What do you think?
Rate this book
A New History of Early Christianity
This stimulating history of early Christianity revisits the extraordinary birth of a world religion and gives a new slant on a familiar story
The relevance of Christianity is as hotly contested today as it has ever been. A New History of Early Christianity shows how our current debates are rooted in the many controversies surrounding the birth of the religion and the earliest attempts to resolve them. Charles Freeman’s meticulous historical account of Christianity from its birth in Judaea in the first century A.D. to the emergence of Western and Eastern churches by A.D. 600 reveals that it was a distinctive, vibrant, and incredibly diverse movement brought into order at the cost of intellectual and spiritual vitality. Against the conventional narrative of the inevitable “triumph” of a single distinct Christianity, Freeman shows that there was a host of competing Christianities, many of which had as much claim to authenticity as those that eventually dominated. Looking with fresh eyes at the historical record, Freeman explores the ambiguities and contradictions that underlay Christian theology and the unavoidable compromises enforced in the name of doctrine. Tracing the astonishing transformation that the early Christian church underwent—from sporadic niches of Christian communities surviving in the wake of a horrific crucifixion to sanctioned alliance with the state—Charles Freeman shows how freedom of thought was curtailed by the development of the concept of faith. The imposition of "correct belief," religious uniformity, and an institutional framework that enforced orthodoxy were both consolidating and stifling. Uncovering the difficulties in establishing the Christian church, he examines its relationship with Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy and Greco-Roman society, and he offers dramatic new accounts of Paul, the resurrection, and the church fathers and emperors.
The relevance of Christianity is as hotly contested today as it has ever been. A New History of Early Christianity shows how our current debates are rooted in the many controversies surrounding the birth of the religion and the earliest attempts to resolve them. Charles Freeman’s meticulous historical account of Christianity from its birth in Judaea in the first century A.D. to the emergence of Western and Eastern churches by A.D. 600 reveals that it was a distinctive, vibrant, and incredibly diverse movement brought into order at the cost of intellectual and spiritual vitality. Against the conventional narrative of the inevitable “triumph” of a single distinct Christianity, Freeman shows that there was a host of competing Christianities, many of which had as much claim to authenticity as those that eventually dominated. Looking with fresh eyes at the historical record, Freeman explores the ambiguities and contradictions that underlay Christian theology and the unavoidable compromises enforced in the name of doctrine. Tracing the astonishing transformation that the early Christian church underwent—from sporadic niches of Christian communities surviving in the wake of a horrific crucifixion to sanctioned alliance with the state—Charles Freeman shows how freedom of thought was curtailed by the development of the concept of faith. The imposition of "correct belief," religious uniformity, and an institutional framework that enforced orthodoxy were both consolidating and stifling. Uncovering the difficulties in establishing the Christian church, he examines its relationship with Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy and Greco-Roman society, and he offers dramatic new accounts of Paul, the resurrection, and the church fathers and emperors.
400 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
80 people are currently reading
480 people want to read
About the author
Charles Freeman
63 books120 followersCharles Freeman is a freelance academic historian with wide interests in the history of European culture and thought. He is the author of the highly acclaimed Egypt, Greece and Rome, Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean. He has followed this up with The Greek Achievement (Penguin 1999), The Legacy of Ancient Egypt (Facts on File, 1997) and The Closing of the Western Mind, a study of the relationship between Greek philosophy and Christianity in the fourth century and beyond. His The Horses of St. Mark’s (Little Brown, 2004) is a study of these famous works of art in their historical contexts over the centuries. In 2003, Charles Freeman was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
July 16, 2022
A New History of Early Christianity (2009) by historian Charles Freeman is a decent work, describing all the historical events and development of early Christianity as it grew from a small sect in the years following Jesus' crucifixion in 31 A.D. to become a fundamental pillar of the imperial state in the fourth century.
Freeman offers 32 short chapters in which he focuses on general developments and key figures. Where necessary he weaves geopolitical events into the narrative in order to provide a meaningful context. This approach offers a fast-paced trajectory through the first centuries A.D. Also, Freeman continuously hammers home the point that most modern day perspectives on the development of early Christianity are modern day conceptions, projected backwards into history. To counter this he stresses the uncertainty of historical facts and he shows through his descriptions how up to the formation of the Imperial Church by emperor Constantine in the fourth century, Christianity as such did not even exist.
From the Jesus sect sprang different communities. Over time, and in various places all over the Mediterranean world christian communities grew. This was a dynamic process in which many new beliefs, communities, and rites formed. We have to remind ourselves this was an era when travel was difficult and took long - allowing for the isolated development of all sorts of ideas and communities. Also, these early Christians lived in a world that was alien, and sometimes hostile, to them. So formation of ideas and behavior developed in reaction to, or in interaction with, Hellenized pagan communities.
Over time, many debates about theological questions and interpretations came and went. It was only when the church was integrated in the Empire during the fourth century and clerical positions became professional career moves with political and economic benefits - i.e. the formation of a rigid hierarchical structure dominated by political events and under the ultimate supervision of the reigning Emperor - that debate was stifled, interpretations and doctrines were imposed, and a persecution of pagans and heretics took flight.
When the Western Empire succumbed to barbarian hordes invading from the North in the fifth century, the Church was all the remained and paradoxically its imperial structure was the reason it survived these dark times. Nevertheless, it would take almost another thousand years before religious orthodoxy was broken again and debate returned.
In all this is a pretty impressive work in what it offers. Unfortunately, it also doesn't offer a lot of other things one would have appreciated. This fast-paced approach means almost no introductions of, or background information by, important events and key figures. This means a reader either has to have all the relevant information already in its possession or continuously stop reading and look up the relevant background information. Otherwise, much of what is discussed doesn't really make sense.
Freeman offers 32 short chapters in which he focuses on general developments and key figures. Where necessary he weaves geopolitical events into the narrative in order to provide a meaningful context. This approach offers a fast-paced trajectory through the first centuries A.D. Also, Freeman continuously hammers home the point that most modern day perspectives on the development of early Christianity are modern day conceptions, projected backwards into history. To counter this he stresses the uncertainty of historical facts and he shows through his descriptions how up to the formation of the Imperial Church by emperor Constantine in the fourth century, Christianity as such did not even exist.
From the Jesus sect sprang different communities. Over time, and in various places all over the Mediterranean world christian communities grew. This was a dynamic process in which many new beliefs, communities, and rites formed. We have to remind ourselves this was an era when travel was difficult and took long - allowing for the isolated development of all sorts of ideas and communities. Also, these early Christians lived in a world that was alien, and sometimes hostile, to them. So formation of ideas and behavior developed in reaction to, or in interaction with, Hellenized pagan communities.
Over time, many debates about theological questions and interpretations came and went. It was only when the church was integrated in the Empire during the fourth century and clerical positions became professional career moves with political and economic benefits - i.e. the formation of a rigid hierarchical structure dominated by political events and under the ultimate supervision of the reigning Emperor - that debate was stifled, interpretations and doctrines were imposed, and a persecution of pagans and heretics took flight.
When the Western Empire succumbed to barbarian hordes invading from the North in the fifth century, the Church was all the remained and paradoxically its imperial structure was the reason it survived these dark times. Nevertheless, it would take almost another thousand years before religious orthodoxy was broken again and debate returned.
In all this is a pretty impressive work in what it offers. Unfortunately, it also doesn't offer a lot of other things one would have appreciated. This fast-paced approach means almost no introductions of, or background information by, important events and key figures. This means a reader either has to have all the relevant information already in its possession or continuously stop reading and look up the relevant background information. Otherwise, much of what is discussed doesn't really make sense.
August 31, 2020
TL;DR, Good details, less good big picture.
Freeman is an effective tour guide for the early centuries of Christianity, explaining different milestones, points of interest, and helpful context. When he describes what Jerome hoped to accomplish with what would become the Vulgate and mentions the Septuagint, Freeman makes sure to include that the Greek translation of the Hebrew sacred texts date to the third century BCE and how how its accessibility helped elevate its status to Greek Christians. Christianity in the Eastern Roman Empire sometimes gets overlooked, but this is certainly not the case here.
The book faltered for me when it came to his conclusions about a person or institution's "influence" and how often these conclusions seemed to contradict. Augustine became influential "only when the church of the west became the most powerful in Europe after intellectual life re-emerged in the eleventh and twelfth centuries" (pg. 285) and yet Freeman laments the loss of diversity of intellectual debate and the stifling of creativity because "By the time of Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixty century, the major figures of Latin Christianity were reading only Augustine" (297). Was Augustine influential during the early Middle Ages or was he not?
Pope Gregory I also had "restricted influence" and yet he was also the founder of a "new Latin Christianity that was to provide the template for the medieval church" (317). According to Freeman, Gregory had enough political power to exchange the destruction of pagan shrines for consecrating them.
The author places himself in (then) recent scholarship that challenged the idea of a stable Christian community with a clearly defined orthodoxy in its first centuries. I think he accomplishes this end by delving into the small, scattered communities of Christianity's first decades and their use of sacred texts that would eventually be excluded from the canon in the fourth century. The acknowledgment of the ambivalent attitudes toward the influence/heritage of natural philosophy and Judaism lines up with other scholars like Jaroslav Pelikan. Why Freeman pursues this argument is what seems a bit suspect and perhaps drives some of the more contradictory interpretations. In one of the final chapters, he writes:
"It would be wrong, therefore, to end this book with a picture of a Christianity that stifled all initiative. The medieval church simply did not have the power to destroy inventiveness and curiosity. Even though the return of reasoned thought was to be challenged by Catholic traditionalists, Thomas Aquinas' championship of Aristotle was eventually accepted within Catholicism. It was the interaction of religious and secular patterns of thinking that was crucial in allowing further progress." (320)
The assurance in that excerpt definitely warrants a "yikes" for its implications, that had it the power, *of course* the medieval church would "destroy inventiveness and curiosity." Freeman pairs that loss of curiosity with a decline in the pagan philosophical schools of Greece. That association of intellectual uniformity and Christianity comes with the imposition of the Nicene formula for the trinity. Again, another contradiction arises in that the church was decentralized enough so as to be "much less influential and homogenous that [sic] was once thought" (320) but the trinitarian theology that came from Nicaea was apparently enough to silence the debate "not only within the church but across the whole spectrum of intellectual activity" (322). That "silencing" of debate within the Christian world also seems to make the assumption that the nature of the trinity was the only pressing theological issue, which is certainly not the case (e.g., bodily resurrection, the problem of evil).
