A History of Christianity

by Paul Johnson

First published in 1976, Paul Johnson’s exceptional study of Christianity has been loved and widely hailed for its intensive research, writing, and magnitude—“a tour de force, one of the most ambitious surveys of the history of Christianity ever attempted and perhaps the most radical” ( New York Review of Books ).

In a highly readable companion to books on faith and history, the scholar and author Johnson has illuminated the Christian world and its fascinating history in a way that no other has. Johnson takes off in the year 49 with his namesake the apostle Paul. Thus beginning an ambitious quest to paint the centuries since the founding of a little-known ‘Jesus Sect’, A History of Christianity explores to a great degree the evolution of the Western world. With an unbiased and overall optimistic tone, Johnson traces the fantastic scope of the consequent sects of Christianity and the people who followed them. Information drawn from extensive and varied sources from around the world makes this history as credible as it is reliable. Invaluable understanding of the framework of modern Christianity—and its trials and tribulations throughout history—has never before been contained in such a captivating work.

Genres: History, Religion, Christianity, Nonfiction, Christian, Church History, Theology

576 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1976

About the author

Paul Johnson works as a historian, journalist and author. He was educated at Stonyhurst School in Clitheroe, Lancashire and Magdalen College, Oxford, and first came to prominence in the 1950s as a journalist writing for, and later editing, the New Statesman magazine. He has also written for leading newspapers and magazines in Britain, the US and Europe.

Paul Johnson has published over 40 books including A History of Christianity (1979), A History of the English People (1987), Intellectuals (1988), The Birth of the Modern: World Society, 1815—1830 (1991), Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the Year 2000 (1999), A History of the American People (2000), A History of the Jews (2001) and Art: A New History (2003) as well as biographies of Elizabeth I (1974), Napoleon (2002), George Washington (2005) and Pope John Paul II (1982).

Reviews

[Paul Bryant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Johnson’s big dense history of all of Christianity from Day One up to 17th May 1975 when he finished it is mostly excellent although it would help if you’re really interested in the history of Christianity because this book is not about anything else.

REVIEW OF PAGES 1 TO 264

*

1500 YEARS OF HERETICS A-BLAZING, EMPIRES A-TUMBLING, POPES A-POPING, MONKS A-MONKING AND CRUSADERS A-MOK CONDENSED INTO 20 BULLET POINTS FOR THE TIME-CONSCIOUS




1) After Jesus, there was a lot of confusion but everyone was expecting the End of the World and the return of Jesus in a year or so, so that was understandable.

PJ writes alarmingly :

When we turn to the earliest Christian sources, we enter a terrifying jungle of scholarly contradictions ... Analysing this mass of evidence in the search for the perfect text is probably self-defeating. Beyond a certain point, scholarship tends to raise as many problems as it solves.

Mr Johnson’s prose is like a galleon in full sail, which occasionally opens the hatches and lets fly with a cannonball zinger.

Of course I am talking here about zingers in the context of the historicity of early Christianity. I don't suggest you open your conversation with the attractive brunette at the next Christmas party by saying

"You know, the way I see it, scholarship tends to raise as many problems as it solves".

That will go down like a rat in the rum punch. However, it did crystallise a Christian conundrum for me. Was Christianity what Christ said and what Christ was, or was Christianity what that loose aggregation of people who formed the Jesus cult after his death said it was, or imagined it was?

Indeed, was it this group, centering on but not limited to the disciples, who created the entire religion? I don’t think this is a question we can ever resolve and I deduce that Mr Johnson would agree with me. I think it’s a matter of faith that the words you read attributed to Christ in, say, the Sermon on the Mount, were actually spoken, in one context or another, by Jesus. People from the ancient world did not confuse truth with veracity – if they thought “this is what he meant” they would cheerfully invent the words and put them in his mouth. That is called writing from a position of faith and that is what all of the Bible is.

Another Zinger

If we reduce our knowledge of Jesus to points where there is unanimity, plausibility and an absence of objections, we are left with a phenomenon almost devoid of significance.

I love it! Hmm, but is that statement itself devoid of significance. I shall test it by substituting something else for the word Jesus. How about Elvis? Or.... Trump? No, it's impossible to even imagine Trump being devoid of significance.

2) Paul (as in Saint Paul, not me) tried to whip the early Christians into shape. He convinced them that this Jesus thing was for gentiles and not just for Jews.

3) The Romans didn’t like them but the Christians were just one annoying shrill dubious cult among ten million.

4) But then they got strangely popular and some Romans started getting tough. I can’t say lions were involved all that often, but the idea of lions was certainly in the air. Lions were mooted.


5) They finally decided on a canon of scripture but really there was no such thing as orthodoxy for a couple of centuries, which is like two hundred years of uncertainty. Christianity was at this point like a religious pick ‘n’ mix. Some Christians worshipped the Sun. It says Son of God, you idiots, not Sun of God! D’oh! Then there was docetism, pelagianism, this ism, that ism, ism ism ism.

All we are saying is give Jeez a chance.

6) Constantine the Emperor was a weird creep but decided that the Christians were probably on balance theologically correct. So it became the state religion. For a religion, that was like winning the X Factor. Megabucks!

7) So Christianity moved into the driving seat. it spread out. It felt pretty comfortable. It was pleased with itself. Hey, fourth century baby – this is living! Tell you what – let’s lash a dozen slaves to a chariot and ride that rig down to Caesarea and hit the altars! Yeah baby!

8) The western Roman Empire disintegrated. There wasn’t a great big war. The unlettered and probably unwashed Gauls, Vandals, Vizigoths (yes, even then) and Liverpudlians moved into imperial territory and couldn’t be got rid of. In the end the Romans couldn’t be bothered. The Empire was so tatty and flaking by the end of the fifth century that they just thought aw, sod it – let’s just sell up and move to Crete. They got those unspoiled beaches there. Yeah, baby!

