As I have mentioned I am working my way through Bart Ehrman's "The Triumph of Christianity," and it struck me that we have misjudged pagans a great deal (well, I have anyway). I have been trying to consider the audience for the early Christian proselytizers and was wondering what they found attractive in Christianity.
We have been told that pagans "worshipped many gods," that is they were polytheists, but I never wondered how that played out. First it seems that "worshipped" may not the best descriptor. Here is a definition (Merriam-Webster online):
worship (verb): to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power
But, did those long ago pagans worship as Christians do now? Not hardly. Imagine attending "church services" for dozens of gods every week. You would have no time for anything else. This "worship" manifested itself as bringing a sacrifice to a temple from time to time or participating in a religious festival. And what manifested the desire to do that? I suspect it was fear. Often enough, for instance, a man's wife was to have a baby and an offering at a temple (or even a small household shrine) to a fertility god, might help (a) her to get pregnant, (b) her to survive the process, and (c) the child be born healthy (and of course, male). Similarly, offerings to various gods might be for a good harvest, because starving is not fun, or for a safe sea voyage because ships can and do sink and cargoes get lost. So, this worship was basically a system of asking for favors from supernatural powers. When one needed a bit of protection, an offering was in order. So, these offerings were not done out of "love" but out of fear of what the future might bring.
These efforts might be individual or collective, in the form of large "festivals" focused on harvests, or flocks of animals, or good weather, or healthy children.
Christians often mocked pagans as worshipping idols, aka statuettes, etc. This, of course, was nonsense. Pagans used those "idols" as foci, not as manifestations of their gods. They allowed communication with the gods they represented and a conduit for the god's power coming back the other way. And, of course, it is hypocritical of Christians making that claim when so many Christian churches are now festooned with statues of Jesus affixed to a cross.
But, to convert to Christianity, did pagans have to give up all of the assurance/insurance seeking behaviors associated with the multitude of gods, and did they also have to give up the tolerance built into polytheism? (I think not in both cases.)
It seems more like Christianity changed to make it more acceptable to pagans/gentiles. Instead of a multitude of gods and demi-gods, Christians offered the Trinity, and more, saints (Saints, Mr. Frodo!). A multitude of saints that could be prayed to for favors. So, what are saints but demi-gods in drag. And, of course, angels could be prayed to for assistance, etc.
Christians evolved to include a variant which believes that their god has a plan for each and every one of us, a divine plan. And all of those sects also include prayers, which constitute requests for their god to set aside their divine plan and do what it was being asked to do instead. (Can you spell hubris, boys and girls?) And for people who claim that their prayers were answered, how did they know that what happened was not part of the original plan?
Early Christianity had no rituals, no temples, etc. But as Christianity "triumphed," it morphed into having temples/churches and there were rituals and funny costumes to be worn, and special holy days, and . . . and. . . .
Early Christians met in peoples' homes. There was no officiants involved, people just shared what they had learned or were taught or they read copies of letters that were in circulation. There were no official outfits to be worn, no dogma, no politics, etc.
So, from where I sit, Christianity hardly "triumphed." It seems more like the pagans merged their practices with those of the Early Christians and ended up somewhere in the middle. And, it seems as if was Saul/Paul's idea to preach to the gentiles/pagans. So, those who claim it is Paul's religion, in that it was he who got the ball rolling along the path Christianity took, are probably correct.
As to the reasons for the "triumph" of Christianity, several factors seem to be overlooked. One point is that Christianity was criticized for being weak because it targeted women, slaves, and even soldiers. One factor in that is that to "practice" any pagan religion, "offerings" were expected, a sacrificial animal like a fatted calf, or some money, something of value, which the poor, slaves, most women, and most ordinary soldiers didn't have. Christianity seems to have dumped the idea of offerings, so prominent in Judaism, so it instantly became the religion least costly as well as simplest to practice.
Another point that does get mentioned, but not emphasized is that Christians almost invented proselytizing. None of the pagan religions proselytized. Jews didn't proselytize (and still do not). So, Christianity was being sold, sold, sold, while the others were not.
The usual claim of Christian excusists was that paganism was collapsing under its own weight and so Christianity had an open field in front of it. This "opinion" was created from a belief that pagan religions were just wrong, and so must have been corrupt and weak. The adoption of Christianity by the Roman Empire, first as an accepted religion, and later (in the fourth century CE) as the official state religion led to a great deal of disenfranchisement of pagan temples, as Roman officials were quick to condemn them and then grab the land they sat on. The pagan religions were hardly collapsing under their own weight, like Putin's enemies who "fell from open windows," they didn't so much fall as they were pushed.
No comments:
Post a Comment