The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World

How is it that a cultish religion comprising perhaps twenty or so Aramaic-speaking illiterate Jews in early first century Palestine came to dominate the entire Roman Empire roughly 400 years later? That is the question posed by noted religious scholar Bart Ehrman in “The Triumph of Christianity.” It’s a fascinating read.The remarkable story of the early growth of Christianity is really the amazing story of compound interest. Ehrman and other scholars (most notably sociologist Rodney Stark) estimate that the Christian religion grew steadily and organically at the rate of roughly 40% per decade from the time of Christ’s crucifixion in 30 AD to 400 AD when Christianity became the official religion of the empire. He claims that there were likely no mass conversions over this period but rather the faith grew piecemeal as individual Christians slowly converted close friends and family. The “compound interest effect” is startling to behold. From a starting base of just twenty Christians in 30 AD the faith grew to perhaps 10,000 in 100 AD, then to roughly 150,000 in 200 AD, then 3,000,000 in 300 AD, and finally 35,000,000 in 400 AD. Ehrman notes that this growth rate is entirely plausible and closely matches the actual growth rate experienced by the Mormon Church over the past 150 years.But why did Christianity triumph? There were plenty of other cultish religions in the Roman Empire during this period, particularly in the East, but none of them experienced a sustained growth rate of 40% per decade for centuries. Here I found Ehrman’s explanation less than convincing. In short, he says, the Christian religion grew inexorably because “The words of the Christians were backed up by stories of miracles.” This is a thesis previously expounded by the classicist Ramsey MacMullen. People of the ancient world readily believed in supernatural phenomena and the tremendous power of the gods. The Christian message was ready made for such a society, Ehrman says. “From the beginning, starting with the astounding life and ministry of Jesus himself and continuing through the work of his apostles and then their successors, the power of God had been manifest in real and tangible ways.” But what Ehrman never makes clear, at least not to me, is what made the tales of Christian miracles unique and especially credible. Again, early Christianity had competition for converts. Did those other cults not claim miraculous events in support of their faith?Christianity had several unusual features that made it a potent rival to the existing pagan cults. Namely, Christianity was, in Ehrman’s words, “evangelistic, exclusive, and totalizing.” Unlike most of the pagan cults, such as those to Dionysus or Apollo, which had existed for centuries and had no need or desire to actively recruit new members, the Christians eagerly sought new converts to their faith. Perhaps more importantly, unlike the pagan cults, which allowed members to worship as many other gods as they wished, the Christians required their members to renounce all other gods. For the first time in the ancient world (with the exception of the Jews) the contest for adherents to the faith became a zero-sum game. Finally, unlike the pagan cults Christianity was about more than just ritual and periodic worship. It involved an entirely new world of scripture and dogma that laid out how members of the faith were expected to live their lives loving their neighbors as themselves. It was this combination of things, bolstered by tales of Christian miracles, that ultimately led to the triumph of Christianity over the pagan cults of the ancient Roman world, according to Ehrman.Lastly there is the issue of Christian persecution at the hands of Roman authorities. Ehrman writes that acts of official persecution were late in coming, relatively rare in practice, and largely ineffective in stemming the tide of Christian growth. Indeed, the periods of official persecution were limited to just a few instances, namely 250, 257 to 258, and finally 303 to 313. Prior to these periods the persecution of Christians was local and episodic without any official sanction of the state. Interestingly, nowhere does Ehrman write about Christians being fed to the lions in the Coliseum.In 250 the emperor Decius issued an edict requiring all Roman citizens to perform a sacrifice to the gods and threatening exile, confiscation of property, torture, and death to all those who failed to comply. It is believed, but by no means certain, that the edict specifically targeted Christians. Ehrman says it’s impossible to know how many Christians were ultimately affected.Valerian followed Decius and was the first emperor to issue decrees specifically directed against the Christians and thus the first to sponsor an empire-wide persecution. Valerian’s decree of 257 ordered the execution of all Christian bishops, presbyters, and deacons in the city of Rome and required all Christian senators and those of equestrian rank to recant their faith on pain of death. Many leading Christians, included the bishop of Rome, were executed before the decree was rescinded in 260 when Valerian was captured while on campaign in Persia.Finally, and most importantly, there were the persecutions of Diocletian, “a persecution that dwarfed anything the empire had ever seen,” according to Ehrman. Diocletian’s first edict of 303 sought to have all Christian meetings declared illegal, all Christian places of worship destroyed, all Christian scriptures confiscated, and all Christians of high social status to lose their rank. However, Ehrman says, these sweeping and draconian measures were difficult to enforce across a sprawling empire that possessed no imperial police force. In 304 Diocletian issued a final decree that required everyone in the empire to gather in public spaces to participate in sacrifices and threatened imprisonment, torture or death to those who failed to comply. The persecutions continued in one form or another until the Christian emperor Constantine issued the so-called Edict of Milan establishing freedom of religion across the empire in 313. Ehrman claims that it is impossible to know how many Christians suffered imprisonment or died at the hands of the authorities during Diocletian’s persecutions, but it was likely only a matter of hundreds of people or at most a few thousand.In closing, “The Triumph of Christianity” is an accessible and enlightening account of the first four hundred years of Christianity. However, Ehrman’s central argument that it was miracles (or the story of miracles) that explains Christianity’s ability to acquire converts across the empire and over the centuries strikes me as questionable at best and impossible at worst.

The Triumph of Christianity is an interesting dive into its subject matter. For me, at least, the most enjoyable and thought-provoking parts were those on paganism. Such as its role in the empire and how it was practiced among the populous. Also, very good, is the richly detailed description of the life of Paul, who as Christianity’s number one proselytizer, appears to have single handedly started the chain of events that led to Christianity becoming the dominant religion of the Roman empire, which, of course, changed the entire history of Western civilization. In a completely different context, Ehrman devotes a chapter to his mathematical theory of how the seemingly amazing growth of Christian converts during the time of the Roman empire was not quite as phenomenal as it may appear at first sight. Hint: think of how quickly money can multiply over time via compound interest. Additionally, you get tidbits about the proclivities of the Roman emperors, many who professed to be Christians, but often behaved in very un-Christian like ways.

This is an academic and historical book--not a religious book. While broadly it puts Christianity in positive light, it's fair in assessing excesses by Christian-led movements and governments after it became the world's dominant religion. Telling the story of how it went from a small persecuted minority to a dominant force. Some of the history is taken from the Bible and Paul, much of it is post-biblical. The author contends miracles were a huge reason. He doesn't take a position about whether the miracles happening in the early Christian church were really miracles. But he says it's clear many, many people did.There were other reasons. One is that Christians were just nice and charitable despite their own plight. Another is the the consequences of the afterlife. But it was, he argues, the evidence of what from the public's perspective were miracles that convinced a massive number of people these other doctrines were to be taken seriously.Many Christians might have a different argument about the unlikely rise of the religion. That people were simply touched by the Holy Spirit.But the author takes an objective and historical assessment on an unlikely rise, based on what's provable.This is not apologetic. It's a worthwhile read.

O produto chegou bem antes do previsto e dentro das especificações.

The spread of early Christianity is, at least for me, one of the most surprising facts of our history.A small-time preacher, with a short activity and little following became almost overnight the embodiment of the basic tenets of the most followed religion in the world.In its first almost 300 years it conquered the Middle East, North Africa and Europe without any help from political authorities and despite persecutions.Its message was so revolutionary and attractive that at the time when Constantine adopted it, it was already the most spread and organised religion within the Roman Empire.I always wondered how it happened and this book gave me a lot of answers.The doctrine evolved over centuries but the messianic message and resurrection attracted and gave hope to the initial Jewish followers.“Jesus was the messiah, but not one anybody had expected. By raising Jesus from the dead, God showed that his death had brought about a much greater salvation than anyone had anticipated. Jesus did not come to save God's people from their oppression by foreign power; he came to save them for eternal life. This is what the earliest Christians proclaimed.”The word was quickly spread by the initial followers, Paul being the most important of them all.His interpretation of the meanings of Jesus life and sacrifice made the new faith easily attractable to the gentiles.“If the salvation of God came by the death and resurrection of Jesus, this must be how God had planned all along to save his chosen people. That must mean that salvation could not come in any other way-for example, by the zealous adherence to the prescriptions of the Jewish law. If salvation could come by belonging to the covenantal community of the chosen people, or by keeping the Law of Moses, there would be no reason for God's messiah to have suffered an excruciating death.Following the law thus must have no bearing on how a person stands in a right relationship with God.That in turn had inordinately significant implications. If the law had no bearing on a person's standing before God, then being a Jew could not be required for those who wanted to belong to God's people and enjoy his gracious act of salvation. The only requirement was trusting in the sacrificial atonement provided by Christ. That in turn meant that the message of salvation was not for Jews alone. It was for all people, Jew and gentile. And it came to gentiles apart from observing the Jewish law.Thus, to be members of God's covenantal people, it was not necessary for gentiles to become Jews.”This idea will be further developed by Luther. As lately I am very much into Christian studies, I just bought a book about him as well 😉.But I digress, for Paul “God had not abandoned the Jews or vacated the Jewish religion; Christ himself had not opposed the Jewish faith or proposed to start something new. Christ stood in absolute continuity with all that went before. But, for Paul, without Christ the Jewish faith was incomplete and imperfect. Christ was the goal to which that faith had long striven, and now he had arrived. True, in his own eyes he did not stop being a Jew or think he was preaching a message at odds with Judaism. But he did turn around the literal meaning of “conversion” – making a radical change in his understanding of that religion and, even more obviously, in his understanding of Christ, rejecting his earlier view of Jesus as condemned by God and coming to see him as God's messiah. For Paul, this was the completion of God's plan for the human race. Paul's mission had been predicted by the prophets of old, in anticipation of the coming kingdom of God. Paul was to bring the history of the world to its preordained climax.”“Paul's message, in a nutshell, was a Jewish apocalyptic proclamation with a seriously Christian twist. God was saving this world.He had destroyed the power of sin by the death of Jesus; he had destroyed the power of death by the resurrection of Jesus; and he would destroy the power of evil by the return of Jesus. It was allgoing according to plan. Paul knew for a fact that it was because with his own eyes he had seen that Jesus had been raised from the dead.He also knew that Jesus was soon to return. This time he would not come meekly.”As we all know, Jesus did not come back (yet), but Paul assured the followers, as Jesus did as well, that the day of the reckoning will be during their lifetime. This apocalyptic expectation was one of the main attractions of the new faith. Later on, the unfulfilled expectation was dealt with, more of less credible, by other authoritative biblical scholars.Regrettably, as there are almost no sources about the initial spread of Christianism, the author jumps up from Paul directly to Constantine.“Roman religions involved many gods; they were all about practice, not about belief; they had no orthodoxy or heresy, no doctrines, almost no ethical requirements (with a few exceptions, such as a proscription of parricide), and no sacred "Word of God" giving instructions about theology or daily ethical practices. There were no trans-regional religious organizations or leaders. The religions on the whole were massively inclusive and highly tolerant. They principally entailed cultic activities of prayer, sacrifice, and divination.They all subscribed to the existence of many gods and all were based on cultic acts of worship, such as sacrifice, prayer, and divination. As such, they were by and large inclusive. None of them insisted their god was the only divine being, or that this god was to be worshiped in only one particular way everywhere. As a corollary, these religions were highly tolerant of differences. So too was the Roman government, both centrally in Rome and throughout the provinces. There were exceptions, but only when a cult was judged to be morally degenerate or socially dangerous.”Only the Jews believed in a single god and rejected all the others but they didn’t actively sought converts. In that world, the evangelizing mission of the Christian church was unparalleled and unprecedented: "Such a proselytizing mission was a shocking novelty in the ancient world" and, as we know, it will never stop.“If the concerted attempt to win converts was not a standard feature of ancient religion, even Judaism, why did Christianity become missionary? Some informed intuition would suggest that surely it had to do with the nature of the Christian message. Christians as early as Paul-the first to undertake a worldwide mission-maintained that Christ died because it was God's plan to bring salvation to the world.Those who did not experience this salvation were lost, doomed to punishment. As an apocalyptic Jew, Paul, and then his converts, insisted God was soon to enter into judgment with this world. A cataclysmic act of destruction was to occur. Those who were in Christ would be spared the onslaught and be brought into God's eternal kingdom. Those who were not would be destroyed.”“Christianity was the only evangelistic religion that we know of in antiquity, and, along with Judaism, it was also the only one that was exclusive. That combination of evangelism and exclusion proved to be decisive for the triumph of Christianity. If it had been evangelistic but not exclusive, it may well have gained adherents, but paganism would have remained unaffected. Pagans would simply have begun to worship Christ along with whatever other gods they chose: Jupiter, Apollo, Diana, Mithras, Isis… take your pick. If, on the other hand, it had been exclusive but not evangelistic, Christianity, like Judaism, would have simply been an isolated and marginal religion without masses of adherents.”There are no sources naming evangelistic rallies, so the author presumes, correctly I think, that the Christianism spread simply by word of mouth within their various networks of personal relationships, with converts telling their families, friends, neighbours and other associates of the "good news" they had come to believe.What made the difference were the amazing stories that verified the Christian message. From the beginning, starting with the astounding life and ministry of Jesus himself and continuing through the work of his apostles and then their successors, the power of God had been manifested in real and tangible ways.God was at work, and his followers could prove it through the miraculous activities they engaged in.Few people could claim to have observed any of these spectacular miracles of faith. But that was not necessary. All that was needed was belief that such things had in fact happened, and possibly that they continued to happen.The more the stories were told, and told with conviction, the more listeners were likely to think they might be true.These stories were accompanied by the insistence that God's power manifest in the world now simply foreshadowed what was to take place in the hereafter. The people of God were about to enter an eternity of joy, peace, and glory. But those who refused to accept the message would pay an ultimate price. The sufferings of the present age were nothing in comparison with the torments that awaited those who rejected the truth and continued to worship the minions of evil.Pg 154 There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that, far more than the glories of heaven, it was the tortures of hell that convinced potential converts. The hellish vision is certainly one that obsessed a number of Christian authors, some of whom delighted in thinking how their enemies among the pagans would roast forever.Unrepentant pagans recognized the rhetorical force of these descriptions. Thus, the second-century critic Celsus pointed out that Christians succeeded in their proselytizing because they "invent a number of terrifying incentives. Above all, they have concocted an absolutely offensive doctrine of everlasting punishments and rewards, exceeding anything the philosophers. . . could have imagined."Christians too declared the effectiveness of divine terrors. As Augustine declared: "Very rarely, no never, does it happen that someone comes to us with the wish to become a Christian who hasnot been struck by some fear of God.There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that, far more than the glories of heaven, it was the tortures of hell that convinced potential converts. As Augustine declared: "Very rarely, no never, does it happen that someone comes to us with the wish to become a Christian who has not been struck by some fear of God."There are not enough sources to chart the Christian growth with precision, but a steady growth can explain it.“It would be a mistake to think that it was Constantine's conversion alone that facilitated the Christianization of the empire. If Christianity had simply continued to grow at the rate it was growingat the time of the emperor's conversion or even less-it still would have eventually taken over.It is impossible to say what would have happened if Constantine had not converted. One could argue that, had the Romans been even more determined to stamp out the faith, they could have done so. Or one could argue the opposite: that even more rigorous Roman opposition would have hardened the Christians' resolve and made them more fervent in the propagation of their religion, making true Tertullian's claim that the blood of martyrs was the seed of the church.”“We will never know what might have happened. But we do know what did happen. Constantine converted at an opportune moment. Christianity was poised to grow exponentially even as its rate of growth slowed. The masses did begin to pour in. The emperor showered favours on a religion that excluded the possibility of all other worship. From that point on, looking at the matter in hindsight, the pagan cults of Rome were doomed. An exclusive commitment to the one God of the Christians destroyed the other religions in its wake. Within eighty years of Constantine's conversion, the transformation would be both massive and official. Rome would become predominantly and officially Christian.”“Christianity was not declared illegal in the empire before the middle of the third century. There were no empire-wide laws or decrees issued by the central authorities in Rome that proscribed the faith. Christians did not, as a rule, go into hiding. For the most part they lived perfectly normal lives in the midst of other people who practiced a wide variety of other religions. The catacombs were not meeting places for Christians forced to congregate in clandestine cells for fear of violent perception. Persecution itself was rare, and there were relatively few casualties.When it happened, it was not because the Christian religion was illegal per se; it was because the Christians were perceived as dangerous, either to the social well-being of a local community or, eventually, to the ongoing health of the entire empire.Nero did not, technically speaking, prosecute Christians for being Christian. He executed them for committing arson. True, they probably were not guilty, but that was the charge. Being a Christian was not punishable, but setting fire to Rome was. "Third and finally, Nero's persecution was localized. It involved only the city of Rome. Between Nero in 64 CE and Marcus Aurelius in 177 CE, the only mention of an emperor's intervention in Christian affairs, apart from the episode involving Trajan found in Pliny's letters, is a letter from the emperor Hadrian that gives instructions to a local governor to conduct his trials against the Christians fairly.Nevertheless, the official Christian propaganda is full of martyrs. Nothing new, even the communists invented their own martyrs.Surprisingly for people like me who did not read much about this era, Constantine did not make Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.“On the contrary, Constantine had no mission to convert the masses of pagans who continued to follow traditional religious practices. He was content to practice Christianity himself, to support and promote the activities of the church, to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs when issues of unity arose, to fund the building of churches, and to provide social and economic advantages to Christian clergy.During Constantine's reign, Christianity was certainly a favoured religion, and it probably did not require extraordinary intelligence for members of the imperial elite to realize that converting to the faith would not hurt their chances for advancement.He certainly converted to worship the Christian god alone in 312 CE, in connection with the battle at the Milvian Bridge, even if it took a long time for him to realize fully what it meant to embrace the Christian faith. Still, this was a genuine conversion. At that point Constantine dedicated himself to honouring and obeying the god of the