9) The Christian church by that time had vast tracts of land. And they did really well with the tomatoes and lettuces and herbaceous borders, and they kept a few sheep. Any vandals that came near, the gardeners just shooed them away – Oi! You can’t walk there! That’s me marrows! Plus, the vandals and gauls and Liverpudlians basically knew nothing – nothing! So if you had half a brain, the Jesus gang was the only show in town. So the Dark Ages were pretty cool for all the bishops, monks, prebendaries, popes and their plumpacious minions.

10) Dig the size of some of these monasteries! In 1150 the monastery of Goldenkron in Bohemia owned an area of 1000 square miles, containing about 70 villages. The monks were making money hand over fist with their agricultural surpluses. They were rich, baby! But they couldn’t spend it! Except on cathedrals. And writing materials. And relics. (That's like old toes and fingers. Gruesome. See below. )

11) The monks didn’t create, they preserved. They copied and copied and copied. They were the printing before books. It was mostly Church fathers and Bibles, but some secular Greek literature crept in too. Absolutely no Stephanie Meyer. In the middle of their vast estates they had a feeling of doom. The text they were working on today might be the only one which survives! In some cases, they were dead right. Spooky or what?

12). Today we have the drug trade, in those Dark Ages they had relics. The singed eyebrow of St Agnes of Skegness was more than you could afford. But listen, I can get you a toenail from Joseph of Arimathea’s brother’s wife’s stepson. What? Course it’s genuine! What do you take me for?

13) During the Dark Ages and the Middle Ages the church became the western world’s admin department AND legal department. They were the go-to guys. So, there was this ongoing tussle about where authority came from – from God to God’s Vicar and THEN to the emperors and kings, or directly from God to the emperors and kings. Anyhow, the Church “began to settle vast areas of ordinary life in great and expensive detail… the rights, duties, payments and obligations of the humblest parish priest and his congregation; the dress, education, status, education, crimes and punishments of clerics; charity, alms, usury, wills, graveyards, churches, prayers, masses for the dead, burials, marriage, inheritance, legitimacy, sex and morals.” Whew!

14) This led to some resistance amongst the laity, and, sad to say, some punch-ups. This is what you should yell out next time you barge into a church whose vicar you particularly dislike :

“Where is that usurer, that simoniac, robber of revenues and insatiate of money who, perverting our king and subverting our kingdom, plunders us to fill the coffers of strangers?” (p 220).

15) By the 11th century, in England, the clergy, with one per cent of the population, disposed of about 25% of the gross national product. In Germany and France the Church owned between one third and one half of all land. I mean, that's bigger than Google.

16) The size of cathedrals was a measure of the vaingloriousness of their founders and builders, in exactly the same way that nowadays capital cities compete with each other for World’s Tallest Skyscraper.

17) After the Dark Ages Christianity became in PJ’s word “mechanized”. There was an obsession with the afterlife. The point of religion was thought to be how it can assure the safe propulsion of your immortal soul into the basket-hoop of eternal bliss. This wasn’t taken lightly. After you died, unless you were a spotless lambkin, your soul was still in contention between bliss and torment. So those with money laid down in their wills that there should be masses conducted for their souls after death, and these masses should be performed on a daily basis. Many hundreds of monks and others were employed in just praying for dead rich people. People thought it worked like that – X amount of prayer will get you Y amount of bliss.

Another example of mechanical Christianity is infant baptism – many examples litter mediaeval literature of the horror felt at the child dying before being baptised. But if you ticked the box, you were okay. Completely mechanical.

And a final third example – the Church laid down punishments called penances for certain sinners, and often this was in the form of fasting. So, for, say, the sin of adultery, you were sentenced to fast on Mondays and Fridays of every week for twelve years. Something like that. In the 7th century there grew up the practise of paying people to perform your penance, and as long as the penance was done by somebody, the sin was forgiven – as you see, a completely mechanical way of thinking. In one ridiculous example one lord got through a seven year fasting penance by paying 840 followers to fast one day each. The job was accomplished in three days. Sin forgiven! Ka-ching!

18) People wanted religion to mean something, though, and not be a series of ridiculous chores. The church had a wild time trying to tame those religious enthusiasts like the flagellants or the millenarian sects who would erupt out of nowhere and take over a town or go on a random crusade. Interestingly, the millennial cults of the middle ages descended into exactly the same kind of fascism as the cults of our time (Branch Davidians, People’s Temple, the Order of St Charbel, many others). The leaders are always men and they just want lots of women, then after they get all the women they want Rolls Royces, which, as they were not available in the 13th century, must have led to some frustration.

19) Speaking of nuns, Paul J says: “Celibate upper-class women, living communally, and with very little to occupy themselves, tended to become eccentric and very difficult to control.” Not sure what to make of that, but I like the use of the word very.

20) Fear of heresy became so great that by the 15th century in Europe possession of the scriptures in any language was forbidden. Imagine that! But we must remember that the Church, almost co-terminous with society in general, was permanently embroiled in a ceaselessly up-bubbling brew of false-messiah crazy-cult lunacy. It was a struggle to hold things together.

Well, after reading up to the 16th century in this book I got Diarmaid MacCulloch's vast history of Christianity. And I thought PJ's book would now be obsolete. But you know what? Diarmid McCulloch may have a way cooler name than Paul Johnson but his book is so much more boring. Boring! So I'm ditching that one and will return to this one.

***


Part 2 of this review is here

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

[Paul Bryant · Rating 5 out of 5]

Review of Pages 1 to 264 is here

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

Here is now the review of pages 265 to 517 or to put it another way from 1511 to 1975

During these 200 years four things happened to Christianity :

1) The Reformation in which the Protestants said rude things about the Pope & stopped sending him Christmas cards

2) The invention of actual science which kind of blasted huge holes in the Bible

3) The First World War

4) Communism and Fascism

All these things demonstrated the impotence of Christianity – the Church could not stop itself splitting; it could not resist the deluge of new information which entirely capsized what every Christian had previously believed; and it could not prevent Christians from murdering each other on a vast scale. During World War One, it was painfully clear that in every country patriotism overwhelmed Christianity :

On one side were ranged Protestant Germany, Catholic Austria, Orthodox Bulgaria and Muslim Turkey. On the other were Protestant Britain, Catholic France and Italy, and Orthodox Russia. … Christian soldiers of all denominations were exhorted to kill each other in the name of their Saviour.

Well, twenty years later, Hitler arrived with his evil gang, and as is well known, the Churches bent over backwards to make nice with him, yes, the same Hitler who said

Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again? Nonsense. Never again. The tale is finished… but we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us. They will betray anything for the same of their miserable little jobs and incomes.

PJ’s section about the Nazi period is great :

The churches continued to greet Nazi victories by ringing their bells, until they were taken away to be melted down

Oh hold on – maybe they weren’t all sleazy supine jackboot kissers : check out this speech by the Pope. He said Nazism was

A satanic spectre… the arrogant apostasy from Jesus Christ, the denial of his doctrine and of his work of redemption, the cult of violence, the idolatry of race and blood, the overthrow of human liberty and dignity

Hey, pretty strong stuff from the Pope…but he waited until June 1945 to say it, when Hitler was dead.

****

Paul Johnson manages in this excellent book to cram the history of this enormously complex religion into a mere 500 pages, mostly without losing the ordinary reader in a welter of theology and weird sect names. He is a great companion, throwing out summaries and judgements boldly and crisply. Here for instance is PJ on the witch craze :

There is no reason to suppose that such a phenomenon as witchcraft ever existed. The myth was on a level with the supposed ritual murders of Christian children, of which the Jews were accused in the 12th century. Witches simply replaced Jews as objects of fear and hatred, and torture supplied “proof” of their existence and malevolence. Witch-hunting could not survive without torture.

I could quote many favourite passages. But enough. Even if I think a one volume history of Christianity is an impossible thing PJ here pretty much does the impossible. I probably shouldn’t like him so much since he’s a “conservative Catholic” according to Wiki. But he never shrinks from putting the boot in where it’s deserved. And he is such good company.

[booklady · Rating 4 out of 5]

Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity” is a sincere and fascinating (and I do mean fascinating*) effort to tell the multifaceted and incredibly complex story of the development of the followers of Jesus Christ. Such competitors as he has—at least those with which I am familiar—tend to veer to either of the two opposite sides of evangelization or vilification. Whether their purposes for writing are conversion, abrogation, shock or tedium aren’t always clear; they could in truth be unaware of their own motives and/or just poor writers. But the fact remains: there are few (if any) good Church histories. There are innumerable controversies and obstacles.

Much of this Mr. Johnson himself addresses in his book and attributes to: the mystery of the person of Jesus and his methods; the personalities and lack of education of his followers; the controversial belief system of the Jewish people into which Jesus was born; their almost constant condition of occupation; the confusing nature of the message Jesus preached; the time gap from when it was initially heard to the first extant writings; the lack of understanding of or acceptance for anything remotely like ‘the historical-critical method’ during the early years of the church—not to mention since; the inability to preserve, store, duplicate or transport written materials for any duration of time; never mind any of the human-on-human persecutions, and the list could continue.

My thoughts as I listened to the problems besetting the accurate recording of early Christianity, enumerated and then described by Mr. Johnson, was not one of skepticism but just the opposite—the fact that we have anything, much less all that that we do—almost 2000 years later—and that there is still so much interest, devotion and controversy, despite all those who have fought and died believing they were doing so in the Name of Jesus—that there are still millions at least attempting to live by his tenants as well die for what he preached, did and who he says he was, would seem to be the Church’s own Testament. Okay, so the story of the Woman caught in Adultery was a late addition to the Gospel. We do not know why the men of the time thought it right to add in the story at this time. Was it a late discovery? From some unexpected find of that era? Nevertheless, it was included.

Are we going to miss the amazing fact that the 4th century Church—a supposedly male dominated organization—chose to include a story in the sacred canon which shows its Divine leader shaming the all-male leadership of his age by mercy towards the most despised of all creatures, a fallen woman, while we quibble because we aren’t privy to its origin and veracity? If we do, we miss the deeper truth, which is what the Holy Spirit has been using the human institution of ‘the Church’ for these past two millennia. Truth uses stories and even sometimes facts for a higher purpose. Factual reporting is not at liberty to manipulate Truth—something our own modern age has forgotten and would do well to remember. Even so, the Gospels are not strictly speaking historical documents and all but the most fundamentalist Christian sects today acknowledge the underlying Truth (the name Jesus applies to Himself) inherent in the Gospels while accepting we cannot verify the factual accuracy of most of what it claims. And yet I return to what I said above: what has been the outcome? Or as Jesus said himself, a tree will be known by its fruits. (cf. Matthew 7:16 and Luke 6:44) A case in point—my rendering of Christ’s words may be argued all day and yet who doesn’t understand the point? Or as grandma would say, the proof is in the pudding. Truth undergirds, supports and gives meaning to factual information—not the other way round.

But this review isn’t meant to be polemical. I’m not interested in convincing readers of said review of my beliefs—and yet how can I write from any other perspective—as much as the consistency, erudition and broadmindedness of the author of this book. Mr. Johnson knows his subject and presents it fairly, ironically, even humorously at points—an extremely dangerous thing where religion is concerned. To counter, the greatest drawback/criticism I can attribute is the datedness of Mr. Johnson’s tome. Originally written in 1976, many will ignore this history given the amount of water which has flowed under the bridge since then. This is indeed unfortunate, for in spite of the numerous modern debates/controversies which have sprung up (many falling as quickly into obscurity as they arose) Mr. Johnson’s presentation of the story has a timeless quality about it. I would like to see him undertake an update before it’s too late. As he was born November 2, 1928, I may be wishing on a star, but barring that, I would like to have one of his closest and most trusted colleagues/students undertake the task.

So without going into more detail, let me just say I thoroughly enjoyed this quick trip through Christian history. Although not a small book or ‘a quick read’ it felt like one of those guided tours through a house you’ve long wanted to visit where you are rushed from room to room and leave feeling short-changed. I wanted more. I want to go back ... but I want the same tour guide.

Thank you Mr. Johnson. Having said that, I would have to note that I did observe periods where he glossed over – or broad-brushed – huge areas of history and I took issue with some of his points, usually in areas where I have done some study. However, I prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt, to let things go. I like to think he was standing back from the overall picture and not describing the detail in these instances, so I will do the same and save the detail for other books.

In his own Epilogue he says: “Christianity has not made man secure or happy or even dignified. But it supplies a hope. It is a civilizing agent. It helps to cage the beast. It offers glimpses of real freedom, intimations of a calm and reasonable existence. Even as we see it, distorted by the ravages of humanity, it is not without beauty. In the last generation, with public Christianity in headlong retreat, we have caught our first, distant view of a de-Christianized world, and it is not encouraging. We know that Christian insistence on man’s potentiality for good is often disappointed; but we are also learning that man’s capacity for evil is almost limitless – is limited, indeed, only by his own expanding reach. Man is imperfect with God. Without God, what is he? As Francis Bacon put it: ‘They that deny God destroy man’s nobility: for certainly man is of kin to the beasts by his body; and, if he be not kin to God by his spirit, he is a base and ignoble creature.’ We are less base and ignoble by virtue of divine example and by the desire for the form of apotheosis which Christianity offers. In the dual personality of Christ we are offered a perfected image of ourselves, an eternal pace-setter for our striving. By such means our history over the last two millennia has reflected the effort to rise above our human frailties. And to that extent, the chronicle of Christianity is an edifying one.’

*The things I have learned—right down to the little details such as passion of the Church Father Origen in pursuing a life of scriptural understanding and how it has irritated and been remarked on by his successors such as St. Jerome—were worth the reading alone.




=====================================

PRELIMINARY/EARLIER THOUGHTS: Johnson focuses on the areas of the Church which the Church herself tends not write/talk about and yet as a believer/member himself he still presents the 'sins' of the family without discounting the good which is still inherent therein. There has never been a time in the Church's history when there haven't been problems and sinners, when evil hasn't tried to undermine the good, and yet the Church slogs on... And so do I reading this history which can be depressing at times. One wants to read/think/hear only good about one's family and yet one needs to know the truth.


>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>


On Oct 27, 2008 I wrote this, 'Thought it was interesting when I listened to it years ago. Not sure how accurate it was, but it gave me a lot to think about and many points of departure for further studies. What I liked best about it was its seeming honesty: 'here is our Christian story, the good, the bad and the ugly'. Some histories like to dress things up; others only seek to tear apart. This seemed to skirt both extremes. But I was reading this to learn my Christian history at the time so I was in no position to determine the book's accuracy. For that, I would need to re-read the book again now and do some comparative analysis. However, as a non-expert, I liked it.' Since then I've read quite a bit more church history and taken a few courses. While still far from an expert, I'm curious to see if I'm still impressed by Mr. Johnson.

[Jeff Miller · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was quite a disappointment considering how much I have heard about this historian.

Now a one volume history of Christianity is a difficult undertaking since almost 2,000 years of history is not easily condensed. So there is an editorial process by the writer as to what to cover.

This is a very opinionated history as variant interpretations are not discussed at all. I am quite aware of how messy Church history is and the histories I have read before were forthright in acknowledging this while also looking at the people at the times they lived in and possible interpretations of events. There was just none of that here.

The start of the book felt rather dated as it relied on historical criticism and non reliability of the Gospels and the witnesses. So it just assumes all this without looking further. So his history of the start of the Church did not offer much. Still I could expect that and I kept expecting the book to get better. It didn't. Apparently there are no popes in history that did anything good until I guess Pope John XXIII. Church history was almost always covered in the most negative light, which I would have no problem with if the light was also shined on the good aspects.

Now imagine telling a history of Christianity that was pretty much devoid of the saints except in a couple of areas. When they were mentioned it was slightly or again in a negative light. No mention of St. Francis until the end in a sentence making a comparison. Now since this was a history of Christianity I expected a history of also protestantism and orthodoxy and it was covered fairly well. Erasmus was covered extensively, and while he was quite an interesting character it was surprising how much attention was paid to him compared to other.

Towards the end of the book Johnson intrudes his own theological opinions about contraception and Humanae Vitae which was the most evident example of his bias. He had viewed the history of the Church through the eyes of a liberal Catholic and presented what facts he wanted to support that view. Once I saw that this was the narrative the structure of the history made sense.

The sad part is that since I quickly started to distrust what he had to say I could not tell when he was making a valid historical analysis from the background bias. Apparently his favorite word is triumphalism since it was used at least 57 times (yes I did a word search) followed by canon lawyer. It

Now apparently after the author had written this book he became much more conservative in nature and supportive of the popes. So it might be the case that this history is not what he would have written later. Although apparently he still has that streak in him regarding church teaching such as women's ordination. He said in this regard "“The catholic church will change and I hold in contempt all arguments against it.”"

[Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ugh. Skepticism masked as open-minded scholarship.

I didn't finish it, but I'm finished with it. His doubt over the authenticity and reliability of scripture shadows his interpretation of historical events. He does not interpret History as someone who interprets Scripture well. His academic and scientific tone certainly give him scholarly bona fides, but puts his orthodoxy in serious question.

The contradictions between pagan sources and the NT ought not to cast doubt on scripture's accuracy necessarily, as Johnson argues. Especially because the numerical weight of sources uphold the NT accounts without appealing to any other standard to measure their validity.

For example, he discredits the Gospel's depiction of Pilate because it doesn't seem "reasonable," and the account of Jesus' trial is weird to him because it doesn't align with the reputation and procedural stature of the Sanhedrin - yes that's why they call it a kangaroo court.

Contrary to what he writes, Jesus wasn't reinventing Judaism as if he were writing a new ethic and re-interpreting Jewish history in a brand new light. At this point Johnson shows no understanding of the Christological aspects of the Old Testament or the continuity between the Covenants.

