(17 votes, average: 4.88 out of 5)
Loading...I have begun now a new thread, which I anticipate will be a rather long one, on the book I am currently working on, which I have tentatively titled (recognizing that my tentative titles rarely actually become the title!) The Triumph of Christianity. I indicated in my previous post that I wrote up a prospectus to give to publishers in order to see if they were interested in offering a contract for the book. The prospectus ended up being about 17 pages long (double-spaced). As I mentioned already, the point of the prospectus is to show a potential publisher what the book is about, how it matters, and why it would be really interesting for regular ole readers (as opposed to irregular ole scholars).
The following was the very beginning of my Prospectus, the opening salvo.
******************************************************************************************
In my public talks over the past ten years I have been asked one question about my research more than any other, a question that seems to arise out of any topic I address, whether it is the life and teachings of Jesus, the formation of the New Testament, the history of the early Christian church, or anything else vaguely related. The question is this: Why Did Christianity Succeed? That is to say, if, as appears likely, the Christian religion began immediately after Jesus’ death with a group of some 15-20 of his followers, illiterate Jewish peasants from the backwoods of rural Palestine, how did it spread so rapidly and thoroughly to become a major religion of the ancient Mediterranean, eventually, after 350 years, taking over the entire Roman empire and ultimately becoming the most powerful social, cultural, political, and economic (not to mention religious) force of the Western World? How can we explain, on historical (as opposed to religious) grounds, the triumph of Christianity?
The question is both inordinately important and unusually interesting, as should be obvious to anyone invested in Western Civilization. If Christianity had not become the religion of the West, we never would have had the history of late antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Renaissance, or modernity as we know it. Some kind of history would have happened, of course, but it would have been incalculably different. Most of what we think of as Western culture would never have come into being (art, music, literature, philosophy, or – pick your field of interest!). And almost all of us would still be worshiping Zeus.
While the question of Christianity’s triumph is fascinating on its own terms, its interest also…
THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, GET WITH THE PROGRAM!!! You join for a small fee, you get tons for your money, all your money goes to charity, and the world is a happier place!!
Rodney Stark has a book with the same title about the same subject matter.
Yes indeed!
Can’t wait for more on this thread. I always assumed the short answer is Paul’s conversion and radical inclusivity.
I thought that the Christian faith belief in the one creator God, as opposed to the worship of many gods worked against them in the early days. Didn’t most pagans think that it was foolish to only worship one god when there were all the other gods that needed to be worshipped?
Yup! So that’s the question: how did Christians prove to be convincing?!? (Of course, I have an answer, but the main thing is the question!)
You mentioned that:
It is commonly thought that among the distinctive features of the Christian movement were its strict monotheism and its stress on stringent person ethics. In this view, two of the major draws of the Christian faith were belief in the one creator God, as opposed to the worship of many gods, and the concomitant commitment to love one’s neighbor.
If the pagans found it foolish to worship only one god, how was monotheism a major draw?
Right — that’s the big question!!
A part of the answer to your question has to point towards Hellenism. Plato laid down the intellectual framework for escaping this world via an afterlife and the immortal soul. Aristotle’s Rhetoric, Poetics, and Politics were foundational in the curriculum of the Greek schools that abounded around the Mediterranean since Alexander. Socrates played a major role in the minds of Paul and the Gospel writers as a model of martyrdom, a concept not found in the Hebrew Scriptures. The Stoic and Cynics preached the ascetic themes that the Gospels teach. Then there was also the Son of God and Savior of the world, the Roman Ceaser Augustus.
Keep up your great work. I look forward to your next book.
Thx,
Wayne
I’ve just read “The Rastafarians” by Leonard Barrett (https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Rastafarians.html?id=swdaI6DfDkEC) containing his account of the beginnings of Rastafarianism at the bottom of the social ladder of Jamaica, followed by its popularization throughout Jamaican society. Mr. Barrett’s treatment of this new religious movement of the 1930s is written in 1988 after it was known worldwide. The dynamics of the microcosm of Jamaica could suggest hypotheses for the initial spread of Christianity.
