Scan barcode
A review by aront
Pagans: The End of Traditional Religion and the Rise of Christianity by James J. O'Donnell
4.0
An easy and interesting read about a fascinating topic. The points he clearly lays out are:
1. Paganism is a Christian invention
2. The traditional Christian view of a battle to the death with “paganism” is triumphalist nonsense
3. The scholarly argument that paganism got boring also doesn’t wash
He gives lots of fascinating details about the period to provide evidence for his arguments. The biggest flaw in the book is that he doesn’t coherently and clearly explain
1. what defines traditional Roman “religious” practices
2. how Christianity triumphed so easily if 2 and 3 above are bunk.
On point 1 he seems to argue that traditional Roman practice was so diversified and so foreign to our way of thinking that there is no overall coherent way to describe it beyond a collection of details. The first half seems true enough the second is less convincing. Nonetheless it seems it should be possible to be clearer and provide more general arguments.
As for point 2 it’s not clear at all why he doesn’t provide more explicit theses. He hints at stuff - the centralizing power of imperial rule, “books” as a technology for disseminating ideas, and cultural changes that opened up new approaches to understand the divine.
One takeaway from this book is that history is not something fixed in time, but a constantly updated narrative. New evidence and ideas compel historians to create new narratives of the past. That actually makes reading history fun. But the most compelling retelling needs clear theses so the reader can judge if they provide a better explanation of the evidence. By not clarifying all his theses O’Donnell undermines the value of his new narrative.
1. Paganism is a Christian invention
2. The traditional Christian view of a battle to the death with “paganism” is triumphalist nonsense
3. The scholarly argument that paganism got boring also doesn’t wash
He gives lots of fascinating details about the period to provide evidence for his arguments. The biggest flaw in the book is that he doesn’t coherently and clearly explain
1. what defines traditional Roman “religious” practices
2. how Christianity triumphed so easily if 2 and 3 above are bunk.
On point 1 he seems to argue that traditional Roman practice was so diversified and so foreign to our way of thinking that there is no overall coherent way to describe it beyond a collection of details. The first half seems true enough the second is less convincing. Nonetheless it seems it should be possible to be clearer and provide more general arguments.
As for point 2 it’s not clear at all why he doesn’t provide more explicit theses. He hints at stuff - the centralizing power of imperial rule, “books” as a technology for disseminating ideas, and cultural changes that opened up new approaches to understand the divine.
One takeaway from this book is that history is not something fixed in time, but a constantly updated narrative. New evidence and ideas compel historians to create new narratives of the past. That actually makes reading history fun. But the most compelling retelling needs clear theses so the reader can judge if they provide a better explanation of the evidence. By not clarifying all his theses O’Donnell undermines the value of his new narrative.