Loading...On very rare occasions, pagan opponents of Christianity during the first three centuries commented on the movement, and in one case at least, explain why it was having some success in converting people. Here is what I say about it in Triumph of Christianity (Simon & Schuster, 2018), lightly edited here.
******************************
The first extensive discussion of the Christian movement from a non-Christian source (not disinterested, of course!) comes from the end of the 170s. We do not have this source as a stand-alone document. It is a book quoted, instead, by a Christian author, the great theologian Origen of Alexandria, who cited it precisely in order to refute it. The book had been written by an otherwise unknown pagan intellectual named
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!
“Sophisticated argument was almost certainly not the principal engine of conversion.” — Might this not always be the case? I suspect that even today far more people who convert to Christianity do so for reasons other than having read and been persuaded by the arguments of [insert the name of your favorite theologian here]. Intellectually minded converts there certainly are, yet the promise of forgiveness and salvation is powerful stuff on its own, at least powerful enough to persuade many without further ado.
It’s rare that arguments convert an arguer to much of anything….
Thank you Dr Ehrman. I was reading a book recently, which quoted Rodney Stark, whom I know you have also cited in ‘Triumph of Christianity,’ about low birth rates among pagans, who practised contraception and infanticide, and higher birth rates among Christians. The argument was that Christianity would have triumphed anyway as the Christian population would have eventually outstripped the pagan. I’m not sure if you addressed this possibility in your book (I’ve read it twice but my memory isn’t as good as it once was) so apologies if you have.
One of the major problems with his book is that if a Christian source claims something then he takes it as historically true wihtout evaluating the source critically. If you can find the review of his book by Paula Fredriksen online somewhere, I’d suggest looking at it. She is quite severe in her criticism of him on this point, especially when it comes to issues connected with women in early Christianity (but lots of other things too)
Who was the first person was to come up with the idea that the reason Jesus’s suffering on the cross actually was a huge sacrifice even though he knew he would be raised three days later and live forever was that the real suffering was in
his absorption of humanity’s sin?
I’m just curious and wonder how far back it goes that thinkers recognized this as a problem that needed a solution
The notion that he knew he would be raised three days later is almost certainly not historical; that’s how the Gospel writers decades later are trying to explain that he wasn’t taken by surprise by being executed. My sense is that one or more of the disciples (possibly Peter) believed hs saw Jesus alive after his crucifixion, and then had to rethink his death: surely if he is God’s favored one, God must have wanted him to die for some reason. Thus the idea of his atoning sacrifice. Later, once they said that, they had to explain why he hadn’t known about it, by arguing that he did, but no one was paying attention.
Thanks. I understand that much. My question really pertains to the development of Christian theology AFTER Christians came to believe that Jesus had always known that he’d never really die permanently, and that getting killed would just mean a brief break from being alive. Once they believed that, then at some point somebody must have asked, “well, a 3-day death doesn’t really seem like the bigg3est sacrifice ever. Lots of people have sacrificed their lives for others, and most of them die for more than 3 days. So how was Jesus’s sacrifice big enough to forgive humanity’s sins?” And then somebody else must’ve come up with the answer, “Jesus’s suffering was less in the death itself than in his absorption of humanity’s sins. That’s what made it such a terrible suffering that it was enough to save the world.” My question, is when did that latter answer first appear, and who is the first known person to have articulated it?
Ah, right. Good question. But no, we don’t have any evidence of anyone thinking about it htat way back then. Instead it wsa amazement that someone would be willing to be tortured to death as a sacrifice. The idea of “taking sin into himself” came along later, apparenlty as a way to explain how his death “worked” to bring about salvatoin, based on “he bore our sins” for us. Paul is the one who appears to have first claimed that Jesus put to death the power of sin at his crucifixion, and that htose who “became one” with Christ and were “united” with him participated thereby in his victory over sin. (Romans 6-8)
“We have very little evidence to suggest that serious intellectuals converted to the Christian faith between the time of Paul and the mid-second century.”
If we adjust the parameters to include Christians who may have converted before Paul died, and include those who were literate, regardless of whether we think they are *serious* intellectuals or not, we have:
1. Clement of Rome: probably converted before Paul’s death but wrote an impressive epistle to the Corinthians.
2. The author(s) behind the Asension of Isaiah: may (or may not) have been pre-Paul converts, but certainly wrote an intellectually sophisticated work after his death.
3. Papias: Despite Eusebius’ claim that he was a man of small intelligence, he nevertheless composed an extensive five-volume work based on extensive primary research.
4. Ignatius of Antioch: Bishop who left an impressive corpus.
5. Aristides: Composed an extensive work that he deemed worthy of presentation to at least one, if not two, emperors.
6. Hermas: Responsible for the Sherpard of Hermas.
7. Justin Martyr: A philosopher who composed at least eight known works.
Here’s a challenge – name another ancient religion that has such a long list of authors within a 120-year window of the founder?
I don’t think your list works:
1. We only have legends about Clement of Rome, and 1 Clement does not claim to be written by him.
2. Ascension of Isaiah is well into the 2nd century. We don’t now who it’s author was.
3. The quality of Papias’s work is more than seriously drawn into doubt just by reading the surviving fragments.
4, 5, 6, 7 — I don’t see any way these could have ben born before Paul’s death, let alone converted before it.
BUT, an excellent point about authors. Christianity was a uniquely literary religion from the outset.
Ah – when I proposed adjusting the parameters, I didn’t mean *all* converted before Paul’s death – just that we’d *add* those who did (such as Clement).
As for the list:
1. If you reject Clement as author, then I’d point to the anonymous author instead and say they were smart enough to be on the list.
2. Goulder (2004:396) has joined Bauckham (and others) in placing AoI in the (late) 1st C, so a pre-150 date has growing support.
3. Even if you consider Papias’ work sub-standard, when we consider his efforts in research and producing a five-volume work, he demonstrates greater smarts than the majority of the ancient world who were illiterate labourers.
4-7: You’re right, all those are likely to have converted after Paul died.
Given that you acknowledge “Christianity was a uniquely literary religion from the outset”, perhaps we could say the faith had attracted enough smart converts in the first 120 years to grant it an early intellectual boost?
And maybe enough to counter Celsus’s exaggerated critique that the faith was made up of “ignoramuses who are too thick to recognize either religious truth or valid argument”?
1. Do you know of any reason to think Clement wrote it? But I’m agreeing there were early Christian authors, so I’m not sure it much matters.
2. It’s not who you know but what you know. 🙂 (Doesn’t matter who argues it; it matters what the arguments are)
I’d say there’s no evidence to suggest that Chrsitianity early on was considered to have any strongly intellectual element in the first couple of centuries. From Paul, to Celsus, to Origen both outsiders and insiders marvel had how significantly Non-intellectual it was. Origen, as you know, AGREES with Celsus on the matter; and Paul puts it forward as a PROOF of the truth claims of Xty. Ask any pagan critic of Xty what they think of its intellectual power. Think, e.g., of the mocking of the NT writings for their low-level style. No one would place Clement (author of), Ignatius, Polycarp, etc. among the intelligensia; quite the contrary. So yes, Christians wrote Christian literature and that was unusual and very important. But it doesn’t mean there was a lot of intellectual power in there….
I agree that most early Christians were uneducated and illiterate, and if by a “strong intellectual element” we mean Christian equivalents of Archimedes, Cicero, or Aristotle, then you’re also right – early Christianity lacked these intellectual powerhouses.
However, I would argue this is an implausibly demanding standard. Such figures were exceptionally rare, and it would be unrealistic to expect a small, marginal, and socially suspect religious movement to recruit the leading intellectuals of the day. Indeed, it is difficult to think of any ancient religion that passed this test, especially at such an early stage in its development.
Perhaps a more realistic appraisal is that, as early Christianity had a strong literary core, it attracted relatively smart literary types in the first 120 years – certainly not the sharpest in the tool box, but not the dullest either? On that more realistic standard, early Christianity looks considerably stronger than other ancient religions.
By c. 150 it had produced or attracted a series of authors, teachers, apologists, and theological interpreters. These were not, for the most part, the intellectual giants of antiquity, but neither were they “ignoramuses.” They represent a modest but real intellectual stratum within the movement.
I don’t believe I’ve ever argued that the early Christian authors were ignoramuses?
You stated that Celsus “argues – with obvious exaggeration – that Christianity is a religion of ignoramuses.” And that: “There is obviously a lot of elitist snobbery going on here. But there may be some truth as well.”
The thrust of this post agrees with Celsus’s assessment that early Christians were “ignoramuses”, and whilst you qualify this as an exaggeration, the impression you offer your reader is that you nonetheless agree with the core of his argument.
Indeed, the Facebook meme you used to promote this post has “We have very little evidence to suggest that serious intellectuals converted to the Christian faith between the time of Paul and the mid-second century. Most converts would have been lower-class and uneducated.” (https://www.facebook.com/AuthorBartEhrman/posts/pfbid0LkQaKvft9u8X9mNn5d6d2jW8Jgr6jUpWgKBSrmeAdPbvojHXGkoRuXQ1vZ7g5kkul)
This offers the sense that you really think early Christians were “too thick to recognize either religious truth or valid argument.” However, I don’t think that’s what you really think – not only are you too respectful, but intellectually I don’t think you believe that, as you’ve acknowledged you don’t think early Christian authors were so.
I’m trying to be helpful here by rescuing you from the false impression you have offered of your own view.
THe “some truth” is that Christianity especially appealed to the lower uneducated classes. That’s right. Origen concedes the view and makes mileage of it. Are you trying to argue that most Christain converts were well-educated? Or educated at all? I can’t think of any evidence of that, starting with Paul (“very few of you are…”) As you know, only 10-15% of the population at the time was literate at all. I can’t think of any evidence for thinking Christians were MORE highly educated than average.
Yes, we agree that most Christians converted from the background population, who were uneducated and illiterate. But crucially, we also agree that early Christianity was uniquely blessed with a list of authors – no other ancient religion had so.
If we also agree that it would be unrealistic to expect the intellectual powerhouses of the ancient world (the equivalents of Archimedes, Cicero, or Aristotle, etc.) to join a small and marginal faith, then early Christianity stands out as a religion that was more educated than the average peer religion.
You say that “I can’t think of any evidence for thinking Christians were MORE highly educated than average.” But I would say the list of early authors is that evidence, as the average peer religion did *not* possess that class of early, literate, and educated authors.
I think part of the problem is that ancient religions as a rule had no reasons for “authors” since religion was not an actual category. You can’t really compare the writings of the followers of Jesus and the followers of Apollo and say that one produced more than the other per se. In fact, the followers of pagan religions produced TONS more writings than Christians did. But they didn’t write about their religion because they didn’t see themselves as having a particular religion that they had to support and advocate for.
Another part of the problem is the question of survival. Suppose there were 200 authors from 60-150 CE who wrote books praising Dionysus, and 20 who wrote books praising Jesus. Over the centuries between now and then, who was copying the books, and which books did they choose to copy? Just with the major authors: how many people copied the Golden Ass versus the people who copied the Gospel of John. There’s a good reason we have Christian authors supporting their views and fewer explicitly “religious” writings supporting other views.
As you have pointed out, it seems true that in antiquity Christianity spread especially among people who were not part of the intellectual elite. But I find it interesting that even today, in some respects, forms of Christianity that approach the Bible in a more “anti-intellectual” way often appear far more vibrant and emotionally compelling than forms that emphasize historical or critical engagement with the text.
Sometimes I wonder whether this reflects something very deep about religion itself — namely, that existential certainty, emotional experience, and communal identity may be more powerful for most people than historical analysis or intellectual nuance.
What strikes me here is that Paul makes almost the same sociological observation as Celsus , but with evident satisfaction. “Not many of you were wise, powerful, or of noble birth” is not a concession forced from Paul by critics. It is part of his argument.
Normally, when an opponent’s critique closely matches a movement’s own self-description, we say the critique has landed. Here that logic becomes harder to apply, not because the theology evades the point, but because it had already incorporated it.
That does not settle anything about truth-value, of course. But it does sharpen the historical question: how should we interpret a social profile that appears both as an external criticism of the movement and as part of the movement’s own self-understanding?
