Bart Ehrman: The Triumph of Christianity

[samaritan]

Anyone read this or got any initial thoughts. I quite enjoyed it. This was a review I posted elsewhere:

First off, I enjoyed the book very much. I don't purport to be a scholar but have an interest in the period and subject matter and, without being condescending, Professor Ehrman pitches his book at a level of non-scholars in the field. It is very readable with useful summaries at the end of each chapter. The strengths of the book include a useful exploration of the view of religion that underlay pagan outlook. He refers to 'henotheism' which is his term for a view of religion which allowed many gods but accepted one could be more powerful and worthy than others, which idea meant that the Christian insistence on one God to the exclusion of all others was not so alien as we may imagine. However, as he admits himself, 'It is very hard indeed - impossible actually - to know what most people thought' - we do not have the written records. The book therefore centres around what information we do have - often not very reliable or offering only a snapshot of events at a particular time or place - e.g. on Constantine or the letter of Pliny the Younger to the Emperor in 110 A.D. or the horrific death of Hypatia in 415 A.D. Much of the interim between such events is necessarily filled with conjecture. Any historian is going to deal with conjecture on the basis of his own influences/bias. Professor Ehrman is an agnostic/atheist and that does not make his views more or less objective than scholars who happen to be Christian. He is no polemicist but his own bias does come through on occasion. Partly he attributes the attraction of Christianity to its emphasis on the afterlife and its claim to a good afterlife -'for most ancient religions, the afterlife was not a concern' he says. But it certainly was in e.g. Egypt where Christianity took a firm hold (The Egyptians had a huge industry based on preparing for the afterlife). He lays great emphasis on the attraction of Christianity for its stories of miracles even though he acknowledges that very few could have observed such miracles. He rather discounts the possible attraction of superior Christian ethics (though he admits the paucity of ethics in pagan religion) or care for the sick including non-Christian sick. On the other hand he concludes that ultimately 'Paganism did not have to be destroyed by violent acts of Christian intolerance. It could, and did, die a natural death, cut off from resources and abandoned by popular opinion.'.
I enjoyed the book and found it very informative.

[unkleE]

Hi,

I haven't read this book, though I've read maybe half a dozen other books by Ehrman, and your review rings fairly true to me. I think you are spot on when you say "Professor Ehrman is an agnostic/atheist and that does not make his views more or less objective than scholars who happen to be Christian. He is no polemicist but his own bias does come through on occasion." Competent scholars as he is will generally get their facts pretty right, but when they fill in the gaps or draw conclusions their worldviews can come out. So when Ehrman discusses the text of the NT, his facts would be good, but his conclusions seemed to me to be more sceptical than his own facts warranted, whereas a christian scholar may make much more positive conclusions from the same facts.

You say "He rather discounts the possible attraction of superior Christian ethics (though he admits the paucity of ethics in pagan religion) or care for the sick including non-Christian sick" whereas Rodney Stark (from memory) attributed the rise of christianity to the superiority of monotheism and the care that christians gave to women, children and the sick. Again, I would say both would have facts to support their views, but both conclusions probably go beyond the facts and are based on judgments and (possibly) their worldviews.

Welcome to the forum. You'll find things fairly quiet here at the moment, but it is good to have a new voice.

[samaritan]

unkleE,

Thanks. (I have to confess I usually post as sandwiches but forgot my password so have resurrected myself as samaritan). Larry Hurtado has posted to a review by Tom Holland in the Spectator where Holland praises Ehrman but is a little irked by what I think he sees as some claim to objectivity by Ehrman and a discounting of the attraction of Christianity for the marginalised in pagan Roman society. He compares Ehrman unfavourably in this respect with Hurtado's views in Destroyer of the Gods. Both Ehrman and Hurtado recognised that paganism focused on on cultic practices: sacrifices, festivals, divinations rather than on doctrines and ethics. Holland says however that it is Hurtado who sees the possible attraction of this to the masses in the Roman Empire - That the poor should be as worthy of respect as the rich; that the starving should have a claim on those with the reserves to feed them; that the vulnerable — children, prostitutes, slaves — should not be used by the powerful as mere sexual objects:


www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/how-christianity-saw-off-its-rivals-and-became-the-universal-church/

How Christianity saw off its rivals and became the universal church

It thrived by killing off the opposition, says Bart Ehrman. But it also appealed to Rome’s enslaved masses
Tom Holland


larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2018/03/28/holland-on-ehrmans-the-triumph-of-christianity-and-another-book/

[James Hannam]

The trope that pagan religion was about practice rather than belief goes back a very long way. Here's Francis Bacon in his essay on the Unity of Religion in 1612:

"the religion of the heathen consisted of rather rites and ceremonies than any constant belief"

No less true for being old. Bacon had read his Cicero.

An important point about classical paganism, though, was that for most common people it centred about ancestor worship and household spirits rather than Zeus and Athena. And we know very little about how this folk religion worked because most of our sources are from the literate elite. Commoners didn't dare think they could pray to the big gods. They had to settle for the small ones. The idea that a big God, the biggest of all, in fact, would be interested in them personally and not just kings and emperors, was revolutionary.

J

[samaritan]

'The idea that a big God, the biggest of all, in fact, would be interested in them personally and not just kings and emperors, was revolutionary.'

Good point.(One missed by perhaps both Hurtado and Ehrman).

[wraggy]

Some bloke by the name of Tim O'Neill reviewed it on Good Reads.
Here are the first and last paragraphs of the review.



"It's a mark of a good work of history when it changes the views of someone who knows the subject well, but this one has done that on several points for me. This is far from the first book which has tackled how Christianity went from a tiny Messianic Jewish sect to a marginalised and often persecuted saviour cult and then to the religion that conquered the Roman Empire and the western world. This is a subject that can stir up both triumphant apologism and vehement condemnation - with smug Christian retrospective congratulation one hand or biased anti-religious idealisation of paganism on the other. The recent work of Rodney Stark or, to an extent, that of David Bentley Hart represents the former position. That of Charles Freeman or, more recently (and stupidly), Catherine Nixey represents the latter stance. As a judicious and objective leading academic and one of the best and most accessible public educators currently working on religion in the ancient world, Ehrman maps a careful and scholarly path between these distorted ideological extremes."



"As a judicious historian of early Christianity with a clear-eyed understanding of the ancient world, Ehrman maps out a path between the ideological thickets that surround the question of the triumph of Christianity in Late Antiquity. He uses the sociological and demographic work of scholars like Rodney Stark while correcting the latter's apologetic biases. And he makes use of the studies of rather obviously anti-Christian analysts like Ramsey MacMullen while also avoiding his warping prejudices. This is not a groundbreaking work, but - like all good popular histories by leading scholars - it synthesises and clarifies what historians have detailed over recent decades. Like many of Ehrman's books, this will be a clear and accessible guide on this subject that will be useful for many years to come. Highly recommended."


For the full review follow the link below.


www.goodreads.com/review/show/2316490041?book_show_action=true&from_review_page=1

[jamierobertson]

Mar 29, 2018 15:21:44 GMT James Hannam said:

The idea that a big God, the biggest of all, in fact, would be interested in them personally and not just kings and emperors, was revolutionary.

Revolutionary as in fresh and attractive, or revolutionary as in offensive and an obstacle to its uptake?

[samaritan]

Mar 30, 2018 4:39:21 GMT wraggy said:

Wraggy

Some bloke by the name of Tim O'Neill reviewed it on Good Reads.

Here are the first and last paragraphs of the review.





"It's a mark of a good work of history when it changes the views of someone who knows the subject well, but this one has done that on several points for me"


I wonder what the several points are.

[wraggy]

Mar 30, 2018 18:06:17 GMT samaritan said:

Mar 30, 2018 4:39:21 GMT wraggy said:

Wraggy

Some bloke by the name of Tim O'Neill reviewed it on Good Reads.

Here are the first and last paragraphs of the review.





"It's a mark of a good work of history when it changes the views of someone who knows the subject well, but this one has done that on several points for me"


I wonder what the several points are.

You could always pose the question on his blog if you are interested.

[timoneill]

Apr 5, 2018 3:06:30 GMT wraggy said:

Mar 30, 2018 18:06:17 GMT samaritan said:

You could always pose the question on his blog if you are interested.

Or you could wait for me to post my longer review of the book on said blog. Which should happen in the next couple of days.

[samaritan]

Apr 5, 2018 7:08:41 GMT timoneill said:

Apr 5, 2018 3:06:30 GMT wraggy said:

You could always pose the question on his blog if you are interested.

Or you could wait for me to post my longer review of the book on said blog. Which should happen in the next couple of days.

I look forward to seeing it. (I will review it).

[wraggy]

Apr 5, 2018 7:08:41 GMT timoneill said:

Apr 5, 2018 3:06:30 GMT wraggy said:

You could always pose the question on his blog if you are interested.

Or you could wait for me to post my longer review of the book on said blog. Which should happen in the next couple of days.

That was going to be my next suggestion.