Skeptical

I have lately been doing some research into the origins of Christianity, specifically I have been trying to determine what led Christianity to eventually "win" over the traditional Roman religions.

To this end, I have been trying to deduce what the appeal of Christianity would have been to the average Roman over their traditional religion. I have a few questions that I hope someone can point me in the right direction for further research:

1) Would the idea of "sin" and "salvation" as they are traditionally understood by Christianity have been intelligible to a 1st/2nd century Roman? That is, would the message that someone died for their sins so that they could be saved have been meaningful to the Roman mind?

2) Do we know if the traditional Roman religions had evangelizing as a component of their religion similar to what early and modern Christianity had/have? Did the Romans religions actively try to "convert" new followers?

3) To what extent do we have evidence that the early converts of Romans to Christianity were those on the fringes of Roman society? (I distinctly remember reading this as an accusation from a fairly early source, perhaps Celsus)

That's all I can think of for now. Any links or references to source material appreciated.

Toto

Have you read Rodney Stark on the Rise of Christianity (also reviewed here? He sees the appeal coming from the mutual aid practiced by Christians more than the ideology.

The idea of a dying or suffering god who brings some benefit to humanity is a common theme in religions of the time.

I don't recall reading about paganism trying to "convert" people, but it did have the force of the Roman state behind it, so it probably didn't need. I have read speculation that Jews did conversions about that time, and there were other competing religions and cults.

Stark thinks that the bulk of early converts were well educated urban denizens

Chris Weimer

Well, it's rather simple really. While the upper class enjoyed a life of luxury and a best life/afterlife money can buy, the poorer people were in the streets toiling away and could only look forward to the shades. Well, along came this new message of a guy named Christ who praised the poor and denounced the wealthy. Now who do you think Constatine was looking after when he legalized Christianity? Christians, God's holy people? The poor? Nope, his own ass. He saw his opportunity to take this new religion popular with poor people and have all of them gain his support. And of course we have the soldiers who were fond of Mithraism, so what do they do? Incorporate Mithraism into Christianity and we have the downfall of Rome and the rise of the Catholic church. Fast forward a century and a half and we see the election of George W. Bush who promises to carry out the next crusades. Does he actually follow Jesus' words? Does anybody?

Eldarion Lathria

A great religious desire among the late empire was for bodily immortality. The Mystery Religions promised that, but you had to go through long and arduous trials to get the prize. Along comes Christianity, another Mystery Religion. But it's EASY. All you have to do is assent to some basic principles, get splashed with water engage, in some ritual cannibalism without actually eating human flesh and eternal life in the body is yours. No going to Eleusis, no painful trials in speleo sacram , no bodily mutilation, not even any fasting if you don't want to. If you fall from the standard, you pray, maybe pay some trifling sum, and you're back in good with the Boss.

Eldarion Lathria

Crazy Liz

In connection with this question, you should study the reasons so many Greeks and Romans were attracted to Judaism during the same period and slightly before. Synagogue Judaism already had many Gentile adherents, known as "God-fearers."

It seems that they were attracted by the ethical system of Judaism. You should be able to find some information on this if you want to research it further.

Skeptical

I had not seen that. Thanks, that is helpful.


Yes, I'm aware of those traditions. I guess I was asking a more specific question about the Christian concepts of sin and salvation and whether those concepts as they were understood by the early Jesus movement would have been meaningful to the Pagan mind.

For example, it would seem that the early Jesus movement idea of sin (original sin?) are tied specifically to the idea of Jesus being the salvation from said sin. Without the pervasive idea of sin and separation from the divine, it doesn't seem to be meaningful to talk about a "savior", at least as those terms were understood within the early Jesus movement.

So my question is did the Roman religions have this concept of sin and separation from the divine or something similar, or would this specific set of ideas have been novel to them, perhaps presenting decision points that did not exist in their traditional religious framework?


What I have read about Roman/Pagan religions is that they were intimately tied to the local community, with each town or city having certain favored dieties whose worship was intimately tied to all aspects the Romans daily life . (at least, that was the impression I got)

So based on that, one idea I had was that the evangelizing of the early Jesus movement played a role by bringing the movement to the Romans in more of an active fashion. However, at this point it is speculative on my part.


Interesting. I have not read the book and based on the 2 reviews, I am not sure if I will. It sounds like Stark makes a lot of assumptions that are based on speculation, which is what I am trying to avoid. I realize our sources from the early Christian movement are not that good, particularly in the 1st century, but I would think that it should be possible to piece together some coherent ideas based on what limited information we do have without relying uncritically on Christian sources or making speculative leaps.

For example, if he is not a trained cultural anthropolgist, he probably doesn't have the skills necessary to make the sort of cross-cultural comparisons between early Christianity and other modern religious movements that the reviews talk about. But, I may check it out of the library just to take a look myself.

Thanks for your help.

Lucretius

Just to answer this one point I would have to say no
Traditional Roman religion was a very fluid concept they were quite capable of absorbing other gods into it
As a sort of example if the Romans came into contact with a race/tribe who had amongst their gods a warrior god they would normally accept that and say to the "foreign" believers that the god they were worshipping was in fact Mars by another name,so absorbing this god into the Roman pantheon.
I have to add that belief in the Roman pantheon was very much "pick and mix" Romans could and would actively worship whichever god they thought would "give them the best deal" for their particular life style.
The only examples of Romans insisting that people worshipped particular gods came about after the practice of the Emperors being deified but this was mainly a political thing rather than truly religious.In much the same way I imagine the Pledge of Allegiance was designed for the citizens of the USA to unite all citizens in one core belief in Roman terms the Divine Emperor ,being representative of the state ,in US terms the state itself .

The Romans had problems with both Jews and Christians because their religion(s) were not capable of being absorbed in this way being basically monotheistic and so were pretty much at odds with Roman religious orthodoxy (Note that Christians were often referred to as "Atheists " in Roman writings )
So while they did not actively "convert " other races they did effectivley co-opt them into the State religion

graymouser

Another book on the subject

MacMullen theorizes that the early appeal of Christianity was often to the ill-educated, conversions made by wandering miracle men who would work wonders (frequently healings, exorcisms, and the such, which he attests as the best-advertised aspects of Christianity) and subsequently convert and initiate those who were drawn to the spectacle of the miracles. He thinks that the exclusivism of Christianity as a belief system was particularly effective at turning the convert to the strict monotheism of the religion, whereas pagan miracles functioned only to bring the believer in stronger dedication to a particular god.

MacMullen seems unwilling to put much stock in the intellectual appeal of Christianity to its early converts; he seems to put the emphasis on miraculous works. This makes much sense of the Gospels and Acts; they make perfect sense for a religion whose emphasis is strongest on conversions by conviction of miracles and not intellectual conversion.

-Wayne