What do you think?
Rate this book
Pagans: The End of Traditional Religion and the Rise of Christianity
A provocative and contrarian religious history that charts the rise of Christianity from the point of view of "traditional" religion from the religious scholar and critically acclaimed author of Augustine.
Pagans explores the rise of Christianity from a surprising and unique viewpoint: that of the people who witnessed their ways of life destroyed by what seemed then a powerful religious cult. These “pagans” were actually pious Greeks, Romans, Syrians, and Gauls who observed the traditions of their ancestors. To these devout polytheists, Christians who worshipped only one deity were immoral atheists who believed that a splash of water on the deathbed could erase a lifetime of sin.
Religious scholar James J. O’Donnell takes us on a lively tour of the Ancient Roman world through the fourth century CE, when Romans of every nationality, social class, and religious preference found their world suddenly constrained by rulers who preferred a strange new god. Some joined this new cult, while others denied its power, erroneously believing it was little more than a passing fad.
In Pagans, O’Donnell brings to life various pagan rites and essential features of Roman religion and life, offers fresh portraits of iconic historical figures, including Constantine, Julian, and Augustine, and explores important themes—Rome versus the east, civilization versus barbarism, plurality versus unity, rich versus poor, and tradition versus innovation—in this startling account.
Pagans explores the rise of Christianity from a surprising and unique viewpoint: that of the people who witnessed their ways of life destroyed by what seemed then a powerful religious cult. These “pagans” were actually pious Greeks, Romans, Syrians, and Gauls who observed the traditions of their ancestors. To these devout polytheists, Christians who worshipped only one deity were immoral atheists who believed that a splash of water on the deathbed could erase a lifetime of sin.
Religious scholar James J. O’Donnell takes us on a lively tour of the Ancient Roman world through the fourth century CE, when Romans of every nationality, social class, and religious preference found their world suddenly constrained by rulers who preferred a strange new god. Some joined this new cult, while others denied its power, erroneously believing it was little more than a passing fad.
In Pagans, O’Donnell brings to life various pagan rites and essential features of Roman religion and life, offers fresh portraits of iconic historical figures, including Constantine, Julian, and Augustine, and explores important themes—Rome versus the east, civilization versus barbarism, plurality versus unity, rich versus poor, and tradition versus innovation—in this startling account.
400 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 17, 2015
546 people are currently reading
2463 people want to read
About the author
James J. O'Donnell
27 books36 followersJames Joseph O'Donnell is a classical scholar and University Librarian at Arizona State University. He formerly served as University Professor at Georgetown University (2012-2015) and as Provost of Georgetown University (2002-2012). O'Donnell was previously Vice Provost for Information Systems and Computing at the University of Pennsylvania (1996–2002). He is a former President of the American Philological Association (the national learned society for academics who work on the ancient world) and a Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America. From 2012 to 2018, he chaired the Board of the American Council of Learned Societies.
O'Donnell writes and lectures on topics of the late Roman Empire, Augustine of Hippo, and also on the impact of information technology in the modern academic and cultural world. He was an early adopter of the World Wide Web for academic collaboration within the humanities. He co-founded and has been involved with Bryn Mawr Classical Review since it was founded in 1990. In 1994, he offered the first Internet MOOC when 500 students around the world participated (through gopher and email) in his University of Pennsylvania seminar on the life and work of St. Augustine.
O'Donnell writes and lectures on topics of the late Roman Empire, Augustine of Hippo, and also on the impact of information technology in the modern academic and cultural world. He was an early adopter of the World Wide Web for academic collaboration within the humanities. He co-founded and has been involved with Bryn Mawr Classical Review since it was founded in 1990. In 1994, he offered the first Internet MOOC when 500 students around the world participated (through gopher and email) in his University of Pennsylvania seminar on the life and work of St. Augustine.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews
May 28, 2015
This book was disappointing in the attitude of the author. His research was good and his point well made, but he had such a condescending view to the ancients that it made the work distasteful. He went out of the way to say that there gods did not exist and even questioned whether they really believed in them. This level of disdain was unwarranted. He did not make the same statements about Christians even though there is no actual proof of their god's existence. It was disappointing.
November 21, 2015
I had two major problems with this book. First, I had trouble grasping the main argument. I felt like I was getting parts here and there, but the overall greater picture eluded me. I wasn’t fully sure what was going on. Second, maybe I shouldn’t have read this in the first place, as I don’t fully trust O’Donnell. Years ago I read his earlier work, “The Ruin of the Roman Empire.” There, his main argument was that Justinian ruined the classical world and ushered in the Dark Ages. It was a provocative thesis, but the more I’ve read about that period since then, the more I sensed that he pushed his argument too far for anyone’s good. (Frankly, I felt that at the time, as he even dumped on the Hagia Sophia. Anything Justinian did was bad). So I entered this book thinking that O’Donnell pushes his points too far.
And though I had trouble finding the overall argument, I still saw glimpses of the old O’Donnell I knew and didn’t trust. For example, he notes on page 65 that monotheism was a fourth century (AD/CE) invention. This is news to Biblical scholars of the Old Testament, at the very least. Or he’ll note how we pay attention to 4th century theologians like Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose because there was so little in the previous 350 years. I’ve read enough Bart Ehrman to know there was some theological advancements – and what limitations upon that was due to the less structured/centralized nature of the early Christian communities.
His main argument, as I can piece together, is that paganism was a construct of Christianity when it wrote its own triumphalist history of its own rise over paganism. Well maybe. I can see there being something to that, but ….this is a guy I assume pushes his arguments too far. And frankly, I don’t quite understand how Christianity invented paganism. There clearly was something before Christianity that was different in form and practice. I guess he means it wasn’t a single –ism. (He notes the word “pagan” first came around 370 AD). That’s the best I can figure. Well, then Christianity oversimplifies what came before – but that doesn’t make it an invention. The differences between it and Christianity still seem pretty stark to me.
There were some items of note. The third century chaos disrupted the old religious rites. Diocletian, among other things, massively increased the scope of government, maybe by 10-fold. That marginalized the old local elites who were the backbone of the older federated empire. (So when Constantine shifts religious focus later, that could help him get the word out). Constantine was brutal (even on his own family) and a centralizer. Christian persecutions weren’t caused by practicing their beliefs, but by refusing to do traditional worship. The persecutions divided the religious community. Constantine still associated with Apollo. The story of Constantine at Milvian Bridge fit the traditional story of imperial gods. He doubts if Constantine converted as moderns understand it. For traditionalists, gods and morality weren’t connected. One worshipped for the benefits the gods gave. This is why many first converted to Christianity. He says the pagan revival of Julian was in a Christian image. Theodosius saw pagan gods as demons or fallen angels and used violence against them. His 391 law banned public officials from taking part in sacrifice. If they did, they AND their staffs would be fined. A 392 law banned sacrifice, period. Christianity spread despite a complete lack of missionary work. By the 390s, traditional priests saw a evaporation of financial support from the government.
And though I had trouble finding the overall argument, I still saw glimpses of the old O’Donnell I knew and didn’t trust. For example, he notes on page 65 that monotheism was a fourth century (AD/CE) invention. This is news to Biblical scholars of the Old Testament, at the very least. Or he’ll note how we pay attention to 4th century theologians like Augustine, Jerome, and Ambrose because there was so little in the previous 350 years. I’ve read enough Bart Ehrman to know there was some theological advancements – and what limitations upon that was due to the less structured/centralized nature of the early Christian communities.
His main argument, as I can piece together, is that paganism was a construct of Christianity when it wrote its own triumphalist history of its own rise over paganism. Well maybe. I can see there being something to that, but ….this is a guy I assume pushes his arguments too far. And frankly, I don’t quite understand how Christianity invented paganism. There clearly was something before Christianity that was different in form and practice. I guess he means it wasn’t a single –ism. (He notes the word “pagan” first came around 370 AD). That’s the best I can figure. Well, then Christianity oversimplifies what came before – but that doesn’t make it an invention. The differences between it and Christianity still seem pretty stark to me.