Even with those jarring conclusions, this book does offer good information and starting points for further reading. It's an accessible read that covers individuals, communities, art, politics, architecture, and texts. Freeman doesn't treat his subject as something inevitable but instead tries to answer how what was initially perceived as a heretical Jewish sect survived and thrived as the official state religion in the Roman empire. However, it's in the sweeping conclusions about the influence and motivations of individuals and institutions where the book consistently trips over itself.
Freeman is an effective tour guide for the early centuries of Christianity, explaining different milestones, points of interest, and helpful context. When he describes what Jerome hoped to accomplish with what would become the Vulgate and mentions the Septuagint, Freeman makes sure to include that the Greek translation of the Hebrew sacred texts date to the third century BCE and how how its accessibility helped elevate its status to Greek Christians. Christianity in the Eastern Roman Empire sometimes gets overlooked, but this is certainly not the case here.
The book faltered for me when it came to his conclusions about a person or institution's "influence" and how often these conclusions seemed to contradict. Augustine became influential "only when the church of the west became the most powerful in Europe after intellectual life re-emerged in the eleventh and twelfth centuries" (pg. 285) and yet Freeman laments the loss of diversity of intellectual debate and the stifling of creativity because "By the time of Gregory the Great, at the end of the sixty century, the major figures of Latin Christianity were reading only Augustine" (297). Was Augustine influential during the early Middle Ages or was he not?
Pope Gregory I also had "restricted influence" and yet he was also the founder of a "new Latin Christianity that was to provide the template for the medieval church" (317). According to Freeman, Gregory had enough political power to exchange the destruction of pagan shrines for consecrating them.
The author places himself in (then) recent scholarship that challenged the idea of a stable Christian community with a clearly defined orthodoxy in its first centuries. I think he accomplishes this end by delving into the small, scattered communities of Christianity's first decades and their use of sacred texts that would eventually be excluded from the canon in the fourth century. The acknowledgment of the ambivalent attitudes toward the influence/heritage of natural philosophy and Judaism lines up with other scholars like Jaroslav Pelikan. Why Freeman pursues this argument is what seems a bit suspect and perhaps drives some of the more contradictory interpretations. In one of the final chapters, he writes:
"It would be wrong, therefore, to end this book with a picture of a Christianity that stifled all initiative. The medieval church simply did not have the power to destroy inventiveness and curiosity. Even though the return of reasoned thought was to be challenged by Catholic traditionalists, Thomas Aquinas' championship of Aristotle was eventually accepted within Catholicism. It was the interaction of religious and secular patterns of thinking that was crucial in allowing further progress." (320)
The assurance in that excerpt definitely warrants a "yikes" for its implications, that had it the power, *of course* the medieval church would "destroy inventiveness and curiosity." Freeman pairs that loss of curiosity with a decline in the pagan philosophical schools of Greece. That association of intellectual uniformity and Christianity comes with the imposition of the Nicene formula for the trinity. Again, another contradiction arises in that the church was decentralized enough so as to be "much less influential and homogenous that [sic] was once thought" (320) but the trinitarian theology that came from Nicaea was apparently enough to silence the debate "not only within the church but across the whole spectrum of intellectual activity" (322). That "silencing" of debate within the Christian world also seems to make the assumption that the nature of the trinity was the only pressing theological issue, which is certainly not the case (e.g., bodily resurrection, the problem of evil).
Even with those jarring conclusions, this book does offer good information and starting points for further reading. It's an accessible read that covers individuals, communities, art, politics, architecture, and texts. Freeman doesn't treat his subject as something inevitable but instead tries to answer how what was initially perceived as a heretical Jewish sect survived and thrived as the official state religion in the Roman empire. However, it's in the sweeping conclusions about the influence and motivations of individuals and institutions where the book consistently trips over itself.
December 19, 2009
I picked up this "new history" of early Christianity with moderate expectations. I've long been interested in both historical studies of the life of Jesus and the development of Christian thought, even though I am no longer a believer in any sense. When I flipped through Freeman's book at Books Inc., it had the look of a decent synthesis of recent scholarship – which (in contrast to Christian theology) is always changing and often fascinating. I didn't expect to do much more than dip into it here and there.
In fact I ended up reading it cover to cover, with increasing appreciation. Anyone interested in Jewish/Christian history (Christianity originally being but one of the many varieties of Judaism) will find this book rewarding. Freeman summarizes a vast amount of scholarship with deceptive ease, without sacrificing the juicy detail that gives history its force, all while building a coherent, convincing picture of faith that began with the revolutionary teachings of Jesus and all too soon traded insight for power. Yes, this is a vast simplification – but Freeman builds his case with finesse.
A couple choice generalizations. On the astonishing impact of Saul/Paul: "Paul shifted the focus from Jesus' teachings, of which he said virtually nothing, to the drama of his crucifixion and resurrection." An elementary deduction, but the consequence of this shift from the apocalyptic ethics of Jesus to the cosmic drama of redemption is impossible to overstate.
Freeman concludes with the modest observation that "While it makes sense to accept that we are naturally religious, imaginative about the spiritual possibilities of a life beyond materialism, anxious to find deeper ethical truths which will enable us to live in harmony with each other and the over-exploited planet we live on, we appear to be without the means to define the supernatural in any coherent way." This is as far from acerbic atheism as it is from the incredible certainty of Christian believers – and to my mind, the model of what scholarship should be.
In fact I ended up reading it cover to cover, with increasing appreciation. Anyone interested in Jewish/Christian history (Christianity originally being but one of the many varieties of Judaism) will find this book rewarding. Freeman summarizes a vast amount of scholarship with deceptive ease, without sacrificing the juicy detail that gives history its force, all while building a coherent, convincing picture of faith that began with the revolutionary teachings of Jesus and all too soon traded insight for power. Yes, this is a vast simplification – but Freeman builds his case with finesse.
A couple choice generalizations. On the astonishing impact of Saul/Paul: "Paul shifted the focus from Jesus' teachings, of which he said virtually nothing, to the drama of his crucifixion and resurrection." An elementary deduction, but the consequence of this shift from the apocalyptic ethics of Jesus to the cosmic drama of redemption is impossible to overstate.
Freeman concludes with the modest observation that "While it makes sense to accept that we are naturally religious, imaginative about the spiritual possibilities of a life beyond materialism, anxious to find deeper ethical truths which will enable us to live in harmony with each other and the over-exploited planet we live on, we appear to be without the means to define the supernatural in any coherent way." This is as far from acerbic atheism as it is from the incredible certainty of Christian believers – and to my mind, the model of what scholarship should be.
July 27, 2022
I wanted to give this a 4 star but it is more accurately 3.5 star, fully. Yet I can't round it up. The photos are 5 stars levels of antiquities in script and artwork from the periods covered. Which truly do reveal concepts in their very formations.
It's good. Worth the read. Most of the the first 3 centuries' highlights on Scripture origins and movements of influence geographically, those exact detailing measures of places/ people etc., I had more than 60 years ago in grammar school. Believe it or not, that is true. In my Catholic schooling we were never taught Bible without the historical aspects of high detail. For instance that it was never written in Aramaic (Jesus's language) but in Greek and other much later translated copy language from an ORAL tradition or very old former language sources. And that for centuries as in Christ's time, it was used as an ORAL form and purpose for parables of teaching and example. Not meant to be people common read. Just wasn't until nearly a 1000 years later.
This book is the historic without any intrinsic faith element other than the surmised of historic record. Which is appreciated, but absolutely not the entire onus of later heresy and faction fighting etc. And I thought the last couple centuries were not done as well as the first 3 at all.
Fair and detailed historic record and some good suppositions in a non-faith sense of "getting" the gist of the power of influences.
I have always wondered what might have been revealed or altered by survival of so many other gospels and written records that were lost. Peter's and some of the others especially. Because it put SO much later moxie on Paul's which took quite a departure from any former witnesses to Jesus's actual life years.
It's good. Worth the read. Most of the the first 3 centuries' highlights on Scripture origins and movements of influence geographically, those exact detailing measures of places/ people etc., I had more than 60 years ago in grammar school. Believe it or not, that is true. In my Catholic schooling we were never taught Bible without the historical aspects of high detail. For instance that it was never written in Aramaic (Jesus's language) but in Greek and other much later translated copy language from an ORAL tradition or very old former language sources. And that for centuries as in Christ's time, it was used as an ORAL form and purpose for parables of teaching and example. Not meant to be people common read. Just wasn't until nearly a 1000 years later.
This book is the historic without any intrinsic faith element other than the surmised of historic record. Which is appreciated, but absolutely not the entire onus of later heresy and faction fighting etc. And I thought the last couple centuries were not done as well as the first 3 at all.
Fair and detailed historic record and some good suppositions in a non-faith sense of "getting" the gist of the power of influences.
I have always wondered what might have been revealed or altered by survival of so many other gospels and written records that were lost. Peter's and some of the others especially. Because it put SO much later moxie on Paul's which took quite a departure from any former witnesses to Jesus's actual life years.
November 28, 2022
Not for the causal reader, extremely informative and demands a slow read in a quiet room.
Does a wonderful job painting the history of the first 600 years of Christian thought and is not biased in any direction. If I wasn’t researching the topic so thoroughly I would’ve enjoyed the book much more.