The Jesus "party" was apparently just one christian sect that muscled and maneuvered its way to the top. Whaaaa?

Providence? God's sovereignty? Truth?

Johnson gives John the baptizer and Paul a great deal of autonomy, as if they were not mouthpieces of the Lord. He doesn't understand the complexity or depth of Christian theology in light of the one and the many. Instead throwing the whole thing out because he can't reconcile James and Paul.

Johnson describes the theology of Paul, Jesus and James as competing philosophies.

He had a Darwinian view of orthodoxy, which apparently emerged from these separate philosophies through the schisms and controversies of the first century. Seriously, a "spiritual survival of the fittest."

My favorite part is his view that Christianity was really invented by Origen, which took this weak struggling sect using a regional folklore-based superstition and made it into a systematized ethic and worldview by infusing it with a consistent and Hellenistic philosophy and then inventing a church to protect it. WOW!

That was just section one.

[Jeremiah Lorrig · Rating 2 out of 5]

I expected history.

The one quote that I looked up that Johnson gives of Voltaire apparently isn’t a real quote.

While this work is spicy and written with intriguing flare, it doesn’t hold up well. I imagine that is is largely the result of the cynicism of the 1970s when it was written, but in the end, it skips almost every one of the major figures of Christian history, assumes the worst of every figure he doesn’t ignore (except Locke and Voltaire), a often while making a point—he lines up 3 examples to make his argument that sounds great until you realize there are often hundreds of years separating the events and they are not likely related in a tangible way.

I did find his 20th century history of the German Christians in Germany in WWII insightful.

Otherwise, find another book.

[Ryan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Every history is written from perspective. I accept that. And perhaps I hold historians to impossible standards, but in my opinion Johnson oversteps his historical bounds into the realm of (shortsighted) theology. To be honest (and I hate to admit this), I didn't finish the book. I didn't get more than two hundred pages into the book when I had to close it due to my frustration at Johnson's treatment of Augustine. One cannot (regardless of opinion) underplay the importance of Augustine for history, and (in my opinion) one should not cast him in an entirely negative light. I know this history has been hailed by many as a must read for Christian history, but I found it wanting greatly.

[Joleen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Who thought it was a good idea to take a book of this size and depth of topic and only divide it up into a handful of sections? Each section covers an era of time (often spanning centuries), and there are no chapters or subsections of any kind---just a continuous narrative that goes on for 100's of pages. I don't see myself finishing this book anytime soon.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very useful run-through of Christianity in its 2000 years of "existence". I put that in brackets because ever since the beginning, there's never been just one form of it, but rather a nexus of different factions re-inventing and re-shaping themselves as time proved to erode its teachings by allowing those pesky humans to do what they are forced by nature to do. Which is to say grow up, both physically and metaphysically. Well researched, well written and worth the read for anyone interested in what Christianity was/is. Beware, it is not an easy read. If you expect this to be blitz history, think again. It requires patience, attention and a lot of Wikipedia-ing.

[Kuszma · Rating 5 out of 5]

Johnson már az elejét tesz egy ígéretet*, és tulajdonképpen bámulatos, milyen következetességgel tartja magát hozzá. A kereszténység története ebben az interpretációban olyan könyv, amit tárt karokkal fogadna még egy marxista-leninista tanszék is az ötvenes évek Magyarországán: kegyetlen, gúnyos, és mindig élesen rámutat az egyház orbitális vétkeire. Tegyük hozzá: mindez egy deklaráltan katolikus-konzervatív történész előadásában. Szóval nem semmi.

Ahogy A modern kor-ban is, ezúttal is nagy élvezettel barangoltam a johnson-i elmeépítményben. Lenyűgöz, ahogy ez a faszi elképesztően szerteágazó, sokszintű információtömegből felépíti a maga világos gondolati rendszereit, és megvilágító erővel úgy ábrázolja a történelmet, mint folyamatot, ahol a dolgok logikusan következnek egymásból, okot okozat követ, a döntéseknek pedig előbb-utóbb elszenvedjük a következményeit**. Johnson számára a kereszténység kétezer éves története egyben két ellentétes (de egyként keresztény) világnézet harcaként is értelmezhető: az egyik az autoriter (vagy másképp: ortodox, esetleg konzervatív), a másik a szeretetelvű (humanista, liberális) értelmezés***. Az író a folyton változó erők összecsapásában egyértelműen a második opció mellett teszi le a voksát. Míg az autoriter verzióhoz olyan negatív fogalmakat csatol, mint az erőszakosságra való hajlam, a pokol létének szinte perverz hangsúlyozása, a túlzott bürokrácia, vagy a debilitás határán mozgó tudományellenesség, addig a humanista vallási gondolkodókról (különösen Erazmusról****) szóló részekből mély szimpátiát érezni ki. Elég egyértelműen a tekintélyelvű katolicizmus hibájául rója fel például a felvilágosodás keresztényellenes tendenciáit is: mivel Franciaországban az egyház nem engedte meg a tudományos vizsgálódást saját berkein belül, így az eleven gondolkodó elmék óhatatlanul az ateizmus vonzáskörébe keveredtek. Bezzeg Britanniában, ahol az anglikánok módot nyújtottak arra, hogy egy Locke az egyházon belül fogalmazza meg az igazság szabad kutatásának elméletét… ott forradalomra sem volt szükség. (Ugye, milyen logikus? Persze nem magától értetődő igazság, pusztán hipotézis – de hát olyan gyönyörűen logikus!) Mindez persze rávilágít arra is, hogy Johnson hívőként miképpen fogalmazhat meg ilyen éles kritikát a történelmi egyházakkal szemben – mert minden jelenség, amiben tetten érhető a krisztusi szeretetelvtől, valamint Pál eredeti elképzeléseitől való eltávolodás, ellenérzést kelt benne. És ebben szíves-örömest egyetértek vele. Hajrá, Paul. Szedd szét őket.