Christians. He did not do so with complete success, if being a faithful Christian means loving your enemies and turning the other cheek. Then again, he was not the sort of figure Jesus would have envisioned while preaching in rural Galilee. Constantine was an emperor with enormous burdens and responsibilities. Harsh legislation and the occasional ruthless act were all part of the job.Possibly the most important thing Constantine did for the future of the religion is that he saw that his sons were raised in the Christian tradition in preparation for what was to come next. With the exception of the nineteen-month reign of Constantine's nephew, Julian, in 361 to 363 CE, every remaining Roman emperor was Christian.Constantine also set an important precedent in his decision to intervene in ecclesiastical affairs. His intervention makes perfect sense in a Roman imperial context. All of Constantine's predecessors had been the chief priest, the pontifex maximus, of the religions of Rome - as was he, despite the fact he was a ChristianEven though he was a complete neophyte, a theological child, Constantine thrust himself into matters of Christian polity and theology.A unified church was important for a unified empire. And a disunified church or at least parts of it-obviously failed to carry out the will of the God over all. That could lead to disaster.”“By the end of the fourth century the first Christian emperor's decision to prefer persuasion to coercion had become a thing of the past. Christianity was declared the state religion. Traditional pagan practices were proscribed, temples were levelled, and sacred cult objects and art were destroyed.”And thus, the heroic rise entered into an intolerant era, one reason being the intolerant potential of this exclusivist religion, and the other being the almost absolute power it had for a long time over its subjects, but this is a matter for other academic studies.This journey into the fog of early Christianism was very educative and thrilling for me.I recommend it.

Absolutely brilliant! "The Triumph of Christianity" may not be Ehrman's most scholarly work (such as "Misquoting Jesus"), but this is excellent, rational detective work. His conclusions are plausible and sensible to anyone without bias. The origins of the world's largest religion have a perfectly social and political explanation without the need to invoke the divinely miraculous theory. Every Christian should read this.

El éxito del cristianismo es analizado aquí como parte central de la historia, con mucha información y claridad. El estudio de la religión en el pasado te introduce más en el alma de los pueblos antiguos que las batallas y conquistas. Este libro lo consigue.

Bart D. Ehrman, a renowned historian and Bible scholar, tackles a monumental task in The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World. He delves into the fascinating, often messy, history of Christianity, tracing its rise from a persecuted sect to a global phenomenon. Ehrman's purpose isn't just to recount facts; he aims to illuminate the social, political, and cultural forces that propelled this seemingly improbable triumph.Ehrman weaves a compelling narrative, unpacking the complex factors that fueled Christianity's early growth. He masterfully dissects the allure of its message, highlighting its emphasis on love, forgiveness, and hope in a world rife with suffering. He also delves into the strategic decisions made by early Christian leaders, their savvy adaptation of Jewish traditions, and their clever use of Roman infrastructure to spread their message.Ehrman's writing is a masterclass in clarity and erudition. He avoids dry academic jargon, instead opting for a conversational tone that draws the reader in. He paints vivid pictures and makes complex historical concepts accessible.The book's structure is well-organised, chronologically tracing Christianity's journey from its Jewish roots to its establishment as the Roman Empire's official religion. While some readers might find the sheer volume of information overwhelming, Ehrman cleverly employs transitional phrases and chapter summaries to keep the narrative flowing smoothly.Ehrman's research is meticulous, drawing on a vast array of primary and secondary sources. He footnotes his claims generously, allowing readers to delve deeper if they wish. He doesn't shy away from challenging traditional narratives, citing evidence to debunk myths and misconceptions about Christianity's early history.The Triumph of Christianity isn't just a historical account; it's a thought-provoking exploration of the religion's enduring legacy. Ehrman compels us to consider the factors that contribute to the success of any belief system, prompting us to reflect on the role of faith in our own lives.But there are some issues with the book. Ehrman's focus on the historical and sociological aspects of Christianity might leave some readers yearning for a more spiritual or theological perspective. Additionally, his reliance on textual analysis can feel dry at times, particularly for those unfamiliar with biblical scholarship.The Triumph of Christianity is a deeply informative and engaging read. Ehrman's masterful storytelling, coupled with his meticulous research, makes this book a must-read for anyone interested in the history of Christianity or the broader dynamics of religious movements. While it might not appeal to everyone (think die-hard theologians or those seeking a purely spiritual experience), it offers a nuanced and thought-provoking exploration of a religion that continues to shape the world we live in. So, if you're curious about the unlikely rise of Christianity, dive into Ehrman's book; you won't be disappointed.