For something a little easier to read, with a nicer flow and much more casual, I would recommend “The First Thousand Years” by Robert Louis Wilken.
Does a wonderful job painting the history of the first 600 years of Christian thought and is not biased in any direction. If I wasn’t researching the topic so thoroughly I would’ve enjoyed the book much more.
For something a little easier to read, with a nicer flow and much more casual, I would recommend “The First Thousand Years” by Robert Louis Wilken.
January 16, 2021
The early church is an incredibly complex historical topic that Freeman does a reasonable job of summing up. Trying to combine the stories of the dozens of different movements, cults and rites that made the first Christians into a cohesive narrative is near impossible but he does a reasonable job of it. The book tends to focus on individual theologians and their contributions while also discussing the major synods and their impacts. This focus on beliefs almost complete leaves out all discussion of religious practice or how it played out in the lives of everyday Christians in the first five centuries A.D. It would have also been nice to seen more discussion of non-canonical texts and the development of churches in Western Asia and Ethiopia which mention only in passing.
January 5, 2013
It's a good look from a secular viewpoint but many of the assertions and references to events are undocumented so it's hard to track down where he came up with some of his information.
June 9, 2020
A disappointment compared to previous Freeman books.
In the early chapters, I was expecting the Freeman of those books. Instead, I got Bart Ehrman, and no, that's not a compliment.
This is not as good as Freeman’s other books, at least the two others I’ve read and reviewed. That starts with the fact that he appears to have abandoned a fair amount of the skepticism he showed in “The Closing of the Western Mind” and “AD 381.” That's why I call him Bart Ehrman and not as a compliment.
Namely, early in the book, he gives too much credence to the degree of history of all four canonical gospels and way too much to John. Related to that, he’s guilty of some serious factual as well as interpretive errors.
Example? ONLY Matthew talks about Caiaphas having a guard on the tomb. And, the idea that the men in white were, instead of being angels, were assistant priests moving the body? Not even Toledoth Yeshu makes that claim. And Matthew’s credibility is further strained by him portraying Pharisees accompanying the chief priests to approach Pilate. While John is the most vehement of the four about “the Jews,” Matthew is (and quite wrongly) about “the Pharisees.” Assuming the “Jesus movement” was small, and certainly not expecting a “resurrection,” why would Caiaphas trouble himself with moving a dead body, and getting assistant priests to tell the disciples to look for Jesus in Galilee? And Luke doesn’t have them saying that, anyway. Nor does the original version of John, which ended with chapter 20.
Then, on page 40, he dates Acts to the 80s, when it’s more likely to have been written as late as 100. He also appears to not be familiar with A.N. Sherwin-White. (His "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament" explains that the "we sections" of Acts are nothing more than a literary trope, one common to 1st-2nd century CE Hellenistic historic romance literature whenever the protagonist starts a shipboard voyage. Unfortunately, Ehrman and way too many other academic NT scholars are ALSO unfamiliar with Sherwin-White.)
Next, he (and he’s not alone here; many academic NT scholars also blow this, IMO), in claiming Paul’s account of the Eucharist is based on existing sources, whether written, oral, or both. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Paul’s "I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you ..." is an indication he’s claiming direct revelation. It should be assumed that he’s taking ideas from a pagan mystery religion. If, as John says “the dinner” was NOT on Passover, it wasn’t a seder. Besides, as a number of scholars and commenters have said, the language of the entry into Jerusalem more matches Sukkoth than Passover, specifically the lulav and the Hosannas, which means neither was the dinner a sedar NOR was Jesus on the cross a new Passover lamb.
He then gets worse on Paul. Takes Lukan claim at face value that Paul was a Roman citizen, as well as he seems to take the “we” passages at face value. Reality? Paul never claims to be a Roman citizen, of course. Luke makes that claim for him.
As for the rigor of Paul’s peregrinations? It was real. So too was it real for Apollonius, and other wandering neo-Pythagoreans. And Cynics. And Asoka’s Buddhist missionaries.
The book gets better once we get into the second century, and better yet in the third. Freeman rightly notes that there wasn't one single Christianity nor one single Gnosticism. (He probably could have added there wasn't one single Judaism at this time, either, as the likes of Dura-Europos make clear.)
One other small gripe. I know he's not an academic historian or church historian. And, I'm not sure whether he's a secularist or not, but I think he probably isn't. Nonetheless, use of "BC" and "AD" instead of "BCE" and "CE" is also a bit off-putting.
In the early chapters, I was expecting the Freeman of those books. Instead, I got Bart Ehrman, and no, that's not a compliment.
This is not as good as Freeman’s other books, at least the two others I’ve read and reviewed. That starts with the fact that he appears to have abandoned a fair amount of the skepticism he showed in “The Closing of the Western Mind” and “AD 381.” That's why I call him Bart Ehrman and not as a compliment.
Namely, early in the book, he gives too much credence to the degree of history of all four canonical gospels and way too much to John. Related to that, he’s guilty of some serious factual as well as interpretive errors.
Example? ONLY Matthew talks about Caiaphas having a guard on the tomb. And, the idea that the men in white were, instead of being angels, were assistant priests moving the body? Not even Toledoth Yeshu makes that claim. And Matthew’s credibility is further strained by him portraying Pharisees accompanying the chief priests to approach Pilate. While John is the most vehement of the four about “the Jews,” Matthew is (and quite wrongly) about “the Pharisees.” Assuming the “Jesus movement” was small, and certainly not expecting a “resurrection,” why would Caiaphas trouble himself with moving a dead body, and getting assistant priests to tell the disciples to look for Jesus in Galilee? And Luke doesn’t have them saying that, anyway. Nor does the original version of John, which ended with chapter 20.
Then, on page 40, he dates Acts to the 80s, when it’s more likely to have been written as late as 100. He also appears to not be familiar with A.N. Sherwin-White. (His "Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament" explains that the "we sections" of Acts are nothing more than a literary trope, one common to 1st-2nd century CE Hellenistic historic romance literature whenever the protagonist starts a shipboard voyage. Unfortunately, Ehrman and way too many other academic NT scholars are ALSO unfamiliar with Sherwin-White.)
Next, he (and he’s not alone here; many academic NT scholars also blow this, IMO), in claiming Paul’s account of the Eucharist is based on existing sources, whether written, oral, or both. Nope. Nope. Nope.
Paul’s "I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you ..." is an indication he’s claiming direct revelation. It should be assumed that he’s taking ideas from a pagan mystery religion. If, as John says “the dinner” was NOT on Passover, it wasn’t a seder. Besides, as a number of scholars and commenters have said, the language of the entry into Jerusalem more matches Sukkoth than Passover, specifically the lulav and the Hosannas, which means neither was the dinner a sedar NOR was Jesus on the cross a new Passover lamb.
He then gets worse on Paul. Takes Lukan claim at face value that Paul was a Roman citizen, as well as he seems to take the “we” passages at face value. Reality? Paul never claims to be a Roman citizen, of course. Luke makes that claim for him.
As for the rigor of Paul’s peregrinations? It was real. So too was it real for Apollonius, and other wandering neo-Pythagoreans. And Cynics. And Asoka’s Buddhist missionaries.
The book gets better once we get into the second century, and better yet in the third. Freeman rightly notes that there wasn't one single Christianity nor one single Gnosticism. (He probably could have added there wasn't one single Judaism at this time, either, as the likes of Dura-Europos make clear.)
One other small gripe. I know he's not an academic historian or church historian. And, I'm not sure whether he's a secularist or not, but I think he probably isn't. Nonetheless, use of "BC" and "AD" instead of "BCE" and "CE" is also a bit off-putting.
September 15, 2024
I thought the research and history were great, but it was so dry I had to force myself to read it. I wanted to know the information but man the delivery was a slog.
May 22, 2015
I despise the word "new" in book titles. It just emphasizes it more when the book becomes dated. However, this book is something new and worth consideration. Freeman's approach is openly secular. I would not say that he is hostile to Christianity, but he does not shy from giving opinionated assessments not often found in surveys. For example, he offers historical scenarios as alternatives to the claim of Christ's resurrection. He is also less than impressed with Paul of Tarsus. Over 100 pages deals with Christian history before the close of the New Testament; he subsumes new New Testament history well into his narrative, but in ways that may unsettle evangelicals. In later doctrinal struggles, he presses the role of intrigue and violence. Violence against Jews and pagans is a major theme of this book. All that said, I don't think his monograph is all that negative except by comparison with other surveys that sometimes handle embarrassments in Christian history with kids' gloves.
Freeman's book is about the right length (~300 pages) for a good readable church history but is a bit short on scope, petering out around 400 AD. It reads well and has a timeline in the back. The historical approach is somewhat uneven, document heavy up front, mostly political/social at the end. I recommend this book for people in church history, but not if it's going to be the only book you read on the subject; it's a bit too idiosyncratic for that. It would make good reading for upper class college students or graduate students.
Freeman's book is about the right length (~300 pages) for a good readable church history but is a bit short on scope, petering out around 400 AD. It reads well and has a timeline in the back. The historical approach is somewhat uneven, document heavy up front, mostly political/social at the end. I recommend this book for people in church history, but not if it's going to be the only book you read on the subject; it's a bit too idiosyncratic for that. It would make good reading for upper class college students or graduate students.
January 19, 2022
Fantastic! Finally, a chronological account of how the Gospels were formed. Simple, historical, believable account of how Christianity became what it is today.
As a person who is "deconstructing" the religious ideas that were force-fed to me over seven decades, I can finally see how Jesus' identity morphed from a teaching carpenter to the Second Person of the Trinity in two millennia.
Whew! What a journey and what a relief to see in black and white what really occurred and how many of my unanswered questions are finally resolved. Forgive my seeming lack of reverence, but the story of Jesus, for me, parallels how the story of St. Nicholas changed into Santa Claus.
A must for any Christian who is serious about knowing the "Truth".
As a person who is "deconstructing" the religious ideas that were force-fed to me over seven decades, I can finally see how Jesus' identity morphed from a teaching carpenter to the Second Person of the Trinity in two millennia.
Whew! What a journey and what a relief to see in black and white what really occurred and how many of my unanswered questions are finally resolved. Forgive my seeming lack of reverence, but the story of Jesus, for me, parallels how the story of St. Nicholas changed into Santa Claus.
A must for any Christian who is serious about knowing the "Truth".
July 1, 2011
I am interested in the cultural history of religion, particularly in ancient times and the middle ages--the interactions between pagans, Jews, Christians and Muslims, for instance. Freeman's book is very much a theological history of early Christianity. This doesn't interest me particularly. But it also caused a problem because his detailed discussions of the gospels and how they differed from each other was difficult for me to follow since I have little knowledge of the New Testament.
If you are interested the history of Christian theology, I imagine this would be an important read.
If you are interested the history of Christian theology, I imagine this would be an important read.
December 18, 2020
I’m an archaeologist who finds himself occasionally exposed to evidential aspects of both RomanoBritish and Early Medieval sacred sites. Hence reading for second time. Engagingly written and packed with information (and of course interpretation) which I have found most illuminating and thought provoking.
Thankyou a firm foundation to understanding and wider debate.
Thankyou a firm foundation to understanding and wider debate.
July 19, 2021
This book provides a wonderful insight in the beginning of Christianity. And many of the more general remarks probabely are true for other religions as well. Religion is not only about religion but also about politics as well. Definitely a real pageturner!
Read
July 30, 2016Moving this to my "officially abandoned" shelf. The type on this books makes it too difficult to read, though the text is not especially dry. Perhaps I'll pick it up again in time.
September 30, 2019
Very detailed, informative and clarifies a lot.
March 25, 2014
What a wonderful and enlightening book! This is the book on the history of early Christianity that I have wanted to read for years…nay, decades. I have read several books and essays about the first couple of centuries, especially the period during and just after the lifetime of Jesus. Confirming most of what I’ve read, Freeman’s scope is much larger and includes the life and death of Jesus, the controversies surrounding his resurrection, and the development of Christianity all the way to the 6th century. Freeman gives a straightforward account that relies on historical evidence and eliminates any supernatural explanations. He supports his arguments with scriptural references where available. His arguments are in line with other historians of the period, which he references.
One of the main arguments of the book, which some would dispute but for which he provides ample evidence, is that theological certainty is impossible to achieve. In the early days of Christianity there was no orthodoxy and hence no heresies, and communities had different sets of belief and methods of worship. The turning point came with the adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine in 312. “Church and state moved towards a symbiotic relationship and as the state became more authoritarian so it expected the church to be the same.” (p. 322) In effect, this silenced debate in the church as well as across the spectrum of intellectual activity. The church, with the state in full support, challenged and eventually suppressed learning and free debate, abdicated reasoned thought, crushed independent thinking, and denigrated empirical evidence. It ushered in a couple hundred years or so of ignorance known as the Dark Ages.
One story he tells he admits has thin evidence, but he believes is nevertheless plausible. He tells how Caiaphas, the high priest of the Jews who managed to manipulate a reluctant Pontius Pilate, who visited Jerusalem sporadically and unenthusiastically from his governor’s perch in Caesarea, to order Jesus’ crucifixion. Then Caiaphas arranged for Jesus’ body to be removed from his tomb, an event Christians interpret as the resurrection from the dead of Jesus. What could possibly have been his motivation? As Freeman explains, for the ancient Jews under the thumb of Roman occupation, the messiah they waited for was one who would free them from underneath the yoke of the Romans. For them, the messiah was seen as a political, not spiritual, leader. Messiahs arose periodically, created some rebellious excitement, and were usually quickly crushed. Jesus, then, was not only a threat to the status of Caiaphas and other Jewish leaders; more importantly he threatened to arouse a revolt against the Romans that would result in the Romans viciously tightening their screws on the Jews in Judea, which is precisely what happened when Jewish rebellions led to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 and Rome, after an overwhelming and brutal victory, forbade Jews from entering Jerusalem after 135. Caiaphas feared that the followers of Jesus would take his body from the tomb and use the corpse to incite the restless mob, inviting a devastating Roman response. This explains the disappearance of Jesus from the tomb and the presence of the man or men (depending on the gospel account) to inform the women (the names of the women involved differs in each gospel) of the absence of Jesus’ body when they came to anoint the corpse.
He is on much firmer ground with many other disclosures equally contrary to what Christians are taught to believe. Among them: Freeman notes that a careful reading of the scriptural descriptions of Jesus’ appearances after Easter reveals that none of them show him physically present. Another is that while Peter takes on the leadership of the disciples immediately after Jesus’ death, he quickly fades from the scriptures and the leadership of the Jesus sect, which was clearly faithful to Judaic beliefs and practices, fell to James, the brother of Jesus, in the 40s and 50s. Paul struggled under James’ authority and was the first to suggest Jesus’ semi-divine status in his letter to the Philippians; the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem made no such claims about their dead leader. Gospel accounts of Jesus’ claim as the son of God reflected the common practice of Jews of the day referring to themselves as the son of God, no different from the Christian habit of saying “I am a child of God” or “We are all children of God”; there is no suggestion of claiming divinity when such words are uttered.
Two facts to note about Paul: in Paul’s evangelical travels, the diasporas Jews generally rejected his teachings, and only lower class Gentiles seemed to be open to them—although they did become restless as they waited for Jesus’ second coming. The second is that Paul did not preach about Jesus’ life and teachings, focusing instead on his death and resurrection. He eventually formulated his own theology, evidently different from the Jerusalem Jews who actually knew and lived with Jesus and did not believe him divine. When Paul claimed a quasi-divine status for Jesus he initiated a break with his Jewish past and, at least theologically, with James. He did this though he remained under the jurisdiction of James.
It’s been known for decades that none of the gospels were written by the men they were named for. They were all written decades after Jesus’ life and death for specific purposes. Mark was the first to be written and does not include an account of Jesus’ virgin birth or an account of the resurrection. The passages referring to the resurrection in Mark were added decades if not centuries later. Matthew uses about 80% of Mark. Matthew adds the virgin birth and the resurrection. He gives Peter a higher status, reflects a greater respect for Judaic Law than did Paul, used Hebrew scripture as prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. The problem with Matthew’s use of Hebrew scriptures was that Matthew wrote in Greek; for example, when he used the Greek word for “virgin” to translate a word in Isaiah which means “young girl”, he manipulated the Hebrew text for his own purposes to show the fulfillment of a prophecy. Whereas Paul’s theology breaks with the Judaic past, Matthew sees Jesus’ teachings as fulfilling it. Luke also used Mark as the foundation of his narrative. Luke gets the birth of Jesus wrong, muddling it with a census that did not occur. He has one of the few references to the Trinity, but with no indication that that the three elements are equal. He also stresses Jesus’ physical resurrection, unlike Paul for whom the resurrection is spiritual. None of his references to Jesus as “lord” or “son of the most high” have divine implications. He presents Jesus as subordinate to God, not his equal. Where Matthew assigns responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion to the Jews, Luke shows the Jewish crowd refusing “to join in the denigration of Jesus and returns to their homes” (p. 85) There is no coherent theology in the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. None of them assume Jesus is divine. A more coherent theological vision, however, is present in John’s gospel.
The collection of the canonical took several centuries to complete. Freeman notes that the four gospels were chosen, from a total of at least 20 gospels, as the canonical texts by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon in Gaul, around 185, and he gave them their names to associate them with the apostles and early followers of Jesus. His selection in favor of these four was arbitrary. The selection of these four was to prove problematic since there are contradictions among them, especially John versus the three synoptic gospels. Paul’s letters were not included in the New Testament until Augustine championed them in the 4th century, and other letters and Revelations were only added in the late 4th century as well.
In the canonical texts there is no comprehensive theology or agreed meaning of Jesus’ life, teachings, and resurrection. Even in the 1st century there were already fissures among different Christian communities, e.g., the Jewish Christians versus the Pauline Christians. The conflict between these two communities eventually led to a sharp schism and the eventual triumph of the view advocated by the Pauline Christians that Jesus was in some sense a deity (in what sense remained controversial, as we will see) over the Jewish Christian view that denied the divinity of Jesus and saw him as someone who was wholly human but had special relationship with God.
In the second century there was still no set of settled theological beliefs or organized institutional church. The bishop of Rome exercised no authority beyond his own local churches. The bishops succeeded in converting a quite a few people, but the vast majority was in the eastern portion of the Roman empire. The Greek converts in the east were especially well-versed in philosophy and participated in theological debates as they grappled with contradictions in the Hebrew scriptures (there was no New Testament yet) and also trying to figure out both Jesus’ role in the story of salvation and his divine and/or human nature. Among the views that believers held, some argued that God bestowed divinity on Jesus after his birth; others that he was solely divine, still more believed that Jesus was purely divine without any taint of human nature sullying his spiritual purity. None of these beliefs, and others, among the Christian communities was considered heretical since there was no institutional orthodoxy that could declare them heretical. It wasn’t until fairly late in the second century when the bishop of Lyon, Iranaeus, wrote against what he viewed as heresies and was crucial in establishing the orthodoxy of the slow institutionalization of the church and the four gospels as canonical. (He also tried to establish a succession of bishops in Rome, whose names he made up, to make it the leading church in his version of Christianity. By this time any Jewish influences had pretty much disappeared.)