(Másrészt, Paul, ha meg nem sértelek: nagyon tekintélyesen néznek ki ezek a száz oldalas fejezettömbök tagolás nélkül, süt belőlük a komolyság meg a szakszerűség, de azért nem ártott volna pár tucat alfejezetre tagolni őket. Csak úgy barátságból. Ja, és látom, nem vagy oda a szoros forrásmegjelölésért.)

* "A kereszténységnek, amely a hitet az igazsággal tekinti azonosnak, azt kell tanítania – és ha helyesen fogjuk fel, tanítja is –, hogy az igazsággal való mindennemű ellenkezés erkölcstelen. Egy hívő kereszténynek a tényektől semmi félnivalója nem lehet; egy keresztény történész, aki bármilyen okból és bárhol is, de meghúzza kutatásainak határait, egyben elismeri hitének határait is, és egyidejűleg megsérti az igazság folyamatos és mind teljesebb feltárására törekvő vallásának lényegét."
** Aztán persze meglehet, a történelmi események valójában nem fűzhetők ilyen szép lineáris vonalra, de hát akkor is – ha egyszer annyira szép így. Olyan szemet gyönyörködtető.
*** Gyorsan leszögezem, így szövegtesten kívül, hogy a johnson-i értelmezésben a reformáció úgy általában nem a második csoportba tartozik, hanem az elsőbe. Luther, de különösen Kálvin, bár reformerek voltak a javából, ám nem különösebben a krisztusi szeretet talajára akarták visszavezetni az egyházat, inkább egyfajta maguk szája íze szerinti konzervativizmusról tettek tanúbizonyságot, amikor a vallási struktúrákat vissza akarták vezetni az (általuk elképzelt) kora kereszténység állapotába.
**** Erazmussal szemben Szent Ágostont viszont nagyon a bögyében van. Megjegyzem, ezek után nekem is. A csávó találta ki az „igazságos háború” fogalmát, a totális állam eszméjét, sőt azt is, hogy a nem gyermeknemzési céllal történő szexualitás a pokolba teleportál minket.

[Edoardo Albert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bracing. Vigorous. Scathing. All words that come to mind having finished Paul Johnson's A History of Christianity. Although Johnson is a Catholic, there is certainly no special pleading in his sweeping overview of the world's most transformative religion: this is Christianity, warts and all, and more warts than beauty spots. Johnson, being a believer, takes the claims of the religion's founder seriously, and his teachings, and as a result his sweeping, beautifully written history generally finds that Christians have often signally failed to live up to their founder. Perhaps this is not so surprising - "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matthew 5:48) is not exactly a low bar to set - but Johnson does set out, in painful detail, just how often we have fallen short. Still, this is a far better approach than covering these matters up - if Christianity is about anything, it is about the truth, and pursuing it,whithersoever it leads, whether that be to a Cross on Calvary or coming face to face with the evils and omissions of our co-religionists.

The book only runs up to 1975, however. Although Paul Johnson is now quite old, I would love to read his assessment of the last half century, where so much has changed. Overall, highly recommended.

[Alberto Illán Oviedo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Contar la historia del cristianismo, una historia tan compleja y rica en matices que ha durado dos mil años en algo menos de 1.000 páginas es una labor encomiable, pero complicada. Y este es uno de los peros que le pongo a esta historia, que se deja cosas en el purgatorio, no abarca todo quizá porque semejante labor le hubiera llevado a Paul Johnson toda su vida y no hubiera terminado a su muerte. Así que este libro entraría en el concepto ‘breve historia de’. Por poner un ejemplo, al ala ortodoxa del cristianismo le dedica muy poco y a la iglesia hispana tampoco la da mucha visibilidad.

El otro pero que le veo es que no oculta sus filias y sus fobias, personajes como San Agustín no son de su gusto y así lo deja claro en no pocas ocasiones, mientras que tampoco oculta su simpatía, casi adoración, por Erasmo. Esto que en principio puede ser injusto y subjetivo, al exponerlo de forma explícita, deja de la mano del lector la posibilidad de buscar más información para hacerse una idea distinta de la expuesta. Así que es un pero limitado. También diría que es un libro que en su primera escritura termina en el Vaticano II y que se ha añadido un capítulo corto y un poco apresurado que llega hasta el final del siglo XX y que corrige el final pesimista del capítulo anterior.

Dicho esto, estamos ante un libro muy trabajado, en el que Paul Johnson nos cuenta de una manera compleja su personal historia del cristianismo. No es una historia blanca, no se deja en el tintero temas controvertidos que menciona, analiza y critica sin que su catolicismo le suponga un problema, ya que, si el cristianismo busca la verdad, esta estará por encima de personas e instituciones. La inquisición, las cruzadas, la violencia ejercida en nombre de Dios contra otras religiones o iglesias, la segregación racial o incluso el coqueteo y/o colaboración de protestantes y católicos con el nazismo y otros totalitarismos son tratados críticamente, pero también aquellos aspectos beneficiosos para las personas y la sociedad, como el apoyo hacia los más necesitados que, desde el principio, estuvo presente. En especial, me parece muy interesante el epílogo final donde reivindica el cristianismo como la religión del individuo frente a visiones más colectivistas que ha tenido, tiene y posiblemente tendrá. Un libro, además, muy entretenido, lleno de anécdotas e historias, habituales en el escritor, que invitan a la reflexión y a buscar más información. No creo que sea un libro para gustar a todos, pero si coherente con la mente de Paul Johnson, al menos con los otros libros suyos que he leído, y muy abierto a reflexiones.