I hope I paraphrase well and truly when I say his conclusions are:
– The hope offered by Rastafarianism appealed to the most downtrodden in Jamaica
– Jamaicans of all social classes took note of the Rastas’ charity, piousness, and artistry
– Some middle and upper class Jamaicans secretly became Rastas
– Rastafarianism became an increasingly important expression of popular resistance to injustice
– Jamaican politicians eventually adopted the dress and talk of Rastas to win them over
– Rastafarian art went mainstream and the religion even spread modestly outside Jamaica
And of particular interest to this blog, Mr. Barrett also discusses several examples of the Rastafarian belief that the depictions in the Old and New Testament are actually of their own religious community. Sound familiar?
One of my thoughts is are there any records of how Christians behaved in those early days that would make the faith attractive? Did they live what they preached making them stand out amongst other citizens of Rome? There is a saying in 12-step groups “attraction rather than promotion” and it makes me wonder if the first Christians lived a lifestyle that promoted the faith attracting others to it?
Yup, those are some of the key questions!
Dr. Ehrman, it seems to me that the vast majority of books on this topic are written by either historians or theologians, and since neither of these disciplines are, strictly speaking, social sciences*, I believe that, in some respects, many of these books often miss the forest for the trees, so-to-speak. As a social scientist by profession (and an historian by hobby) myself, I tend to look at eras in human history through the eyes of a social scientist. In other words, the validity and reliability of written records isn’t nearly as important to me as the overall trends, norms and behaviors of specific cultures and societies at different times and places. I take what I know and what I can say about human nature in general and then apply it to specific periods, attempting to tease out what can or cannot be historically plausible from what I know can or cannot be plausible based on certain human universals — if that makes sense.
Case in point, this period of the rise of Christianity. If I were to put on my social scientist hat and attempt to explain the triumph of Christianity, I would probably look at three significantly import aspects of the religion.
1) In a world where the only proper way to worship a deity was to sacrifice livestock and foodstuff to it, the fact that Christianity allowed one to effectively worship God without sacrifice (because, supposedly, Jesus made the ultimate sacrifice) is monumentally significant. Just imagine being a relatively poor individual who resents having to give up livestock and crops on a regular basis in order to please Artemis or Apollo (or even Yahweh?), and then alongs comes a Christian missionary who convinces you that you can get in the good graces of the creator of the universal simply by praying the right prayers, believing the right beliefs and performing relatively simple and cheap rituals (e.g. baptism and the eucharist). Just imagine what a relief that would be and how appealing Christianity would seem to such an individual.
2) In a world ridden with inequality, injustice and iniquity, it is easy for one to become callous and cynical. But then a Christian missionary comes along and persuades you that the current miserable state of the world is only temporary, and soon the creator of the universe will come and fix it all. Those who are disenfranchised, disaffected and dejected now will soon be given the keys to a glorious kingdom, where equally, justice and charity reign. A literal paradise on earth. I don’t need to go into detail about how appealing that would be a lowly individual.
3) In the tribalist ancient world — divided into nations and clans and cities and families — Christianity was a universalist, cosmopolitan and (oddly) inclusive religion. Once Christianity effectively separated from Judaism, it was no longer tied to a certain people, a certain region or a certain class. Literally anyone and everyone could become Christian, crossing (and erasing) all frontiers, all classes and all cultures. It was essentially an incipient form of communism, an ideology that also spread rapidly because of the very same internationalist, cosmopolitan ethos.
So, I’m curious, do you intend to discuss any of these aspects in your book?
*though I will agree that an argument can be made that historiography straddles the humanities and the social sciences to some degree.
Interesting observations. It would take a while to discuss all this, but I will say that there are social scientists who have attacked the problem and written interesting books about it, most notably Rodney Stark and his book The Rise of Christianity. Most experts in the field have found his book wanting because he does not have a sufficient historical grasp of the sources, a sine qua non, of course, for this kind of work….