Philosophy began to play a large role in the theological debates starting in the late second century and into the third century, at least in the east. Many Christians in the Latin west, unimpressed or ignorant of philosophy, denied the compatibility of faith and reason and regarded the rational underpinning of faith as unnecessary. In the east, however, Greek Christians enjoyed rational discussion. Some Christian thinkers, such as Origen, closely followed Plato’s view of the soul as having existed before arriving in the human body. Clement of Alexandria was the first Christian to follow Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish/Greek philosopher, in using both scriptures and Platonism in his theology.
By 300, Christians made up about 7-10% of the empire’s population. With Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 312, Christianity grew more rapidly. The wealth and status of bishops grew, and many of them were recruited by the state. Constantine’s involvement in Christianity shaped it as we know it. Beginning with him, emperors began to play a role in defining church doctrine. When rival bishops could not settle doctrinal disputes, Constantine called a council at his residence of Nicene in 325. The bishops attending were almost exclusively from the east. Arius, bishop of Alexandria, had argued that Christ was created by God, was inferior to God though still a divine creation that could mix with the material world, a view that many Christians came to believe. Stepping in to halt the chaos of having different views, Constantine suggested that the correct way to describe the relationship between Father and Son is they are one substance, a word not found in scriptures. The idea was to isolate Arius and his supporters with a proposal they would never accept. Constantine’s proposal was similar to an idea put forth in 260 and pronounced heretical. This time, however, the bishops accepted Constantine’s suggestion. Arius’s view was condemned, and he and some bishops supporting him were excommunicated.
The problem that immediately arose for the newly-accepted doctrine was how should it be understood that two different divine personalities are made of the same substance yet also distinct as Father and Son? In its initial formulation, the Nicene Creed did not include the Holy Spirit as the third person in a Trinity. No one imagined, even after the creed was modified in 381 at Constantinople to resemble its present day form, that it would become the core of the Christian faith.
The controversy regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son simmered for several decades. There was strong support among many of the bishops and the throng of their faithful for a position held by many early church theologians called subordination. This view held that Jesus was subordinate, not equal, to the Father. The Holy Spirit isn’t even mentioned in the same breath and was considered subordinate to Jesus. In the effort to isolate Arius and his followers, Constantine imposed a muddled doctrine at Nicene declaring God and Jesus being equal because they were of the same substance. His son Constantius, who emerged as the sole emperor in 351, supported the subordinate view. Another council at Sirmium took place where the few bishops who bothered to attend pointed out that God cannot suffer. If Jesus is made of the same substance as God, then Jesus could not have suffered on the cross. If he did suffer, then he is not God and is inferior, not equal, to God. But Constantius died before he could impose this more credible view on the church.
Freeman notes 380 as the last year when theological debate flourished in Christendom. Here is his summary of the results at the Council of Constantinople called by Emperor Theodosius in 381:
“The imposition of the Nicene creed was motivated as much by politics as theology. Imposed through imperial law, accepted by a council presided over by a hastily converted senator, it was the theological formula which most fully met the needs of the empire for an ideology of good order under the auspices of God. Yet histories of Christian doctrine still talk of the Nicene solution as if it had floated down from heaven and had been recognized by the bishops as the only possible formula to describe the three members of the Trinity. In reality, Theodosius brought the belief from his native Spain to the eastern empire where the matter was still unresolved and then imposed it by law before calling a hand-picked council on the matter. One result of this was that the church was unable to provide reasoned support for the Nicene Trinity and it is still referred to in the Roman Catholic catechism as a mystery of faith, a revelation of God ‘that is inaccessible to reason alone’. .... Only recently has Theodosius’ considerable role in settling the great theological debates been recognized.” (p. 253)
One of the failures of historians of Christianity was to acknowledge that subordination was “the dominant virtually unchallenged theology of the early church”. (p. 260) The legacy of Theodosius was, through the Council of Constantinople in 381, to reduce the meaning of “God” to mean only the Trinity God, eliminating the large diversity of Christian views as well as theological debates on these views. It also initiated an assault on paganism and on secular and theological philosophy. The squelching of theological debate left a Nicene faith that was theologically incoherent (the confusion of 3 persons of one substance, one of which was somehow “begotten” from another). Ironically, the creed was not adopted by Rome for almost 700 years, until 1014.
By this time the church achieved the status of the virtual state religion. Bishops relished their higher status of both wealth and power. The administrative skills required of bishops did not always match their spirituality. Spiritual and political power became enmeshed, especially in the west with the collapse of the imperial power after Theodosius’ death in 395. Many bishops in the late 4th into the 5th centuries railed against Jews and pagans, especially in the east where there still many synagogues. Violence and destruction of pagan temples were frequent, resulting in one instance the partial destruction of the great library at Alexandria. The destruction of many pagan works of art and temples has to rank as one of the great artistic disasters of all time.
Augustine lived during this period, dying in 430. He developed a theology that proclaimed that only a few elect would be admitted into the kingdom of God regardless of the type of life the faithful led. He invented the notion of original sin, that everyone at birth is tainted with Adam’s sin of disobedience in Eden. He found scriptural justification for the persecution of heretics, or at least those defined as heretics by orthodox believers, forcing them to convert and even killing them. He also determined that slavery was justified within a Christian context. At the time he was one of the few Latin west bishops with any influence. Even the bishops of Rome exercised little influence because most of the other major bishoprics were in the east, as were most of the Christians. His “discovery” of the theological underpinnings for the Trinity was one of his most valuable contributions to Christianity, though it developed without input from any of the eastern bishops.
Debated continued within the Nicene structure concerning the two natures of Jesus: human, divine, both, in what proportion? One issue: how could a fully-human Mary give birth to someone who is fully God? Adding to the complication was the increasing veneration of Mary, an exalted stature she did not have in the early days of the sect.
“The concept of a single or divided nature of Christ was a purely artificial one. It could never be related to any text from the Gospels although it could perhaps be argued that the synoptic favored the Nestorian [that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, and that each nature is separate] and the gospel of John the Alexandrians [that Jesus’ human nature and divine nature are a unity and not separate].” (p. 301) But how could one Gospel contain more theological truth than another?
The controversy continued, often violently, until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 under the direction of Emperor Marcion. A new definition of faith was proposed: Jesus was truly God and man, begotten of the Father, but born of the Virgin Mary. This amounted to a rejection of the Alexandrian ‘one nature’ position and placed it closer to the ‘heretic’ Nestorian view. Emperor Marcion imposed his will to resolve what Christians will believe, but without a metaphysical justification for the belief or how it cohered with the events described in the Gospels, e.g., there is no mention of the ‘union of natures’ in the New Testament.
Following the council, pagans suffered decades of horrible persecutions, far worse than the Christians endured prior to Constantine’s Edict of Toleration. During this period Emperor Justinian closed the pagan schools in Athens in 529, including schools founded by Plato and Aristotle schools which had survived for almost 800 years.
Generally speaking, this is what most Christians have professed to believe ever since: A credo imposed by emperors for political reasons with virtually no scriptural support. One major consequence was that church history was rewritten to fit the Nicene and Chaldean formulas. This disingenuous account obscured the true history of Christianity and twisted the meaning of Jesus’ life while submerging the beliefs of his early Jerusalem followers under a flood of neglect and distortion. Paul won while his boss, James the brother of Jesus, is snubbed.
One of the main arguments of the book, which some would dispute but for which he provides ample evidence, is that theological certainty is impossible to achieve. In the early days of Christianity there was no orthodoxy and hence no heresies, and communities had different sets of belief and methods of worship. The turning point came with the adoption of Christianity by Emperor Constantine in 312. “Church and state moved towards a symbiotic relationship and as the state became more authoritarian so it expected the church to be the same.” (p. 322) In effect, this silenced debate in the church as well as across the spectrum of intellectual activity. The church, with the state in full support, challenged and eventually suppressed learning and free debate, abdicated reasoned thought, crushed independent thinking, and denigrated empirical evidence. It ushered in a couple hundred years or so of ignorance known as the Dark Ages.
One story he tells he admits has thin evidence, but he believes is nevertheless plausible. He tells how Caiaphas, the high priest of the Jews who managed to manipulate a reluctant Pontius Pilate, who visited Jerusalem sporadically and unenthusiastically from his governor’s perch in Caesarea, to order Jesus’ crucifixion. Then Caiaphas arranged for Jesus’ body to be removed from his tomb, an event Christians interpret as the resurrection from the dead of Jesus. What could possibly have been his motivation? As Freeman explains, for the ancient Jews under the thumb of Roman occupation, the messiah they waited for was one who would free them from underneath the yoke of the Romans. For them, the messiah was seen as a political, not spiritual, leader. Messiahs arose periodically, created some rebellious excitement, and were usually quickly crushed. Jesus, then, was not only a threat to the status of Caiaphas and other Jewish leaders; more importantly he threatened to arouse a revolt against the Romans that would result in the Romans viciously tightening their screws on the Jews in Judea, which is precisely what happened when Jewish rebellions led to the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 and Rome, after an overwhelming and brutal victory, forbade Jews from entering Jerusalem after 135. Caiaphas feared that the followers of Jesus would take his body from the tomb and use the corpse to incite the restless mob, inviting a devastating Roman response. This explains the disappearance of Jesus from the tomb and the presence of the man or men (depending on the gospel account) to inform the women (the names of the women involved differs in each gospel) of the absence of Jesus’ body when they came to anoint the corpse.
He is on much firmer ground with many other disclosures equally contrary to what Christians are taught to believe. Among them: Freeman notes that a careful reading of the scriptural descriptions of Jesus’ appearances after Easter reveals that none of them show him physically present. Another is that while Peter takes on the leadership of the disciples immediately after Jesus’ death, he quickly fades from the scriptures and the leadership of the Jesus sect, which was clearly faithful to Judaic beliefs and practices, fell to James, the brother of Jesus, in the 40s and 50s. Paul struggled under James’ authority and was the first to suggest Jesus’ semi-divine status in his letter to the Philippians; the Jewish followers of Jesus in Jerusalem made no such claims about their dead leader. Gospel accounts of Jesus’ claim as the son of God reflected the common practice of Jews of the day referring to themselves as the son of God, no different from the Christian habit of saying “I am a child of God” or “We are all children of God”; there is no suggestion of claiming divinity when such words are uttered.