There were some items of note. The third century chaos disrupted the old religious rites. Diocletian, among other things, massively increased the scope of government, maybe by 10-fold. That marginalized the old local elites who were the backbone of the older federated empire. (So when Constantine shifts religious focus later, that could help him get the word out). Constantine was brutal (even on his own family) and a centralizer. Christian persecutions weren’t caused by practicing their beliefs, but by refusing to do traditional worship. The persecutions divided the religious community. Constantine still associated with Apollo. The story of Constantine at Milvian Bridge fit the traditional story of imperial gods. He doubts if Constantine converted as moderns understand it. For traditionalists, gods and morality weren’t connected. One worshipped for the benefits the gods gave. This is why many first converted to Christianity. He says the pagan revival of Julian was in a Christian image. Theodosius saw pagan gods as demons or fallen angels and used violence against them. His 391 law banned public officials from taking part in sacrifice. If they did, they AND their staffs would be fined. A 392 law banned sacrifice, period. Christianity spread despite a complete lack of missionary work. By the 390s, traditional priests saw a evaporation of financial support from the government.
September 10, 2018
This was a great history of the late Roman/early Christian time period. It wasn’t quite what I thought I was getting, but it was still very interesting and written in an easy-to-read style. I thought I was going to get more about the pagan religions of the time. Instead, I learned that the whole idea of being pagan, as opposed to being Christian, was a creation of the Christians once they found themselves in the position to be able to form public opinion. As the author puts it, “Outside Christian imaginations, there was no such thing as paganism, only people doing what they were in the habit of doing.” Like those of us now who don’t really espouse a religion, but still celebrate Easter and Christmas.
The main points to know about the traditional, pre-Christian religions? ①Their gods weren’t perfect. ②The gods weren’t very nice. ③The gods didn’t care whether or not human beings did the right thing. ④The gods hadn’t created the world, either. ⑤They could help you, if you were nice to them.
The relationship between gods and humanity was much more businesslike in traditional religions. If you wanted something badly, you made a sacrifice to the god/goddess of your choice and if they liked your offering, you might get some divine help. But there were no guarantees.
If I have learned nothing else from reading this book, I realize now how completely current European and North American societies are shaped by Christianity. It is the underlying assumption of all our societal structures. Even atheism is completely shaped by its reaction against Christianity.
Also, Christianity has changed greatly since its early days, but some things never change. It’s still split into numerous denominations because its followers are prone to outrage at discovering that someone else dares to have a different opinion. That judginess and tendency towards schisms/excommunication started early and continues on to present day.
The author doesn’t talk about Neo-Pagans (except in one footnote), but the Modern Pagan movement, just by using the word ‘pagan,’ is defining itself in relation to Christianity. Christians created the concept of paganism after all. These Modern Pagans are much more self-conscious about their ‘faith’ than the original worshippers of Zeus or Thor were. (The whole concept of having faith in a god being a Christian innovation).
Amusingly, one of the ‘pagan’ concepts that has hung on is the title of “Pontiff” for the Pope. It was originally the title of the Roman official in charge of all religious occasions, regardless of deity, held in Rome under the Emperors.
The author has also written a book on St. Augustine which might also be an interesting read, although there’s a good summary about him in the last half of this book.
The main points to know about the traditional, pre-Christian religions? ①Their gods weren’t perfect. ②The gods weren’t very nice. ③The gods didn’t care whether or not human beings did the right thing. ④The gods hadn’t created the world, either. ⑤They could help you, if you were nice to them.
The relationship between gods and humanity was much more businesslike in traditional religions. If you wanted something badly, you made a sacrifice to the god/goddess of your choice and if they liked your offering, you might get some divine help. But there were no guarantees.
If I have learned nothing else from reading this book, I realize now how completely current European and North American societies are shaped by Christianity. It is the underlying assumption of all our societal structures. Even atheism is completely shaped by its reaction against Christianity.
Also, Christianity has changed greatly since its early days, but some things never change. It’s still split into numerous denominations because its followers are prone to outrage at discovering that someone else dares to have a different opinion. That judginess and tendency towards schisms/excommunication started early and continues on to present day.
The author doesn’t talk about Neo-Pagans (except in one footnote), but the Modern Pagan movement, just by using the word ‘pagan,’ is defining itself in relation to Christianity. Christians created the concept of paganism after all. These Modern Pagans are much more self-conscious about their ‘faith’ than the original worshippers of Zeus or Thor were. (The whole concept of having faith in a god being a Christian innovation).
Amusingly, one of the ‘pagan’ concepts that has hung on is the title of “Pontiff” for the Pope. It was originally the title of the Roman official in charge of all religious occasions, regardless of deity, held in Rome under the Emperors.
The author has also written a book on St. Augustine which might also be an interesting read, although there’s a good summary about him in the last half of this book.
March 8, 2018
This is exactly the way popular non-fiction ought to be, erudite, insightful, but not assuming background knowledge of the reader. I learned valuable things, I enjoyed reading it, and it made me think about some things I thought I knew. Excellent book all round.
If you're interested in the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Middle Ages, if you're interested in religion at all -- especially if you're interested in building religions for fantasy worlds -- do read this.
If you're interested in the end of the Roman Empire and the beginning of the Middle Ages, if you're interested in religion at all -- especially if you're interested in building religions for fantasy worlds -- do read this.
November 30, 2017
This is a relatively short book by the author of the excellent The Ruin of the Roman Empire, but one which is densely multi-layered and so deceptively easy to read. O'Donnell begins with the ludi saeculares of Augustus in 17 BC - the multiday "games of the century" that featured games, horse races, religious pageants, hymns to the gods and vast numbers of animals sacrificed in bloody rituals. He ends in 417 AD with the completion of Augustine's rhetorical and theological masterpiece, The City of God, which was written in the style of Cicero, but responded to the fall of Rome in 410 by detailing two types of conceptual city - that of man and the city of God - bridging the Roman world and what was to become the Christian Middle Ages.
O'Donnell is an entertaining guide and chats to the readers as he leads them through 400 years of historical transition from the classical world of Augustus' temples and sacrificed bulls to the pre-medieval world of Augustine's churches, heresies and doctrinal wrangling, answering the question of how one world became the other. He's even handed, judicious and careful, though sometimes provocative and contrarian. Most of all, he does what the best historians should do - explain why things happened as they did, and without judgement of the past by the standards of the present. He shows that the pagans and Christians of his story, for all their frequent conflicts and disputes, were much more like each other than they are like us.
This is an excellent overview of a complex and often controversial subject. And it is a good alternative to or perhaps antidote for the recent Catherine Nixey book The Darkening Age which is everything O'Donnell's book is not: clumsy, biased, poorly researched and tendentious. Highly recommended.
O'Donnell is an entertaining guide and chats to the readers as he leads them through 400 years of historical transition from the classical world of Augustus' temples and sacrificed bulls to the pre-medieval world of Augustine's churches, heresies and doctrinal wrangling, answering the question of how one world became the other. He's even handed, judicious and careful, though sometimes provocative and contrarian. Most of all, he does what the best historians should do - explain why things happened as they did, and without judgement of the past by the standards of the present. He shows that the pagans and Christians of his story, for all their frequent conflicts and disputes, were much more like each other than they are like us.
This is an excellent overview of a complex and often controversial subject. And it is a good alternative to or perhaps antidote for the recent Catherine Nixey book The Darkening Age which is everything O'Donnell's book is not: clumsy, biased, poorly researched and tendentious. Highly recommended.
November 30, 2019
“Pagans” is an amazing book, presenting history and culture while at the same time opening the reader’s senses to a world that can’t be examined through the today’s lenses. Jumping back in time 1500-2000 years can be confusing if not viewed through the mindset of those alive at that time. While the author states this can be enjoyable, he cautions that “…we should remind ourselves at the beginning and end of such stories is how easily we assume that the people in them are really just like us.” Thankfully, author James J. O’Donnell does his best to keep us continually grounded.
The book does a superb job analyzing the subject of how religions may lose favor with the populace with one becoming more accepted than another. What makes this book different is that the perspective mentioned in the last paragraph takes center stage, and religious citizens from centuries ago are confronted with what they may have considered to be a cult. Mr. O’Donnell’s presentation is well-researched, offering thoughts based on written documentation rather than opinion.
“Pagans” could have been a stodgy bundle of historical facts, presented in a studious and boring clump. Fortunately, the author kept his explanations interesting – almost funny at times – yet still manages to maintain an appropriate level of respect for the subject matter. I found the descriptions of religious rites fascinating, and the book thought-provoking. Five stars.
The book does a superb job analyzing the subject of how religions may lose favor with the populace with one becoming more accepted than another. What makes this book different is that the perspective mentioned in the last paragraph takes center stage, and religious citizens from centuries ago are confronted with what they may have considered to be a cult. Mr. O’Donnell’s presentation is well-researched, offering thoughts based on written documentation rather than opinion.
