I wouldn't say I loved the book, but I definitely would recommend it. Author gives some ideas on how to think about the period between Jesus's ascension to heaven and the late Roman empire.
Interesting discussion about what it meant to be a "pagan" to those who were pagans. The term didn't exist. Religion wasn't organized with any hierarchy (though priests or temple officials had varying degrees of authority and/or respect). There wasn't really any contrasting religious approach (except a few Jews who didn't fit the prevailing narrative) - everyone just knew that it was appropriate and helpful (or at least not harmful) to observe the various rituals, mostly sacrifices. Multiple gods - generally with supra-human characteristics - and always room to accommodate more gods. Religion didn't really involve ethics - mostly cult sacrifices - ethics were thought of separately.
Which helps explain why Christianity was so disruptive. Its adherents rejected all the other gods and were willing to be martyrs - this level of intensity was unusual, and attention-grabbing. And conversion was a zero-sum game for the first time - one more Christian meant one less "pagan". A future of religious wars lay ahead - so much more at stake in this new religious construct.
Author talks at length about how early Christianity - mostly lacking any hierarchy - a religion for losers, mostly populated by losers (though always some upper class devotees) - managed to get traction. St. Paul was absolutely critical to the process - hard to imagine how the religion would have spread without him. The miracle stories were compelling. But Jesus of course had written down nothing - so many details to sort out - so much disagreement - including basic things like the relationship between the Father and the Son. How to determine which interpreters of Jesus's life were correct? How to determine which fill-in-the-blanks for things not addressed by Jesus were correct, and authored by whom? Amazing that anything coherent was finalized. Reminiscent of the discussion in this book about how the Koran and related writings evolved.
Lots of discussion of Constantine - no matter how one interprets his conversion in 312, the consequences were huge. Including the council at Nicea in 325 (to this day we use the Nicene creed), where Constantine learned that getting theologians on the same page was even more difficult than ordering around soldiers or administrators.
But now the wheels are in motion for a hierarchical structure for the church that significantly echoes the Roman imperial structure - yuck. Bishops gaining temporal power . . . one can see the trajectory to behaviors that led to the Reformation.
Author also plays with some numbers - assuming x Christians 10 years after Jesus and growth rate of y%, how many by 312? Growth rate thereafter? Again, it's interesting to think about going from a few hundred to millions over say three centuries.
He alludes to Gibbon's famous discussion about the effect of Christianity on Rome, which I happened to be reading at the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment