What do you think?
Rate this book
The Rise of Christianity
The definitive text in early church history, Frend's The Rise of Christianity offers a vast, panoramic sweep of Christianity's first six centuries, from the dust of Palestine to the court of Justinian and the parting of Eastern and Western Christianity. With many maps, chronologies, and graphics, Frend's text is an engaging story but also an immensely learned and careful work of scholarship. Elegantly written. It is a marvelous reference work. It will become the standard Church history of our time for scholar and novice alike.
1048 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1984
14 people are currently reading
253 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 7, 2019
This was my textbook for Early Christian Centuries class in seminary way back in the fall of 2004! It is, at least according to our professor, the definitive one-volume survey of the early church. I recall appreciating it and learning a lot. But I never thought I'd read it again.
I lead a campus ministry and most of our small groups are Bible study. This year though I have a group of students who are super-interested in theology and history. They said they'd like to take time to study the early church. With that in mind, I spent much of the break between semesters re-reading Frend. I was delighted with how engaging a read it was. I suppose I've learned a lot since seminary, so being familiar with the story made the read a bit easier. That said, if you can stomach a 900 page doorstop, I can't imagine a better book to acquaint you with the first 500 years of the church.
Now, let's see if these students show up and actually follow through with their expressed desire to learn some church history!
I lead a campus ministry and most of our small groups are Bible study. This year though I have a group of students who are super-interested in theology and history. They said they'd like to take time to study the early church. With that in mind, I spent much of the break between semesters re-reading Frend. I was delighted with how engaging a read it was. I suppose I've learned a lot since seminary, so being familiar with the story made the read a bit easier. That said, if you can stomach a 900 page doorstop, I can't imagine a better book to acquaint you with the first 500 years of the church.
Now, let's see if these students show up and actually follow through with their expressed desire to learn some church history!
July 8, 2020
Frend’s book on early Christianity is an enigma to me. There are many parts of this book that
interested me and even inspired me. However, in general, his entire method of studying the
early church seems unbalanced to me.
The general underlying tone to the book is that in the early church there was some kind of unrest, or tension about Jesus never coming back. When the churches woke up and realized that Jesus was not coming back, they were forced to ask questions that they did not have to ask at the beginning. In particular doctrines such as millennial reign, church hierarchy, attitudes toward war and the need for a Christian Emperor.
Frend picks a few scattered quotes to present this view, but I feel that in general his entire theme to be very weak.
The most enigmatic part of the book for me is that while I can’t but help to be intimidated with
Frend’s experience and scholarship, his conclusion on many issues seem almost ridiculous to me.
As a young Christian, I came to the early Church completely through primary sources. I didn’t
even know that there was such a thing as a secondary source of the early Church. I merely read
the early Fathers for their own merit. Driven by the idea that the Apostles left a complete deposit
of the faith, I came to the early Church to “mine out the gold” as it were, left by the Apostles to
their successors.
I believe this perspective has forever tainted my view of the Fathers. To me, they are indeed the Apostolic Fathers. It is difficult for me to view them as a confused or frustrated or even disillusioned church in need of an empire to make everything complete. My take is that a stream is most pure closest to its source.
Frend on the other hand seems to interpret Christianity in the other direction. From the beginning, I find it interesting that Frend explicitly states “the real inspiration for this work has come from Adolph Vaughn Harnack’s Mission and expansion of Christianity in the first three centuries.” I think that this acknowledgment right from the beginning gives a clear indication of Frend’s bias. Perhaps this statement should be looked at as a confession to that School of thought and bias.
Ok...All that being said, the scholarship that Frend gives is still very good. At the beginning of the book, Frend goes through certain categories of early Christian practices. For example, on page 139
under the category “The Christian Ministry” Frend discusses the different models of ministry
such as the three-part vs two-part ministry found in different writings and different places. I
found his treatment of Justin Martyr’s term, “chairman” or “President” in this section to be
interesting. I have frequently wondered if Justin’s use of this word was intentional or not. Frend
felt that it was on purpose.
Still, I would consider his explanation of the development of leadership in the early church to be odd. When he said, “that Ignatius’s View of authority was “the product of a mystical theology in which he identifies his office with that of Christ high priestly role” I found it a little odd.
