Customer Reviews

A New History of Early Christianity

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

It is difficult nowadays to get an objective, nuanced opinion on Christianity, neither flattering nor biased against it (if I were to recommend a way to try and achieve this, I would suggest reading several good books on the matter, including this one among them).

The synopsis of the book provided by the "Product Description" is fairly accurate. Therefore, I will only point out that, having read Freeman's "The Closing of the Western Mind", when I found this new book of his I decided it to give it a chance, in despite of not finding previous comments on it. I was surprised that no one else had made a comment before to this interesting work, which, in my opinion, is a scholarly work but accessible to the educated layman, an eminently readable history of the first six centuries of Christianity. This book explains the myriad opinions, personalities and politics that were part of the confusing theological climate which prevailed in the centuries after Jesus' death (Christians -then as now- agreed on little or nothing). The author offers a stance before Christianity that perhaps some will consider as critical, but I do not perceive as hostile (certainly not, if you compare his polite comments to E. Gibbon's classical and superb caustic prose; or to St. Jerome's very opinion, pursuant to whom the history of the church was one of decline "from the apostles down to the excrement of our time"). In any event, this a very difficult field to cover, data are usually scarce and fragmented. However, what Freeman says appears to be well researched and explained.

So I add my review, my rate being between 5 (content) and 5 (pleasure).

Other interesting books dealing with religion that I would recommend would be: a) "The Phenomenon of Religion: A Thematic Approach," by Moojan Momen (astonishingly encyclopedic); b) "Shamans, Sorcerers, and Saints: A Prehistory of Religion" by Brian Hayden (great overview of religion origins and development); c) "The Book of Miracles: The Meaning of the Miracle Stories in Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam" by Kenneth L. Woodward (very readable); d) "Prayer: A History" by Philip Zaleski and Carol Zaleski (very readable too); and e); "Alternative Tradition: A Study of Unbelief in the Ancient World (Religion and Society)" by James A. Thrower (atheism and agnosticism of yore).

I have read many accounts of the development of early Christianity, but have inevitably been disappointed due to various authors injecting their own spiritual biases. However, Early Christianity by Charles Freeman is a welcome exception to my experiences. Freeman does an admirable job of presenting the early years of Christianity from a straight-ahead historian's viewpoint, minus the bothersome religious views which have cluttered other books. The depictions of Jesus, Paul, the Christ, the Logos, gnosticism, the development of the the New Testament, the development of the trinity, the Imperial church, and more, are all fresh and full of historical insights. As an aside, due in large part to Freeman's unbiased reading of history, I found myself throughout the book constantly reassessing my own spiritual feelings and beliefs -- it was a progressive learning and self-examination process which I relished. I look forward to reading the book again down the road.

I highly recommend this book for anyone who is searching for a fresh, fluid, historically-centered presentation of what exactly happened during the first several centuries in the early Christian world. Also, the glossary, timeline, and index are all quite helpful tools. The book is a joy to read and I anticipate more great works from Charles Freeman.

This is a flawed history. A few observations will make that clear. Freeman clearly and rightly states that Paul's seven undisputed letters are a primary source for what Paul did and thought and that the author of Acts is considered unreliable for Paul's life but then he goes on to base most of his views and history of Paul and his work on a few very debated facts. First, was Paul a Roman citizen or not, Freeman assumes he is, yet at no point in Paul's letters (undisputed or otherwise) does he state that fact (not even in the letter to the Romans where it would come in handy). There is historic reasons to reject the view he was a citizen but Freeman never mentions them (See Paul: The man and the Myth by Calvin J. Roetzel page 19 for an overview). Moreover, Freeman goes on to base much of his exegesis of Paul assuming not only that he was a citizen but also he was a citizen because his father was a former slave. There is no historical mention in any early source that Paul was the son of a former slave and to base so much of his interpretation of Paul on this fact is rather sloppy historic work.

Moreover, he marginalizes Paul's role in the early church by stating that Paul seemed to have little effect on the churches he founded or visited and that there were no evidence that Paul's letters were of any effect in those churches. This is an amusing interpretation, the fact that Paul's undisputed letters, sent to people in six different cities of the empire all survived and were recopied disproves that fact. Moreover, people (either Paul or others) continued to write letters in Paul's name, something odd if he was not held with regard or was marginal in early Christianity.

