I've been reading The Christianization Of The Roman Empire by Ramsey McMullen, which is a pretty well researched work. Although I've been going at a pretty slow pace, I think I've got a better handle on the subject, enough to summarize - poor though my skills may be - how the early Christian movement spread so quickly.
I'm not sure exactly where to begin, but I want to make something clear from the start. I'm going to try to cover the period from Christ's death, up until the point where Constantine takes the throne (306). It's an important distinction, because during and after the reign of Constantine, the Christians had a powerful patron in the Imperial house - except for the brief reign of Julian the Apostate, who attempted to revive the Greco-Roman pagan traditions - and as such, the incentives for an individual to convert were very persuasive.
When Constantine became Emperor, Christians amounted to about 1/10th of the population of the Roman world. By the end of the 4th century, they amounted to at least 1/2 of the population. By that point, the Church basically controlled the state and set about converting or killing the remaining pagans, and destroying every pagan temple still in existance. But that's not really what we're concerned with, is it? We want to know about the start, and how it took root in urban centers around the Mediterranean.
Miracles
Matt and I were debating about the role of moral examples in the spread of Christianity, but I've come to find that the moral question is largely irrelevant. What is relevant to the apostolic era and beyond were the demonstrations of miracles to crowds of onlookers. Christian evangelists would frequently exorcise demons from people, force pagan alters to break or disappear through the power of prayer, and even (at least in one case) cause an earthquake to shake a hostile pagan city.
Of course, I don't believe in miracles. But whether one believes or not isn't important from a historical perspective, anyway. People of the time, before and after Christ, believed in miracles, and indeed saw them fairly often. It would be outside the norm for someone of the time not to believe in miracles. Before John gloats, I should point out however that other cults, like Mithraism and the cult of Sol Invictus also demonstrated similar miracles, and it was a well known way of gaining converts.
Exclusivity
The most important thing to understand about the pagan world is how inclusive it was. Polytheism in the western world was very inclusive, and indeed tolerant of other forms of faith. Romans and Greeks interpreted the Gods of outsiders by their own names, and allowed their worship to continue. Romans only asked that an alter to Rome (or the current emperor) be built in whatever foreign city they were occupying, and that while the natives continued to kill oxes for Odin, they might occasionally burn a little incense for Rome, and pray for the health of the Emperor.
Naturally that was turned on it's head by Christianity. Christianity was exclusive, absolute and unambiguous. It wasn't enough to simply add Christ to the list of deities being worshipped. Conversion meant rejection of all other forms of divinity. A convert would not necessarily reject the existence of other Gods, but they would consider pagan Gods to be daemones, or minor demons, capable of miracles, but inherently corrupt and not worthy of worship.
This naturally had the effect of irritating the rest of the pagan world, who as a result saw Christians as anti-social and subversive to society. It also made the work of evangelizing Christ that much more dangerous. But most importantly, it gave a greater weight to the demonstration of miracles. In the mind of one who has just witnessed a miracle, not only was the Christian God real and powerful, but he demands obedience and exclusive worship. To ignore that was to invite damnation, and hellfire and brimstone were indeed thoroughly preached at the time. So, this added a sense of urgency and finality to the question.
Support/Incentives
Though the movement was very small, isolated (to urban areas), and limited in methods of outreach and advertisement, there were some incentives to being a part of a Christian community. Christians were typically of the lower, uneducated rungs of society (Pagan writer Celsus describes, in very unflattering words, the common practice of Christians recruiting Children and ignorant housewives in secretive conversations while adult males weren't looking) and often these were craftsmen or workers of a common trade. Often they would meet for common prayer and to receive the Eucharist in the backroom of a common workshop or place of business.
Although small, they would attempt to support each other when there was a need, and when possible would even open charitable endeavors for the general public. These would take the form of providing medical care for those in need, or food for the poor. There is a missionary aspect to these efforts, of course. It's not really all that different from what Churches to today to help the poor. Being a part of a "safety net" community like this was probably a draw for some. I doubt it alone was enough of a draw to make someone leave Paganism for Christianity, another reason in addition would be necessary (pressure from converted family members, perhaps, or some of the other motivations listed above).
I've written a lot, but definately not enough to do the topic justice. If you are still interested, I recommend reading the book.
neat.
ReplyDeleteYou mention pagan groups did miracles too, were theirs less impressive?
Did Christianity have competitors, specifically I mean? Weren't the Jews also exclusive?
Really sounds interesting.
On another note, I think I'd like to read something on what modern scholars think ancient people actually saw since there is no way they accept legit miracles.
Was it magic tricks? Mass delusion? Maybe I'll find some summer reading on the topic.
I kn
"You mention pagan groups did miracles too, were theirs less impressive?"
ReplyDeleteDon't know. The author touched on the subject, but didn't go into detail, since it was slightly off topic. I suspect the miracles were at least as convincing as Christian's, since Mithaism and the Cult of Sol were both very popular in the 100's up until Constantine.
Also, ancient writings come to us by way of medieval monks, who made fresh copies for posterity. They acted as a filter, and as a result we don't have much material from a non-christian perspective (some, but not a lot). For example, anti-christian polemics mostly only come to us in fragments. The fragments are literally only the parts that christains quoted in published responses. This would be like future people trying to learn as much as possible about John Stegeman by reading the parts of your blogs that I quote in my comments. Very limited, in other words.
Scholarly historians probably avoid the issue of whether they were "real" or not, since it's impossible not to be prejudiced on the matter (either you accept the possiblity of miracles or you don't), and there's no way of recording a miracle so as to "prove" it empirically.
Another thing to remember is that many of the miracles that evangelists of that time did (like exorcising demons and healing the sick through prayer) can be witnessed if you flip to the 700 Club, or other such televangilist schtick. How do they heal the blind by hitting them? How do they calm down someone who's got the devil in them? This is happening in our own time, but we don't care to find out the truth. We just assume their either morons or frauds.
Another element you've hinted at, but haven't really acknowledged is that Christianity was the Shawnee State of ancient religions. It offered open enrollment to any schmuck wishing to join. Sex and social status were completely irrelevant to the early Christians (hence Celsus' criticisms).
ReplyDeleteThis is in strict contrast to the mystery cults, which were fairly strict about what kind of people were allowed to join their ranks.
Both Christianity and the mystery cults claimed to offer exclusive knowledge and a more personal relationship with the divine, but in the end, Christianity won because it was more accessible (on top of the other reason you've listed, of course).
The majority of cults and temples were open to anyone who chose to patronize them, but it is true that of those religions who offered exclusive knowledge of an exclusive God, Christianity was pretty darn easy to get into. In fact, it's hard to define exactly what "conversion" meant, since it almost certainly didn't always entail the commitment that it meant today.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the Jews, much of the exclusive theology and rhetoric was the same as Christianity, but Rabbinic Judaism wasn't all that interested in gaining converts from the gentiles. Romans were almost as annoyed by Jews as they were Christians, but because of the lack of evangelism, they were more likely to be ignored and left in peace - in terms of religion, not politics, politically they were completely annihilated.
More than the easy access of Christianity, the willingness of the Christian faith to adapt itself to whatever culture it was trying to incorporate was an even bigger draw, I think. The holiday of Christmas is the most obvious example. Another would be the adaptation of Christian mass to include singing hymns. That was a distinctly pagan practice, that bishops reluctantly accepted, as it was bringing many more into the fold. In fact, the theology of the Christian Church from the start was a watering down of Judaism for pagan audiences. The Bud Light of middle eastern religions...