Learn more Download now Shop now Browse your favorite restaurants Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop now Learn More Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Learn More Shop now Shop now Learn more

Customer reviews

3.9 out of 5 stars
A New History of Early Christianity
Format: Hardcover|Change
Price:£18.99+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime

VINE VOICEon 10 June 2010
If you thought you knew about the origins of Christianity, you may be surprised by the evidence given in this book. Whatever you learned at school or Sunday school probably bears little relation to the story presented here. This book is thoroughly researched and reads well, being sufficiently rigorous academically without becoming too technical.
As with all research on religious subject, there will be some critics who have come to their conclusions before examining the evidence. If you have a more open mind then you you will find this book to be a useful addition to debates about the forms of Christianity. we now have. That Christianity was just one of a number of evangelical Jewish sects of the first century, that the gospels were written in Greek, a language that Jesus is very unlikely to have spoken, and that there were a large number of competing versions of Christianity and texts before the 1st Council of Nicea are just some of the sub-plots in the book. Did you know that the Epistle to the Hebrews predates the Gospels, or that the references in Mark to the resurrection were interpolated in the 2nd century?
If you are at all interested in how Christianity developed, then this is the book for you.
2222 Comments| 14 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICEon 20 February 2010
Charles Freeman has a good writing style and the book is very readable. Apart from that it's very disappointing. It's little more than a skimpy rehash of unproven generalities and even erroneus assumptions in places. For instance, on page 20, the author accepts an interpolated reference to Jesus in the writings of Josephus as if it were historic fact. One can have little faith in an author who stoops to such a catastrophic inaccuracy.

The Acts of the Apostles is mentioned just three times and neither its accuracy nor its authorship are discussed. No reference is made to several early writings including the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the role of women in the early Church is badly neglected. The lack of extraneous evidence for the existence of Jesus is not discussed and the Arian heresy skated over. We are dished up with the tired old cliche concerning Nero's 'fiddling' persecution of the Christians when there's no independent evidence that he was in any significant way bothered about them.

This book is no help at all for those seeking new and accurate research into the truth concerning the development of early Christianity. The author assumes too much and questions too little. Although this book may be new, it's contents certainly are not. Those seeking to establish the real truth about the development of early Christianity should look elsewhere than in the pages of this bland and uninspiring concoction of ineffectuality.
1212 Comments| 25 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 24 October 2009
Freeman describes his book as a "New" history of Early Christianity, but it is really very old hat indeed: the gospels are not reliable historically; Jesus never thought he was divine or the Messiah; his body was stolen after his crucifixion; the disciples hallucinated his resurrection appearances; Paul was an angry, pugnacious individual who invented "Christianity"; groups like the Gnostics were steam rolled by a burgeoning, authoritarian ekklesia which forbade independent thought; the phenomenon of the church can be explained in terms other than those used to comprehend its own nature and origins.

The problem with Freeman's oeuvre is that as well as rehashing passe theories of Christian origins, it is written from an avowedly agnostic and secular viewpoint, and is therefore spiritually tone deaf.

Thus Freeman rewrites early Christian history as he believes it "ought" to have happened, given that (in his opinion) the spiritual experiences of the first Christians were an epiphenomenon of sociological and cultural-religious factors rather than any genuine encounter with the divine.

However, to suggest that the gospels are unreliable historically (as Freeman does) is to beg the question: what would constitute an "historically reliable" narrative of Jesus' life? Freeman does not address this issue. But presumably it would be devoid of any records of miracles or resurrection or sayings of Jesus that might intimate his redemptive mission or divine sonship. In fact we may presume that it would read very much like Freeman's secular account of Christian origins.

The literary critic Terry Eagleton, in his review of The God Delusion (LRB, Vol.28 No.20, 19 October 2006) imagines Richard Dawkins reading Keat's line about the "still unravish'd bride of quietness" and remarking: "that's a mighty funny way to describe a Grecian urn".

Like Dawkins, Freeman lacks imagination when it comes to comprehending spiritual experience. The closest Freeman comes to defining it is to suggest that after Jesus' death some "intense emotional experience", which is "irrecoverable", caused Jesus' followers to start worshipping him as God (p324).

This is hardly an illuminating aetiology of Christian faith. It's rather along the lines of suggesting that something must have inspired Wordsworth to write poetry.

The same applies in the case of Freeman's banal (and inaccurate) summary of Christian belief about the atonement: "It came to be believed that God required his son to suffer so horribly so as to lift the weight of sinfulness that was perceived to be the predominant feature of humanity" (p324).

Yes, but why does Freeman think that Christians came to hold this view? We are not told.

For Freeman the fact that people experienced forgiveness through Christ's death requires no explanation - it just turned out that way.

Unsurprisingly, his survey of the New Testament writings is, for the most part, skimpy, if not superficial.

At times Freeman can be as painfully literalist as a Texan redneck.

He is genuinely horrified, for instance, that Jesus should demand of his disciples that they should "hate" their family if they want to be his followers (p85). He also registers a "contradiction" in the fact that Jesus should tell a parable about a servant who is rewarded for using his money wisely, while at the same time commanding his followers to sell everything they have and give it to the poor (p85). Eschewing the notion that Jesus' language might be hyperbolic, or that truth can be looked at from multiple perspectives, Freeman conjectures that Luke (the gospel writer in question) used "clearly contradictory" sources! (p85)

Freeman also exhibits breathtaking naivety with regard to his theory that the high priest, Caiaphas, stole Jesus' body. He did it, according to Freeman, in the hope that Jesus' disciples would think he had risen from the dead!

According to Freeman, Caiaphas' intentions were benevolent, if controversial: to get Jesus' followers to disperse to Galilee (where they might expect to meet the risen Jesus again) and so avoid getting a hiding at the hands of the Romans (hints of messianism or sedition would have been brutally crushed by the Prefect of Judaea, as Josephus attests).

The problem is that the followers of Jesus set up base in Jerusalem immediately after his execution.

It is remarkable therefore that the priestly authorities made no attempt to put an end to the Jesus movement by simply producing Christ's remains.

It is also curious that if Caiaphas had disposed of Jesus' body why this fact never features in Jewish polemics against Christianity.

One gets the sense, then, that while Freeman may have read the gospels and epistles he is not conversant or at home with them. Most of his critical analysis is derivative (see for e.g Ch 12). And he is not beyond reading crude, Medieval notions of "devils" and "demons" back into the New Testament (see, for example, his comments about the Epistle to the Ephesians on p99. The plural "devils", which Freeman uses, is never employed in the Greek New Testament to refer to dark forces or malevolent intelligences).

Other things stand out too.

Freeman lacks any real sense of what "fellowship" means in the context of the New Testament. This is important because the notion of "koinonia" is at the very heart of the Christian message. For Freeman the machinations of the the early church were essentially political. Thus Peter, Paul, and James vied with each other for power and control over the church, whether they were missionizing or pastoring the flock.

While the New Testament writers are not above highlighting factionalism and strife in the fledgling Jesus movement, they also witness to a profound love (agape) and oneness (koinonia) which bound men and women together in Christ, even to the point of laying down their lives for each other. Freeman fails to explore or tap into this rich spiritual vein and thus gives a warped view of Christian mission and leadership.

He is also ignorant of what "fellowship" with God meant for the early Church. What could it possibly mean for believers to claim that they are in union with God in Christ through the Spirit? And what did it mean, moreover, to "know" the risen Christ, or to be "filled" with, or prompted by, the Holy Spirit (the bread and butter of daily Christian experience in the early Church)? Freeman sheds little or no light on these matters. His history is of surfaces rather than depths.

Freeman's shallowness is further exhibited in his contention that Paul knew nothing of Christ's "physical" resurrection. The fact is Jews only knew of physical resurrection. Paul didn't have a lot of conceptual room to play with! Freeman's proposition is incredible however given that Paul's missionary colleague was Luke, the gospel writer who offers us the most material and physical description of the resurrected Christ in the New Testament (cf Luke chapter 24 verses 36-43 where Jesus invites his disciples to handle him and see that he is "not" a spirit!). Given that Luke was under Paul's apostolic leadership it would be odd if the latter's views on the resurrection weren't reflected in the third gospel. But even aside from this there is something specious about Freeman's line of reasoning. Because Paul did not belabour the "physical" nature of Christ's resurrection need not imply that he was ignorant of it, or didn't believe in it. The author of the First Epistle of John nowhere mentions or alludes to Jesus' resurrection in his letter. Yet we know from his gospel that he was au fait not just with Jesus' post mortem appearances, but also with their physical dimension (cf John Chapters 20-21). A New Testament author therefore may not allude or refer to key Christian beliefs if he assumes that his readers already know about them or if they are simply not on his pastoral agenda (cf Hebrews chapter 6:1-2). Freeman wilfully overlooks this fact however which is why his book is so deeply frustrating.

On another tack Freeman's idea that the fourth century Church plunged the West into the intellectual Dark Ages was kicked into touch long ago by E.R.Dodds (The Greeks and the Irrational, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1951). Dodds cogently argues that the pagan world out of which Christianity emerged was crassly superstitious and in a dark age of its own. Freeman, as others have noted, imagines that pagans in Late Antiquity walked around in Greek togas discussing philosophy and literature and other high brow topics. Most in fact were illiterate and were more concerned with finding food and keeping warm than discussing the latest neo-platonic theories about the One and the Many. More recently Freeman's views have been demolished in David Bentley Hart's critically acclaimed, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies (Yale University Press, 2009). Referring to Freeman's book, The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise and Fall of Reason (where Freeman first moots his ideas about the Christian Dark Ages) Hart remarks that it is "an almost perfect compendium of every trite caricature of early Christianity devised since Gibbon" (p56). He goes on to suggest that Freeman "attempts long discourses on theological disputes he simply does not understand, continually falls prey to vulgar misconstruals of the material he is attempting to interpret, makes large claims about early Christian belief that are simply false, offers vague assertions about philosophers he clearly has not studied, and delivers himself of opinions regarding Christian teaching that are worse than simply inaccurate" (p57). His pronouncements, moreover, on Platonism, Aristotelianism, and the Christian doctrine of the divine image in man "betray", in Hart's opinion, "an almost perfect ignorance of all three topics" (p245, n.1).

The reality is, pace Freeman, that without the formative intellectual endeavours of Christian thinkers between the fifth and the fifteenth centuries there would have been no Renaissance, Reformation, Enlightenment, or Scientific Revolutions to speak of. Much of this may have come on the back of the rediscovery of Aristotle, to be sure. But it was the Christian appropriation and reworking of the Greek philosophical and scientific legacy which propelled us into the modern age.

Christians in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages revived and breathed new life into the Graeco-Roman heritage. Metaphysics, epistemology, science, mythology, and philosophy were dynamically and creatively transformed by Christian theologians. In this sense they could be said to have saved Classical culture.

The fact that this led to a monolithic view of reality (something which Freeman hotly disparages) is no more or less iniquitous than the prevailing worldview which is imposed upon us by the scientific establishment. Christianity was never a universalist faith. The doctrine of the incarnation tied God to self disclosure and historical revelation in first century Palestine. Like the Second Law of Thermodynamics this truth was non negotiable.

If you are looking for a secular or fundamentalist liberal account of the Early Church, which presupposes that there is very little which needs to be understood about the person of Jesus, and his followers' convictions about him, then you could do no better than buy this book.
88 Comments| 44 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
VINE VOICEon 19 March 2011
Here's another boy, like Hitchens and Dawkins, who is heading straight to Hell in a handcart, and who will die roaring.

Mr Freeman seems to be allowing for the possibility that some at least of the early Church Fathers and Bishops were sociopaths, bullies, brawlers, graspers, corner boys, crap artists, flimflam men, carpet baggers, potential participants on The Jeremy Kyle Show, or any combination thereof. Pick of the crop from these bruisers would seem to be Saints Paul, Jerome and Augustine - a formidable triumvirate of head-the-balls with whom you would not like to have a drink, and to whom you (most emphatically) would not want to introduce your girlfriend.

Fair enough, one or two of the nascent Church's leaders might have been a bit dodgy in terms of the stuff Jesus is supposed to have banged on about: love, good deeds and giving up riches or whatever - sure didn't his brother James try to keep that stuff going after the Crucifixion but there was no market for it even in those days, in fact he bought the farm because he wouldn't catch himself on. And maybe when Constantine turned the tide in their favour they were a tiny bit unsympathetic to the opposition, lost the rag a couple of times and instigated a few persecutions, massacres and whatnots, defiled and/or wrecked a shrine or two, destroyed the odd magnificent library collection, stifled curiosity and intellectual progress for a wee while, even encouraged and exploited a cult of credulity, but this is all part of life's rich pageant surely, and, anyway, worse things happen at sea, get over it. That was then and this is now, and if the secularists who hold sway so abusively today can't grant believers the tolerance and right to live that believers never granted them ... well, it's a quare conundrum and a terrible hard pancake.

Mr Freeman fails to recognise the true genius of such divinely inspired heavyweights: when it came to clarifying doctrine they knew how to dig a hole and keep digging. (And this tradition still flourishes, as a quick look at the other reviews and comments here will attest.) The Virgin Birth, Three Persons in one Godhead, Christ 100% divine/100% human, 'begotten not made', 'of one substance with the Father' - no, they weren't just having a laugh, these lads were deep. The Classical philosophers (always stupidly asking how) couldn't hack it, but our men (asking why and what's in it for me) sweated and fretted themselves grievously until the Emperor lost the bap and told them to shape up or ship out. With their minds thus focused, and the Emperor clearing their desks and collecting the empties, they got the big questions down hunky-dory and well understood, sometimes, such was their acuity, without having to refer at all to Scripture!

So, all in all a top read. Written in an engaging, accessible style; short, easily digested chapters; well researched; good maps, very useful glossaries (for when you get a bit confused as to who is and isn't a heretic - like treason, it's a matter of dates!) and a great further reading section. Paperback well made, nicely presented, bound a little too tightly so if you insist on opening it flat you will break the spine completely, but no matter. Highly recommended and a worthy successor to Chadwick.

In memoriam Christopher Hitchens (1949 - 2011)
33 Comments| 34 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 31 December 2009
A Bright Lantern in a Murky Night

Not since I read Theology at Cambridge some years ago have I experienced such an intellectually and spiritually refreshing approach to the origins of Christianity. How many authors are prepared to face the challenge of taking a genuinely historical view of the tangled beginnings of Christianity? Charles Freeman patiently and lucidly uncovers the complex and contentious upheavals of the first five centuries when isolated groups of Christians were both struggling with their own understanding and competing with the different emerging beliefs of other groups, while intermittently facing political persecution and the insidious dangers of political patronage.

Freeman's enquiry takes as a starting-point the historian's observation that the emergence of Christianity has been probably the most important influence on western civilisation in the last two millennia; his account also accepts that this transforming movement undoubtedly had its origin in historical events in the first century AD. The crucial question, however, is "How much can we know about those events and how much do their details matter in evaluating the subsequent development of a theology and church structure?" He does not set out to undermine Christianity in this book, rather, to shine a light on its foundations and, given that Christianity makes unique claims about its historical founder, to offer the historian's tools for uncovering the evidence about him. Some readers may be disturbed to encounter for the first time the confusion and conflict which characterised the early centuries of Christianity, but more will be reassured by being led through a dispassionate survey of the evidence, which pays due attention to the doubts and queries shared by so many Christian enquirers, which are too often obscured by conventional religious language, or suppressed as irrelevant or irreverent by orthodox authorities.

Scriptural evidence is fundamental to this enquiry, as other types of evidence are conspicuously absent for the first two centuries, and Freeman has quarried deeply into recent scholarly research to illuminate the saga of the compilation of the New Testament and the difficult issues of the authenticity of its constituent documents. His account maps the documents within their original geographical communities wherever possible, and sets out the many linguistic difficulties arising from their origins and subsequent processes of edition and translation. He is particularly insightful about the enigmatic figure of Paul, whose focus on crucifixion and resurrection, sin, sacrifice and redemption provided much of the raw material of the later creedal controversies. During the first four centuries Christians grappled with an emerging theology ranging from Jesus the Aramaic-speaking friend of fishermen to the cosmic Son-of-God figure responsible for the creation of the universe. They tried to disentangle his original teachings and figure out the morality of daily life while simultaneously attempting to close off routes into heresy, involving contortions such as the self-contradictory abstractions of the Trinity. Add to all this the political calculations of Roman emperors desperate to maintain cohesion in their empire and ruthless in the exercise of their authority, and you have the raw materials of a sort of primeval soup, so rich that subsequent generations of Christians have selected from it all kinds of flavours, so dense that perhaps no one can see the through the murk. Through relentless concentration on the evidence, Freeman shows in a measured and lively account how the different ingredients of Christianity evolved. This is not a condemnatory book; rather, an enlightening liberal critique of the problems which arise when people seek to resolve diversity of individual perception by imposing exclusive orthodoxy. For any reader prepared to seek his own way, rather than looking for someone to tell him what to believe, this book is certain to be a lantern to his feet; it may even be a guiding light.

Anthony Stanton, MA Theol. Cantab, Dip. Ed. Oxon
11 Comment| 40 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 23 December 2015
In spite of a discouraging start, with a silly theory about the resurrection, the book is a highly readable analysis of the progress of the Church in late Antiquity. In fact I found it a real page-turner. The author shows impressive grasp of the shenanagans at the various church Councils from Nicaea onwards, ground which he covered in what for me is his most outstanding book, 381.
22 Comments|Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 8 June 2014
This book is well written, and the author comes across as a thoroughly decent person. It's not a rant from an angry atheist, but takes a respectful tone toward people of faith. For that it deserves three stars.

Freeman's "new history" of Christianity is perfectly consistent with a worldview that makes no provision for the supernatural. But this neither renders it objective, nor necessarily accurate. The give-away is his account of the resurrection of Christ. He acknowledges that something happened on Easter Sunday, and that the disciples themselves believed that Jesus had been raised. So far so good. But he then speculates about the Jewish high priest, Caiaphas, having the body removed and men in white (who the disciples presumably thought were angels) stationed at the tomb in order to tell them to go on to Galilee, thereby removing them from his jurisdiction. In other words, Jesus couldn't possibly have been raised from the dead so we have to come up with an alternative explanation no matter how strained. Because of his presuppositions, the author also overlooks the significance of Pentecost with the coming of the Spirit, and how that impacted the disciples. As is often the case, he seeks to find all sorts of conflict and tension between the early Christians that are by no means necessarily there. His suggestion, for example, that the Antioch Christians appear to have rejected Paul after his confrontation with Peter over table-fellowship with Gentiles is simply not there for anyone familiar with the text.

Freeman is right about one thing though. He notes the inability of Jesus scholars to recreate a historical Jesus with any confidence. This is readily acknowledged by all. Allow me to interject my own (reasonable) presuppositions here. Surely God has allowed this to be so in His wisdom, that we might have no choice but to fall back on the Gospel accounts themselves. In the preface, Freeman acknowledges that his own wife would certainly not agree with everything written in the book. I've no idea whether she's a believer or not, but sometimes intuitive faith trumps the wisdom and learning of objective historians.
0Comment| One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 8 April 2010
In this book Freeman simply treats Christianity as a professional historian would any other subject. Which means using the latest and best research possible, and filling the gaps in that research where necessary with clearly indicated reasoning and best guesses. It would take a very small mind indeed for even a committed Christian to object to this book simply because it isn't based on the assumption that his own faith is correct. Thoughtful Christians will find this book just as interesting as those atheists and agnostics who appreciate Christianity's historical importance.
33 Comments| 22 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 30 March 2011
History, it is said, is a chaotic mix of contingence and necessity. With one exception, I may add: the history of revealed religion. There it is all necessity: God's will through men. History then degenerates into mere chronicle of God's will as it unfolds - a "just so story" writ in capital letters.

It is the great and enduring merit of Charles FREEMAN to have eschewed writing such an implicitly hagiographic history, and to have taken Christianity to be a historical phenomenon as any other. How did Christianity emerge? The book portrays a tradition in the making: from many humble, disparate and often contradictory sources and rivulets the main stream of orthodoxy eventually materializes - decisively helped, from a crucial point on, by the secular power of the Roman emperors, who settled theological issues as they saw fit, and enforced their choice for their own purposes. The picture that emerges of Christianity is less one of the irreversible spread of an inerrant "revealed truth" as one of contingent but convergent "political compromise".

Core elements of religion are its theology, its personal ethics, its view of afterlife, and its rituals. Their contingent interplay results in the religion successfully implanting in the social tissue of the time, growing, and eventually displacing other religions.

On the theology FREEMAN's dosage of detail is just right. We can understand and appreciate the successive discussions on the essence of the Trinity. The interplay with pagan philosophy is essential, and he sorts out the crucial concepts with great clarity. In attempting to explain themselves to Pagans the early Christians had to deepen their view of the Trinity - using philosophical categories and concepts. The early optimism that revelation would suffice to understand God's nature soon yielded to pessimism - part Zeitgeist, part the unseemly wrangle of clerical ambitions. In the end the stamp "dogma" - undisputed doctrine that needs no rational justification - was placed on the now "sealed" topic. In many cases that stamp is that of the Emperor's hand, and the Emperor then secured compliance. Though certainly not novel, the central role of secular power is worth expliciting and underlining.

At the time of Constantine's edict of toleration, and 300 years after Jesus, Christianity was less than 10% of the empire's population. 200 years later, it was the dominant religion. Imitative positive feedbacks may have played a role, but the role of civil authority in first defining, then spreading by means fair and foul the faith remains undisputed. If the advantage of Christianity in consorting with power is clear, the need of the Roman Emperor for a religion like Christianity is less clearly fleshed out in the text. It was not occasional. As KULIKOWSKI has pointed out recently: "Over the centuries, even the most backward parts of the empire had come to be integrated into Greco-Roman culture and Roman citizenship, while imperial government grew to resemble an administered state rather than a parasitic superstructure delegating the actual tasks of government to local authorities." The bishops provided a ready-made administrative structure with a relatively homogeneous ethic. In addition, a personality like Constantine would no longer satisfy himself with being revered as a god; he wanted to act as God (or at least in His place). The Christian religion gave him here far more scope than Paganism.

A central point in the book is the "unintended" outcome of the quest for canon. When Constantine and then Theodosius started down that path, they could not have fully understood the consequences of centrally imposed conformism. Or they may have thought that they could be "just a bit pregnant" with it. In hindsight, the "closing of the Western mind" was a "path-dependent outcome" - and a cautionary lesson to all those clamoring for orthodoxy.

In the area of personal ethics, Dr. FREEMAN is somewhat less than complete. He points out the different strands - from Pauline and Augustinian pessimism to the emerging obsession with sexual matters. On the positive side, we have the novel and deep concern for the poor, and the commandment of love for each other. The positive attitude of Jesus toward women is noted, but the theme gets somehow lost. The subject of slavery is hardly mentioned.

If Christianity spread it was also because it offered a profoundly different ethics from that of the day. Just an example: slaves, who had been considered chattel, were now recognized as moral agents - and slaves probably made up more than half the population. Here, one may begin with Jennifer A. GLANCY Slavery in Early Christianity. Morals, furthermore, had been a private matter - in Christianity they became also a matter of the community. A better contrasting between everyday Christian and Pagan ethics would have been useful in understanding the attractiveness of the religion - but also its strangeness. Just imagine: a proud Roman knight is told that he may burn in hell, while his slave may have eternal bliss. What would have been his reaction?

One great novelty of Christianity with respect to Paganism was its emphasis on afterlife. Life was but a short trial period, followed by everlasting bliss or punishment. Notions of afterlife existed in Paganism, but were inchoate, or elitist, and certainly not universal or egalitarian. Even Judaism was unclear here, and on one point so was early Christianity - Jesus never mentioned Purgatory, and this concept emerged slowly, and was only fully affirmed by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (Protestantism recused it). Again, a bitter contrasting of the Christian and Pagan views on afterlife might have given us a better view.

Rituals get shortchanged. Priests and then bishops and monks are mentioned, and somehow surface. But there is no clear focus on the inner structures of the Church as such, or on the changing role of women in them. Also sacraments only get incidental treatment.

By making these comments I'm not saying that Dr. FREEMAN would have been able to supply all answers: but simply addressing them explicitly would have helped me better to visualize the scope of the implanting process that Christianity went through in the society of its day, and on the extent of the change it eventually wrought to the pre-existing worldviews.

Other topics that would be addressed could be e.g. "portability". Pagan gods were all "local". With increasing movement of population, it would have been useful to be assured of a spiritual home anywhere in the empire. As economic conditions declined, the emergence of "praeter-natural insurance policies" against the vagaries of fate might have looked attractive.

To conclude, Dr. FREEMAN is very good on the inner development of the Christian faith. But a non-dogmatic history of early Christianity also needs to address the question: what were the popular bases of its appeal and eventual success (but for the heavy fist of the Emperor)? What changes did it bring to the people, and why did they embrace Christianity? A mapping of the subject would already have been a step in the right direction.
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse
on 19 June 2010
As a Irish Christian - I can't call myself Roman Catholic anymore due to my no longer accepting the "virgin birth" to mention but one reason - I have been interested in this subject for many years.

I agree with Drs. Jones' and Stanton's reviews - this is a easy read, where all the "heavy" (academic) material is neatly tucked away at the end of the book, which provides the reader with extensive references to investigate the subject matter further.

One might say that this is the sort of approach to writing about complex subjects which should be used more often as it allows the non-academic to explore the subject as deeply as they wish through the references.

I was already familiar with some of the material but found quite a bit of new information regarding the many alternative "heretical" beliefs of the time and the interaction with Pagan beliefs, both Roman and, particularly, Greek philosophers.

One is struck by the thought of the similarity of the development of Christianity with that of early science - for example, where the "orthodoxy" of Ptolemy's cosmology all but crushes the "heretical" (though relatively more accurate) alternative of Aristarchus.

That if only matters had been different...!

The two main ones being:

1) The conceptual/lingual trap of "God the Father, God the Son,..." leading to the Arian Heresy/"sub-ordinationism" and the problems of how to explain - never mind, understand! - the concept of the Holy Trinity, which led to the imposition of orthodox beliefs encapsulated in the Council of Nicaea (AD 326) and the Councils of Constantinople (AD 360, 381 and 383);

2) The "young girl" (almah) to "virgin" (virgo) translation/interpretational error, which ultimately led to its logical conclusion of the orthodox belief in the Theotokos at the Council of Ephesus (AD 431).

And those are just the main ones!

As a result of this book's extensive references, I'm now further investigating various areas of this subject, which are of interest to me - Robin Lane Fox's "Pagans and Christians" was already on my "must read" list, this book has added impetus to my getting it; equally, I'm exploring Hellenistic philosophy further and the "Desert Fathers" (Evagrius, John Cassius, etc) as well.

Perhaps the author should claim commission for selling other authors' books which he references!?

This is a book well worth reading - if only for the references, timeline, glossary, etc.

Minor errata:

Glossary (Page 341) - "Filioque":
The description includes the phrase "... rather than the Son alone." Should this not read "... rather than the Father alone.", as explained in the text on pages 290-1?

Marcus Terentius Varro is mentioned in the text but not referenced in "People" or the index.

I was somewhat discomfited at seeing "heaven and/on earth" throughout the book without the expected capitalization - I'm not sure if this was intentional or not. Certainly one would expect "Earth" when referring to the world as against "earth" for the soil.

PS - I may reply to another reviewer's somewhat negative impressions...
0Comment| 10 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Report abuse

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)