“Pagans” could have been a stodgy bundle of historical facts, presented in a studious and boring clump. Fortunately, the author kept his explanations interesting – almost funny at times – yet still manages to maintain an appropriate level of respect for the subject matter. I found the descriptions of religious rites fascinating, and the book thought-provoking. Five stars.
October 13, 2021
Good topic. Poor execution: too much unfocused narrative. Irritating style: like a kindergarten teacher to pupils.
July 5, 2025
The author realizes the paradox with a sentence construction that begins “Jupiter was worshipped.” The truth component of the sentence is not in existence. Jupiter isn’t real and worshipping within an imagination makes no sense when reality is considered. Pagans must be created to make your special group all the better and within the world of imaginary antonyms the early Christians needed a boogie-man to make themselves feel bigger.
A powerful technique for control is to claim to reembrace the old while creating a new flawed system that controls the populace with claimed reformatted versions of the same. MAGA does it today, Augustus did it to control making him the most effective Roman leader, and Evangelicals did it in 1520 (read Jean Calvin’s “Institutes of Christian Religion”), and Fundamentalists have been doing it since 1900, and the Early Christians did it by creating the label of Pagan by otherizing those who weren’t them.
Piety is for those who reign above us, pity for those less fortunate than us, and reciprocity for those at our own level. The folk would have accepted their world as it was and adopted their practices and wisdom as a matter of course. It took a level of otherizing to make a Christian special and superior to the non-Christian. In groups need ‘an other’ to feel special and Christians made the pagans, all who were not them, a term of insult. The one exception, the Jews weren’t pagans because that would have reflected poorly on the Christians since their roots are so intertwined.
Arius knows there’s a pagan problem, a problem within the imagination of Christians. He insists that there must be a difference and a distance from the Father and the Son otherwise you have multiplicity that can’t be resolved unless you make two equal to one. Constantine doesn’t care. He just wants harmony within the empire. The author makes an excellent point that by all measures of today save one, Constantine could not possibly have been a Christian. The exception comes only at slightly before Constantine’s death since he was baptized.
The author made an interesting point. Augustine could be explained completely in non-Christian terms. His life story hugs around Christian fringes. My favorite comments I read on deconstruction videos on Youtube are the ones from Christians who inevitably say that the person never was a Christian and if they only believe the right way they never would have made the errors that they did. In other words, the classic no Scotsman fallacy, only they know what a true Christian is and all others would by necessity be wrong. Augustine is at a point in history where the word catholic (universal) no longer means everybody is welcomed, the word becomes capitalized as Catholic and starts to mean ‘universal truth Church.’
There were a couple of long quotes from famous books the author shared that showed the inanity hidden with the presuppositions that authors showed how they misunderstood the nature of what was happening during the first four hundred years after Christ. Also, there were some early writing the author quoted from would show how absurd they would be today if the modern Christian re-imaginers of recent times showed the same skeptical eye they did against anti-Christian writings.
A religion becomes the Religion when the Christian takes the particular and made it epic and make a grand narrative around the myth. The myths of Hercules, Apollo and the other so called pagan stories are just as epic and silly as talking snakes. The author pointed out something subtle, Apollo was a Trojan God not a Greek God, and the Greeks would reimagine Him with different attributes and make him one of their primary Gods through twist and turns. Delphi thrived until 400 AD. YWHY gets reimagined into Jesus and the Christians merge them as a Greek (or Roman) would do too.
This was a very satisfying book which gave food for thought for the disaster that is unfolding currently in the world that I’ve been thrown into. Beware of manipulators who claim they are repackaging the old myths but are making a new system of myths that will destroy us, make-America-great-again is nothing but a longing for a fantasy world that never existed with a marketing plan to control us with even more dangerous myths.
A powerful technique for control is to claim to reembrace the old while creating a new flawed system that controls the populace with claimed reformatted versions of the same. MAGA does it today, Augustus did it to control making him the most effective Roman leader, and Evangelicals did it in 1520 (read Jean Calvin’s “Institutes of Christian Religion”), and Fundamentalists have been doing it since 1900, and the Early Christians did it by creating the label of Pagan by otherizing those who weren’t them.
Piety is for those who reign above us, pity for those less fortunate than us, and reciprocity for those at our own level. The folk would have accepted their world as it was and adopted their practices and wisdom as a matter of course. It took a level of otherizing to make a Christian special and superior to the non-Christian. In groups need ‘an other’ to feel special and Christians made the pagans, all who were not them, a term of insult. The one exception, the Jews weren’t pagans because that would have reflected poorly on the Christians since their roots are so intertwined.
Arius knows there’s a pagan problem, a problem within the imagination of Christians. He insists that there must be a difference and a distance from the Father and the Son otherwise you have multiplicity that can’t be resolved unless you make two equal to one. Constantine doesn’t care. He just wants harmony within the empire. The author makes an excellent point that by all measures of today save one, Constantine could not possibly have been a Christian. The exception comes only at slightly before Constantine’s death since he was baptized.
The author made an interesting point. Augustine could be explained completely in non-Christian terms. His life story hugs around Christian fringes. My favorite comments I read on deconstruction videos on Youtube are the ones from Christians who inevitably say that the person never was a Christian and if they only believe the right way they never would have made the errors that they did. In other words, the classic no Scotsman fallacy, only they know what a true Christian is and all others would by necessity be wrong. Augustine is at a point in history where the word catholic (universal) no longer means everybody is welcomed, the word becomes capitalized as Catholic and starts to mean ‘universal truth Church.’
There were a couple of long quotes from famous books the author shared that showed the inanity hidden with the presuppositions that authors showed how they misunderstood the nature of what was happening during the first four hundred years after Christ. Also, there were some early writing the author quoted from would show how absurd they would be today if the modern Christian re-imaginers of recent times showed the same skeptical eye they did against anti-Christian writings.
A religion becomes the Religion when the Christian takes the particular and made it epic and make a grand narrative around the myth. The myths of Hercules, Apollo and the other so called pagan stories are just as epic and silly as talking snakes. The author pointed out something subtle, Apollo was a Trojan God not a Greek God, and the Greeks would reimagine Him with different attributes and make him one of their primary Gods through twist and turns. Delphi thrived until 400 AD. YWHY gets reimagined into Jesus and the Christians merge them as a Greek (or Roman) would do too.
This was a very satisfying book which gave food for thought for the disaster that is unfolding currently in the world that I’ve been thrown into. Beware of manipulators who claim they are repackaging the old myths but are making a new system of myths that will destroy us, make-America-great-again is nothing but a longing for a fantasy world that never existed with a marketing plan to control us with even more dangerous myths.
May 13, 2016
I enjoyed reading this book and found it thought-provoking, but I can't quite muster that final star. It took a while to figure out where O'Donnell was going. I decided to read Pagans because of the book summary that talked about how this was a history of the rise of Christianity as told from the viewpoints of the non-Christians whose religion(s) were destroyed by it. That's not entirely off-base, but having read the book, I'd say O'Donnell is arguing that "paganism" was created by Christianity as something it was differentiating itself from. It's not an entirely new argument—I've heard it over the years from modern Pagan writers—but I thought it would be interesting to hear it from what was more likely a modern Christian viewpoint.
For me, the main fault of the book was a lack of focus. As I said above, the publisher's description didn't match the book. This happens, but the problem continued into the book itself. I went through the first half of the book enjoying each chapter, but wondering why some of them had been included. Often, a chapter didn't seem related to the ones before and after it, so the first half of the book felt more like a collection of essays on pre-Christian Roman religious practices. Later, the author began referring back to these earlier chapters. and I appreciate how he brought all this together, but yes, I wish it had been clearer at the beginning. The book was more focused by the second half, but that covered the period in which Christianity was triumphing, and that part of history simply doesn't interest me as much. And this is a lot of history to cover in 241 pages (not counting the notes or the index). I found it helpful that I'd already done some reading on ancient Roman history, although O'Donnell is concentrating on the 4th century CE which is later than I'm familiar with. I get that the book is meant for non-specialists, but it would've been nice to slow down some more and get more in-depth with some of the points covered.
Still, yes, I recommend it if this is a topic that interests you. O'Donnell's tone is conversational. He likens the book to a tour of Rome, comparing what a tour guide might tell you to what he argues was closer to the truth. As a lover of linguistics, I liked when he'd take a word like "paganism" or "church" and talk about how it came to be used in this context. If you're willing to read a history you're unlikely to completely agree with, this may be worth your time.