I think we need to consider the theological/ideological assumptoins of both. Celsus thought that stupidity disqualified a religious claim; Paul thought firmly that God’s way of salvation was intentinoally “foolishness” and “weakness” to the world, and that the true followers of Christ accepted a view that wsa “foolish” and “weak” — and that following Christ meant pain not glory.
Thank you, that helps. If Celsus and Paul are looking at much the same social fact but reading it through very different assumptions, then maybe the social fact itself is doing less evidential work than Celsus wants it to do.
It does not prove the claim, but it does not disprove it either. It only starts to count against Christianity if one already assumes that “foolish” and “weak” are marks against a religion.
That may also explain Origen’s response. He seems happy to grant much of the social profile, but not the conclusion Celsus draws from it.
Astute observation. Christianity was not prevalent among the social elite. Greco-Roman social order was slavery. The slaves greatly out-numbered the slave-owners and the freedmen. Statistically, it was a religion of the slaves. The slaver owners owned slaves who were more educated than themselves. Celsius, a social elite, was writing for an audience of other social elites. Stoics wrote for other Stoics. Epicureans wrote for other Epicureans. Christians wrote for other Christians. As the Steely Dan song lyrics illustrate, “The weekends at the college did not turn out like you planned. The things that pass for knowledge, I don’t understand.” As the Doobie Brothers song lyrics illustrate, “A Fool believes what he sees; but the Wise Man has the power to reason it away.” Go ahead, Wise Man, call me a Fool. Go ahead, Social Elite, call me a Peasant. By insulting me, you acquire self-respect? You evaluate the merits of the message by the social status of the messenger? Paul’s mission was not to convert but to inform. Make the Informed Choice. Paul’s mission was to share his supernatural visions. Who receives supernatural visions and does not sense an urgency to share the information?
Dr. Ehrman:
2 questions: 1. What English translation would you recommend for Origen’s writings? I bought an extensive kindle version of his compositions off of Amazon Kindle and wondered what translation you would have read in college by Origen. 2. This is off topic, but what was the late Fr. Raymond Brown like? Do you think you could write an essay about him on here in the future?
1. There are lots of books written by Origen, translated by different modern scholars. My approach generally is to go for more recent translatoins. 2. He was an amazing scholar/exegete, incredibly learned, one of the major and ground-breaking Roman CAtholic scholars in the post Vatican 2 age. Committed priest, able to look at every side of an issue, able to weigh and balance evidence, and a pleasant human being (at least to me and my friends who studied with him)
Two thoughts:
First, rather than opponents such as Celsus, do records/documents exist indicating how pagans felt about their religions/gods no longer being supported, i.e. when Constantine endorsed christianity? I’m thinking that followers of pagan gods would be really mad they had to abandon Zeus, Aphrodite, Mars, etc.
Second, I’m working my way through the most recent edition of “The Psychology of Religion”. Studies have shown that kids at all ages are influenced by their social groups, particularly by family such as parents; all of which is reasonable and I think expected. However, I have yet to read studies that have focused on how young minds are influenced, i.e. because their brains are not as mature as adults and do not yet have as much ‘real world’ experience as adults. Are you aware of such research?
First: Yes we do, and yes pagans watching the rise of Christianity often were very distraught indeed.
Second: I’m sure there is a lot of research ou there on this, but I have nothing to suggest (it’s not something I’ve explored at length)
Dr. Ehrman,
Can you elaborate on Celsius phrase that they talked about being perfect? He might have meant that going to heaven woulbe perfect, but it sounds like he is referring to something a person must do to become perfect.
Yes, he indicates that they “learn” how to be perfect, and that probably suggests he means something like “become righteous”
In Feb of this year, I had the opportunity to spend considerable time and shoe leather in the Vatican Museum, specifically in the early Christian collection. I noted the many mid second century Christian tombstones and sarcophagi which had some extremely expensive carvings on them, suggesting great wealth. With wealth, also comes education. My question: are there sources available that would suggest what percentage of Christians that had the wealth necessary to create these works, and who were not part of the under class?
I also noted that the prevailing themes of the carvings were sourced from the Old Testament, with the occasional carving of the good shepherd. In my mind, this suggests a theological influence of the OT within the Christian community in the second century.
I really don’t know. The person I know who probably would is Robin Jensen. You may want to ask her.