Two facts to note about Paul: in Paul’s evangelical travels, the diasporas Jews generally rejected his teachings, and only lower class Gentiles seemed to be open to them—although they did become restless as they waited for Jesus’ second coming. The second is that Paul did not preach about Jesus’ life and teachings, focusing instead on his death and resurrection. He eventually formulated his own theology, evidently different from the Jerusalem Jews who actually knew and lived with Jesus and did not believe him divine. When Paul claimed a quasi-divine status for Jesus he initiated a break with his Jewish past and, at least theologically, with James. He did this though he remained under the jurisdiction of James.
It’s been known for decades that none of the gospels were written by the men they were named for. They were all written decades after Jesus’ life and death for specific purposes. Mark was the first to be written and does not include an account of Jesus’ virgin birth or an account of the resurrection. The passages referring to the resurrection in Mark were added decades if not centuries later. Matthew uses about 80% of Mark. Matthew adds the virgin birth and the resurrection. He gives Peter a higher status, reflects a greater respect for Judaic Law than did Paul, used Hebrew scripture as prophecies fulfilled by Jesus. The problem with Matthew’s use of Hebrew scriptures was that Matthew wrote in Greek; for example, when he used the Greek word for “virgin” to translate a word in Isaiah which means “young girl”, he manipulated the Hebrew text for his own purposes to show the fulfillment of a prophecy. Whereas Paul’s theology breaks with the Judaic past, Matthew sees Jesus’ teachings as fulfilling it. Luke also used Mark as the foundation of his narrative. Luke gets the birth of Jesus wrong, muddling it with a census that did not occur. He has one of the few references to the Trinity, but with no indication that that the three elements are equal. He also stresses Jesus’ physical resurrection, unlike Paul for whom the resurrection is spiritual. None of his references to Jesus as “lord” or “son of the most high” have divine implications. He presents Jesus as subordinate to God, not his equal. Where Matthew assigns responsibility for Jesus’ crucifixion to the Jews, Luke shows the Jewish crowd refusing “to join in the denigration of Jesus and returns to their homes” (p. 85) There is no coherent theology in the synoptic gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. None of them assume Jesus is divine. A more coherent theological vision, however, is present in John’s gospel.
The collection of the canonical took several centuries to complete. Freeman notes that the four gospels were chosen, from a total of at least 20 gospels, as the canonical texts by Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon in Gaul, around 185, and he gave them their names to associate them with the apostles and early followers of Jesus. His selection in favor of these four was arbitrary. The selection of these four was to prove problematic since there are contradictions among them, especially John versus the three synoptic gospels. Paul’s letters were not included in the New Testament until Augustine championed them in the 4th century, and other letters and Revelations were only added in the late 4th century as well.
In the canonical texts there is no comprehensive theology or agreed meaning of Jesus’ life, teachings, and resurrection. Even in the 1st century there were already fissures among different Christian communities, e.g., the Jewish Christians versus the Pauline Christians. The conflict between these two communities eventually led to a sharp schism and the eventual triumph of the view advocated by the Pauline Christians that Jesus was in some sense a deity (in what sense remained controversial, as we will see) over the Jewish Christian view that denied the divinity of Jesus and saw him as someone who was wholly human but had special relationship with God.
In the second century there was still no set of settled theological beliefs or organized institutional church. The bishop of Rome exercised no authority beyond his own local churches. The bishops succeeded in converting a quite a few people, but the vast majority was in the eastern portion of the Roman empire. The Greek converts in the east were especially well-versed in philosophy and participated in theological debates as they grappled with contradictions in the Hebrew scriptures (there was no New Testament yet) and also trying to figure out both Jesus’ role in the story of salvation and his divine and/or human nature. Among the views that believers held, some argued that God bestowed divinity on Jesus after his birth; others that he was solely divine, still more believed that Jesus was purely divine without any taint of human nature sullying his spiritual purity. None of these beliefs, and others, among the Christian communities was considered heretical since there was no institutional orthodoxy that could declare them heretical. It wasn’t until fairly late in the second century when the bishop of Lyon, Iranaeus, wrote against what he viewed as heresies and was crucial in establishing the orthodoxy of the slow institutionalization of the church and the four gospels as canonical. (He also tried to establish a succession of bishops in Rome, whose names he made up, to make it the leading church in his version of Christianity. By this time any Jewish influences had pretty much disappeared.)
Philosophy began to play a large role in the theological debates starting in the late second century and into the third century, at least in the east. Many Christians in the Latin west, unimpressed or ignorant of philosophy, denied the compatibility of faith and reason and regarded the rational underpinning of faith as unnecessary. In the east, however, Greek Christians enjoyed rational discussion. Some Christian thinkers, such as Origen, closely followed Plato’s view of the soul as having existed before arriving in the human body. Clement of Alexandria was the first Christian to follow Philo, the Alexandrian Jewish/Greek philosopher, in using both scriptures and Platonism in his theology.
By 300, Christians made up about 7-10% of the empire’s population. With Constantine's Edict of Toleration in 312, Christianity grew more rapidly. The wealth and status of bishops grew, and many of them were recruited by the state. Constantine’s involvement in Christianity shaped it as we know it. Beginning with him, emperors began to play a role in defining church doctrine. When rival bishops could not settle doctrinal disputes, Constantine called a council at his residence of Nicene in 325. The bishops attending were almost exclusively from the east. Arius, bishop of Alexandria, had argued that Christ was created by God, was inferior to God though still a divine creation that could mix with the material world, a view that many Christians came to believe. Stepping in to halt the chaos of having different views, Constantine suggested that the correct way to describe the relationship between Father and Son is they are one substance, a word not found in scriptures. The idea was to isolate Arius and his supporters with a proposal they would never accept. Constantine’s proposal was similar to an idea put forth in 260 and pronounced heretical. This time, however, the bishops accepted Constantine’s suggestion. Arius’s view was condemned, and he and some bishops supporting him were excommunicated.
The problem that immediately arose for the newly-accepted doctrine was how should it be understood that two different divine personalities are made of the same substance yet also distinct as Father and Son? In its initial formulation, the Nicene Creed did not include the Holy Spirit as the third person in a Trinity. No one imagined, even after the creed was modified in 381 at Constantinople to resemble its present day form, that it would become the core of the Christian faith.
The controversy regarding the relationship between the Father and the Son simmered for several decades. There was strong support among many of the bishops and the throng of their faithful for a position held by many early church theologians called subordination. This view held that Jesus was subordinate, not equal, to the Father. The Holy Spirit isn’t even mentioned in the same breath and was considered subordinate to Jesus. In the effort to isolate Arius and his followers, Constantine imposed a muddled doctrine at Nicene declaring God and Jesus being equal because they were of the same substance. His son Constantius, who emerged as the sole emperor in 351, supported the subordinate view. Another council at Sirmium took place where the few bishops who bothered to attend pointed out that God cannot suffer. If Jesus is made of the same substance as God, then Jesus could not have suffered on the cross. If he did suffer, then he is not God and is inferior, not equal, to God. But Constantius died before he could impose this more credible view on the church.
Freeman notes 380 as the last year when theological debate flourished in Christendom. Here is his summary of the results at the Council of Constantinople called by Emperor Theodosius in 381:
“The imposition of the Nicene creed was motivated as much by politics as theology. Imposed through imperial law, accepted by a council presided over by a hastily converted senator, it was the theological formula which most fully met the needs of the empire for an ideology of good order under the auspices of God. Yet histories of Christian doctrine still talk of the Nicene solution as if it had floated down from heaven and had been recognized by the bishops as the only possible formula to describe the three members of the Trinity. In reality, Theodosius brought the belief from his native Spain to the eastern empire where the matter was still unresolved and then imposed it by law before calling a hand-picked council on the matter. One result of this was that the church was unable to provide reasoned support for the Nicene Trinity and it is still referred to in the Roman Catholic catechism as a mystery of faith, a revelation of God ‘that is inaccessible to reason alone’. .... Only recently has Theodosius’ considerable role in settling the great theological debates been recognized.” (p. 253)
One of the failures of historians of Christianity was to acknowledge that subordination was “the dominant virtually unchallenged theology of the early church”. (p. 260) The legacy of Theodosius was, through the Council of Constantinople in 381, to reduce the meaning of “God” to mean only the Trinity God, eliminating the large diversity of Christian views as well as theological debates on these views. It also initiated an assault on paganism and on secular and theological philosophy. The squelching of theological debate left a Nicene faith that was theologically incoherent (the confusion of 3 persons of one substance, one of which was somehow “begotten” from another). Ironically, the creed was not adopted by Rome for almost 700 years, until 1014.
By this time the church achieved the status of the virtual state religion. Bishops relished their higher status of both wealth and power. The administrative skills required of bishops did not always match their spirituality. Spiritual and political power became enmeshed, especially in the west with the collapse of the imperial power after Theodosius’ death in 395. Many bishops in the late 4th into the 5th centuries railed against Jews and pagans, especially in the east where there still many synagogues. Violence and destruction of pagan temples were frequent, resulting in one instance the partial destruction of the great library at Alexandria. The destruction of many pagan works of art and temples has to rank as one of the great artistic disasters of all time.
Augustine lived during this period, dying in 430. He developed a theology that proclaimed that only a few elect would be admitted into the kingdom of God regardless of the type of life the faithful led. He invented the notion of original sin, that everyone at birth is tainted with Adam’s sin of disobedience in Eden. He found scriptural justification for the persecution of heretics, or at least those defined as heretics by orthodox believers, forcing them to convert and even killing them. He also determined that slavery was justified within a Christian context. At the time he was one of the few Latin west bishops with any influence. Even the bishops of Rome exercised little influence because most of the other major bishoprics were in the east, as were most of the Christians. His “discovery” of the theological underpinnings for the Trinity was one of his most valuable contributions to Christianity, though it developed without input from any of the eastern bishops.