For me, the main fault of the book was a lack of focus. As I said above, the publisher's description didn't match the book. This happens, but the problem continued into the book itself. I went through the first half of the book enjoying each chapter, but wondering why some of them had been included. Often, a chapter didn't seem related to the ones before and after it, so the first half of the book felt more like a collection of essays on pre-Christian Roman religious practices. Later, the author began referring back to these earlier chapters. and I appreciate how he brought all this together, but yes, I wish it had been clearer at the beginning. The book was more focused by the second half, but that covered the period in which Christianity was triumphing, and that part of history simply doesn't interest me as much. And this is a lot of history to cover in 241 pages (not counting the notes or the index). I found it helpful that I'd already done some reading on ancient Roman history, although O'Donnell is concentrating on the 4th century CE which is later than I'm familiar with. I get that the book is meant for non-specialists, but it would've been nice to slow down some more and get more in-depth with some of the points covered.
Still, yes, I recommend it if this is a topic that interests you. O'Donnell's tone is conversational. He likens the book to a tour of Rome, comparing what a tour guide might tell you to what he argues was closer to the truth. As a lover of linguistics, I liked when he'd take a word like "paganism" or "church" and talk about how it came to be used in this context. If you're willing to read a history you're unlikely to completely agree with, this may be worth your time.
May 18, 2019
Read with GR group Nonfiction Book Club.
I should have known that I would likely not like this book. The publisher Harper Collins is not Shambala Books (for example). But since the group I read with would give me extra points for a reading challenge, I thought to give the book a try. I knew better.
Reading through the length of the Prologue, of Chapter 1, of Chapter 2, I kept wondering when O'Donnell would put aside the narrative to start the argument. When I read the very first paragraph of Chapter 3, I knew I was done reading this book.
Based on this quote, I gather that O'Donnell equates a false God with a fake god. Readers of ancient literature know that Zeus and his kind were/are false--dishonest, changeable unfaithful. False and Existent. The Temple of Athena at Memphis, Tennessee is currently maintained and repaired. Many still recognize and honor Athena--even if she is not the The Great One, the The Alpha and the Omega, The One True God.
By denying the existence of the false gods, O'Donnell has just destroyed his opportunity to to compare the false pagan gods with the true God who is honest, unchanging, and faithful. The comparison would hold my interest, delight me, and inform me. Now I just am not interested.
The
I should have known that I would likely not like this book. The publisher Harper Collins is not Shambala Books (for example). But since the group I read with would give me extra points for a reading challenge, I thought to give the book a try. I knew better.
Reading through the length of the Prologue, of Chapter 1, of Chapter 2, I kept wondering when O'Donnell would put aside the narrative to start the argument. When I read the very first paragraph of Chapter 3, I knew I was done reading this book.
[D]id everyone really believe that the gods got high on barbeque smoke? That the high voices of chanting children reached divine ears? Surely there were skeptics and sages who knew better.
Based on this quote, I gather that O'Donnell equates a false God with a fake god. Readers of ancient literature know that Zeus and his kind were/are false--dishonest, changeable unfaithful. False and Existent. The Temple of Athena at Memphis, Tennessee is currently maintained and repaired. Many still recognize and honor Athena--even if she is not the The Great One, the The Alpha and the Omega, The One True God.
By denying the existence of the false gods, O'Donnell has just destroyed his opportunity to to compare the false pagan gods with the true God who is honest, unchanging, and faithful. The comparison would hold my interest, delight me, and inform me. Now I just am not interested.
The
May 20, 2017
Not going to finish this one. Not a cohesive relating of history and full of snark.
June 5, 2018
Give me that old time religion! The kind with bloody sacrifice, sacred groves, portents and oracles. By Jove! And Athena, and Serapis, and Ba'al, give me that old time religion.
In Pagans, O'Donnell tackles the question of what happened to the traditional religion of the Mediterranean. How, in the 4th century, did the rites of the old gods up and vanish? The mundane argument is pretty simple. The Emperor Diocletian (284-305) massively reformed the civil service, centralizing power and finances at the expense of local elites. Money, which used to support local civic rites across the Empire, was distributed from Constantinople to new Christian leaders via the mechanism of the military and the Church.
That, of course, is a paltry explanation. Belief that exists only in the presence of cash subsidies is a paltry belief indeed. But that may have been enough. O'Donnell argues that the old religions were transactional. A sacrifice to a god was the human side of a deal, the divine side of which was victory in battle, prosperity in trade, or healthy children. Gods which lost the support of human emperors were no longer worthy of emulation by the masses. 4th century Christians had a number of rhetorical and technological advantages, as their doctrine combined the sophisticated philosophy of the neoplatonists, a strong tradition of public oratory and writing, and the political power of the assembled congregation (Oh, and the True Gospel of Christ's Love). Against this, the old religion had the obscurity of signs and portents, the spectacle of rite and sacrifice, and Bronze Age traditions that seemed sclerotic and obsolete.
O'Donnell writes clearly for the new reader, while placing this work in an ongoing scholarly dialog about the Classics that I don't know enough about to criticize. His most original argument is that pagans as such did not exist. Augustus would never have used the word to describe his beliefs. Rather, paganism was constructed as an opponent by the early Church, a specific kind of rhetorical move to distinguish 'soldiers of Christ' from the ignorant superstitions of the countryside, which is the root word of 'pagan'. Similarly, one should not speak of belief in Jupiter, but rather an assemblage of practices and images relating specific human beings to a common vision of a 'heavenly father'. There's a frustrating skipping around in the arguments and primary sources. These are very much O'Donnell's interpretations, and I'm not convinced they are the interpretations. Still, this is an interesting book for a modern atheist who loves Rome, but knows relatively little about the end of the Empire.
In Pagans, O'Donnell tackles the question of what happened to the traditional religion of the Mediterranean. How, in the 4th century, did the rites of the old gods up and vanish? The mundane argument is pretty simple. The Emperor Diocletian (284-305) massively reformed the civil service, centralizing power and finances at the expense of local elites. Money, which used to support local civic rites across the Empire, was distributed from Constantinople to new Christian leaders via the mechanism of the military and the Church.
That, of course, is a paltry explanation. Belief that exists only in the presence of cash subsidies is a paltry belief indeed. But that may have been enough. O'Donnell argues that the old religions were transactional. A sacrifice to a god was the human side of a deal, the divine side of which was victory in battle, prosperity in trade, or healthy children. Gods which lost the support of human emperors were no longer worthy of emulation by the masses. 4th century Christians had a number of rhetorical and technological advantages, as their doctrine combined the sophisticated philosophy of the neoplatonists, a strong tradition of public oratory and writing, and the political power of the assembled congregation (Oh, and the True Gospel of Christ's Love). Against this, the old religion had the obscurity of signs and portents, the spectacle of rite and sacrifice, and Bronze Age traditions that seemed sclerotic and obsolete.
O'Donnell writes clearly for the new reader, while placing this work in an ongoing scholarly dialog about the Classics that I don't know enough about to criticize. His most original argument is that pagans as such did not exist. Augustus would never have used the word to describe his beliefs. Rather, paganism was constructed as an opponent by the early Church, a specific kind of rhetorical move to distinguish 'soldiers of Christ' from the ignorant superstitions of the countryside, which is the root word of 'pagan'. Similarly, one should not speak of belief in Jupiter, but rather an assemblage of practices and images relating specific human beings to a common vision of a 'heavenly father'. There's a frustrating skipping around in the arguments and primary sources. These are very much O'Donnell's interpretations, and I'm not convinced they are the interpretations. Still, this is an interesting book for a modern atheist who loves Rome, but knows relatively little about the end of the Empire.
July 16, 2015
Ancient Christian History and Classical Studies are two main interests of mine. I have read scores of books on the subject, including many primary sources. I have to say this was the worst I have ever read. The author adopts a superior tone throughout the work that causes him to question and degrade almost every subject he touches and degrade every character he encounters. He does show some small sympathy for some of the "pagan" writers, though he never misses a chance to point out that their faith was absurd. The most telling comment comes in the epilogue where he confesses his view that "the better the story, the less likely that it is true." He also dismisses the work of everyone who isn't him, writing that "We lack, still, the transformative book that needs to be written about the history of Christianity, one that can step back from the familiar claims and counterclaims of believers, other-believers, and unbelievers and tell the story in a way that does it real justice." I could argue whether such a depersonalized book is even possible, but this work is good evidence that such an effort would not be worth the time either to create or to read.
August 14, 2020
Obnoxious. Would not recommend in any circumstance. Condescending towards its subject matter and audience.
Please never again say “let’s imagine we go back in a time machine......” this is not the Magic School Bus.
One star conceded because when the topic was allowed to speak for itself, it was informative. I may have even learned a few things. Whatever brief ecstasy I found was swiftly cut short by Doctor Man Professor Pants getting in the way with his patronizing commentary. I honestly couldn’t even tell if he was a raving atheist or a butthurt, polemicizing Christian. I don’t really care to find out, as I’ve already expended enough energy seeing this book through to completion.
Please never again say “let’s imagine we go back in a time machine......” this is not the Magic School Bus.
One star conceded because when the topic was allowed to speak for itself, it was informative. I may have even learned a few things. Whatever brief ecstasy I found was swiftly cut short by Doctor Man Professor Pants getting in the way with his patronizing commentary. I honestly couldn’t even tell if he was a raving atheist or a butthurt, polemicizing Christian. I don’t really care to find out, as I’ve already expended enough energy seeing this book through to completion.
July 29, 2016
Very interesting take on what paganism was during mid to late antiquity. Of special interest is Mr. O'Donnell's theory that it was Christianity that defined what paganism was and it was Christianity that engaged "paganism" in a fight to the death, not the other way around. Per Mr. O'Donnell the fight to the death between Christianity and paganism is really a one sided view of the victor. Mr. O'Donnell believes paganism more or less just faded away - a collection of beliefs that no longer suited the populous and eventually died away, it's place taken by Christianity.
December 11, 2016
Not easy to review as the author stretches out his main point covered at the very end of the book: the Roman gods faded away within a generation after Constantine as they weren't "needed"any longer; saints and martyrs replacing them. Recommended for those with a strong interest in Roman history or early Christian theology (and history), otherwise this one could end up on the Did Not Finish heap.
June 15, 2024
O'Donel u ovoj studiji o vremenu eksplozije popularnost hrišćanstva u četvrtom i petom veku, komentariše "paganske" religije (koje on naziva tradicionalnima), ali i načine kako su te tradicionalne religije uticale na hrišćanstvo, i obrnuto. Izvor Božića (proslava 25. decembra), slave u srpskoj pravoslavnoj tradiciji, jaja kao paganski simboli prilikom proslave Uskrsa, krštenje koje temelji na starim ritualima očišćenja uz pomoć vode (kao i koncept "svete vode"), do naravno arhitekture crkvi i katedrala, kao i ikonografije u prvih nekoliko vekova razvoja hrišćanstva i utemeljenja hrišćanskih vrednosti na tekstovima stoika i Aristotela.
S obzirom na sporo širenje hrišćanstva u prvih 300 godina, zapravo je iznenađujuće da se to toliko brzo promenilo i da je uspelo toliko da se proširi za nekih 150 godina. Ne samo to, taj proces je išao mnogo lakše nego što nas uči istorija hrišćanstva. Jasno je doduše zbog čega je toliko interesantno. Ljudima obećava mogućnost jednostavnog iskupljenja, čak i nakon što su živeli grešan život. Moralnost je sade nešto što može da se ispravi - hrišćanstvo doduše uzima antičke vrline kao temelj vrednosti, ipak se život može voditi ne uvek u skladu sa tim vrlinama. Uvek postoji mogućnost iskupljenja, pogotovo u vreme kad se hrišćani krste što kasnije tokom svog života. Drugi magnet, naravno, je jasna vizija života nakon smrti.
Pre toga, hrišćani su verovali da i drugi bogovi postoje, ali da je njihov Bog superioran u odnosu na ostale. U to vreme, nije besmrtan, bezgrešan - jednostavno je jedan od likova u pričama, mnogo bliži Zevsu i kompaniji nego što je to slučaj kasnije. Tokom 2. i 3. veka, hrišćani su mala grupa (neke procene govore da čine samo 5% celokupnog stanovništva), koja se bavi poštovanjem mrtvih na svoj način, okuplja se u vreme obeležavanja života Hrista. Ne razlikuju se mnogo od drugih religija i kod njih ne postoji nikakva želja da grade svoje velike hramove i velika mesta okupljanja, a pogotovo ne da budu deo države i da utiču na politiku, kako se dešava kasnije.
O'Donel donosi i interesantne detalje - na primer, opis procesa žrtvovanja za vreme Avgusta. Tokom jednog od praznika, bilo je potrebno da se u centru Rima, žrtvuje/ubije, 18 velikih životinja, da se tu, u Forumu, te životinje raskomadaju, da se zatim ispeku i podele prisutnima. Za to je bilo potrebno mnogo vremena, ali i prostora, koji je na kraju rituala bio pun krvi i dima. Odvesti samo jednu životinju do oltara nije bilo jednostavno, to su mogli samo bogati. Ljudi zato vremenom, pogotovo pod pritiskom da se sa žrtvovanjima prekine, počinju da menjaju taj ritual sa jednostavnijim obredima. Otprilike se menjaju u obrede kakvima stremimo i prilikom religioznih praznika danas - porodičnim okupljanjem ili zajedničkom večerom. Već i samo čuvanje oltarskih vatri da se ne ugase je bilo naporno, tako da je jedna decenija (390-400), u vreme kad je car službenim licima zabranio da drže rituale žrtvovanja, bila dovoljna da se tradicionalni obredi skoro pa u potpunosti prekinu. Ljudi u porodicama još neko vreme zadržavaju stare običaje, ali u prvoj polovini petog veka tradicionalna religija na zapadu skoro pa u potpunosti nestaje.
S obzirom na sporo širenje hrišćanstva u prvih 300 godina, zapravo je iznenađujuće da se to toliko brzo promenilo i da je uspelo toliko da se proširi za nekih 150 godina. Ne samo to, taj proces je išao mnogo lakše nego što nas uči istorija hrišćanstva. Jasno je doduše zbog čega je toliko interesantno. Ljudima obećava mogućnost jednostavnog iskupljenja, čak i nakon što su živeli grešan život. Moralnost je sade nešto što može da se ispravi - hrišćanstvo doduše uzima antičke vrline kao temelj vrednosti, ipak se život može voditi ne uvek u skladu sa tim vrlinama. Uvek postoji mogućnost iskupljenja, pogotovo u vreme kad se hrišćani krste što kasnije tokom svog života. Drugi magnet, naravno, je jasna vizija života nakon smrti.
Pre toga, hrišćani su verovali da i drugi bogovi postoje, ali da je njihov Bog superioran u odnosu na ostale. U to vreme, nije besmrtan, bezgrešan - jednostavno je jedan od likova u pričama, mnogo bliži Zevsu i kompaniji nego što je to slučaj kasnije. Tokom 2. i 3. veka, hrišćani su mala grupa (neke procene govore da čine samo 5% celokupnog stanovništva), koja se bavi poštovanjem mrtvih na svoj način, okuplja se u vreme obeležavanja života Hrista. Ne razlikuju se mnogo od drugih religija i kod njih ne postoji nikakva želja da grade svoje velike hramove i velika mesta okupljanja, a pogotovo ne da budu deo države i da utiču na politiku, kako se dešava kasnije.
O'Donel donosi i interesantne detalje - na primer, opis procesa žrtvovanja za vreme Avgusta. Tokom jednog od praznika, bilo je potrebno da se u centru Rima, žrtvuje/ubije, 18 velikih životinja, da se tu, u Forumu, te životinje raskomadaju, da se zatim ispeku i podele prisutnima. Za to je bilo potrebno mnogo vremena, ali i prostora, koji je na kraju rituala bio pun krvi i dima. Odvesti samo jednu životinju do oltara nije bilo jednostavno, to su mogli samo bogati. Ljudi zato vremenom, pogotovo pod pritiskom da se sa žrtvovanjima prekine, počinju da menjaju taj ritual sa jednostavnijim obredima. Otprilike se menjaju u obrede kakvima stremimo i prilikom religioznih praznika danas - porodičnim okupljanjem ili zajedničkom večerom. Već i samo čuvanje oltarskih vatri da se ne ugase je bilo naporno, tako da je jedna decenija (390-400), u vreme kad je car službenim licima zabranio da drže rituale žrtvovanja, bila dovoljna da se tradicionalni obredi skoro pa u potpunosti prekinu. Ljudi u porodicama još neko vreme zadržavaju stare običaje, ali u prvoj polovini petog veka tradicionalna religija na zapadu skoro pa u potpunosti nestaje.
May 9, 2018
I suppose the argument of the redoubtable James J. O'Donnell in this book ought to surprise no one in this day and age: then, as now, one of the essential strategies to building a movement is to identify the enemy, define it as a threat, and, if necessary, make up the evidence. O'Donnell points out that no one thought of themselves as a "pagan" until the Christians adapted an old word for that purpose. He finds much of the rhetoric of the early Christians, warning about resurgences of old modes of worship, including orgies and animal sacrifice, to be, essentially, propaganda; as he points out, the eucharist is in some ways an adaptation of sacrifice and Christians came in for their share of libel on that score in the early days. Once Constantine opened up the patronage system to Christians and their churches, and especially once Theodosius made Christianity to exclusive religion of empire, it became critically important to arrive on an internal definition (fighting off the Arians and Manicheans, to name just two) and develop external enemies (hence, the need for heresy and the largely, but not entirely, fictional issue of the survival of earlier religions). He finds that the Emperor Julian "the Apostate", as he was later called, made a convenient target--he may not have been quite the determined backslider that Christian apologetics make him out to be. Throughout, O'Donnell does not merely repeat the stories that have come down to us but peers at the evidence, and his thoughts seems consistently original, as when he traces out the Roman models for Augustine's works. I also have great respect for anyone who can explain in reasonably clear terms just what the debate was between the Arians and their opponents.
Finally, a short word on another reason why O'Donnell has my great respect. His book about Cassiodorus, to whom we owe a lot of the conceptual framework for what a library is, has long been out of print. So he posted the contents on the web, long before google books was created.
Finally, a short word on another reason why O'Donnell has my great respect. His book about Cassiodorus, to whom we owe a lot of the conceptual framework for what a library is, has long been out of print. So he posted the contents on the web, long before google books was created.
January 9, 2023
There is some useful information in here, but it's almost buried by the author's ego. O'Donnell seems to regard everyone he writes about as beneath him, and adopts a cynical, gossipy tone that I found grating almost immediately. (For instance, he feels the need to point out that obviously all the Greek and Roman gods are entirely mythical and never existed, and seems irritated that he has to talk about them as if they had any sort of existence.) He also wants to write a book that polemically takes on traditional narratives and earlier generations of historians, but he cites hardly any sources as he does so, and rarely makes the arguments of his opponents clear. (His main argument seems to be that Christianity wasn't much different from paganism, when you get down to it, and the shift from one to the other wasn't very exciting.) O'Donnell seems to be regarded as an expert in his field, but it's hard for me to see why from this book.
September 12, 2020
Title is misleading, it's not what you get. I stopped 25% in because it got so tedious. How are you going to understand and convey understanding of religion when you spend all of your time arguing that gods did not and do not exist? Obviously religious people believe(d) their gods exist and the only way to understand their conception of the world is to acknowledge that. Reading other reviews, I think the main point may end up being that the concept of Pagan religion was a construction of the Christian other, and that for ancient religionists, "pagan" was just the fabric of reality, the water the fish are swimming in. That all makes sense. I'm just not going to be able to read any more tripe to get to that point. 🙄
December 2, 2015
O'Donnell has done a nice job of making a complex topic approachable by non-specialists. This works well when read together with The Final Pagan Generation by Edward J. Watts, a somewhat more demanding work for the non-specialist reader but one that provides useful background about some historical figures mentioned by O'Donnell and brings up some interesting points not covered in this work. The author's thesis is that "paganism" is a concept invented initially by the Christians to differentiate "us" from "them," although the concept evolved into an important polemical tool as Christianity itself evolved as a state-sponsored religion. He sees the end of traditional religion as a gradual process not yet entirely completed (e.g., the continued popularity of astrology). He downplays the severity and frequency of physical conflicts between adherents of traditional religion and Christians and emphasizes more economic and social factors that led to the increasing desuetude of traditional religious practices (e.g., blood sacrifices, etc.). He mentions but does not discuss at great length the extensive cooptation of traditional religious forms (e.g., pontifex maximus as a title of the Bishop of Rome.) by the Christians as Christianity evolved into a religion of empire(s). I especially appreciated his highlighting those seminal decisions taken by church fathers such as Augustine of Hippo to address contemporary issues (e.g., the creation of the doctrine of original sin to justify the practice of infant baptism) that later would have far-reaching consequences beyond the imaginations of those making those decisions. I would like to have learned more about the continuation of traditional religious practices among the folk who resided outside the halls of power and how those have continued into the twenty-first century, often under a thin layer of Christian camouflage, but that would have taken the book into a digression that would not have significantly advanced the author's thesis. His notes are good, and he provides suggested readings in the source materials. Far from being dogmatic in pushing his point of view, O'Donnell invites readers to read the sources in the light of what he has proposed in the book and then to make up their own minds. One cannot say fairer than that.
July 2, 2019
DNF'd. The authors approach is quite condescending and his language feels childish. It is not an academic book. After I stopped reading I saw the author is a college professor and his style made more sense. It feels like it was written for a classroom of freshman with zero baseline and not much common sense.
July 4, 2021
بيقانز أو مشركين، الاسم الذي اطلقه المسيحيون الأوائل على جميع سكان الامبراطورية الرومانية من غير المسيحيين واليهود. هذا الكتاب يناقش من هم هؤلاء المشركين وما هي أديانهم وسبب تسميتهم بهذا الاسم. الكتاب لطيف لكن أذا لم يكن عندك خلفية عن الموضوع سابقة فلا أرى أن تبدأ به، وجدت نفسي ضائع في بعض فصول الكتاب وأنا أزعم أني أملك خلفية بسيطة عن الموضوع.
January 30, 2019
This book tackles the creation of our modern perception of what could be described as traditional western religion, or what we now call paganism. It makes an interesting enough argument but it’s reliability is thrown somewhat into doubt by the author’s boosting of Christianity in the final chapters. His argument is essentially that the idea that there was this dramatic clash of religions ending with a gloriously triumphant Christianity is a story of Christian invention. In order to separate and elevate their own religion they created a definition of “the other” which they called pagan. This is a pretty reasonable argument, actually so reasonable and tame you have to wonder who exactly is his target audience here. Readers who haven’t been so thoroughly indoctrinated into the Christian worldview probably won’t need much convincing.
The early chapters attempt to give something of a picture of traditional Roman religion while the later ones are about the era of Christianity’s take-over of the empire. For example, the gods weren’t all-powerful or all-knowing. That idea comes from a Christian enlarging of the idea of divinity. Also, the gods weren’t that concerned with ethical behavior. As long as you followed through with the correct ritual observances they didn’t really care. It’s really just the Abrahamic religions that are so uniquely diverted with moralistic concerns.
There was one idea that I found particularly revelatory in understanding ancient religion. It’s that one of the interesting things about Christianity (along with it’s other religious contemporaries like Gnosticism) that influences our modern understanding of what a religion is, is the fact that it’s a religion and a philosophy. In the classical Greek and Roman world, these things were separate. There was religion —the necessary tribute payed to the gods— and then there was philosophy, by the 4th century dominated by Neo-Platonism. Christianity actually supplanted both of these with an orthodoxy of thought that I find hard to see in any other way than extremely regressive. But this actually helps explain the absence of a more intellectually introspective side to ancient religion. It’s because that part of it wasn’t rolled into religion back then. That was philosophy.
He does do a good job of walking back a lot the Christian account of it’s 4th century ascendancy including a much more reasonable account of Constantine’s reign. Essentially, Constantine’s patronizing of Christianity was not all that remarkable, Emperors had often done so to their favored religion. It’s just that Christianity was a bit of a different. It was a bit more sticky than the previous religions (not to mention it’s not playing well with others). His telling of Julian’s reign doesn’t exactly rebut anything so much as diminish it’s importance in a way that is not terribly interesting.
But like I said the final chapters are a bit revealing as to his fondness for the Christian message. This has the effect of making you very skeptical of the book’s telling of history. He seems to think he’s being very unbiased when really he’s not. For example he takes time out in one of the early chapters to stress that we recognize how the traditional Roman gods in fact, never existed. He goes on to warn of the dangers of slipping into language that implicitly acknowledge their existence. That’s an interesting point to make, one that I don’t happen to think is quite as important as he states it (it also tends to make sympathizing with and understanding the people that you’re discussing more difficult) but the very interesting thing is that of course, the Christian god equally does not exist. But he makes absolutely no attempt to stay away from the sort of language that bolsters that view. Hmmmmm. 😒
[Edit: After some further research, I now have discovered that this view actually comes from the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 8:4, Paul says the following, "Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one.'" O'Donnell even quotes further from this chapter in the book so I think we can say without a doubt that he's influenced by these ideas.]
There is also a very wishy-washy feeling to his arguments that after the fact you realize arise from a hesitancy to be too critical of Christianity. It’s like he’s trying to walk a thin line, of taking down this one Christian fabrication (the idea of “pagans”) while not criticizing them any further. For non-Christian readers it makes for a strange experience because there is so much more you could say about this most intolerant and destructive era of Christianity. And when he gets to expounding about the heavyweight stars of this era of Christianity, look, I can appreciate Ambrose for his political skill and Augustine was certainly an outstanding intellectual and eloquent writer but as for the content of their message, give me a break will you, if you don’t believe in that stuff it’s all a bit irrelevant.
Another thing that draws one’s skepticism is the argument that he ultimately puts in place of the one he’s taking down. Basically putting that traditional religion was so easily displaced largely due to broad indifference to the ancient gods, it had only been something people went along with out of habit. When it was eventually replaced entirely, nobody much cared or missed it. Oh really? Well you could certainly say the same thing about plenty of modern Christians that just go along with it out out of the path of least resistance but then of course there are many people who are quite devoted. I think it’s difficult to argue that there wasn’t a similar range of devotion in traditional religion.
And because of the diverse collection of gods worshiped in the Roman empire there was a wide range of followings and ways of practicing that makes it difficult to generalize. Sure, the state sanctioned Capitoline Triad (Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva) or Mars seem to be largely impersonal gods more to do with state concerns but others such as Dionysus and Diana may have been regularly appealed to for more personal concerns. Initiates into the many mystery religions of the time were certainly not indifferent followers.
So, yes it is very readable and engaging and covers many interesting subjects, I only wish he had been more up-front about his biases.
The early chapters attempt to give something of a picture of traditional Roman religion while the later ones are about the era of Christianity’s take-over of the empire. For example, the gods weren’t all-powerful or all-knowing. That idea comes from a Christian enlarging of the idea of divinity. Also, the gods weren’t that concerned with ethical behavior. As long as you followed through with the correct ritual observances they didn’t really care. It’s really just the Abrahamic religions that are so uniquely diverted with moralistic concerns.
There was one idea that I found particularly revelatory in understanding ancient religion. It’s that one of the interesting things about Christianity (along with it’s other religious contemporaries like Gnosticism) that influences our modern understanding of what a religion is, is the fact that it’s a religion and a philosophy. In the classical Greek and Roman world, these things were separate. There was religion —the necessary tribute payed to the gods— and then there was philosophy, by the 4th century dominated by Neo-Platonism. Christianity actually supplanted both of these with an orthodoxy of thought that I find hard to see in any other way than extremely regressive. But this actually helps explain the absence of a more intellectually introspective side to ancient religion. It’s because that part of it wasn’t rolled into religion back then. That was philosophy.
He does do a good job of walking back a lot the Christian account of it’s 4th century ascendancy including a much more reasonable account of Constantine’s reign. Essentially, Constantine’s patronizing of Christianity was not all that remarkable, Emperors had often done so to their favored religion. It’s just that Christianity was a bit of a different. It was a bit more sticky than the previous religions (not to mention it’s not playing well with others). His telling of Julian’s reign doesn’t exactly rebut anything so much as diminish it’s importance in a way that is not terribly interesting.
But like I said the final chapters are a bit revealing as to his fondness for the Christian message. This has the effect of making you very skeptical of the book’s telling of history. He seems to think he’s being very unbiased when really he’s not. For example he takes time out in one of the early chapters to stress that we recognize how the traditional Roman gods in fact, never existed. He goes on to warn of the dangers of slipping into language that implicitly acknowledge their existence. That’s an interesting point to make, one that I don’t happen to think is quite as important as he states it (it also tends to make sympathizing with and understanding the people that you’re discussing more difficult) but the very interesting thing is that of course, the Christian god equally does not exist. But he makes absolutely no attempt to stay away from the sort of language that bolsters that view. Hmmmmm. 😒
[Edit: After some further research, I now have discovered that this view actually comes from the New Testament. In 1 Corinthians 8:4, Paul says the following, "Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that 'an idol has no real existence,' and that 'there is no God but one.'" O'Donnell even quotes further from this chapter in the book so I think we can say without a doubt that he's influenced by these ideas.]
There is also a very wishy-washy feeling to his arguments that after the fact you realize arise from a hesitancy to be too critical of Christianity. It’s like he’s trying to walk a thin line, of taking down this one Christian fabrication (the idea of “pagans”) while not criticizing them any further. For non-Christian readers it makes for a strange experience because there is so much more you could say about this most intolerant and destructive era of Christianity. And when he gets to expounding about the heavyweight stars of this era of Christianity, look, I can appreciate Ambrose for his political skill and Augustine was certainly an outstanding intellectual and eloquent writer but as for the content of their message, give me a break will you, if you don’t believe in that stuff it’s all a bit irrelevant.
Another thing that draws one’s skepticism is the argument that he ultimately puts in place of the one he’s taking down. Basically putting that traditional religion was so easily displaced largely due to broad indifference to the ancient gods, it had only been something people went along with out of habit. When it was eventually replaced entirely, nobody much cared or missed it. Oh really? Well you could certainly say the same thing about plenty of modern Christians that just go along with it out out of the path of least resistance but then of course there are many people who are quite devoted. I think it’s difficult to argue that there wasn’t a similar range of devotion in traditional religion.
And because of the diverse collection of gods worshiped in the Roman empire there was a wide range of followings and ways of practicing that makes it difficult to generalize. Sure, the state sanctioned Capitoline Triad (Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva) or Mars seem to be largely impersonal gods more to do with state concerns but others such as Dionysus and Diana may have been regularly appealed to for more personal concerns. Initiates into the many mystery religions of the time were certainly not indifferent followers.
So, yes it is very readable and engaging and covers many interesting subjects, I only wish he had been more up-front about his biases.
October 16, 2018
What perhaps is most surprising is that Harper Collins and Arizona State University, where Mr. O’Donnell serves as a librarian, are not completely embarrassed by this publication. As it represents some of the worst aspects of 19th century scholarship and historical perspective. Mr. O’Donnell obviously sees ancient people as primitive, beneath our modern sensibilities, and incapable of possessing a complex and nuanced theology. All of these perspectives are wrong, incredibly short-sighted, and prevents us from getting an accurate portrayal of historical events. I don’t say this lightly, but Mr. O’Donnell is a poor historian and scholar of religion.
The evidence of this has been pointed out by numerous others. While he calls the book, “Pagans: The End of Traditional Religion and the Rise of Christianity,” it fails to deliver any of that. Just like the 19th century scholars before him, O’Donnell confines paganism to late Greco-Roman paganism. As if the rich and varied practices of the Greco-Egyptian, Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic paganism were non-existent. I realize this is putting words in his mouth, but his obvious disdain for Greco-Roman practices can only lead one to assume he finds any other tradition even more contemptuous.
In fact, he seems to have contempt for the practice of any religion, which makes one wonder why he would choose this subject to study. If you are not going to approach the matter to show its impact on human culture, for good and for ill, why do it at all? If you are not compelled by the power and creative genius of religious experience, why would you even approach this subject matter? If all you want to do is show contempt for religion itself, then I’m sure there are plenty of atheist journals out there that would appreciate this myopic argument. It need not be shelved in history.
He ad nauseam repeats the same mistakes of scholars before him, which makes it all the more difficult to forgive this books shortcomings. That mistake is to simply not take the sources at their word. He assumes they are lying, or have some other agenda, or are simply too primitive. Until we can take people of other cultures at their word, and honestly accept their accounts of religious experience, we will never understand another culture, past or present.
I recommend that Mr. O’Donnell spend some time studying the work of anthropologist, Wade Davis, to develop a perspective that does not belittle the source material and so make his work relevant. Here’s something to help him get started.
“We have this extraordinary conceit in the West that while we’ve been hard at work in the creation of technological wizardry and innovation, somehow the other cultures of the world have been intellectually idle. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor is this difference due to some sort of inherent Western superiority. We now know to be true biologically what we’ve always dreamed to be true philosophically, and that is that we are all brothers and sisters. We are all, by definition, cut from the same genetic cloth. That means every single human society and culture, by definition, shares the same raw mental activity, the same intellectual capacity. And whether that raw genius is placed in service of technological wizardry or unraveling the complex thread of memory inherent in a myth is simply a matter of choice and cultural orientation.”
- Wade Davis, The Ethnosphere and the Academy
The evidence of this has been pointed out by numerous others. While he calls the book, “Pagans: The End of Traditional Religion and the Rise of Christianity,” it fails to deliver any of that. Just like the 19th century scholars before him, O’Donnell confines paganism to late Greco-Roman paganism. As if the rich and varied practices of the Greco-Egyptian, Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic paganism were non-existent. I realize this is putting words in his mouth, but his obvious disdain for Greco-Roman practices can only lead one to assume he finds any other tradition even more contemptuous.
In fact, he seems to have contempt for the practice of any religion, which makes one wonder why he would choose this subject to study. If you are not going to approach the matter to show its impact on human culture, for good and for ill, why do it at all? If you are not compelled by the power and creative genius of religious experience, why would you even approach this subject matter? If all you want to do is show contempt for religion itself, then I’m sure there are plenty of atheist journals out there that would appreciate this myopic argument. It need not be shelved in history.
He ad nauseam repeats the same mistakes of scholars before him, which makes it all the more difficult to forgive this books shortcomings. That mistake is to simply not take the sources at their word. He assumes they are lying, or have some other agenda, or are simply too primitive. Until we can take people of other cultures at their word, and honestly accept their accounts of religious experience, we will never understand another culture, past or present.
I recommend that Mr. O’Donnell spend some time studying the work of anthropologist, Wade Davis, to develop a perspective that does not belittle the source material and so make his work relevant. Here’s something to help him get started.
“We have this extraordinary conceit in the West that while we’ve been hard at work in the creation of technological wizardry and innovation, somehow the other cultures of the world have been intellectually idle. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nor is this difference due to some sort of inherent Western superiority. We now know to be true biologically what we’ve always dreamed to be true philosophically, and that is that we are all brothers and sisters. We are all, by definition, cut from the same genetic cloth. That means every single human society and culture, by definition, shares the same raw mental activity, the same intellectual capacity. And whether that raw genius is placed in service of technological wizardry or unraveling the complex thread of memory inherent in a myth is simply a matter of choice and cultural orientation.”
- Wade Davis, The Ethnosphere and the Academy
April 1, 2015
What an engaging writer! His chatty voice is like a scholarly uncle, sipping a drink and telling you what the Roman Empire was REALLY like. He covers the usual story of Roman gods, which he calls "traditional religion" rather than polytheist or pagan. And then he tells you why this is all wrong. He discusses Augustine, and what he did to invent traditional religion. He covers the conventional pious story of Constantine and then tells you what he thinks the great emperor was really like. But he doesn't get bogged down in questions of personal feeling or beliefs - noting wisely that actions are the most important. Our fixation on personal internal narrative was not shared at the time and shouldn't be imposed on these ancient public figures.
All in all, I'm left with the feeling that traditional religion in Republic era Rome was similar to Shinto religion in Japan. A loose collection of local nature spirits that didn't impose Belief or shun Skeptics, just invited everyone to partake in ancient rituals. The sense of respect for the ancestors is also similar.
All in all, I'm left with the feeling that traditional religion in Republic era Rome was similar to Shinto religion in Japan. A loose collection of local nature spirits that didn't impose Belief or shun Skeptics, just invited everyone to partake in ancient rituals. The sense of respect for the ancestors is also similar.
October 2, 2021
His thesis is obvious to anyone who knows anything about history. So not much to see here folks. But the reason why I give it only 2 stars is the annoying, arrogant, condescending tone that the author has when he talks about Pagan religious beliefs. The level of smugness reaches Sam Harris and Bill Maher levels from the first sentence in the book. It's just too much. I'm not pagan (or Christian, for that matter) but I see no need to mock anyone's beliefs. Especially if you want to be taken seriously as a historian.
December 2, 2014
Did you know that the word PAGAN basically means "peasant" or "mountain-dweller"? That there really was no such thing as PAGAN as we know it until 5th century Christianity needed it to exist? James O'Donnell's Pagans is a fascinating look at how the pre-Christian Romans lived and worshiped and how it all changed and got redefined by the rise of Christianity.
August 25, 2017
The author is the editor and commentator of the standard three-volume edition of Augustine's Confessions, so it risks being a bit presumptuous to disagree with him, even when he's being flippant and snarky; but I have to agree with another Goodreads reviewer who thinks he pushes his arguments a bit too hard. His book is written to debunk the received idea of how Christianity developed: a few weak, scattered communities, their leader executed, try desperately to hold on to their beliefs in the face of intense abuse and persecution, but they nevertheless slowly spread through the empire until Constantine makes them the state church in the early 4th century. O'Donnell remarks that this is a little too close to the Cinderella story (complete with handsome prince) to be taken without some skepticism. He goes on to explain that the modern idea of "paganism" was an invention of the established Christian church after Constantine, to differentiate itself from basically everyone else. He prefers the expression "traditional religion" and says truly that if you asked Julius Caesar if he was a pagan he wouldn't have understood the question. He admits that nobody really knows how many Christians there were in, say, 300 CE, but he says the evidence suggests that they were very different from each other in belief and practice, and they were primarily seen by their contemporaries as extensions of the early form of guilds or burial societies. They were not a "cult," even though a blurb on the cover identifies them as such. What disappointed me was what he left out: their own writings about themselves, which suggest that they made claims out of all proportion with their numbers or importance: they claimed to be the salt of the earth, a new kind of people who were the harbingers of a new kind of humanity inspired by the Holy Spirit. I'm sure he's right that most people held beliefs that were all mixed up between "paganism" and monotheism, just as they are today. (His example is unkillable astrology.) But it seems he left out everything subjective about what it felt like to be one of these odd people who eventually got the imprimatur of the imperial government.
May 21, 2019
1.5 Star, maybe?
DNF @70ish %.
A meandering discussion of how Christianity rose and its relationship with the more traditional religions (“paganism”) that existed during that period. I spent the first half of the book wondering what the author was trying to argue for. All I came up with was that since those people never considered their religions as paganism, so in fact paganism never really existed. Furthermore, even back then those people didn’t really believe of the existence of actual gods, so of course the religions of paganism didn’t exist, because the gods were fake.
Part II was slightly better, as the author began to discuss how Christianity rose to become an officially endorsed religion in the 4th century under Constantine. But, not much better. Even in Part II, I felt like the author was biased in his argument by creating a straw argument that because the various people who “converted” to this upstart religion had various mundane and humane reasons, most of which had nothing to do with divine powers, so we should question the existence of this divine power. At the very least, he did provide a very brief, yet clear explanation of the word “pagan” and how it evolved into the meaning that we associate the word with today. I think he could e just saved a lot of ink and paper by just writing the first few chapters of Part II and be done with it.
Disappointing, really. I was expecting a more comprehensive and chronological discussion of how Christianity rose and what the people living in that area thought of it vis-a-vis their existing customs. We did get that somewhat, but with the accompanying gossipy anecdotes and seemingly biased assumptions from the author.
DNF @70ish %.
A meandering discussion of how Christianity rose and its relationship with the more traditional religions (“paganism”) that existed during that period. I spent the first half of the book wondering what the author was trying to argue for. All I came up with was that since those people never considered their religions as paganism, so in fact paganism never really existed. Furthermore, even back then those people didn’t really believe of the existence of actual gods, so of course the religions of paganism didn’t exist, because the gods were fake.
Part II was slightly better, as the author began to discuss how Christianity rose to become an officially endorsed religion in the 4th century under Constantine. But, not much better. Even in Part II, I felt like the author was biased in his argument by creating a straw argument that because the various people who “converted” to this upstart religion had various mundane and humane reasons, most of which had nothing to do with divine powers, so we should question the existence of this divine power. At the very least, he did provide a very brief, yet clear explanation of the word “pagan” and how it evolved into the meaning that we associate the word with today. I think he could e just saved a lot of ink and paper by just writing the first few chapters of Part II and be done with it.
Disappointing, really. I was expecting a more comprehensive and chronological discussion of how Christianity rose and what the people living in that area thought of it vis-a-vis their existing customs. We did get that somewhat, but with the accompanying gossipy anecdotes and seemingly biased assumptions from the author.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 187 reviews