What do you think?
Rate this book
A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State
'“We shall believe in the single deity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity. We command that persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom we judge demented and insane, shall carry the infamy of heretical dogmas. Their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by Divine Vengeance, and secondly by the retribution of hostility which we shall assume in accordance with the Divine Judgment.”' - Emperor Theodosius.
In AD 381, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christian orthodoxy and brought to an end a lively and wide-ranging debate about the nature of God; all other interpretations were now declared heretical. It was the first time in a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization free thought was unambiguously suppressed. Yet surprisingly, the popular histories claim that the Christian Church reached a consensus on the Trinity at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Why has Theodosius's revolution been airbrushed from the historical record? In this groundbreaking new book, acclaimed historian Charles Freeman shows that the council was in fact a sham, only taking place after Theodosius's decree had become law. The Church was acquiescing to the overwhelming power of the emperor. Freeman argues that Theodosius's edict and the subsequent suppression of paganism not only brought an end to the diversity of religious and philosophical beliefs throughout the empire, but created numerous theological problems for the Church, which have remained unsolved. The year AD 381, as Freeman puts it, was "a turning point which time forgot."
A provoking and timely examination of one of the most important times in Church history.
In AD 381, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict defined Christian orthodoxy and brought to an end a lively and wide-ranging debate about the nature of God; all other interpretations were now declared heretical. It was the first time in a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization free thought was unambiguously suppressed. Yet surprisingly, the popular histories claim that the Christian Church reached a consensus on the Trinity at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Why has Theodosius's revolution been airbrushed from the historical record? In this groundbreaking new book, acclaimed historian Charles Freeman shows that the council was in fact a sham, only taking place after Theodosius's decree had become law. The Church was acquiescing to the overwhelming power of the emperor. Freeman argues that Theodosius's edict and the subsequent suppression of paganism not only brought an end to the diversity of religious and philosophical beliefs throughout the empire, but created numerous theological problems for the Church, which have remained unsolved. The year AD 381, as Freeman puts it, was "a turning point which time forgot."
A provoking and timely examination of one of the most important times in Church history.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published February 5, 2008
About the author
Charles Freeman
63 books123 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 68 reviews
July 20, 2023
In the course of reading this fascinating book I cam across two things, the first was an execrable Italian tv mini-series and the other was a bizarre USA Christian weight loss cult lead by Gwen Shamblin Lara and bizzarely both have an influence on the review to follow.
First the really appalling 2007 tv mini-series 'Pompeii' in which the leader of the local Christians denounces the Romans for not believing in 'freedom of worship' and how it would eventually conquer Rome, etc. and I couldn't help being astounded at how these tropes about Romans wanting to force Christians to worship their Gods or trying to suppress their religion have such a resilience in the face of all evidence. A bit like the belief that Christianity was against slavery or that Christianity 'conquered' Rome.
The only religion that has suppressed and stopped people from practising any other form of religion except its own is Christianity which began in 381 AD with the outlawing of 'Paganism', which was just any religious belief or practice that wasn't Christian and then went on to create the concept of 'Heresy' which stopped anyone from believing or thinking in a different way then authorised about Christianity and most of the proclamations and denunciations came about because of disagreements over how the Trinitarian nature of God was understood.
Which brings me to Gwen Shamblin Lara a 'Christian' weight loss guru who shortly before her death in a plane crash in 2021 had upset many of her followers when she said the doctrine of the Trinity was not Biblical. While she lost adherents she was a lot luckier than Michael Sveretus (1511-1553) who John Calvin had burnt at the stake for saying the very same thing. Oddly enough if you go back to the years after Constantine's adoption of Christianity and the debates within the Christian trying to define first the relationship between 'God' and Jesus and later the Holy Spirit (who wasn't even mentioned in the first official creed) was the lack of any scriptural references to explain or support what would eventually become the doctrine of the Trinity.
It is through the convoluted tale of how the Church created and defined the dogma Trinity* that Mr. Freeman looks at how a monolithic belief system which forbade any enquiry or discussion which might suggest that there was more then one way of looking at things.
But before going further I wonder how many of us who are either practising Christians or were brought up and educated to be practising Christians can define what the Trinity is?
According to the catechism of the Catholic Church (I am pretty sure most Protestant Theologians would accept this definition) the Trinity is:
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."
Which is fine, but do you know what the words substance, essence and nature mean? What about consubstantial? or in Greek homoousios? Or how does a son exist for the same length of time as his father? Or how do you explain the Holy Spirit (I am actually old enough to remember when it was referred to as the Holy Ghost)?
If you go back to the 4th century AD the leaders of the Christian church were completely divided in their opinions about all of the above and there was a lively debate about what any of it might mean, which only became more complicated when the debates, which largely took place in Greek, the traditional language of philosophy and the early church, had to be translated into Latin, which never had any tradition of philosophical speculation. But in 381 AD with the suppression of 'Paganism' came a definition of what the Trinity was and most importantly condemnations of other definitions and discussions of the Trinity and once begun the habit of restricting discussion became a hall mark of various Christian Churches.
Once Freeman starts saying that Christianity began with suppressing religious freedom and intellectual debate you find all the Christian reviewers getting their tighty-whities in a twist and, while not responding to any of his specific points, condemning him for not being an academic historian, an academic theologian, for repeating Gibbon's long disproved belief that Christianity was a factor in the fall of the Roman empire, which most of them then go on to remind us didn't fall just 'adapted' and 'evolved' etc.
Although the various Christian churches and denominations have, since the 1960's, attempted to reposition themselves and their beliefs and to retrospectively erase their less then palatable past attitudes, pronouncements and actions, the fact is that as a creator and promoter of persecution against those with differing views Christianity has a most lamentable track record.
There are parts of this book which are fascinating, I particularly loved his presentation of the way, post Constantine, the person of Jesus Christ rapidly changed from the outsider, criminal condemned to death by the Roman empire into the theology and image of 'Christ the King' as lord, master and creator of the universe, someone it was perfectly respectable for a near divine and all powerful emperor to associate himself with.
There are also unavoidable longueurs - the whole debate about the nature of God and the Trinity is something we don't think about and to have to follow and accept that trying to understand, through the scriptures (and how many of us have read them recently - or ever) concepts of essence, substance and nature is sleep inducing. But it is also fascinating, in a car crash watching way, how something that today is barely thought about or considered by believers, could rose such passions and engender such hate is frightening and fascinating to behold.
*And made such a monumental mess of it that the two oldest branches of Christianity, Latin and Greek follow different versions of the same creed and believe, and despite ecumenism, still believe each other are theologically in error. This is the 'filioque' controversy which, although having to do with the definition of the Trinity, is of later date and isn't part off this books arguments.
First the really appalling 2007 tv mini-series 'Pompeii' in which the leader of the local Christians denounces the Romans for not believing in 'freedom of worship' and how it would eventually conquer Rome, etc. and I couldn't help being astounded at how these tropes about Romans wanting to force Christians to worship their Gods or trying to suppress their religion have such a resilience in the face of all evidence. A bit like the belief that Christianity was against slavery or that Christianity 'conquered' Rome.
The only religion that has suppressed and stopped people from practising any other form of religion except its own is Christianity which began in 381 AD with the outlawing of 'Paganism', which was just any religious belief or practice that wasn't Christian and then went on to create the concept of 'Heresy' which stopped anyone from believing or thinking in a different way then authorised about Christianity and most of the proclamations and denunciations came about because of disagreements over how the Trinitarian nature of God was understood.
Which brings me to Gwen Shamblin Lara a 'Christian' weight loss guru who shortly before her death in a plane crash in 2021 had upset many of her followers when she said the doctrine of the Trinity was not Biblical. While she lost adherents she was a lot luckier than Michael Sveretus (1511-1553) who John Calvin had burnt at the stake for saying the very same thing. Oddly enough if you go back to the years after Constantine's adoption of Christianity and the debates within the Christian trying to define first the relationship between 'God' and Jesus and later the Holy Spirit (who wasn't even mentioned in the first official creed) was the lack of any scriptural references to explain or support what would eventually become the doctrine of the Trinity.
It is through the convoluted tale of how the Church created and defined the dogma Trinity* that Mr. Freeman looks at how a monolithic belief system which forbade any enquiry or discussion which might suggest that there was more then one way of looking at things.
But before going further I wonder how many of us who are either practising Christians or were brought up and educated to be practising Christians can define what the Trinity is?
According to the catechism of the Catholic Church (I am pretty sure most Protestant Theologians would accept this definition) the Trinity is:
253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."
Which is fine, but do you know what the words substance, essence and nature mean? What about consubstantial? or in Greek homoousios? Or how does a son exist for the same length of time as his father? Or how do you explain the Holy Spirit (I am actually old enough to remember when it was referred to as the Holy Ghost)?
If you go back to the 4th century AD the leaders of the Christian church were completely divided in their opinions about all of the above and there was a lively debate about what any of it might mean, which only became more complicated when the debates, which largely took place in Greek, the traditional language of philosophy and the early church, had to be translated into Latin, which never had any tradition of philosophical speculation. But in 381 AD with the suppression of 'Paganism' came a definition of what the Trinity was and most importantly condemnations of other definitions and discussions of the Trinity and once begun the habit of restricting discussion became a hall mark of various Christian Churches.
Once Freeman starts saying that Christianity began with suppressing religious freedom and intellectual debate you find all the Christian reviewers getting their tighty-whities in a twist and, while not responding to any of his specific points, condemning him for not being an academic historian, an academic theologian, for repeating Gibbon's long disproved belief that Christianity was a factor in the fall of the Roman empire, which most of them then go on to remind us didn't fall just 'adapted' and 'evolved' etc.
Although the various Christian churches and denominations have, since the 1960's, attempted to reposition themselves and their beliefs and to retrospectively erase their less then palatable past attitudes, pronouncements and actions, the fact is that as a creator and promoter of persecution against those with differing views Christianity has a most lamentable track record.
There are parts of this book which are fascinating, I particularly loved his presentation of the way, post Constantine, the person of Jesus Christ rapidly changed from the outsider, criminal condemned to death by the Roman empire into the theology and image of 'Christ the King' as lord, master and creator of the universe, someone it was perfectly respectable for a near divine and all powerful emperor to associate himself with.
There are also unavoidable longueurs - the whole debate about the nature of God and the Trinity is something we don't think about and to have to follow and accept that trying to understand, through the scriptures (and how many of us have read them recently - or ever) concepts of essence, substance and nature is sleep inducing. But it is also fascinating, in a car crash watching way, how something that today is barely thought about or considered by believers, could rose such passions and engender such hate is frightening and fascinating to behold.
*And made such a monumental mess of it that the two oldest branches of Christianity, Latin and Greek follow different versions of the same creed and believe, and despite ecumenism, still believe each other are theologically in error. This is the 'filioque' controversy which, although having to do with the definition of the Trinity, is of later date and isn't part off this books arguments.
July 22, 2020
Here's another exposition of how Christianity contributed to the fall of civilization, specifically as regards how it muzzled free expression. The title refers to the Constantinopolitan Council of 381 whereby the misnamed 'Nicene' Creed, as we know it today, was formulated under the Emperor Theodosius. This represented the dogmatic instantiation of trinitarianism at the core of the orthodox faith, representing a major step in squelching dissent and debate in the interests of imperial and ecclesiastical hegemony.
Author Freeman regards the various trinitarian doctrines and the interminable debates about them as being rather silly, their dogmatic importance being virtually accidental seeing as they have no scriptural basis. They were, however, important given the power politics of Theodosius' reign at the time, serving as a means of separating the sheep, his allies, from the goats, his opponents.
I disagree with Freeman's dismissal of the Trinity, seeing that it has certain archetypal pre-Christian analogues. One is universal, that of Father, Mother and Child (in which one can read God as Father, Sophia/Wisdom, Christ or God, Theotokos, Jesus). Another common one is in reference to the three stages of life: Youth, Maturity, Old Age as in Persephone, Demeter, Hekate etc. Then, further, a trinity can geometrically represent a hierarchy. Finally (though one can likely think of other analogues), there's the jurisprudential trinity, as in the Book of Job, of God-as-Judge, Satan, the 'adversary' as Prosecutor and the comforter or Paraclete as Counsel for the Defense.--oh, oh, what about thesis, antithesis, synthesis...the list goes on, the point being that triadic thinking appears all over the place and in many important contexts.
But my criticisms notwithstanding, Freeman's point is about absolutism and suppression in the context of the Christianizing later Empire. As he points out, many textbooks about religion treat theology as divorced from the world of power politics when actually theologies (and other ideologies) are manipulated to serve political purposes.
Author Freeman regards the various trinitarian doctrines and the interminable debates about them as being rather silly, their dogmatic importance being virtually accidental seeing as they have no scriptural basis. They were, however, important given the power politics of Theodosius' reign at the time, serving as a means of separating the sheep, his allies, from the goats, his opponents.
I disagree with Freeman's dismissal of the Trinity, seeing that it has certain archetypal pre-Christian analogues. One is universal, that of Father, Mother and Child (in which one can read God as Father, Sophia/Wisdom, Christ or God, Theotokos, Jesus). Another common one is in reference to the three stages of life: Youth, Maturity, Old Age as in Persephone, Demeter, Hekate etc. Then, further, a trinity can geometrically represent a hierarchy. Finally (though one can likely think of other analogues), there's the jurisprudential trinity, as in the Book of Job, of God-as-Judge, Satan, the 'adversary' as Prosecutor and the comforter or Paraclete as Counsel for the Defense.--oh, oh, what about thesis, antithesis, synthesis...the list goes on, the point being that triadic thinking appears all over the place and in many important contexts.
But my criticisms notwithstanding, Freeman's point is about absolutism and suppression in the context of the Christianizing later Empire. As he points out, many textbooks about religion treat theology as divorced from the world of power politics when actually theologies (and other ideologies) are manipulated to serve political purposes.
July 17, 2013
When I was reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (which I admit I haven't finished), I was struck by the fact that before Christianity, the Romans were completely tolerant of different religions. Every area (city) had its own religion and no one tried to "convert" anyone. And no one claimed that their god ( but there were usually gods—plural) was the one and only and that you'd go to hell if you didn't believe. Freeman shows how Christian leaders in the early centuries fought over doctrinal issues and more or less invented heresy to the extent that the Emperor Theodosius
in 381AD made church doctrine into state law for which those who disagreed could be punished, paving the way for religious wars, heresy trials, the Inquisition, etc. the doctrinal issues themselves often seem like hiw-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin issues, issues that were passed on through the centuries, led to the dark ages (where scholarly inquiry and freedom of expression were gone)' and weren't even questioned much by Protestant revolutions.
I think I want to read Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind.
in 381AD made church doctrine into state law for which those who disagreed could be punished, paving the way for religious wars, heresy trials, the Inquisition, etc. the doctrinal issues themselves often seem like hiw-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin issues, issues that were passed on through the centuries, led to the dark ages (where scholarly inquiry and freedom of expression were gone)' and weren't even questioned much by Protestant revolutions.
I think I want to read Freeman's The Closing of the Western Mind.
July 10, 2019
Solid look at how Christianity became what we know it today. It does not attack or shame. To quote an old saying: "Just the facts ma'am." Fairly dry though, but to be expected I suppose given the subject matter.
June 2, 2020
Simply another excellent book by Charles Freeman. Though "just" an independent historian, not an academic (though he has taught International Baccalaureate classes and the British version of continuing education classes) in history, let alone an academic in theology, he has a sure grasp of both areas, just as he did in Closing of the Western Mind, also five-starred here.
Freeman's thesis is that, unlike Constantine with the Council of Nicaea, Theodosius I had a predetermined result before calling the Council of Constantinople, which essentially gave us what many Christians today call the "Nicene Creed." (Constantinople expanded broadly on the original document, at Thodosius' direction.)