[Karl Kindt · Rating 3 out of 5]

This mediocre text would more accurately be termed "A Summary of the History of Christianity." There are so many gaps, so many flaws, and I suppose they could only be excused because this author tries to summarize the entirety of 2000 years of a religion in 500 pages. The biggest omissions are the good things. The bulk of the text is focused on the conflicts, the negatives, and the controversies. Imagine writing a history of America and then spending 90% of your text on the wars in which America was involved. That is what this book is like. Johnson occasionally pays lip service to some of the good works, but by and large they are slipped in as filler between all the negative aspects on which he obsesses. I suppose this was to make the book marketable to the mainstream. Who wants to read all the happy stuff? The people want blood and guts, so Johnson focuses on that. This would be okay, but even in this there are gaps. He treats his main subjects as if you have read all about them before and assumes you are familiar with them, and then spends his time on his take on things. He does not really give you details even about the negative aspects he spends the bulk of his time on. All is cursory. For example, he repeatedly discusses the tonsure of clergy and how it changed, but he never tells you what a tonsure is, never explains how it came to be, never gives its origin. His coverage of the apostles is spotty and jumps around and leaves huge gaps. This is just amateurish history writing. It was written like a journalist, a newspaper man would write history, which makes it not history at all, but superficial sensationalism. Another example is that he focuses on the Roman Catholic church, but only mentions the eastern Orthodox church in reference to the Roman Catholic church. He never gives a proper history or overview of the Byzantine side of the faith. Again, he assumes you know about things no one would know unless they themselves had studied the history of Christianity. He covers bizarre cults in Africa, even spending a quarter of a page quoting a strange poem they use, but never once explains the use of the fish symbol for Christianity, doesn't explain even one of Luther's 95 theses, and never even clearly states why the Roman Catholics created a position of pope. He gives more pages to the 5 years of Christianity during World War II than he does the hundreds of years of the eastern Orthodox church. In short, this book reads as if it were a 500 page summary of what was originally a 2,000 page book.

As far as content, this author makes a very naive observation that the Christians have done bad things and good things throughout history, as if this were some sort of revelation or brilliant observation. It is almost as if he went to a church, attended a service, and expressed shock that there were so many sinners in the pews.

[Monica · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an intriguing and colourful story of Christianity through the last 2,000 years.

The topic may seem daunting for those not fond of reading history books, least of all religious history. This is not a light-weight coffee table book but is completely text-based (not a single photo). But I find this book fascinating as Paul Johnson is such a good story teller and gives such interesting analysis that you would find it hard to put this book down.

Unlike some books on the history of Christianity (or other religions) that may whitewash its sometimes violent past, Johnson who is a Christian and historian, puts it across to the reader plainly, warts and all.* This is a must-read not just for anyone interested in the history of Christianity - but for every Christian. In order for us to move towards the future in peace and love, it is important to know how God's name has been hijacked for much less noble causes in the course of history.

By looking at ourselves honestly, we can have a chance to escape the mistakes of the past, and have a hope for a better world. There is a need for honesty in looking back at Christian history, said Johnson, because (here he quoted Jesus): "The truth shall set you free."

*I feel I need to add a caveat here in the the current mood of wokeism/conservertism and all other "isms" and over-reactions : This review is specific to the book, which happens to be on the history of Christianity. Common sense and general knowledge tell us that there is violence wreaked by all religious groups in the course of history and the names of God, gods or the Buddha etc have been hijacked.

[Matthew Benjamin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Johnson wrote this book in the mid 1970s and probably at the height of his scholastic career. He set out to present an unbiased view of the birth and evolution of Christianity and that is exactly what he does. He states from the beginning that he is a Roman Catholic and perhaps because of that one of his objectives is to boldly confront all the data or lack of data and examine this phenomenon called Christianity. His approach, though, is that of a disciplined historian and not a Christian historian or the superficial Bill O'Reilly types. For instance, there is no assumption that Jesus walked the face of the earth, there's evidence that he did, and Johnson looks at it to see if it's valid. St. Paul and Augustine are held accountable for the roles as the principal architects of Christianity, etc. What's spellbinding is Johnson's ability to filter through millions of facts, assumptions, opinions and splintered data and piece together a cohesive story and present it an authoritative tone. Here is a man searching for truth, nothing more. I find it remarkable this this is the same man who later became Margret Thacher's speech writer and outspoken in his politically conservative views. Here in this great work there is none of that. If anyone really wants to learn about how Christianity changed the world read this book. It might take you a while and a good dictionary to get through it but it is worth the effort. It could even change your life.

[Skylar Burris · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I am a Christian--or perhaps because I am a Christian--I did not find this historical compendium quite as interesting as the author's History of the Jews. Nevertheless, much of it was fascinating, and Paul Johnson certainly put a great deal of research into this tome, which spans the period of the New Testament through 20th century America. For a Catholic, Johnson does not seem the least bit ashamed of depicting all of the dark, sinful actions of the institutional church. He approaches Christianity as a historian, and as a Christian he pursues the truth, unafraid of where it will lead him. His opinions infiltrate the work, but I always find them interesting and worthy of respect, even when I disagree with them. Any denominaiton of Christian will find something to be offended by when he or she reads this book, as all aspects of the lives of religious founders and the works of Christian institutions are discussed, both the good and the bad. I wish that the author had delved more into the historical origin of the many American sects; he focuses primarily on Catholicism (which, granted, was the history of Christianity for many centuries), but his book seems to speed up when it reaches Protestantism. It also has too little to say about the Eastern Church.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

This history of Christianity was not written from the perspective of a Christian, nor does it come from someone who has an axe to grind with Christianity. I recommend it to anyone who is interested in a pure history without a dripping bias one way or the other.
Many people wish we would just go away, and stop with our "silly" claims for the Divine lineage of a nobody Jewish carpenter born in very obscure circumstances, who died at age 33, was betrayed by one of his closest followers and executed by the authorities for...what exactly? Political expedience? But we are here to stay, and this is our story from an earthly perspective.

[Numa Grinberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Encontré este libro por casualidad en casa de mi abuelo y me entretuvo buena parte del verano. Es sumamente ameno de leer y abundan las anécdotas y citas a fuentes primarias. Sin embargo, a veces parece que por el afán de hacerlo interesante distorsiona un poco la realidad: A Calvino, por ejemplo, atribuye doctrinas como la doble predestinación que el nunca defendió, ese tipo de "hiper-calvinismo" fue ante todo popularizado por sus enemigos. La imagen que pinta de San Agustín es también bastante caricaturesca, insinuando que el es el causante de todos los males de la alta edad media. Mas alla de eso, es muy buen libro. Me gusto especialmente el capitulo de Erasmo y la reforma.

[Henry · Rating 5 out of 5]

It took me over a year to read this book (I did read and finish about 100 other books during that time), but it was well worth the effort. It is a comprehensive long and dense one volume history of Christianity from the time of Christ to 1975. For anyone interested in the subject matter, or interested in Western Civilization, I highly recommend it.

[Alejandroduro · Rating 3 out of 5]

Si querés leerte 2000 años de historia de una religión, es un buen libro.
Es tanta la información que difícil de todo eso quede en mi memoria.
Interesante el abordaje teniendo en cuenta las distintas vertientes del cristianismo y su relación con las configuraciones políticas que se fueron sucediendo a lo largo de los años, imperios, colonias, estados modernos, etc.
Es un buen resumen de la historia de occidente desde la perspectiva de la religión cristiana.
A nivel historiográfico es impresionante la cantidad de datos, fechas y sucesos que se recopilan, sin embargo siento que tiene una perspectiva mas bien liberal, donde la historia solo se explica por la sucesión de los hechos.

[Warren Martis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Towards the end of the book in the epilogue, the author writes:

"The account of Christianity presented in this book has necessarily stressed its failures and shortcomings, and its institutional distortions. "

Paul should have begun the book with this disclaimer. A lot of what is considered an important aspect of Christianity has been omitted in its entirety or glossed over. Oriental and Eastern orthodoxies do not find much mention in this book which claims to be the history of Christianity essentially making it the history of western Christianity.

Then again, even in western Christianity, major movements like scholasticism is hardly discussed. So are important figures like Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi. At the same time, the discussions on Erasmus and John Locke are much appreciated. I would have preferred if the author had been kinder to the church treatment of science in the middle ages. The conflict thesis is a dead horse. But in the book, it's in full flow.

All the same, there is still a lot to like in the book. Particularly how it's organized with 8 chapters themselves reading like a short history of a period. The prose itself is brilliant and generally fast-paced. The discussion on Judaism, religion in the early Roman empire is something you do not find in other books covering similar topics. The development of the liturgy, discussion on monastic movements is also commendable.

The penultimate chapter gives us a glimpse of Christianity outside Europe. For an Indian catholic like me, the insights presented here are relatable. On the whole, the book does end on a more positive note with the author hoping that the second Vatican council would usher in new Christianity.

I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the history of Christianity but has sufficient knowledge of the history of Europe. Additionally, I would recommend reading other books that stress the positive aspects of Christianity.

[Zielene Wicca Filósofa · Rating 5 out of 5]

increíble resumen de la historia del Cristianismo y de como llegó a ser lo que es hoy en día, aunque faltaron más cosas que poner, el libro es extraordinario lo recomiendo ampliamente

[Caio Garzeri · Rating 4 out of 5]

Can't say it is a page turner but I found it informative. Chapter on XXth century felt a bit rushed, especially Vatican II.

[Liedzeit Liedzeit · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a difficult book. Covering the history of Christianity is obviously not easy. I am not sure what I expected. But it seems the book is at the same time too long and not really detailed. To give an example, you will find next to nothing about the crusades in this book. And I would have expected they were of enormous influence not only for Christianity but for the story of civilization.
Thomas Aquinas is hardly mentioned and I thought he was by far the most important figure at least for Catholics. The same for Luther. You could be excused if you missed the poor information about him in this book. On the other hand, you get more than you care about John Wesley. The popes are rarely mentioned until he reaches the 20th century when it suddenly reads like a history of the Popes. Let's say I find this a bit unbalanced.
There is also much about Augustine who is the villain of this story and Erasmus who is the hero. There is, according to Johnson, a third good force within Christianity that is Erasmian. I do accept this, and I do accept that the influence of Augustine was on the whole negative. He seems to think that Pelagianism (without the heavy burden of original sin) was the better alternative, and I agree.
The book has eight parts, but no chapters within the parts. That means he will go on and of to subjects not in chronological order as it pleases him. There is something to say for this. But I would have liked a bit more structure. There is a lot of fascinating stuff in it. Especially about the early years of Christianity. Or the missionary efforts of the Jesuits in China and Japan. And I like it that he does not (at least not openly) judge. Unfortunately, he spoils it in his Epilogue, when he surprises me with saying that Christianity supplies hope and it "cages the beast". This is odd, coming just after the story how Christianity totally failed to have a measurable good influence in the days of Nazi Germany.
And one thing I just have to complain about is the way he dismisses Leibniz. I know, this is not a book on philosophy, but just taking Voltaire’s caricature of Leibniz for the real thing is totally unacceptable.

[Anthony Cleveland · Rating 2 out of 5]

A bit wordy ... appears to be written by an academic for other academics. Kind of boring actually ... a little disappointing given the incredible topic.

[Caleb · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Johnson deserves his place among the greatest historians alive today. This broad look at the rise and development of Christianity is insightful yet not over-bearing. It takes on a vast topic which Johnson handles with an appropriate pace and evenhandedness. For those who have grown up in Christianity, this book will challenge historical assumptions (such as a friendly relationship between Peter and Paul) while taking the reader deeper into likely forgotten men and women of the faith (Erasmus of Rotterdam). This book will likely frustrate the fundamentalist and the liberal, making it all the more important to read.

[Erik Graff · Rating 3 out of 5]

My background as regards the history of Christianity is strongest as regards its origins and not so bad as regards everything up through the Reformation, but weak as regards the modern period. Consequently, most of what Johnson had to say in his first chapters was rather old-hat, but much of his coverage of modern developments was new to me.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved it. Some parts were difficult, but in the end it is a great overview of the rise of Christianity. Many of his suppositions and speculations on early Christianity were without support, but the overall story was told in an engaging and compelling manner.

[Gloria · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro que aúna ciencia histórica y cristianismo. Obligatoria lectura de este gran glosador que es Paul Johnson

[Michael Walker]

By noted Catholic historian Paul Johnson....