Speaking of Justin Martyr (from my comments to the previous post), in his First Apology he pretty much cites these very reasons why Christianity is superior to the Greco-Roman religion. He supports my first point in chapters 9, 10 and 13 — “God does not need the material offerings which men can give, seeing, indeed, that He Himself is the provider of all things…worshipping as we do the Maker of this universe, and declaring, as we have been taught, that He has no need of streams of blood and libations and incense; whom we praise to the utmost of our power by the exercise of prayer and thanksgiving for all things wherewith we are supplied, as we have been taught that the only honour that is worthy of Him is not to consume by fire what He has brought into being for our sustenance, but to use it for ourselves and those who need, and with gratitude to Him to offer thanks by invocations and hymns.”
He supports my second point in chapters 11 and12 — “it is alike impossible for the wicked, the covetous, the conspirator, and for the virtuous, to escape the notice of God, and that each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation
according to the value of his actions.”
And he supports my third point in chapter 14 — “we who hated and destroyed one another, and on account of their different manners would not live with men of a different tribe, now, since the coming of Christ, live familiarly with them, and pray for our enemies, and endeavour to persuade those who hate us unjustly to live comformably to the good precepts of Christ, to the end that they may become par-takers with us of the same joyful hope of a reward from God the ruler of all.”
So, yeah, it’s pretty much all right there, ripe for the picking.
Yup. The one problem is knowing whether what a Christian says about the attractiveness of his religion is what outsiders found to be attractive about it.
While I realize that you are writing this book from an historical perspective, won’t most evangelicals and those who hold to the “providence of God,” simply argue that all of the mechanisms were simply part of God’s predestined plan?
How will you or will you address this obvious theological bias?
I”m not sure if I will or not. The problem with saying that “God did it” is, obviously I guess, that he didn’t then do a very good job of it, since the large majority of people in the world are *still* not Christian!!
Very intriguing. Will this book be lengthier than others or about the same? It looks like you are covering a lot of material here.
Yeah, I’m trying to figure out how to keep it short and sweet. Not sure if that’s possible!
Short and sweet isn’t necessarily good. This is a lot of material to cover and I’m looking forward to the answer.
My question is. ..why as man acquired more knowledge didn’t he just give up the gods rath6r than choose a new one?
Yeah, it may not be good. But it would be short. And sweet! 🙂 To your question: some did!
I ask myself that question a lot. What is it in (enlightened) humanity that requires a god? Any thoughts out there?
Let’s see if anyone has good insights!
I’m always up for more pages of your writings.
Dr. Ehrman,
How would you say that your approach and conclusions differ from Rodney Stark’s approach and conclusions?
The best part of his work is how he crunches the numbers. But I think it is important to approach the question from a historical point of view looking at evidence as found in our sources (he, of course, is not a historian but a sociologist)
It’s a fascinating question, I agree. Also, how any religion, be it Christianity, Islam, or Mormonism, takes off and becomes huge completely fascinates me.
Fascinating topic.
Did the Church Fathers defend the Christian faith in philosophical terms that could resemble philosophical ideas pagans would have heard before?
Thanks!
Yes indeed! That’s what the apologists try to do, starting with Justin Martyr.
” And almost all of us would still be worshiping Zeus.”
Some kind of history would have happened, of course, but it would have been incalculably different. Most of what we think of as Western culture would never have come into being (art, music, literature, philosophy, or – pick your field of interest!). And almost all of us would still be worshiping Zeus.
Well with that being said, maybe its more than how I worship and honor Zeus, by kindness, by being gentle, respect for one another with out trying because when you try……. to be kind, or gentle, or respectful it is not genuine ? It should come natural, Effortless with your heart. Thats all you can take with you is the foot prints of your mind and heart ?? Footprints in the sand picture remember that one.!! Anyways Western World is very Interesting…Well like I said it has carried over into now modern times.. Some examples you may or may not know..
Birthday cake ( to honor Artemis ) and candles being lite to shine like the moon. umm lets see. Statue of Abraham Lincoln inspired by Statue of Zeus. The medicine comes from Son of Apollo Asclepius? Daughter of Asclepius is Hygieia is where the word hygiene comes from… Temple of Asclepius what was it turned into Hospital ? Dionysus where acting came from singing ? So that would be Actors and Singers are dear to his heart.. First Greek Theatre “City Dionysian” And again the Rod of Asclepius on the side of modern Ambulances and Caduceus of Hermes people see this everyday and think right passed it.. some thing is not right with this picture. Not saying it means anything at all besides it comes from the Western World what you are Writing your New book about? The Olympics to honor Zeus.. The flame carrying at 2012 Olympics was beautiful by the way.. and the Carry the flame all over the country?? Again Right in front of peoples faces and they think right passed. Maybe I am a younger you Bart. I can go on and on… Just want to state the fact that something happened like you said, Or almost all of us will still be worshipping Zeus who I worship and love with all my heart and soul. I believe beyond reasonable doubt when I go he will rise out of his throne which rarely happens ?….. to receive me. Not saying all of heaven will become quite for about an hour or anything .. and not saying he who sits in the throne which has no name ? Is Zeus or anything Rev 4:5 Just saying I Love Zeus with everything I can express with all my heart and soul and I turned out ok !!
( He will Rise to Receive me ) Once again… Something happened or almost all of us will still be Worshiping Zeus
It seems to me the original apocalyptic message had an urgency that got the ball rolling, but wouldn’t have been enough in itself to lead to such a long term success. But Christianity evolved and changed with the times and that made its success possible, but if it started the way it is now, it may never have got off the ground. Do you think part of its success has been the changes and diversification that happened along the way?
Absolutely — if it hadn’t significantly evolved, it would have remained a small and insignificant Jewish sect!
Could one answer the question posed in the third point, “Why then did Christianity, rather than Judaism, overtake the pagan world?” by the observation that Judaism is, for the most part, a religion into which one is born. As a Jew you are one of God’s chosen people.
Christianity, at least as recast by Paul, is a religion chosen by the individual. One chooses to be a Christian. One is not “chosen” by God through one’s ethnic background.
Yup, good point.
Calvin argued differently of course. If you are able to practice fre will, if the decision is in your hands, doesn’t that make you more powerful than God?
I suppose not if he’s the one who gave you the free will!
Wow! Five really good questions. How did so much come from so little? I wonder if studying how and why people become Christians today, sometimes despite convincing intellectual evidence, gives us any clues. Was the hope of overcoming death and going to heaven, which may have been more pronounced with Christianity as compared to other religions, a factor in its growth and persistence? How about the Christian belief that God is personally involved in individual human lives? Was that a factor? There is something about Christianity which gives it psychological sticking power despite the lack of convincing historical evidence and despite its many variations. I know many who are completely uninterested in any historical evidence and remain totally convinced about the “truth” of Christianity.. Why? Is it because it meets certain psychological needs? The belief that the most powerful force in the universe is personally loving us is very powerful and comforting.
Yes indeed, great questions. Too bad we don’t have any historical sources from the period written by psychologists based on interviews they had done! We’d *love* to have this kind of information….
Is any of NT Wright’s work in this area, esp Christian Origins and the question of God, something you’re familiar with or anything you might address or interact with? He seems to make some very bold claims e.g. “As a historian I cannot explain Christianity without the miracle of the resurrection…” (Paraphrased of course)
I always felt like Gore Vidal was extremely lucid and well studied in his historical reconstructions “Julian” and “Creation”. Especially Julian when you realize just how close the west came to never embracing Christianity.
Yes, I completely disagree with Tom Wright on this. Of course he himself can’t imagine otherwise. He’s always been an extraordinarily committed Christian and has never really tried to imagine otherwise. His explanation is not “historical” in any of the standard understandings of the term.
I know you are not exploring the counterfactual with this (aside from the aside: “we’d all still be worshipping Zeus”). But I do find that interesting.
Of course without Christianity, there would have been no Islam. But there were at least two “movement” religions in the world, Judaism (which at one point was somewhat proselytizing) and Buddhism. The spread of the latter led to events resembling religious wars from time to time in China and so forth. Makes me wonder if accretive paganism might have eventually succumbed to Buddhism (or Judaism, or Zorastrianism).
Yes, I think that’s right. No Christianity, no Islam.
I’m very excited for this new book — both interesting and important. I’m wondering about your comment that without the triumph of Christianity we would still be worshiping Zeus. Seems more likely that we would all be Muslim, since Islam has a fair bit of overlap with Christianity. On the other hand, would Islam have come about without Christianity as a precursor? Hmm. Out of the range of your topic, perhaps, but I wonder.
My view is: no Xty, no Islam.
Do you think it’s also probably right that: No Nestorians, no Islam? (I mean even with Christianity’s success, without that specific brand in that specific area, would the merchant warlord have gotten his “revelation” from Gabriel in the Arabian cave? People like Rushdie seem to think not.
I”m afraid I don’t know.
Hello Dr. Erhman,
Good luck with the new book: I look forward to reading it!
I wonder how the spread of Christianity relates to the continuing Jewish wars in Palestine under Roman occupation? Also, I wonder what impact the fall of the temple in 70 A.D. had on the spread of Christianity?
(First Jewish–Roman War (66–73 CE) (fall of second Temple)
Bar Kokhba Revolt (132–136 CE) — also called the Second Jewish–Roman War )
It seems especially odd that Christianity spread in this context, as it would be much like Americans, rulers of an empire, converting to a form of Islam, or perhaps a better analogy: the Bahai Faith.
I do think that early Christianity’s inclusiveness, and its social gospel, may have been influential in its spread. In this period of the empire, cultures were in close contact and sometimes in conflict, and inclusive cults had a practical value. Though, one might think that the cult of Isis would have been as appealing a choice as Christianity, if not more appealing. You mention (I think) in the book I am now reading, “How Jesus Became God,” that Mormonism has also spread as rapidly (as early Christianity) since the 19th century, despite its rather odd beliefs.However, Mormons have strong community ties and support. So, perhaps theology matters less than community organization?
It seems that anti-Jewish feeling infuses even early Christianity, and the “Jews”are blamed for the crucifixion, and the character of Pontius Pilate gradually rehabilitated as time passes, I suppose as a concession to the Romans and the empire, and this led to the development of a history of anti-Semitism in European culture. To me, this is one of the most distasteful aspects of Christianity and hard to gloss over or ignore or really make any sense of, at all. Let’s say that a religion proposed that the earthly manifestation of the Supreme Being was an African-American man, and everybody participated in his worship, but then African-American men were routinely excluded from society and regularly attacked? Most fundamentalist Christians make very little comment on this aspect of the religion.
At any rate, Happy Passover to all those celebrating now.
My sense is that most people converting to Xty after the Jewish revolts (and well before the second, and possibly before the first) were non-Jewish. It became easy for Xns to think of 70 CE as God’s punishment on the Jews for killing their own messiah….
Sign me up for one copy, please!
Would it be right to say that the initial expansion happened in cities, and that the rural areas were the last to be converted? If that is the case, shouldn’t we start by explaining the “urban” appeal of early Christianity?
Yup!
I am behind the times on this blog. I look forward to your new book and, in fact, have pre-ordered it via Audible on Amazon. The question in the title of the book has been the foremost on my mind. I was a fundamentalist. Now I am probably leaning more to, “I don’t know”. Thanks Bart!
Hi Bart. I was wondering (hope you can help me!) are there any really good classical studies in German language on the question of The triumph of Christianity? In other words, are there any German B. Ehrman or R. MacMullen scholars? Hope you can provide me with a title or two!
Thanks. Wish you all the best.
Marko
The most important study is Adolf Harnack’s Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries (which was quickly translated into English becasue of it’s vast importance)
Hi Bart, I came across this excellent video, apparently part of a series you did, but cannot find any of the subsequent episodes. Where and how can I access the full series? This episode is called ‘What Did Jesus Say’ on a Youtube Channel called Wondrium and apparently is from a series you did on the Triumph of Christianity….https://youtu.be/EDHXxI_P1Pg. Thanks!
Yes, that’s part of othe 24 lecture series I did for the Great Courses, The Triumph of Christianity.
I’m logged in, but I’m not able to read this complete post. mjmaddox
Click on the link for Help and ask Support. Often that’s some problem with having your membership renewed