Under his section entitled "the Liturgy,” Frend discusses the communion prayers of the Didache.
I found this to be one of the strangest sections of the book. Frend portrays the Christianity of the Didache markedly different from the Gospels other than Matthew. He separates Matthew from the rest of the New Testament. Frend sees Matthew's ethical teaching as somehow being different from the rest of the Gospels. (Again, very "Harnack-ish"!) In some ways, Frend connects Matthew’s kind of spirituality with parts of the Didache. Going even further he makes the suggestion that the Christianity of Asia minor was very different than the writers of the New
Testament.
He says, “The book of Revelation shows a violently different view of salvation and
the means of attaining it.” Later under the section called “Syria” he says that the Didache and
Matthew have little in common.
To support this thesis Frend says that the writer of Matthew rejects “fix forms of prayer and
fasting, with the exception of the Lord’s prayer– the writer of the Didache list precise rules for
both in the manner of Jewish books’ instruction.”
Frend went on to present an understanding of Christianity that displays a conflict between the writings of Paul and saying that the "later Gospels" were more “spiritual.” To Frend, Matthew was representing a Jewish understanding of Christianity. Frend then tries to bring this theory through the early church.
I felt his arguments about this also very weak. Frend attempted to portray Alexandria more “spiritual” or mystical and Antioch more practical. I would argue that one needs only to read Clement and Origen to see that even though the Alexandrians speak of many allegorical subjects, they are still very practical when it comes to church practices.
That being said I do think Frend makes a good argument about the different schools of thought
between Antioch and Alexandria. I agreed with Frend when on page 375 he said of Clement of
Alexandria that he “demonstrated that Christianity could be an optimistic and rational creed that
made the highest demands on human morality, while requiring acceptance of the rule of the
church and its essential articles of faith.” However, I was perplexed when he went on to say that
“through Clement, Platonism had been gained for orthodoxy. Nonetheless, Clement’s ideal
would not have been understandable to his Gnostic opponents and seemed even to be more
Buddhist than Christian.” (Did he just say that!?) :-o
Again, some of the most perplexing parts of his treatment of the earliest Christians was his idea
that the Early Christians had an implicit desire to connect with the empire. On page 148-149 he
compares the Jewish loyalty to King Agrippa to early Christian sympathy because of their
prayers to emperors. Frend interprets this as a desire for the early church to be with the
empire. He went so far as to say that the writer of Luke by portraying Romans and centurions in
a positive light displays the early Christian desire to be one with the Empire.
Showing how far Frend went to prove his case, on the bottom of page 150 he suggests that because Justin Martyr included a “copy of the receipt to Caius Minueius Fundanus to the end of his First Apology in c. 155, as though it gave the Christina full protection” as another attempt to grasp at straws to build his case for proto-Constantinianism. Incredibly on page 289 Frend says that Origen “was already looking forward to the Christianization of the World and harmony between church and empire” (That one was almost unforgivable)
As the centuries passed by I was drawn more and into the book. Frend’s discussion about the
different Roman emperors was very interesting. On page 169 he discussed the Mystery Cults and
their relation to the religious culture of this day. I especially benefited from Frend’s description of lesser-known people. For instance, I never knew the story about Peregrinus Proteus’ Self-immolation. That was a pretty cool story. It was shocking to see this man so early to Christianity to come in and go out so violently.
In chapter 6 Frend discusses the Gnostic movement. On page 195 he discusses the way that
Origen, Clement and others debunked the early Gnostic ideas. What is valuable about the section
is his description of each of the leaders of the Gnostics. Many insights into their lives are given
such as where the teachers began to study or if they were previously part of the Christian church.
In his section entitled, “the emergence of orthodoxy” Frend describes many of the early
apologists. Again, I really appreciated his treatment of the lesser-known writers. Such as
Quadratus of Athens (235), Aristides (235-236), Melito (240), and Hegesippus (243).
Another interesting point in this book is the description of the early Christian missions. However, at
times he was inconsistent about early Christian mission growth. Sometimes in the early part of
the book he said things that made it sound like the growth of early Christian missions was very
slow going. Frend used this language when he was making a case that they needed the empire's
help to advance. Later however he conceded that the growth of Christianity was rapid and took
over very quickly. (286)
The rest of the book followed pretty classically in dealing with Constantine and the church that
followed after it. I naturally disagreed with his positive treatment of this era. And I sharply
disagreed with him that this was a needed correction and growth for the church. Nevertheless, I
am very happy that I read this book and it was good for me to understand what typical academic
scholarship is saying about the early Church.
One of the best things about the book is that it is not available in Kindle. The book is huge over 1000 pages. If you get the hardback, as I did it will make a great doorstop. When you are done, pick up the early church for yourself and read the primary sources. You will be glad you did.
interested me and even inspired me. However, in general, his entire method of studying the
early church seems unbalanced to me.
The general underlying tone to the book is that in the early church there was some kind of unrest, or tension about Jesus never coming back. When the churches woke up and realized that Jesus was not coming back, they were forced to ask questions that they did not have to ask at the beginning. In particular doctrines such as millennial reign, church hierarchy, attitudes toward war and the need for a Christian Emperor.
Frend picks a few scattered quotes to present this view, but I feel that in general his entire theme to be very weak.
The most enigmatic part of the book for me is that while I can’t but help to be intimidated with
Frend’s experience and scholarship, his conclusion on many issues seem almost ridiculous to me.
As a young Christian, I came to the early Church completely through primary sources. I didn’t
even know that there was such a thing as a secondary source of the early Church. I merely read
the early Fathers for their own merit. Driven by the idea that the Apostles left a complete deposit
of the faith, I came to the early Church to “mine out the gold” as it were, left by the Apostles to
their successors.
I believe this perspective has forever tainted my view of the Fathers. To me, they are indeed the Apostolic Fathers. It is difficult for me to view them as a confused or frustrated or even disillusioned church in need of an empire to make everything complete. My take is that a stream is most pure closest to its source.
Frend on the other hand seems to interpret Christianity in the other direction. From the beginning, I find it interesting that Frend explicitly states “the real inspiration for this work has come from Adolph Vaughn Harnack’s Mission and expansion of Christianity in the first three centuries.” I think that this acknowledgment right from the beginning gives a clear indication of Frend’s bias. Perhaps this statement should be looked at as a confession to that School of thought and bias.
Ok...All that being said, the scholarship that Frend gives is still very good. At the beginning of the book, Frend goes through certain categories of early Christian practices. For example, on page 139
under the category “The Christian Ministry” Frend discusses the different models of ministry
such as the three-part vs two-part ministry found in different writings and different places. I
found his treatment of Justin Martyr’s term, “chairman” or “President” in this section to be
interesting. I have frequently wondered if Justin’s use of this word was intentional or not. Frend
felt that it was on purpose.
Still, I would consider his explanation of the development of leadership in the early church to be odd. When he said, “that Ignatius’s View of authority was “the product of a mystical theology in which he identifies his office with that of Christ high priestly role” I found it a little odd.
Under his section entitled "the Liturgy,” Frend discusses the communion prayers of the Didache.
I found this to be one of the strangest sections of the book. Frend portrays the Christianity of the Didache markedly different from the Gospels other than Matthew. He separates Matthew from the rest of the New Testament. Frend sees Matthew's ethical teaching as somehow being different from the rest of the Gospels. (Again, very "Harnack-ish"!) In some ways, Frend connects Matthew’s kind of spirituality with parts of the Didache. Going even further he makes the suggestion that the Christianity of Asia minor was very different than the writers of the New
Testament.
He says, “The book of Revelation shows a violently different view of salvation and
the means of attaining it.” Later under the section called “Syria” he says that the Didache and
Matthew have little in common.
To support this thesis Frend says that the writer of Matthew rejects “fix forms of prayer and
fasting, with the exception of the Lord’s prayer– the writer of the Didache list precise rules for
both in the manner of Jewish books’ instruction.”
Frend went on to present an understanding of Christianity that displays a conflict between the writings of Paul and saying that the "later Gospels" were more “spiritual.” To Frend, Matthew was representing a Jewish understanding of Christianity. Frend then tries to bring this theory through the early church.
I felt his arguments about this also very weak. Frend attempted to portray Alexandria more “spiritual” or mystical and Antioch more practical. I would argue that one needs only to read Clement and Origen to see that even though the Alexandrians speak of many allegorical subjects, they are still very practical when it comes to church practices.
That being said I do think Frend makes a good argument about the different schools of thought
between Antioch and Alexandria. I agreed with Frend when on page 375 he said of Clement of
Alexandria that he “demonstrated that Christianity could be an optimistic and rational creed that
made the highest demands on human morality, while requiring acceptance of the rule of the
church and its essential articles of faith.” However, I was perplexed when he went on to say that
“through Clement, Platonism had been gained for orthodoxy. Nonetheless, Clement’s ideal
would not have been understandable to his Gnostic opponents and seemed even to be more
Buddhist than Christian.” (Did he just say that!?) :-o
Again, some of the most perplexing parts of his treatment of the earliest Christians was his idea
that the Early Christians had an implicit desire to connect with the empire. On page 148-149 he
compares the Jewish loyalty to King Agrippa to early Christian sympathy because of their
prayers to emperors. Frend interprets this as a desire for the early church to be with the
empire. He went so far as to say that the writer of Luke by portraying Romans and centurions in
a positive light displays the early Christian desire to be one with the Empire.
Showing how far Frend went to prove his case, on the bottom of page 150 he suggests that because Justin Martyr included a “copy of the receipt to Caius Minueius Fundanus to the end of his First Apology in c. 155, as though it gave the Christina full protection” as another attempt to grasp at straws to build his case for proto-Constantinianism. Incredibly on page 289 Frend says that Origen “was already looking forward to the Christianization of the World and harmony between church and empire” (That one was almost unforgivable)
As the centuries passed by I was drawn more and into the book. Frend’s discussion about the
different Roman emperors was very interesting. On page 169 he discussed the Mystery Cults and
their relation to the religious culture of this day. I especially benefited from Frend’s description of lesser-known people. For instance, I never knew the story about Peregrinus Proteus’ Self-immolation. That was a pretty cool story. It was shocking to see this man so early to Christianity to come in and go out so violently.
In chapter 6 Frend discusses the Gnostic movement. On page 195 he discusses the way that
Origen, Clement and others debunked the early Gnostic ideas. What is valuable about the section
is his description of each of the leaders of the Gnostics. Many insights into their lives are given
such as where the teachers began to study or if they were previously part of the Christian church.
In his section entitled, “the emergence of orthodoxy” Frend describes many of the early
apologists. Again, I really appreciated his treatment of the lesser-known writers. Such as
Quadratus of Athens (235), Aristides (235-236), Melito (240), and Hegesippus (243).
Another interesting point in this book is the description of the early Christian missions. However, at
times he was inconsistent about early Christian mission growth. Sometimes in the early part of
the book he said things that made it sound like the growth of early Christian missions was very
slow going. Frend used this language when he was making a case that they needed the empire's
help to advance. Later however he conceded that the growth of Christianity was rapid and took
over very quickly. (286)
The rest of the book followed pretty classically in dealing with Constantine and the church that
followed after it. I naturally disagreed with his positive treatment of this era. And I sharply
disagreed with him that this was a needed correction and growth for the church. Nevertheless, I
am very happy that I read this book and it was good for me to understand what typical academic
scholarship is saying about the early Church.
One of the best things about the book is that it is not available in Kindle. The book is huge over 1000 pages. If you get the hardback, as I did it will make a great doorstop. When you are done, pick up the early church for yourself and read the primary sources. You will be glad you did.
January 21, 2008
Providing a history of the rise and development of the Christian doctrine and practice from Jesus (including pre-Christian background information) to the death of Pope Gregory I in AD 604. Frend offers a very readable and thorough account of the early church, giving an especially thoughtful explanation of the historical development of Christian theology. A
August 22, 2024
Genuinely not sure how to rate this one. An avalanche of information falls on the reader at breakneck speed. How one human researched and wrote this behemoth - published in 1984, before PCs - astounds me.
That said, much of it went completely over my head. Frend is so far out of my league/most people's league that he could have made the whole thing up, for all I know...
That said, much of it went completely over my head. Frend is so far out of my league/most people's league that he could have made the whole thing up, for all I know...
March 20, 2019
This is a re-read from a book which was rather influential for me back in the early 2000s, when I was just getting into patristics. Frend takes on the rather daunting task of a history of Christianity from the background to Jesus to the death of Justinian I in both the East and the West. That means an awful lot of Bible and theology, fleshed out with archaeology (which is Frend's academic specialty). The result is a book which handles the history of theology, while, simultaneously, talking extensively about the lives of Christians in the various eras covered. To call it erudite is an understatement. While it is getting a bit long in the tooth, it remains a useful overview of Christianity in its early centuries.
In general, Dr. Frend's approach is that of a standard scholar of religion. He is sound and makes good historical judgements, based on the best critical studies. He is careful to bring in new material, most importantly the Nag Hammadi papyri and archaological evidence, which brings new light to our more traditional material. He generally sees a much more diverse early period of Christian period, but not as diverse as some, who would argue that there was no clear orthodoxy. He has a tendency to criticize rigourists in general, including monasticism.
This remains a good introduction to the early centuries of Christianity and well worth reading.
In general, Dr. Frend's approach is that of a standard scholar of religion. He is sound and makes good historical judgements, based on the best critical studies. He is careful to bring in new material, most importantly the Nag Hammadi papyri and archaological evidence, which brings new light to our more traditional material. He generally sees a much more diverse early period of Christian period, but not as diverse as some, who would argue that there was no clear orthodoxy. He has a tendency to criticize rigourists in general, including monasticism.
This remains a good introduction to the early centuries of Christianity and well worth reading.
March 12, 2020
Very informative. First I read pp.114 to the end because of my sense of familiarity with first century Christianity. But as I found the second part packed with information, I thought I would learn something from pages 1 - 114. After reading his section on the life of Jesus, I came away with the impression that he might not believe that Jesus is God, which is the teaching of the Church. In his section on the apostle Paul, he gives the impression that Paul made up his own version of Christianity, preaching "a historical figure invested with diety." (P. 110) Also, Paul's emphases are contrasted with the teachings of Jesus by means of proof texts without acknowledgement that Paul's letters also contain texts that speak of love and good works and admonishments to uphold the law. He fails to plumb the depths of dying and rising in Christ through baptism, seeing it as having pagan roots in the mystery cults. A treasury of information which also plants a seed of doubts.
February 22, 2022
Dense retelling of early Christian Era, from Second Temple Judaism to 600 AD. Frend’s analysis of the NT era (sections on Jesus and Paul) was subpar compared to the rest of the book. He hits his stride when discussing early church fathers and working through the slow growth of the Roman Catholic Church. The strength of this work is in Frend’s excellent grasp of historical currents and his knack for picking out situations and/or quotations that best demonstrate his analysis.
It felt to me that he put too much stress on the endless debates over the nature of Jesus, but that probably just reflects my impatience with the topic. I can’t fault him for covering something that is so important to the historical developments.
It felt to me that he put too much stress on the endless debates over the nature of Jesus, but that probably just reflects my impatience with the topic. I can’t fault him for covering something that is so important to the historical developments.
March 23, 2019
This book gets three stars which is probably either over-generous or much too low. I bought it in 1984 when it was published and started reading it. No dice.
Again in 1997 I tried again. Even worse.
I was determined to read it and so on Ash Wednesday of 2019 I began reading it again as my Lenten reading. I divided its more than 2000 pages into 20-page sections planning to read 20 pages a day.
Again I did not succeed. I gave up after about 200 pages. And the book is now on its way to the Spokane Public Library South Branch book sale.
Again in 1997 I tried again. Even worse.
I was determined to read it and so on Ash Wednesday of 2019 I began reading it again as my Lenten reading. I divided its more than 2000 pages into 20-page sections planning to read 20 pages a day.
Again I did not succeed. I gave up after about 200 pages. And the book is now on its way to the Spokane Public Library South Branch book sale.
Currently reading
March 28, 2009Very informative. Author was an Anglican priest.
May 14, 2011
Excellent read.
July 3, 2012
It's massive, but it covers most of the bases of the history of early Christianity!
July 15, 2016
Scholarly study from a social scientist's viewpoint. Interesting and easy to read.
January 23, 2017
Whew. My brain is full.
April 19, 2007
a great introductory work on the first centuries of christian history in the west.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews