Loading...One modern explanation for why Christianity overcame all the pagan religions of the Roman world is that it provided better health care than anyone else, leading to its greater survival rate. I have to admit, when I first read about this, I thought “Whoa! Never heard THAT one before!”
It’s an intriguing thesis and, I think, almost certainly wrong. But intriguing nonetheless! Here’s what I say about it in Triumph of Christianity (Simon & Schuster, 2018), briefly edited for our purposes here.
******************************
One benefit of joining the church recently touted as particularly important for Christian growth was the availability of better health care. This was one of the many controversial proposals set forth by sociologist of modern religion Rodney Stark, in his popular discussion, The Rise of Christianity,[1]
Stark applies his sociological training to the question and makes some intriguing suggestions. He points out that
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 wonder whether this critiques a simplified Stark rather than a steelmanned Stark: Christians nursed better → survived more → Christianity grew. That version does need caution.
Stark’s chapter4 argument is more layered. Epidemics disrupted social networks; Christian care made the community visible, credible, and practically bonding; and even costly nursing could still affect survival patterns and social attachment at the network level.
The key point is probabilistic, not absolute. Even if many Christians died from nursing, a cared-for group may still show a relatively better survival rate than an abandoned one. Christian deaths and Christian demographic resilience are not mutually exclusive. The passage shows Christians died. It does not settle comparative mortality rates.
Nor does “no indication from outsiders” settle the attraction question. Ancient sources rarely give us clean access to personal conversion motives. Outsiders need not have been attracted by their own improved survival odds. Someone watching Christians risk death for the sick might simply think: something is happening that I have not seen before.
The question is not whether health care alone explains Christian growth. It is whether visible, costly care during epidemics may have contributed to the credibility and attractiveness of the Christian community.
Respectfully,
Tjalling
It’s a good question; I’d say the only way to know is to look for evidence that it did. So far as I know there isn’t any.
Dr. Ehrman,
The ethical teachings of Jesus focus on inward purity, radical compassion, and selfless devotion.
Jesus warned about the spiritual dangers of greed and wealth. He advised prioritizing spiritual treasures over material goods and challenged followers to be generous with the needy
Today, Jesus’s community is facing a crisis that has been compared to the Reformation: he is considering excommunicating 16 cardinals for major financial crimes. It’s the most aggressive disciplinary action a pope has taken in centuries.
Is the biblical Jesus with or not with the Pope on this.
Jesus is known more for his ethical teachings and repent before the apocalypse
than laws.
Jesus let Judas do what he wanted to do about his financial crime of collecting silver for betrayal.
Question 1: Did the biblical Jesus care about financial crimes and political crimes?
The world, not just the Vatican, is facing starvation from the lack of fertilization because people want a greater Israel which involves attacking Iran.
Question 2: Would the biblical Jesus want a greater Israel if it meant more than a thousand people would not have certain foods that could not be grown because of a lack of fertilizer?
For both questions, Jesus focused on the individual’s relatoin to money, not systemic and governmental issues.
Thank you for your comment. Since Dr. Stark’s book has never been translated into Japanese, I remember struggling through it years ago with the constant help of a dictionary. At the time, because it was such a famous work by a well-known scholar, I completely accepted the reasoning presented there as correct without questioning it very much.
What especially appealed to me was the “sociological approach.” It sounded intellectually persuasive to me, and I now feel that this may have biased my own understanding.
As you mentioned here, I do think religious organizations sometimes provide economic support for medical care and other social needs. However, it seems difficult to argue that this alone had a significant direct effect on increasing membership numbers.
Dr. Ehrman,
The Lepanto Institute published an article about the Peter’s Pence collection. The problem I mentioned in the earlier post in this thread still stands. The Lepanto institute concluded: Until this is shown to be otherwise, we are marking Peter’s Pence as “Not Safe” for Catholic donations.
https://www.lepantoin.org/wp/peters-pence/
Respectfully,
Steve Campbell, author of Historical Accuracy
Robert closed the Forum thread on this topic. 50,000+ are subscribed on YouTube. The Lepanto Institute’s standing conclusion is credible.
This is a hard issue to report on, we don’t know much about how the common or poor lived or were treated. I would guess that once in a while, one would suceed in life and be able to record their life, unfortunately this is the type of recording to be tossed when needing space for a recording on someone who “mattered.” My guess is that the common or poor children, the first few were to follow the parents, the latter children were on thier own, major options, join the kings army or the local pirates. The church with forming small groups, sharing beliefs, talents and resources became a third resource. People tend to have a herding instinct much like the buffalo and horses, we like to be with others, there is safety in numbers and some like to lead, others like to follow , and some that go back and forth. Today is probably the same, but with more groups and some groups teaming up for a common cause. Some causes benefiting the group and some that benefit all. So, Life in a Nutshell at this time, have a nice day anyway.
This is a hard issue to report on, we don’t know much about how the common or poor lived or were treated. I would guess that once in a while, one would suceed in life and be able to record their life, unfortunately this is the type of recording to be tossed when needing space for a recording on someone who “mattered.” My guess is that the common or poor children, the first few were to follow the parents, the latter children were on thier own, major options, join the kings army or the local pirates. The church with forming small groups, sharing beliefs, talents and resources became a third resource. People tend to have a herding instinct much like the buffalo and horses, we like to be with others, there is safety in numbers and some like to lead, others like to follow , and some that go back and forth. Today is probably the same, but with more groups and some groups teaming up for a common cause. Some causes benefiting the group and some that benefit all. So, Life in a Nutshell at this time, have a nice day anyway.
And see 8-28-19 blog post.
I think one of the reasons Christianity grew was because of the *belief* that they must care for the sick, not because they actually survived epidemics at higher rates. Eventually, over many centuries, the belief led to better healthcare practices. Quantifying a belief that appears to be a failure in its beginnings is not really an appropriate way to gauge growth because it misses the larger influence of the belief itself.