, sons are subordinate to fathers.
Maybe Jesus was divinized first and then exalted to the term God after Paul’s letters?
The authorship of Revelation and the Gospel of John is generally thought to come after Paul.
THEOS is not just a term for an unmanifested deity but also for a king-of-kings-of-kings, a king over vassal kings over tribal cheifs (who are also called kings). One example is the Ptolemy II Philadelphus THEOS that commissioned the Septuagint.
The theocratic Ancient Near East has actual qualifications for all the NT terms
• Son of God (vassal)
• Great King/King of a Great Nation (Landed King of Kings, Alexander the Great, Herod the Great (he also had Idumaea)
• King of the Four Corners (vassal cities in four cardinal directions)
• God (King of King of Kings)
The living deification of rulers of Retenu (Syrio-Canaan) begins way back with the Amorites of the 14th dynasty, but we have examples like Akhenaten addressed as God with no proper name.
Jesus was already reported to have become an theocratic Great King by some Early Church historian interviews. There’s only one place where that could happen – the Hawran/Haran.
Excellent post! Thanks, Paula (and Bart).
Paul thought Jesus had founded a new religion
Gal 1.13 “For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it.”
I am not certain why you think that Galatians 1:13 means that Paul thought that Jesus was establishing a new religion. “Judaism” in this sentence means “ancestral customs”, as Paul goes on to say as he continues this sentence. Ancestral custom means a lot more than relations with god(s). With divine/human relations, ancestral custom functions sort of as what we mean by “religion,” but it also entails a lot more (calendars, customs, etc.). I would almost be tempted to translate Ioudaismos as “Jewish life-style.”
Ioudaismos certainly includes the concept of “Jewish life-style” but Paul claims that his leaving of Ioudaismos was occasioned by God revealing his Son to him. So it includes divine/human relations as well.
And not only did Paul claim to have persecuted the church of God while he was previously outside it in Ioudaismos but he also claims that Cephas and James were members of this church before he was.
“The man who formerly persecuted us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” ie Paul attempted to destroy a faith he wasn’t part of and later converted to.
Which is why its appropriate to consider that Paul claims to have converted to a new religion founded by Jesus.
“The faith” as meaning a particular religion (“the Jewish faith,” “the Muslim faith”) is not how I would read pistis in the ancient context. Nor would I translate “ekklesia” as “church”: in Paul’s lifetime, the word simply means assembly. Mid-first century, this group represents a new sect within Second Temple Judaism: they are still using Jewish scriptures to articulate their message, they are promoting the god of Israel through a David messiah, they still value the temple, the sacrificial cult, the law and the prophets (that’s PAUL, Rom 9:4-5), they still think of themselves as “Israel.” Something that is recognizably not Judaism really begins to appear in the early second century. This movement — these movements — take a while to develop and evolve.
The way I’ve always read the quoted verses like 1 Cor 8:5 is that (1) Paul acknowledges the existence of “gods” as simply demons presenting themselves as gods to pagans, which are not really gods in the proper view of things. 1 Cor 10:20 for example. The verses mentioned here all seem to line up with that idea of Paul’s view of things in my opinion. Is there any reason why we should take the view that Paul actually meant that the “gods” were gods, I.e.; monolatry or some kind of pluralism? Are we victims of willful mistranslation when we see phrases like “so-called”?
Daimonia ARE gods. They are just smaller gods. Gods are ranked in antiquity, for those who wanted to systematize them. Gods are powerful, immortal, invested in how humans treat them, capable of being influenced, usually invisible, communicating through various media (wind, weather, animal viscera, dreams, direct epiphany, and so on). And kyrioi, “lords,” is another term for “gods.” The Greek means “beings called gods”, and goes on to the indicative verb, “even as there ARE gods and many lords.” By referring to these gods later as “daimonia,” Paul is a) referring to the LXX Ps 95.5, and b) saying that these other gods are lesser than his god. But they are still gods.
I believe Jesus is introducing a non-Yahweh religion too. Can you please give correction on any of these points, Dr. Fredriksen?
“They are promoting the god of Israel…”
• Jesus was baptised into John the Baptist’s sect. John the Baptist worshipped Hayyi – and explicitly not Yahweh/Adonai – in the Mandaean Nasoraean texts committed to writing in the 2nd-3rd C CE.
• Scholars connect Hayyi to Hayya, the Living [God], the West Semetic-name for the water purification/creator god Ea.
“they are still using Jewish scriptures”
• Jesus commands with Jewish scriptures to his Jewish followers, but Jesus doesn’t invoke Tanakh authority with the Roman Centurion (who is likely ethnically Syrian). Worship of Theandrios, God-man, seems to begins at the same time, and it’s not Jewish.
• Gnostic texts reject the Jewish god, some with the pejorative Yaldabaoth.
“through a David messiah”
As promised through matrilineage in Isaiah. (Imo, water absolutionists wanted Gihon spring/pool of Siloam).
If we’re taking a science-based view about what biologically being ‘born to a Lord’ might mean, then Jesus’ patrilineage outranks Davidic tribalism.
“they still value the temple”
• James’ followers riot against Jerusalem temple
• DSS are against the Jerusalem temple
“the sacrificial cult”
• DSS are against sacrificial cult
• Gospel folks don’t sacrifice sheep/cow
Dr. Fredriksen, would it not be more accurate to say that there was no single “Christianity” *after* Jesus? Meaning that during Jesus’ own lifetime, there would have been one single movement centered around his teachings. Sure it might have changed somewhat as it spread like any message does, but for the most part, while he was alive and preaching, the movement was centered around whatever he taught. It is only after his death, that the movement seems to fracture due to his followers having to reinterpret his life, mission, and message. Every movement naturally tends to change and splinter when the founder dies (Judaism, Islam, US Constitutional law, etc.), but in this case the founder’s death made his messianic claims appear to be false, so of course it had to be reinterpreted. And then throw in fact that some of his followers start having visionary experiences of him being alive which leads them to diverge even more in their interpretations of his message, claims, and the significance of his death. In a nutshell, his followers disagreed about him *after* his death which led to many “Christianities”.
PS: “Paul: The Pagan’s Apostle” is my favorite book on Paul.