Theodosius, as Eastern Emperor (and at end of life, the last man to, at least on paper, reunite the empire), was determined that the Nicene creed, lowercase — Homoousian, NOT HomoIousian, as in Arians and other subordinationists need not apply — would be the Christianity of the empire, period and end of story. Along with this, he moved far beyond both Constantine and Constantius in an illiberal direction. Freeman argues that it was his imperium, even though philosophical academies remained open for decades, that saw the installation of the first version of doctrinaire Christianity.
However, he also notes that Constantinople's creed caused new problems, even with it in a broader form than Theodosius wanted. Namely, it brought the issues of Jesus' "two natures" to the forefront.
As I was transitioning out of my long-ago conservative Lutheranism, I never really thought about how silly traditional Christian theology sounded in trying to claim Jesus said, did or felt X "according to his human nature" and Y "according to his divine nature." But that's exactly what Gregory of Naziansus did long before it was adopted in the West. And it is silly. Period.
Speaking of "the West," Freeman also shows how popes had basically no effect on any of the seven ecumenical councils. Through the first four, Christianity was still much smaller in the Roman West than East, especially in Gaul and Britain, first. Second, although popes themselves still spoke Greek in this period, and with some level of fluency, the average parish priest or even bishop in Italy, let alone to the west, did not.
Freeman details this with Augustine. He gives him a separate chapter for the post-Constantinople "resurrection" of Paul, especially the Paul of Romans, and its baleful influence on most later Western Christianity. He does miss a small beat here. Orthodoxy, even more than focusing on other parts of Paul, has long looked to Johannine theology and soteriology as its guiding light.
Concluding chapters take the Theodosius-inspired illiberality up to the Trecento and the first dawn light of the Renaissance. This is arguably counter-revisionist history versus the past few decades that have seen many historians, both religious and not, claim the "Dark Ages" weren't. In his native Britain, especially, but also in spots on the Continent, by looking at the great dropoff in manufacturing, loss of technology (Rome invented Portland cement, then the method for making it was lost for a millennium, though that's not one of Freeman's examples), and the minuscule size of bishops' and monasteries' libraries, Freeman makes a good case that these centuries were in many cases dark indeed.
A Bart Ehrman, who, while claiming to be an agnostic, is probably still a seeker at heart, would do well to read books like this before writing any more about the semi-miraculous rise of Christianity.
Freeman's thesis is that, unlike Constantine with the Council of Nicaea, Theodosius I had a predetermined result before calling the Council of Constantinople, which essentially gave us what many Christians today call the "Nicene Creed." (Constantinople expanded broadly on the original document, at Thodosius' direction.)
Theodosius, as Eastern Emperor (and at end of life, the last man to, at least on paper, reunite the empire), was determined that the Nicene creed, lowercase — Homoousian, NOT HomoIousian, as in Arians and other subordinationists need not apply — would be the Christianity of the empire, period and end of story. Along with this, he moved far beyond both Constantine and Constantius in an illiberal direction. Freeman argues that it was his imperium, even though philosophical academies remained open for decades, that saw the installation of the first version of doctrinaire Christianity.
However, he also notes that Constantinople's creed caused new problems, even with it in a broader form than Theodosius wanted. Namely, it brought the issues of Jesus' "two natures" to the forefront.
As I was transitioning out of my long-ago conservative Lutheranism, I never really thought about how silly traditional Christian theology sounded in trying to claim Jesus said, did or felt X "according to his human nature" and Y "according to his divine nature." But that's exactly what Gregory of Naziansus did long before it was adopted in the West. And it is silly. Period.
Speaking of "the West," Freeman also shows how popes had basically no effect on any of the seven ecumenical councils. Through the first four, Christianity was still much smaller in the Roman West than East, especially in Gaul and Britain, first. Second, although popes themselves still spoke Greek in this period, and with some level of fluency, the average parish priest or even bishop in Italy, let alone to the west, did not.
Freeman details this with Augustine. He gives him a separate chapter for the post-Constantinople "resurrection" of Paul, especially the Paul of Romans, and its baleful influence on most later Western Christianity. He does miss a small beat here. Orthodoxy, even more than focusing on other parts of Paul, has long looked to Johannine theology and soteriology as its guiding light.
Concluding chapters take the Theodosius-inspired illiberality up to the Trecento and the first dawn light of the Renaissance. This is arguably counter-revisionist history versus the past few decades that have seen many historians, both religious and not, claim the "Dark Ages" weren't. In his native Britain, especially, but also in spots on the Continent, by looking at the great dropoff in manufacturing, loss of technology (Rome invented Portland cement, then the method for making it was lost for a millennium, though that's not one of Freeman's examples), and the minuscule size of bishops' and monasteries' libraries, Freeman makes a good case that these centuries were in many cases dark indeed.
A Bart Ehrman, who, while claiming to be an agnostic, is probably still a seeker at heart, would do well to read books like this before writing any more about the semi-miraculous rise of Christianity.
January 31, 2021
It's unfortunate, but perhaps not unexpected, that for the first time in the history of Greco-Roman civilization, a ruler issued an edict that destroyed free thought and free exercise of religion. That it was in support of Christianity was perhaps also not unexpected. The edict` of Theodosius in 381 A.D (some historians say 380) forbade belief and practice of any religious practice that did not recognize the singularity of the "godhead," i.e. the idea of the Trinity as solidified at the Council of Nicea in 325 under Constantine -- they were equal in majesty (whatever the Hell that means.) This edict and the removal of the Bishop of Constantinople, an adherent of Arianism, a belief Jesus was created at a point in time, divine, but subject to the Father. (I get shivers of ridiculousness and have to restrain my natural tendency to overheat my crap detector as I recount some of this. Nevertheless it's quite interesting.) Freeman argues that Theodosius' edict and the subsequent suppression of paganism not only brought an end to the diversity of religious and philosophical beliefs throughout the empire but created numerous theological problems for the Church, which have remained unsolved. The year AD 381, Freeman concludes, marked 'a turning point which time forgot'.
The biggest issue was whether Jesus was God. It took a substantial amount of twisting to
figure out how the Trinity was supposed to work, the Aryans arguing that if Jesus was God then there was no sacrifice on the cross, the Athanasians supporting Trinitarianism. One of the hurdles for Trinitarians was Mark 13:32 when Jesus was to have said ""“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." This was interpreted to mean that Jesus was not God.
This book was theologically much more detailed than When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein [https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...] which deals with the same topic. Freeman continued his discussion more extensively in his book The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, an examination of the effects of events covered in AD 381.
The biggest issue was whether Jesus was God. It took a substantial amount of twisting to
figure out how the Trinity was supposed to work, the Aryans arguing that if Jesus was God then there was no sacrifice on the cross, the Athanasians supporting Trinitarianism. One of the hurdles for Trinitarians was Mark 13:32 when Jesus was to have said ""“But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." This was interpreted to mean that Jesus was not God.
This book was theologically much more detailed than When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein [https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...] which deals with the same topic. Freeman continued his discussion more extensively in his book The Closing of the Western Mind: The Rise of Faith and the Fall of Reason, an examination of the effects of events covered in AD 381.
May 1, 2020
This is my 12th read of 2020 and also my 1000th book read (I joined Goodreads in 2011 and tried to recreate, as much as I could remember, a list of books I'd read prior to that also)!
I love learning about religions and their history, but this was not as interesting as other books I've read. I was surprised to learn that prior to the 4th century, Christianity was a religion of toleration. You frequented your temple/faith of choice. The church did not demand that Christianity be the only faith followed. My, how it changed! Three stars.
I love learning about religions and their history, but this was not as interesting as other books I've read. I was surprised to learn that prior to the 4th century, Christianity was a religion of toleration. You frequented your temple/faith of choice. The church did not demand that Christianity be the only faith followed. My, how it changed! Three stars.
August 20, 2018
This book is an excellent academic account of history and human nature. A must read for anyone who wants to understand the pattern of our collective story, and what faith really means.
January 26, 2020
I was thinking this book would be a study of late antiquity, instead it ranges from 5th century Athenian philosophers to 20th century theologians. Freeman believes that Emperor Theodosius’ attempt to solve a christological dispute inhibited the use of “reason” in the west for centuries. I’m not persuaded.
The argument requires a highly subjective evaluation of hundreds of years of intellectual history. It’s interesting to read about the crudity of certain bishops or the errors of unsophisticated Latin theologians, but when I remember these judgements are mostly someone else’s opinions I find myself very unmoved. In fact, the idea that theological details had this much impact on history before the Reformation is something I’m pretty skeptical of.
This book also has an Edward Gibbon problem. Freeman tries to address this in the introduction by suggesting he was motivated to write by new evidence, but his entire concept and argument seem motivated by a view of history that is indebted to Gibbon. Essentially, Freeman elevates classical antiquity the way Gibbon did. His denigration of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages is more nuanced than Gibbon’s but it’s still very noticeable. The result is to make Antiquity seem more “modern”, which is a vast oversimplification for the following reasons:
1) Over 90% of the population in both eras were illiterate farmers, many of whom were unfree. There was probably more continuity for average people than change.
2) Freeman lists the usual archeological arguments about material decline in the west after the Empire receded. The actual impact of this is disputed. I don’t think fewer cities and bad pottery bothered hardscrabble farmers who died in their 30s. This was not like a modern society collapsing. The biggest losers were the Roman elites.
3) “Free Speech” is a loaded phrase with modern connotations. Freeman tries to work around this by narrowing the discussion to philosophical debate in public. I find his use of the concept in Imperial Rome wrongheaded from the start. It doesn’t seem to occur to Freeman that debate was allowed in an authoritarian society because the stakes were low. Did people debate the emperor’s policies, or any serious political programs? I think “Free Speech” was a poor choice of words for this concept.
4) Greek philosophy did not produce anything like a direct route to enlightenment or modern science. These things took over a thousand years, and Aristotle was often treated so uncritically as a supreme authority that a lot of scientists had to battle to convince people his conclusions were wrong.
5) The Roman Empire had access to more Greek knowledge than medieval Europeans but they couldn’t invent crop rotation, a horse collar, a wheelbarrow, or shod their draft animals more regularly. Farmers with these tools in the high Middle Ages probably had it better than any of their ancient counterparts ever dreamed. Most of Greek philosophy was not very interested in practical ways to improve life.
6) “Reason” is probably a real thing, but it also has a tendency to mean whatever a person wants it to. It’s a little bothersome that Freeman decides to elevate it without really engaging with this problem. For him, it seems to interchangeably mean empiricism or a belief in human potential for understanding. In Freeman’s view, the use of “reason” declined amongst western intellectuals thanks to Theodosius and Augustine. This seems highly subjective to me.
The argument requires a highly subjective evaluation of hundreds of years of intellectual history. It’s interesting to read about the crudity of certain bishops or the errors of unsophisticated Latin theologians, but when I remember these judgements are mostly someone else’s opinions I find myself very unmoved. In fact, the idea that theological details had this much impact on history before the Reformation is something I’m pretty skeptical of.
This book also has an Edward Gibbon problem. Freeman tries to address this in the introduction by suggesting he was motivated to write by new evidence, but his entire concept and argument seem motivated by a view of history that is indebted to Gibbon. Essentially, Freeman elevates classical antiquity the way Gibbon did. His denigration of Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages is more nuanced than Gibbon’s but it’s still very noticeable. The result is to make Antiquity seem more “modern”, which is a vast oversimplification for the following reasons:
1) Over 90% of the population in both eras were illiterate farmers, many of whom were unfree. There was probably more continuity for average people than change.
2) Freeman lists the usual archeological arguments about material decline in the west after the Empire receded. The actual impact of this is disputed. I don’t think fewer cities and bad pottery bothered hardscrabble farmers who died in their 30s. This was not like a modern society collapsing. The biggest losers were the Roman elites.
3) “Free Speech” is a loaded phrase with modern connotations. Freeman tries to work around this by narrowing the discussion to philosophical debate in public. I find his use of the concept in Imperial Rome wrongheaded from the start. It doesn’t seem to occur to Freeman that debate was allowed in an authoritarian society because the stakes were low. Did people debate the emperor’s policies, or any serious political programs? I think “Free Speech” was a poor choice of words for this concept.
4) Greek philosophy did not produce anything like a direct route to enlightenment or modern science. These things took over a thousand years, and Aristotle was often treated so uncritically as a supreme authority that a lot of scientists had to battle to convince people his conclusions were wrong.
5) The Roman Empire had access to more Greek knowledge than medieval Europeans but they couldn’t invent crop rotation, a horse collar, a wheelbarrow, or shod their draft animals more regularly. Farmers with these tools in the high Middle Ages probably had it better than any of their ancient counterparts ever dreamed. Most of Greek philosophy was not very interested in practical ways to improve life.
6) “Reason” is probably a real thing, but it also has a tendency to mean whatever a person wants it to. It’s a little bothersome that Freeman decides to elevate it without really engaging with this problem. For him, it seems to interchangeably mean empiricism or a belief in human potential for understanding. In Freeman’s view, the use of “reason” declined amongst western intellectuals thanks to Theodosius and Augustine. This seems highly subjective to me.
May 17, 2014
Freeman has, in A.D. 381, shown where the birth of modern Christianity coincided with the ending of tolerance & diversity of intellectual freedom, with not only matters spiritual, but also those akin to humanity's early attempts to understand its place within the sciences & philosophy.
Where previously in both Greek & Roman society religious or spiritual tolerance was deeply ingrained, the state sanctioning of Christianity in A.D.381 and more particularly the adoption of the Nicene sects version of the faith resulted in the beginning of a new era of intellectual intolerance & religious persecution of those deemed heretical in their individual understanding of the meaning of the gospels.
Over the centuries the church has deliberately & understandably whitewashed the story of this turbulent time.
Prior to the events of AD 381 there were many divergent views as to the nature of the Christian God and the relationship between the 'Godhead', the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. The ensuing power struggle for control of this important aspect of this new faith makes for interesting reading as we see the theological schisms open up between the western & eastern parts of the now faltering Roman Empire.
The divine emperor Theodosius, the spiritual & political figurehead of Rome, used his position as head of the church along with the Nicene Creed as the basis for politically controlling the various groups & sub-sets of this newly formed, (relatively) and often volatile religion.
The various sanctioned bishops used their state endorsement to silence & condemn rivals & shore up personal power bases in the wrestle to control this early period of the churches development.
It was interesting to ponder what might have been if the Arians or another sect had prevailed, as to what the face of the church might have been today.
The core idea presented was that through state-endorsed sponsorship, one group or sect prevailed, taking with it any recourse to dissent. Freedom of thought & intellectual discussion of religion became tantamount to heresy and heralded the beginning of a centuries long period of repression. Scientific enquiry,just in its infancy was strangled in the crib and would not emerge in any real form for another 800 years in the western world.
A thought-provoking & challenging read, it leaves the reader with a deep sense of, 'what if' and a clearer understanding of how we have come to have the version of the Christian church that exists today.
Where previously in both Greek & Roman society religious or spiritual tolerance was deeply ingrained, the state sanctioning of Christianity in A.D.381 and more particularly the adoption of the Nicene sects version of the faith resulted in the beginning of a new era of intellectual intolerance & religious persecution of those deemed heretical in their individual understanding of the meaning of the gospels.
Over the centuries the church has deliberately & understandably whitewashed the story of this turbulent time.
Prior to the events of AD 381 there were many divergent views as to the nature of the Christian God and the relationship between the 'Godhead', the Father, Son & Holy Spirit. The ensuing power struggle for control of this important aspect of this new faith makes for interesting reading as we see the theological schisms open up between the western & eastern parts of the now faltering Roman Empire.
The divine emperor Theodosius, the spiritual & political figurehead of Rome, used his position as head of the church along with the Nicene Creed as the basis for politically controlling the various groups & sub-sets of this newly formed, (relatively) and often volatile religion.
The various sanctioned bishops used their state endorsement to silence & condemn rivals & shore up personal power bases in the wrestle to control this early period of the churches development.
It was interesting to ponder what might have been if the Arians or another sect had prevailed, as to what the face of the church might have been today.
The core idea presented was that through state-endorsed sponsorship, one group or sect prevailed, taking with it any recourse to dissent. Freedom of thought & intellectual discussion of religion became tantamount to heresy and heralded the beginning of a centuries long period of repression. Scientific enquiry,just in its infancy was strangled in the crib and would not emerge in any real form for another 800 years in the western world.
A thought-provoking & challenging read, it leaves the reader with a deep sense of, 'what if' and a clearer understanding of how we have come to have the version of the Christian church that exists today.
March 27, 2026
An interesting investigation by a professed non-academic into the political machinations behind the establishment of Trinitarian orthodoxy as a legally enforceable dogma in late antiquity, and the consequent stifling of philosophical debate.
The catchy title belies the fact that the book surveys far more than the milieu of the late fourth century, though subsequent centuries are examined rather too briefly
The catchy title belies the fact that the book surveys far more than the milieu of the late fourth century, though subsequent centuries are examined rather too briefly
June 13, 2017
I enjoy Freeman's writing style and found this useful to understand better the philosophies and theologies during this turbulent time.
February 24, 2025
Probably more like 3.5-3.75⭐ but I'm rounding up because this is certainly a well-written book. I read it specifically for the discussion around the background and development of the Nicene creed, and found that discussion, particularly as it relates to the Holy Spirit's role, fascinating and compelling. A bit long for me overall, and somewhat rambling in sections, but still recommended.
July 14, 2009
I really enjoyed this book. Yes, it's non-fiction. No, there's not a plot per se. Yes there are a lot of really bizarre names in there.
I should note that I am first of all a Christian and maybe that made it more interesting to me. A non-Christian or someone unsure of their beliefs might come away from this book a little more cynical and unsure. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that following the period in which Christ's original apostles spread the gospel there was a falling away from the truth- an apostasy- and that the truth was not restored to the Earth until 1820.
As I read this book, which I felt was very well laid out, I think I would have given it the title "The Fall of Night". The author is trying to show that open discussion and free thinking ended with events in and around 381 a.d. within the Roman Empire. As I read, I saw the apostasy crashing down on Europe. It was a fascinating book, and those familiar with the Middle Ages will see the beginnings of that period. Accounts from the time are used and some of the 'characters' become very real. Not least of my discoveries was that the Nicene Creed isn't what I thought, nor was it formulated completely in Nicaea.
To be frank, I think the preface and conclusion sections could be skipped. I am not naive enough to think that the rest of the book is not colored by the author's perspective and goals in writing the book, but those two sections did nothing but lower my opinion of the author. The points he sums up in the conclusion I feel are made very persuasively by the rest of the book, and the preface is mostly about why he wrote it. However, reading them will perhaps help the reader to be aware of his agenda and thus enjoy the book a bit more.
I should note that I am first of all a Christian and maybe that made it more interesting to me. A non-Christian or someone unsure of their beliefs might come away from this book a little more cynical and unsure. As a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I believe that following the period in which Christ's original apostles spread the gospel there was a falling away from the truth- an apostasy- and that the truth was not restored to the Earth until 1820.
As I read this book, which I felt was very well laid out, I think I would have given it the title "The Fall of Night". The author is trying to show that open discussion and free thinking ended with events in and around 381 a.d. within the Roman Empire. As I read, I saw the apostasy crashing down on Europe. It was a fascinating book, and those familiar with the Middle Ages will see the beginnings of that period. Accounts from the time are used and some of the 'characters' become very real. Not least of my discoveries was that the Nicene Creed isn't what I thought, nor was it formulated completely in Nicaea.
To be frank, I think the preface and conclusion sections could be skipped. I am not naive enough to think that the rest of the book is not colored by the author's perspective and goals in writing the book, but those two sections did nothing but lower my opinion of the author. The points he sums up in the conclusion I feel are made very persuasively by the rest of the book, and the preface is mostly about why he wrote it. However, reading them will perhaps help the reader to be aware of his agenda and thus enjoy the book a bit more.
February 4, 2009
In AD 381, Theodosius, emperor of the eastern Roman empire, issued a decree in which all his subjects were required to subscribe to a belief in the Trinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This edict brought to an end a lively and wide-ranging debate about the nature of God, and basically defined Christianity in the strict way that we all know it today. It was the first time in a thousand years of Greco-Roman civilization free thought was unambiguously suppressed.
Yet for some reason, most history books claim that this decision was reached by a Church consensus. Freeman explores the reasons behind this historical coverup.
Yet for some reason, most history books claim that this decision was reached by a Church consensus. Freeman explores the reasons behind this historical coverup.
August 28, 2026
How did we get to where we are today? How did the world—or at least the Western world, the focus of “381 AD”--adopt monotheism? Within the post-BCE historical narrative, there are obvious names one throws around such as Pontius Pilate, Constantine, Augustine, and a slew of others (for starers and ignoring chronological order we’ve Abelard, Spinoza, Mendelssohn, and even the rather unknown outside of some Jewish circles at least Solomon Maimon (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/the-au..., and Maimonides too). And of course there’s more...many more. In fact, Christianity in particular and how it both held together (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/europe...) and collapsed (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/the-hi...) the Roman Empire is one of the biggest ‘success’ (depending on one’s viewpoint) stories of the modern world. One author, however, may agree with the broadstrokes of his forefather historians, but also believes one figure—a certain Roman emperor and no, not the aforementioned Constantine and certainly not the infamous Julian the Apostate—may have been the real cause for such a drastic shift in Roman society. His name? Theodosius. Our author’s basic claim?
The subtitle of this book is important and thus I state it here: “Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State” One can’t really understand what was at stake, what was changed, and how that change affected most *everything* until one has some backstory. This means even though the book heavily is about Emperor Theodosius, you do get what otherwise would be considered ‘filler’ material but here, ‘filler’ in only name only. The third chapter, ‘Free Speech in the Classical World’, obviously is not about events in the 4th century—at least not the CE kind—but its influence was still immense. After all, only about 100 years prior Plotinus left his mark (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/plotin...) and while his Neoplatonic view may have found harmonization within the Christian world, as time has shown, other philosophers from his time and earlier remained major influences as well. But, as we learn, a problem came into being:
And there’s more:
The big issue is clear: free speech versus monotheism. A diktat from above enforcing the doctrine that grew out of Greek mystery cults onto a society that may not be entirely ready—if ever—to *fully* accept it. The savior of the Roman Empire or the last jab into the gut that spills out its end? The crux of the book in a nutshell.
As someone who is not Christian reading about the early centuries of Christianity, I found the information provided here to be very useful. This book thus works out greatly as a gateway into early church history and/or another look at how the Roman Empire ended and dark ages—yes, dark ages as intellectual curiosity really did seem to hit rock bottom—began. Questions were answered, others not. Curiosity remains piqued. And as a warning, for those devoutly Christian, it may be wise to stop here: The sheer amount of debates, gatherings, intrareligious pogroms all to address what appears to be a major contradiction that nobody wants to admit seems to have led to even more confusion. Can a man be God? Can God feel pain? Can God die? Enforcing a rigid interpretation of this as Theodosius did seemed to *not* provide an answer to the question and all but squelched free speech among the few who could make use of it. It also led to a ton of strife and at least one surprisingly on point parody of the whole situation in an overlooked historical fantasy book by Umberto Eco I read just the other month (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/baudol...). I don’t know where I stand on this era, but I do know a lot more about it thanks to this book.
“What is certain is that, in the west, the historical reality, that the Nicene Trinity was imposed from above on the Church by...[E]mperor [Theodosius], disappeared from the record. A harmonised version of what happened at the Council of Constantinople, highlighting a consensus for which there is little historical evidence, concealed the enforcement of the doctrine of the Nicene Trinity through the medium of imperial legislation. The aim of this book has been to reveal what has been concealed.”
Freeman, Charles. A.D. 381: Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State (p. 204). ABRAMS Press. Kindle Edition.
The subtitle of this book is important and thus I state it here: “Heretics, Pagans, and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State” One can’t really understand what was at stake, what was changed, and how that change affected most *everything* until one has some backstory. This means even though the book heavily is about Emperor Theodosius, you do get what otherwise would be considered ‘filler’ material but here, ‘filler’ in only name only. The third chapter, ‘Free Speech in the Classical World’, obviously is not about events in the 4th century—at least not the CE kind—but its influence was still immense. After all, only about 100 years prior Plotinus left his mark (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/plotin...) and while his Neoplatonic view may have found harmonization within the Christian world, as time has shown, other philosophers from his time and earlier remained major influences as well. But, as we learn, a problem came into being:
“So here was a contradiction - a society that normally tolerated free debate was persecuting one of its minorities.” (page 36)
And there’s more:
“However, [according to Porphyry] Christians have erred in making Jesus divine, as in doing so, they have broken with tradition and have defied the teachings of philosophers, lawgivers and emperors (and, by implication, Jews) who have established that a human being cannot be divine.” (also page 36)
The big issue is clear: free speech versus monotheism. A diktat from above enforcing the doctrine that grew out of Greek mystery cults onto a society that may not be entirely ready—if ever—to *fully* accept it. The savior of the Roman Empire or the last jab into the gut that spills out its end? The crux of the book in a nutshell.
As someone who is not Christian reading about the early centuries of Christianity, I found the information provided here to be very useful. This book thus works out greatly as a gateway into early church history and/or another look at how the Roman Empire ended and dark ages—yes, dark ages as intellectual curiosity really did seem to hit rock bottom—began. Questions were answered, others not. Curiosity remains piqued. And as a warning, for those devoutly Christian, it may be wise to stop here: The sheer amount of debates, gatherings, intrareligious pogroms all to address what appears to be a major contradiction that nobody wants to admit seems to have led to even more confusion. Can a man be God? Can God feel pain? Can God die? Enforcing a rigid interpretation of this as Theodosius did seemed to *not* provide an answer to the question and all but squelched free speech among the few who could make use of it. It also led to a ton of strife and at least one surprisingly on point parody of the whole situation in an overlooked historical fantasy book by Umberto Eco I read just the other month (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/baudol...). I don’t know where I stand on this era, but I do know a lot more about it thanks to this book.
October 1, 2022
Charles Freeman does a good job in this book of inspiring me to know my facts. I’ve already purchased some writings of the Cappadocian fathers based on some of the statements he made, and I do not feel I can adequately respond without a historical context which may take decades to develop. His knowledge of the subject matter is impeccable and requires a learned mind to refute.
With all that having been said, the book was not dull. It tells the story from Nicaea to Constantinople and its aftermath. This episode of church history is brought to life as he eloquently explained how the church holds Trinitarianism so dogmatically in its faith. His main villain is Theodosius, the emperor who demanded and presided over the second ecumenical council in 381. Before this time, a certain amount of liberty was granted to those in the intellectual community, but a series of events Theodosius orchestrated led to the stifling of free speech and eventually the disintegration of intellectual thought.
The “series of events” include (but may not be limited to): changing posts for the bishop of Constantinople just days after entering the city himself, declaring non-Nicaean clergy illegitimate, calling a second council in his capital but not inviting those who disagreed theologically, holding the council with his newly appointed bishop who stood down because the participants were so unruly (despite adherence to the “correct” doctrine), not immediately publishing the results of the council [i.e., the Creed of Constantinople] because he knew it unpopular among the locals in the city (Freeman claims the creed was not published until after the Council of Calcedon in 451), issuing edicts to enforce the new Trinitarian doctrine of Constantinople, and persecuting those who refuse to accept, Christians, Jews, and pagans alike.
A truth that Freeman was able to hit is how one is quickly denounced in the faith once he/she is known to refute the Trinitarian doctrine established in the four councils (Nicaea, 325; Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; and Chalcedon, 451). It was a subject left alone during the Protestant Reformation, or else the new doctrines of Luther and Calvin (et al.) may have dematerialized before they began. One glaring hole is how the doctrine was developed in the East but Freeman describes very little of its effect in the Eastern world. He emphasizes Augustine’s role in propagating the Constantinopolitan doctrine but also decries Augustine’s inaccessibility to the events in 381. Gregory I, Freeman says, rewrote the history to a mostly illiterate West, and the consequences affected free thought for a millennium. Meanwhile, in the East, Justinian tried to reunite the empire, but Freeman ignores most of its history and theology.
While suspecting that many of his historical facts are mainly true, the backbiting among the learned elite in the ancient world reminds one of modern social media trying to force someone to agree with topics where people tend to disagree. He makes many assumptions that I will generally accept; however, I would not carry them to the extremes that Freeman has done in his book.
Overall, it was a great read and easy to follow. He breaks down the components of his ideas so they are easy to understand. I would not recommend it as an introductory work, but readers with some foreknowledge on the subject, a general understanding of fourth-century politics, and some interest in the matter may hang on to their britches and relearn an interesting history from the ancient Church.
With all that having been said, the book was not dull. It tells the story from Nicaea to Constantinople and its aftermath. This episode of church history is brought to life as he eloquently explained how the church holds Trinitarianism so dogmatically in its faith. His main villain is Theodosius, the emperor who demanded and presided over the second ecumenical council in 381. Before this time, a certain amount of liberty was granted to those in the intellectual community, but a series of events Theodosius orchestrated led to the stifling of free speech and eventually the disintegration of intellectual thought.
The “series of events” include (but may not be limited to): changing posts for the bishop of Constantinople just days after entering the city himself, declaring non-Nicaean clergy illegitimate, calling a second council in his capital but not inviting those who disagreed theologically, holding the council with his newly appointed bishop who stood down because the participants were so unruly (despite adherence to the “correct” doctrine), not immediately publishing the results of the council [i.e., the Creed of Constantinople] because he knew it unpopular among the locals in the city (Freeman claims the creed was not published until after the Council of Calcedon in 451), issuing edicts to enforce the new Trinitarian doctrine of Constantinople, and persecuting those who refuse to accept, Christians, Jews, and pagans alike.
A truth that Freeman was able to hit is how one is quickly denounced in the faith once he/she is known to refute the Trinitarian doctrine established in the four councils (Nicaea, 325; Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; and Chalcedon, 451). It was a subject left alone during the Protestant Reformation, or else the new doctrines of Luther and Calvin (et al.) may have dematerialized before they began. One glaring hole is how the doctrine was developed in the East but Freeman describes very little of its effect in the Eastern world. He emphasizes Augustine’s role in propagating the Constantinopolitan doctrine but also decries Augustine’s inaccessibility to the events in 381. Gregory I, Freeman says, rewrote the history to a mostly illiterate West, and the consequences affected free thought for a millennium. Meanwhile, in the East, Justinian tried to reunite the empire, but Freeman ignores most of its history and theology.
While suspecting that many of his historical facts are mainly true, the backbiting among the learned elite in the ancient world reminds one of modern social media trying to force someone to agree with topics where people tend to disagree. He makes many assumptions that I will generally accept; however, I would not carry them to the extremes that Freeman has done in his book.
Overall, it was a great read and easy to follow. He breaks down the components of his ideas so they are easy to understand. I would not recommend it as an introductory work, but readers with some foreknowledge on the subject, a general understanding of fourth-century politics, and some interest in the matter may hang on to their britches and relearn an interesting history from the ancient Church.
August 2, 2024
Covered much of the same ground as “When Jesus Became God” (Rubenstein) and “Constantine’s Sword” (Carroll), but provides some enhanced perspective on a few points. Not as well written as those two books, though. This was somewhat dry. A few summary points:
• The year 381 was essentially the end of freedom of expression. There were different mindsets and world views between the east and west. Eastern (Greek) traditions of civil discourse, debate, and reason went against the western (Roman) adherence to high authority. The council wasn’t an agreement on belief; it didn’t even represent most of the bishops. What they came out with was essentially what the leaders could get the emperor to enforce with the power of law (the “winners” got tax breaks and could take over the churches of anyone with opposing (heretical) views. The “losers” had to forfeit their churches, sometimes their homes, and sometimes their lives). Before that, people could debate elements of faith, like the Trinity. But afterwards, all debate came to an end, and it affected both religious life and secular thought. E.g., Disease was no longer seen as something to be studied in hope of finding a cure, but as a form of divine reward or punishment for one’s belief, and thus not open to scientific investigation.
• The threat of hell was used to extract obedience. Lost was the original Christian concept of a forgiving and loving god. He was replaced by a vengeful entity who planned to send most of mankind to hell.
• What was heresy and what was orthodoxy were defined largely as a result of power struggles within the church, with opposing factions competing for imperial support. “…the outcome was an authoritarianism based on irrational principles, which presided over the demise of ancient traditions of reasoned debate.” By 6th century, Greek philosophical glory was heretical. Logical thought and debate were dead. Book burnings were held for books that didn’t fall in line with state-sanctioned interpretations of the scripture. Faith became an impediment to rational thought.
• Articles of faith were being proclaimed as articles of truth. Enforcing those “truths” by state law led to a host of atrocities and wars. This is not what god intended! The religious wars of 1618-1648 had a devastating effect on the population of Europe, with numbers falling to a third of what they had been pre-war. It was only after people became weary and horrified by the relentless atrocities that they realized God wasn’t going to signal which church teaches the true faith by awarding one side a clear victory. Religious toleration was the only way to move forward.
• We know that Christians adopted much from the pagan world (an attempt by the Christian leaders to humor their religious proclivities.) E.g., early Christian churches were simple and plain, but Romans were used to jeweled and gold trappings in their temples. Hence, we have opulent Catholic churches. Lighting lamps at shrines was considered a detestable pagan custom. When paganism was outlawed, the new (forced) converts started putting candles and lamps in front of Christian altars. Jerome excused it by claiming the pagan practice was acceptable “when done for Christian purposes.” The Romans were accustomed to deifying human beings (emperors becoming gods). Christianity had to spread to the Greek world before Christ could be seen as divine, because deifying a mortal person was blasphemous to Jews. The Christians took language deifying emperors and used it almost verbatim in writing about Christ.
• The year 381 was essentially the end of freedom of expression. There were different mindsets and world views between the east and west. Eastern (Greek) traditions of civil discourse, debate, and reason went against the western (Roman) adherence to high authority. The council wasn’t an agreement on belief; it didn’t even represent most of the bishops. What they came out with was essentially what the leaders could get the emperor to enforce with the power of law (the “winners” got tax breaks and could take over the churches of anyone with opposing (heretical) views. The “losers” had to forfeit their churches, sometimes their homes, and sometimes their lives). Before that, people could debate elements of faith, like the Trinity. But afterwards, all debate came to an end, and it affected both religious life and secular thought. E.g., Disease was no longer seen as something to be studied in hope of finding a cure, but as a form of divine reward or punishment for one’s belief, and thus not open to scientific investigation.
• The threat of hell was used to extract obedience. Lost was the original Christian concept of a forgiving and loving god. He was replaced by a vengeful entity who planned to send most of mankind to hell.
• What was heresy and what was orthodoxy were defined largely as a result of power struggles within the church, with opposing factions competing for imperial support. “…the outcome was an authoritarianism based on irrational principles, which presided over the demise of ancient traditions of reasoned debate.” By 6th century, Greek philosophical glory was heretical. Logical thought and debate were dead. Book burnings were held for books that didn’t fall in line with state-sanctioned interpretations of the scripture. Faith became an impediment to rational thought.
• Articles of faith were being proclaimed as articles of truth. Enforcing those “truths” by state law led to a host of atrocities and wars. This is not what god intended! The religious wars of 1618-1648 had a devastating effect on the population of Europe, with numbers falling to a third of what they had been pre-war. It was only after people became weary and horrified by the relentless atrocities that they realized God wasn’t going to signal which church teaches the true faith by awarding one side a clear victory. Religious toleration was the only way to move forward.
• We know that Christians adopted much from the pagan world (an attempt by the Christian leaders to humor their religious proclivities.) E.g., early Christian churches were simple and plain, but Romans were used to jeweled and gold trappings in their temples. Hence, we have opulent Catholic churches. Lighting lamps at shrines was considered a detestable pagan custom. When paganism was outlawed, the new (forced) converts started putting candles and lamps in front of Christian altars. Jerome excused it by claiming the pagan practice was acceptable “when done for Christian purposes.” The Romans were accustomed to deifying human beings (emperors becoming gods). Christianity had to spread to the Greek world before Christ could be seen as divine, because deifying a mortal person was blasphemous to Jews. The Christians took language deifying emperors and used it almost verbatim in writing about Christ.
November 25, 2019
An excellent book, but let me take care of two points that kept it from getting five stars. Both points are errata. The first is small, bordering on the trivial. Freeman states in his preface that after Theodosius I decree in 381, wiping out Constantine's decree of religious tolerance (Edict of Milan) in 313, religious tolerance ended in Europe until the seventeenth century. His error is that religious tolerance had a brief ressurengce in Europe in the sixteenth century through the Edict of Torda in Transylvania/Hungary in January 28, 1568. It was short-lived, however.
The second error is in discussion of Michael Servetus and his persecution by the French Inquisition and Calvin's Geneva. Freeman says that Servetus was executed as a heretic for his book, On The Errors of the Trinity, which was his first book, but it was actually his second book, The Restoration of Christianity.
Those two points out of the way, Freeman's A.D. 381 is an important book tracing the early church period and the fall of the Roman Empire in the west. I was surprised by how much I learned of this history, which I had assumed I knew. If you are not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church or the first four councils, this book is for you. In it, you can see how valuable the separation of church and state really is and how badly and easily the state can censure religious expression it does not like.
This is an important work for Catholics and Protestants who have accepted, unexamined, the creeds of the church. As a religious humanist, my repugnance of the Christian church (writ large) is affirmed, again. My takeaway is that the creeds and the power of the church were enabled by the power of the empire. Lord Acton's famous quotation on power is applicable here.
The second error is in discussion of Michael Servetus and his persecution by the French Inquisition and Calvin's Geneva. Freeman says that Servetus was executed as a heretic for his book, On The Errors of the Trinity, which was his first book, but it was actually his second book, The Restoration of Christianity.
Those two points out of the way, Freeman's A.D. 381 is an important book tracing the early church period and the fall of the Roman Empire in the west. I was surprised by how much I learned of this history, which I had assumed I knew. If you are not a fan of the Roman Catholic Church or the first four councils, this book is for you. In it, you can see how valuable the separation of church and state really is and how badly and easily the state can censure religious expression it does not like.
This is an important work for Catholics and Protestants who have accepted, unexamined, the creeds of the church. As a religious humanist, my repugnance of the Christian church (writ large) is affirmed, again. My takeaway is that the creeds and the power of the church were enabled by the power of the empire. Lord Acton's famous quotation on power is applicable here.
August 4, 2026
Finally, some insight into my query, why is Christianity the predominant religion in Western Europe, and by extension, the US? Turns out a Roman emperor (Theodosius) at the behest of multiple catholic popes/priests, made it illegal to be anything but Christian. ("Once the state had decided to intervene in support of orthodoxy and in opposition to heresy, the outcome was an authoritarianism based on irrational principles, which presided over the demise of ancient traditions of reasoned debate.") Heresy was defined as anything that was NOT Christian. More importantly, this was the end of any debate these topics. And even the definition of Christian was a political ping pong ball. ("Burning alive, the traditional Roman punishment for counterfeiting coins, was adopted for those who 'counterfeited' the teachings of Christ") I knew about the Council of Nicea (sp?), which turned out to be the first of 4 councils intended to answer (decree answers) some of the questions that were going on at the time, mostly concerning the Trinity. And the historical record was "corrected" to make it appear that the councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon) were done entirely by the clergy with no government involvement. Fact is that the Nicene Trinity was imposed by "imperial legislation". An interesting read, but sometimes difficult to keep up with the emperors, consulates, popes, priests, etc. and the familial relationships that existed. This was compounded by the fact that, by this time, the Roman Empire had been divided into East and West. I learned a lot of stuff from this book.
April 7, 2020
This book is an interesting review of the situation in the reign of Theodosius, with a thesis that the council of Constantinople led to a shutting down of an age of toleration and critical thinking, ushering in the dark ages.
There is much to commend the book, and the case is well argued using suitable source material. However, to my interested layman's mind (I have read a fair bit on the history of the age), the thesis fails ultimately because of the tendency to focus too much on some specifics and to think more highly of the previous situation than is deserved. The golden age of critical thinking and toleration is asserted, but it is not at all clear that such really ever existed. Neither is it clear that the decrees of Theodosius can be blamed for closing it down.
I note the review above by Dr Richard Price, which reveals some specific issues. As this is beyond my field, I would defer to his knowledge - guardedly because we should never believe anyone just because they are an authority. But the reader of this book must ultimately decided for themselves whether the author has actually discovered something the other academics have all overlooked or whether he has perhaps overstated the case a little.
Ultimately though this is a very interesting book as a starting point of a greater debate and re-evaluation about the early church history. Why should we let the academic world have all the fun with that debate?
There is much to commend the book, and the case is well argued using suitable source material. However, to my interested layman's mind (I have read a fair bit on the history of the age), the thesis fails ultimately because of the tendency to focus too much on some specifics and to think more highly of the previous situation than is deserved. The golden age of critical thinking and toleration is asserted, but it is not at all clear that such really ever existed. Neither is it clear that the decrees of Theodosius can be blamed for closing it down.
I note the review above by Dr Richard Price, which reveals some specific issues. As this is beyond my field, I would defer to his knowledge - guardedly because we should never believe anyone just because they are an authority. But the reader of this book must ultimately decided for themselves whether the author has actually discovered something the other academics have all overlooked or whether he has perhaps overstated the case a little.
Ultimately though this is a very interesting book as a starting point of a greater debate and re-evaluation about the early church history. Why should we let the academic world have all the fun with that debate?
July 20, 2024
As a follow-up to Freeman's 'Closing of the Western Mind', I think this did the superior job, largely because with a shorter book and much narrower focus, it was much easier to follow a thesis and lines of argumentation. Biographies of major players were not shied away from, but weren't expanded beyond what was necessary for their role, streamlining the book and keeping the intriguing tone going all the way through.
Due to the narrower focus, I felt a much more narrative atmosphere than that of Closing, and certainly learned a lot more. I will say that perhaps the only slight issue with the book is that it doesn't always have the easiest time connecting intellectual history with military and political history. Still, it has a much easier time than Closing by making the Council of Constantinople the centre, even if it's a little tricky to follow when which followers and ideas became ascendant. But really, that's a fault of history - establishing Christian orthodoxy was nowhere near as smooth a process as so many theologians like to pretend.
Due to the narrower focus, I felt a much more narrative atmosphere than that of Closing, and certainly learned a lot more. I will say that perhaps the only slight issue with the book is that it doesn't always have the easiest time connecting intellectual history with military and political history. Still, it has a much easier time than Closing by making the Council of Constantinople the centre, even if it's a little tricky to follow when which followers and ideas became ascendant. But really, that's a fault of history - establishing Christian orthodoxy was nowhere near as smooth a process as so many theologians like to pretend.
August 18, 2020
٣٨١ ميلادي السنة التي انعقد فيها المجمع المسكوني الثاني للمسيحيين في القسطنطينية وفيه تم التأكيد على عقيدة التثليث المسيحية، التي أقرت في مجمع نيقية السابقة له.
المؤلف يناقش الأحداث والشخصيات التي صاحبت هذا المجمع ، فالمؤلف يرى أن العقيدة التي أقرت في مجمع نيقية لم تفعل وتنشر بالقوة حتى انعقاد مجمع القسطنطينية هذا، والذي أقر العقيدة وربطها بالسلطة الإمبراطورية الرومانية. المؤلف يحاجج بأن الإمبراطور ثيودوسيوس الأول كان صاحب التأثير الأكبر على هذا المجمع لينتج عنه رفض جميع الأفكار المسيحية الأخرى والتي كانت منتشرة بين الناس على قول المؤلف.
المؤلف لا يخفي نظرته السلبية لهذا المجمع والمنتصرين فيه فهو يتهمهم بأنهم أحد أسباب ضعف العقل العلمي في أوروبا الغربية. فهم بعد انتصارهم هذا وإقرار السلطة الإمبراطورية للعقيدة الناتجة عن المجمع، أخذوا يفرضون رأيهم بالقوة على الجميع ويرفضون أي تفكير موضوعي أو علمي قد يوصل إلى نتائج مخالفه.
المؤلف يناقش الأحداث والشخصيات التي صاحبت هذا المجمع ، فالمؤلف يرى أن العقيدة التي أقرت في مجمع نيقية لم تفعل وتنشر بالقوة حتى انعقاد مجمع القسطنطينية هذا، والذي أقر العقيدة وربطها بالسلطة الإمبراطورية الرومانية. المؤلف يحاجج بأن الإمبراطور ثيودوسيوس الأول كان صاحب التأثير الأكبر على هذا المجمع لينتج عنه رفض جميع الأفكار المسيحية الأخرى والتي كانت منتشرة بين الناس على قول المؤلف.
المؤلف لا يخفي نظرته السلبية لهذا المجمع والمنتصرين فيه فهو يتهمهم بأنهم أحد أسباب ضعف العقل العلمي في أوروبا الغربية. فهم بعد انتصارهم هذا وإقرار السلطة الإمبراطورية للعقيدة الناتجة عن المجمع، أخذوا يفرضون رأيهم بالقوة على الجميع ويرفضون أي تفكير موضوعي أو علمي قد يوصل إلى نتائج مخالفه.
January 17, 2019
The problem with much of these books about the late Roman/early Dark ages is that the little that is known about the period is recycled. The author does a good job with the information that is available and makes the subject interesting and easy to understand.
Theodosius finished what Constantine the Great began and for whatever reason was never appreciated for it. I recommend this short book to anyone who want to know how Christianity became a world religion.
Theodosius finished what Constantine the Great began and for whatever reason was never appreciated for it. I recommend this short book to anyone who want to know how Christianity became a world religion.
April 3, 2023
Theodosius ended the classical world
Freeman does an excellent job at demonstrating the cataclysmic change begun under the imperial auspices of Theodosius I in 381 when his support of Nicene Trinitarian norms ended free debate on God's nature and mankind's relationship with the Gods. It led, as Freeman accurately describes it, to the closing of the western mind.
Freeman does an excellent job at demonstrating the cataclysmic change begun under the imperial auspices of Theodosius I in 381 when his support of Nicene Trinitarian norms ended free debate on God's nature and mankind's relationship with the Gods. It led, as Freeman accurately describes it, to the closing of the western mind.
Read
August 8, 2023A scholarly look at the politics behind the Roman Emperor Theodosius I's drive to establish uniform Christian beliefs, particularly regarding the Trinity. Though he never formally attacked ancient paganism, he did ignore attacks on Hellenistic temples by Christian zealots, setting the stage for future persecution of adherants to the empire's longstanding pagan beliefs.
October 13, 2025
I think this book does a pretty job providing sufficient evidence to support its central hypothesis. The main issue here is the same with any book that challenges conventional view, especially with mainstream religion: those who need to read this probably aren’t the main ones doing so. What a shame.
January 1, 2022
A might meaty read but excellent expose on historical events that have shaped even the most modern of churches today. I love the conclusion of how the conversation has been quietened to not even a whisper and what a shame that we can’t even talk about these things any more.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 27, 2023
need prior knowledge to understand
This book is not a primer for understanding the Nicean Creed. The arguments for or against the Creed continue today. Just recite it in church each Sunday and don’t try to make any sense of it
This book is not a primer for understanding the Nicean Creed. The arguments for or against the Creed continue today. Just recite it in church each Sunday and don’t try to make any sense of it
November 17, 2024
Didn’t read it all- about a third- because the point is taken and I don’t need all the details: a recounting of how Roman emperors and early bishops worked together to unite church and state and essentially close down freedom of thought in religion.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 68 reviews