Debated continued within the Nicene structure concerning the two natures of Jesus: human, divine, both, in what proportion? One issue: how could a fully-human Mary give birth to someone who is fully God? Adding to the complication was the increasing veneration of Mary, an exalted stature she did not have in the early days of the sect.
“The concept of a single or divided nature of Christ was a purely artificial one. It could never be related to any text from the Gospels although it could perhaps be argued that the synoptic favored the Nestorian [that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, and that each nature is separate] and the gospel of John the Alexandrians [that Jesus’ human nature and divine nature are a unity and not separate].” (p. 301) But how could one Gospel contain more theological truth than another?
The controversy continued, often violently, until the Council of Chalcedon in 451 under the direction of Emperor Marcion. A new definition of faith was proposed: Jesus was truly God and man, begotten of the Father, but born of the Virgin Mary. This amounted to a rejection of the Alexandrian ‘one nature’ position and placed it closer to the ‘heretic’ Nestorian view. Emperor Marcion imposed his will to resolve what Christians will believe, but without a metaphysical justification for the belief or how it cohered with the events described in the Gospels, e.g., there is no mention of the ‘union of natures’ in the New Testament.
Following the council, pagans suffered decades of horrible persecutions, far worse than the Christians endured prior to Constantine’s Edict of Toleration. During this period Emperor Justinian closed the pagan schools in Athens in 529, including schools founded by Plato and Aristotle schools which had survived for almost 800 years.
Generally speaking, this is what most Christians have professed to believe ever since: A credo imposed by emperors for political reasons with virtually no scriptural support. One major consequence was that church history was rewritten to fit the Nicene and Chaldean formulas. This disingenuous account obscured the true history of Christianity and twisted the meaning of Jesus’ life while submerging the beliefs of his early Jerusalem followers under a flood of neglect and distortion. Paul won while his boss, James the brother of Jesus, is snubbed.
October 11, 2017
I think the book offers great insight. I particularly found it helpful to see the reality of St Augustine's contribution: yes, he was brilliant, but his tone was negative and his legacy was a dampener on the Church's progress overall. I didn't feel that Pelagius's condemnation by the Church was justified and politics was involved; crucially, he wasn't denying the role of grace: he was saying you had to do your bit and co-operate with grace, which is perfectly orthodox. Nestorius's only "crime" was referring to Mary as Christ-bearer and not God-bearer, but even on this, he was ready to compromise, given a chance. It was ridiculous that he was excluded from the Council before the issue was formally defined. Again, that was another big mistake of history. The fact that his followers were the most prolific/successful evangelists at the time (and not to be equaled till the spread of Christianity to the Americas) speaks volumes about how Nestorius was given a raw deal; especially when after being accused of heresy, his key contribution to theology that of Christ having two natures in one person made into the formula used at Chalcedon. Origen was a breath of fresh air and I believe the Church shouldn't have post-humously termed him heretical for his subordinationism position: for three reasons, the Church hadn't yet made a judgment on it, it was widely believed in the first two centuries of Christianity and it had copious scriptural support. A lot of interesting history covered by Freeman.
I would challenge two assertions made by Freeman that I think are questionable. First, he suggests that Galilee was something of a backwater, while Jerusalem was the intellectual center of Israel at the time. With this he also suggests that Greek wouldn't, therefore, have been spoken by the apostles and that they would have been uneducated, etc. Recent research would suggest that the reverse was true and helps explain why Jesus' teaching was met with amazement by those in Jerusalem who wonder where he got it from. There is also a lot of evidence of Greek culture still imbedded at that time, as shown in digs at Sepphoris for example.
The second claim I strongly dispute is that Islamic economies stimulated the revival of western economies. Where do I begin? The Islamic expansion brought about the destruction of the libraries of Alexandria and more widely of those in Syria, causing a massive intellectual deficit for centuries. (It wasn't just due to anti-intellectualism in the Church, which only compounded the issue). Muslim piracy on the Med led to a massive drop in trade, which is the key cause of the West's demise. The Battle of Lepanto in 1571 was what turned that around when Europe finally regained control of its seas. I think that was a major omission. He did acknowledge the role Italy played in building the first universities and bringing about the intellectual revival that culminated in the Renaissance.
I would challenge two assertions made by Freeman that I think are questionable. First, he suggests that Galilee was something of a backwater, while Jerusalem was the intellectual center of Israel at the time. With this he also suggests that Greek wouldn't, therefore, have been spoken by the apostles and that they would have been uneducated, etc. Recent research would suggest that the reverse was true and helps explain why Jesus' teaching was met with amazement by those in Jerusalem who wonder where he got it from. There is also a lot of evidence of Greek culture still imbedded at that time, as shown in digs at Sepphoris for example.
The second claim I strongly dispute is that Islamic economies stimulated the revival of western economies. Where do I begin? The Islamic expansion brought about the destruction of the libraries of Alexandria and more widely of those in Syria, causing a massive intellectual deficit for centuries. (It wasn't just due to anti-intellectualism in the Church, which only compounded the issue). Muslim piracy on the Med led to a massive drop in trade, which is the key cause of the West's demise. The Battle of Lepanto in 1571 was what turned that around when Europe finally regained control of its seas. I think that was a major omission. He did acknowledge the role Italy played in building the first universities and bringing about the intellectual revival that culminated in the Renaissance.
May 22, 2019
Freeman biedt een kort maar krachtig overzicht van de stand van het wetenschappelijke debat aangaande de geschiedenis van de vroegchristelijke kerk. Ik begon met het lezen van het boek tijdens het werk aan mijn scriptie over de vroegchristelijke kerk in Rome, en heb het uiteindelijk helemaal uitgelezen. Freeman schrijft duidelijk en kernachtig en de korte hoofdstukken houden het materiaal beknopt en gefocust. Voor een meer wetenschappelijk, historisch boek is het uiterst goed leesbaar. Ik heb er veel informatie uit kunnen halen en het heeft mij veel nieuwe inzichten verschaft. Niet alleen voor mijn scriptie, maar ook voor mijn leven als christen. Een aanrader voor iedereen die meer wil weten over het vroege christendom.
July 29, 2019
An entertaining read and does its due diligence setting the stage for early Christianity through Judaism and pagan philosophy (and imperial institutionalization in the second half), as well as discussing major figures throughout. It presents a secular look at a religious history and does nothing to hide it, something that becomes increasingly apparent towards the end of the book. Supplied in addition to a less secular and more openly Christian (be it Catholic or Orthodox) volume it serves well as an introduction to a vast and lush history.
January 16, 2024
broad, informative overview of the early christian centuries in the roman empire. accessible for a layperson non-historian like myself, but large chunks of the book find the author wading into esoteric theological debates between ancient christian communities in minute detail. i found it interesting at times but there are only so many different archaic formulations of the trinity a secular non-christian can keep track of. the author’s thesis of the sheer diversity of christian thought at this time (as opposed to one smooth ‘triumph’ of orthodox Christianity) is well-presented.
June 10, 2018
History of Christianity
This book is required reading for any person truly interested in understanding how Christianity came to be & how it’s affiliation with the governing elites was indispensable to its success. All atheists should have this in their library along with other books by this superb author.
This book is required reading for any person truly interested in understanding how Christianity came to be & how it’s affiliation with the governing elites was indispensable to its success. All atheists should have this in their library along with other books by this superb author.
March 8, 2021
The organization of topics makes it is difficult to get a sense of chronology for everything after about 350 A.D.
January 24, 2023
Good information. Found answers I was looking for.
December 27, 2023
Do not read this book. It is anti-Christian propaganda. I’m only giving it 2 stars instead of one because there were some insightful tidbits about how the Roman Empire interacted with Christianity.
March 27, 2024
Molt ben documentat i completíssim. Potser una mica desendreçat I molt més detallat del que a mí em calia per a aprendre.
June 4, 2017
Three stars means "I liked it". A comprehensive survey of the evolution of Christianity during the first five centuries, including the most influential figures and the key events that led to the establishment of catholic orthodoxy. Accessible to the layman, however a basic knowledge of Greek and Roman history may help in understanding the subject matter relative to its historical and political context.
January 16, 2016
It is clear that the author of this book has a great interest and knowledge of the ancient world. It is also clear, from reading the book, that the author comes from a humanistic perspective that values Athens far higher than Jerusalem, and that seeks for space to hold the Bible in ill repute because it fails to meet the levels of rhetoric of classical Greek (which ought to be additional evidence that it was written in the modest circumstances it claims) and because of a desire to find contradiction in order to avoid the ethical demands of the Bible. The author is fortunately honest in his bias, so that those who do not share it may find what is of value in the book without agreeing with it.
The main thesis of the book is that there was no original Christianity, but that there was a multiplicity of Christianities from the very start, and that no unity was possible without a powerful central authority to enforce it. This has been my experience as well, that unity in doctrine requires force because it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to grasp spiritual truths as mere human beings. Rather than glorying in our capacity of reason as a cause of seeing ourselves as the center of the universe, we ought to be humble in the face of our limits even as we seek to do the best with what we have been given. The book seeks to pit scriptures against each other, to use critical techniques to create space for him to respect Christianity without having to believe. In short, he is much like Felix of Festus, which accounts for his sympathies with the pagan world.
This book takes a chronological view of the history of early Christianity, presenting an account that shows the diversity of the Roman Empire and of Christian thought, showing the tensions between scripture as well as political necessary. This book shows, very wisely and honestly, that we see in Christianity what we are, and not what it is. This was true in the ancient world, and it is certainly true today. This book happens to be scholarly, tolerant, but ultimately unbelieving, and it represents the virtues as well as shortcomings of its authors well. With an interest primarily in literature as well as politics, this particular book shows a humanist in cultured and polite form, seeing for tolerance and attempting to assert the value of reason independent of faith. The author seems to find Hellenistic Christianity notable largely for its Hellenism as apart from its Christianity, although he does seem to appreciate the Jesus of the Gospels for his view on social justice, and takes a dim and Marcionite view of the Old Testament as well.
Although this book has its flaws, they are the flaws of someone who is clearly an intellectual and not someone who is essentially mean-spirited. The author has a sort of disdain towards fundamentalists, like the way a scholar would look down on those who insult the intellect in a dialectic of godless intellect and reason-free faith that fails to represent a genuine perspective of the options that exist. The “intellectual” Christianity that the author would appear to value the most is the sort of intellect that is clearly a Hellenistic Christianity that is deeply unbiblical in nature, however appealing to those like the author. We make God in our own image when we refuse to be remade into His, and although this book is clearly flawed, it is not hostile reading and there is much that we would agree on, like the stultifying nature of the Roman Catholic Church and its attempts to force through agreement and shut down the frontiers of the mind.
The main thesis of the book is that there was no original Christianity, but that there was a multiplicity of Christianities from the very start, and that no unity was possible without a powerful central authority to enforce it. This has been my experience as well, that unity in doctrine requires force because it is difficult, if not impossible, for us to grasp spiritual truths as mere human beings. Rather than glorying in our capacity of reason as a cause of seeing ourselves as the center of the universe, we ought to be humble in the face of our limits even as we seek to do the best with what we have been given. The book seeks to pit scriptures against each other, to use critical techniques to create space for him to respect Christianity without having to believe. In short, he is much like Felix of Festus, which accounts for his sympathies with the pagan world.
This book takes a chronological view of the history of early Christianity, presenting an account that shows the diversity of the Roman Empire and of Christian thought, showing the tensions between scripture as well as political necessary. This book shows, very wisely and honestly, that we see in Christianity what we are, and not what it is. This was true in the ancient world, and it is certainly true today. This book happens to be scholarly, tolerant, but ultimately unbelieving, and it represents the virtues as well as shortcomings of its authors well. With an interest primarily in literature as well as politics, this particular book shows a humanist in cultured and polite form, seeing for tolerance and attempting to assert the value of reason independent of faith. The author seems to find Hellenistic Christianity notable largely for its Hellenism as apart from its Christianity, although he does seem to appreciate the Jesus of the Gospels for his view on social justice, and takes a dim and Marcionite view of the Old Testament as well.
Although this book has its flaws, they are the flaws of someone who is clearly an intellectual and not someone who is essentially mean-spirited. The author has a sort of disdain towards fundamentalists, like the way a scholar would look down on those who insult the intellect in a dialectic of godless intellect and reason-free faith that fails to represent a genuine perspective of the options that exist. The “intellectual” Christianity that the author would appear to value the most is the sort of intellect that is clearly a Hellenistic Christianity that is deeply unbiblical in nature, however appealing to those like the author. We make God in our own image when we refuse to be remade into His, and although this book is clearly flawed, it is not hostile reading and there is much that we would agree on, like the stultifying nature of the Roman Catholic Church and its attempts to force through agreement and shut down the frontiers of the mind.
August 14, 2011
The discussion in this forum on the authority of an agnostic historian (as Freeman is) seems more relevant than it should be. Most reviewers complain that he gives "unlikely" explanations to some events in the life of Jesus. The resurrection, as it is expected, is given special attention. Of course the most unlikely explanation of all is that he actually resurrected, so any other theory would be, from a (history) reader point of view, more likely. The discussion is interesting, but the conclusions not that much. Maybe is not sure that Caiaphas removed the body, but that is just a tiny part of this History, and one of the most speculative ones. This is a History book, not a theological manifesto, and as such it is very successful, especially in the account of the first two centuries of Christianity.
With this theoretical (as opposed to theological) foundation in mind, Freeman brings to light several interesting aspects of the formation of Christianity. Everybody knows that Jesus was a Jew, but the book explains how he and his entourage thought of themselves as part of the Jewish tradition and prophetical present and future. This record was progressively erased in favor of the present interpretation of Christianity. This was not just a case of historical revisionism, but a complete editorial remodeling.
In the second main thread of the book, the author exposes all the theological discussion that happened in the first four centuries AD. Christianity was a very active and intellectually engaging religion, with lots of different voices manifesting several interpretations of the sacred texts. The richness of this discussion before the Catholic faith dogmas emerged is a fascinating part of this History.
The third major theme is one of Freeman's favorites, and one reason why this book covers until AD 600. The influence of Christianity in catalyzing and catapulting the Dark Ages has been extensively discussed since Edward Gibbon. Modern scholars (i.e., Peter Heather et al.) have started to question that foundation and no consensus has emerged yet. So Freeman insistence in shaping the last part of the book to make his point subtracts and weakens his exposition. We get a lot of detail in the early Centuries AD, but in the last centuries after Constantine Freemans dilutes himself to favor his thesis. What we loose: more detail in the formation of the two separate Churches, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Although this is unfortunate, Freeman effort is still enlightening.
With this theoretical (as opposed to theological) foundation in mind, Freeman brings to light several interesting aspects of the formation of Christianity. Everybody knows that Jesus was a Jew, but the book explains how he and his entourage thought of themselves as part of the Jewish tradition and prophetical present and future. This record was progressively erased in favor of the present interpretation of Christianity. This was not just a case of historical revisionism, but a complete editorial remodeling.
In the second main thread of the book, the author exposes all the theological discussion that happened in the first four centuries AD. Christianity was a very active and intellectually engaging religion, with lots of different voices manifesting several interpretations of the sacred texts. The richness of this discussion before the Catholic faith dogmas emerged is a fascinating part of this History.
The third major theme is one of Freeman's favorites, and one reason why this book covers until AD 600. The influence of Christianity in catalyzing and catapulting the Dark Ages has been extensively discussed since Edward Gibbon. Modern scholars (i.e., Peter Heather et al.) have started to question that foundation and no consensus has emerged yet. So Freeman insistence in shaping the last part of the book to make his point subtracts and weakens his exposition. We get a lot of detail in the early Centuries AD, but in the last centuries after Constantine Freemans dilutes himself to favor his thesis. What we loose: more detail in the formation of the two separate Churches, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Although this is unfortunate, Freeman effort is still enlightening.
January 27, 2013
As long as Greek Culture was affecting the spreading of various schools of Jesuit Missionaries, there were ancillary changes in the spreading of gospel. John was critical person who wrote the life of Jesus in an convincing crsis but all four main gospels in the New Testaments were just telling the silmilar stories. From the days of Jesus' spreading his gospel, there was one version in which the Christians could have believed in but as time went by, there were variou schools of gospels under the affection of Greek Philsopjy.
Greek Philosophy has played the role of inaugurating the ancient Philosophy into the Christian lives. It has diverted much actual life expriences into the role of missionaries.
Psuchial phenotypes have told us that cultures were affecting the word (Logos) of people whom had been diverted into different ramifications after the event of babel tower. Poeple jst believed what they had exprienced in the past that time imposed an convincing fact on the spatial plane that is regarded as the matter of fact. Facts are something of uncertainty principle that they might have various opinions according to various races. A culture is shaped by the fact that time imposed exprience in the psychial plane and thus alters the state of belief which includes characters and emotion.
Philosophy of Greece had much to do with the grand sphere of cultural influence. It had its expriences imposed onto the belief of Hesus Christ that Jesus might have had a phenotype of Greek personality as to be seen by the Greek speaking world.
Plane of this world is under the sameness but is refected through the perception of peopel's expriences to have a various versions of opinions.
The Greek Philosophers were of archaic expriencing knowledge to have skillful rhetoric art to refute or to expand the sphere of Christianity. They just didn't behave in an unique way but were divided into barious schools of thought. This phenomenon was due to a cascade of Logos to be spoken through spatial temporal entity which through reflection, diverting a path into variety of zig zag function. Uncertainty principle just told us that once a problem is settled down, there will be arisen more anew. People are just flourishing in the same way that genetics is under the divine path to have itself duplicated as the rule of uncerrtainty principle obeys. genetics itself is a problem to set up new ones continuously and it is a mst to hurl it into the genetics path caused of the biosphere is akind of uncertainty in its own reproduction.
Greek Philosophy has played the role of inaugurating the ancient Philosophy into the Christian lives. It has diverted much actual life expriences into the role of missionaries.
Psuchial phenotypes have told us that cultures were affecting the word (Logos) of people whom had been diverted into different ramifications after the event of babel tower. Poeple jst believed what they had exprienced in the past that time imposed an convincing fact on the spatial plane that is regarded as the matter of fact. Facts are something of uncertainty principle that they might have various opinions according to various races. A culture is shaped by the fact that time imposed exprience in the psychial plane and thus alters the state of belief which includes characters and emotion.
Philosophy of Greece had much to do with the grand sphere of cultural influence. It had its expriences imposed onto the belief of Hesus Christ that Jesus might have had a phenotype of Greek personality as to be seen by the Greek speaking world.
Plane of this world is under the sameness but is refected through the perception of peopel's expriences to have a various versions of opinions.
The Greek Philosophers were of archaic expriencing knowledge to have skillful rhetoric art to refute or to expand the sphere of Christianity. They just didn't behave in an unique way but were divided into barious schools of thought. This phenomenon was due to a cascade of Logos to be spoken through spatial temporal entity which through reflection, diverting a path into variety of zig zag function. Uncertainty principle just told us that once a problem is settled down, there will be arisen more anew. People are just flourishing in the same way that genetics is under the divine path to have itself duplicated as the rule of uncerrtainty principle obeys. genetics itself is a problem to set up new ones continuously and it is a mst to hurl it into the genetics path caused of the biosphere is akind of uncertainty in its own reproduction.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews