Scan barcode
A review by hilaritas
Pagans: The End of Traditional Religion and the Rise of Christianity by James J. O'Donnell
4.0
This is an interesting but flawed history of the interaction between Christianity and "paganism". The strongest parts lay in O'Donnell's acerbic and evocative depictions of the past: he has some great accounts of the welter of ancient religious practices that really help sketch what the situation on the ground was like when the early church was just another mystery cult among many. O'Donnell's chief thesis, such as it can be pinned down, is that Christianity created the monolith "Paganism" out of a mass of localized, disparate, and nebulous traditional practices, and was thus able to sharpen its own focus through the lens of its self-created nemesis, leading to the world-historical success it has become. O'Donnell has some interesting side excursions in telling this tale, and he vividly recasts many familiar historical figures as much more ambiguous and historically situated than how they're typically described.
Despite these strengths, the book as a whole is not really convincing. First and foremost, O'Donnell falters by refusing to take seriously the piety of ancient cult religious practitioners. He assumes that ancient religion was largely a matter of genial tradition, not the subject of committed fervor. This may be true at times and in certain circumstances, but I find it highly unlikely to be the case generally. Similarly, O'Donnell stretches his argument about the blurring of boundaries between traditional religious practices and Christianity during the 4th century too far, to the point where he is basically doubting whether anyone was actually a Christian convert. It may be true that Christianity existed more comfortably with past practices than is often apparent from Christian polemicists at the time, but I think it's a stretch to go on to say that every Christian at the time was also still swimming in traditional cult currents.
It's O'Donnell's desire to be arch, knowing, and above reproach as a partisan in religious matters that makes this book so fun to read, but also so infuriating to evaluate. You get the sense that he's so interested in giving a novel take that he doesn't mind fudging the details. That said, there is ample food for thought here, even if you can't swallow it all without some skeptical probing. I'm rating it higher based on its strengths.
Despite these strengths, the book as a whole is not really convincing. First and foremost, O'Donnell falters by refusing to take seriously the piety of ancient cult religious practitioners. He assumes that ancient religion was largely a matter of genial tradition, not the subject of committed fervor. This may be true at times and in certain circumstances, but I find it highly unlikely to be the case generally. Similarly, O'Donnell stretches his argument about the blurring of boundaries between traditional religious practices and Christianity during the 4th century too far, to the point where he is basically doubting whether anyone was actually a Christian convert. It may be true that Christianity existed more comfortably with past practices than is often apparent from Christian polemicists at the time, but I think it's a stretch to go on to say that every Christian at the time was also still swimming in traditional cult currents.
It's O'Donnell's desire to be arch, knowing, and above reproach as a partisan in religious matters that makes this book so fun to read, but also so infuriating to evaluate. You get the sense that he's so interested in giving a novel take that he doesn't mind fudging the details. That said, there is ample food for thought here, even if you can't swallow it all without some skeptical probing. I'm rating it higher based on its strengths.