I could mention a few more major flaws with this work, but space doesn't allow. This is still worth the read but a balanced history it is not. Sadly we still lack a critical non-dogmatic history of the Early Church.

History, it is said, is a chaotic mix of contingence and necessity. With one exception, I may add: the history of revealed religion. There it is all necessity: God's will through men. History then degenerates into mere chronicle of God's will as it unfolds - a "just so story" writ in capital letters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To conclude, Dr. FREEMAN is very good on the inner development of the Christian faith. But a non-dogmatic history of early Christianity also needs to address the question: what were the popular bases of its appeal and eventual success (but for the heavy fist of the Emperor)? What changes did it bring to the people, and why did they embrace Christianity? A mapping of the subject would already have been a step in the right direction.

The discussion in this forum on the authority of an agnostic historian (as Freeman is) seems more relevant than it should be. Most reviewers complain that he gives "unlikely" explanations to some events in the life of Jesus. The resurrection, as it is expected, is given special attention. Of course the most unlikely explanation of all is that he actually resurrected, so any other theory would be, from a (history) reader point of view, more likely. The discussion is interesting, but the conclusions not that much. Maybe is not sure that Caiaphas removed the body, but that is just a tiny part of this History, and one of the most speculative ones. This is a History book, not a theological manifesto, and as such it is very successful, especially in the account of the first two centuries of Christianity.

With this theoretical (as opposed to theological) foundation in mind, Freeman brings to light several interesting aspects of the formation of Christianity. Everybody knows that Jesus was a Jew, but the book explains how he and his entourage thought of themselves as part of the Jewish tradition and prophetical present and future. This record was progressively erased in favor of the present interpretation of Christianity. This was not just a case of historical revisionism, but a complete editorial remodeling.

In the second main thread of the book, the author exposes all the theological discussion that happened in the first four centuries AD. Christianity was a very active and intellectually engaging religion, with lots of different voices manifesting several interpretations of the sacred texts. The richness of this discussion before the Catholic faith dogmas emerged is a fascinating part of this History.

The third major theme is one of Freeman's favorites, and one reason why this book covers until AD 600. The influence of Christianity in catalyzing and catapulting the Dark Ages has been extensively discussed since Edward Gibbon. Modern scholars (i.e., Peter Heather et al.) have started to question that foundation and no consensus has emerged yet. So Freeman insistence in shaping the last part of the book to make his point subtracts and weakens his exposition. We get a lot of detail in the early Centuries AD, but in the last centuries after Constantine Freemans dilutes himself to favor his thesis. What we loose: more detail in the formation of the two separate Churches, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. Although this is unfortunate, Freeman's effort is still enlightening.

This is a fascinating overview of the first 500+ years of the development of Christianity.

Part One, basically covering the first century A.D., reviewed the New Testament documents, placed them in the historical and social context of first century Judaism, and highlighted some of the key differences between the various documents that set the stage for the subsequent historical and theological disputes about who Jesus really was, how He saw Himself, His relationship to us, and His relationship to God the Father.

Part Two, basically covering the next two centuries, examined how various Christian schools of thought dealt with the theological issues that arose after it became pretty clear that the Second Coming might not be an imminent event.

Part Three, basically covering from Constantine to the collapse of the Roman Empire, examined how Christians developed or adopted hierarchical governing systems which played important parts in resolving (more or less, anyway!) the theological and church-governance debates of that time.

Freeman did a good job of summarizing the major, frequently angry disputes of the time, providing short background sketches of some of the key figures involved (many of whom were pretty colorful characters, with strong opinions and few inhibitions!), and explaining how the resolution of the disputes at that time impacted subsequent developments. Freeman also provided a timeline and glossary, both of which were very helpful for quick reference. No book this short (326 pages) could be considered comprehensive, of course, but as an overview, it is very well done and would be very accessible to anyone interested in the early development of Christianity.

The following constitutes my somewhat off-the-cuff opinion about Charles Freeman's text on early Christianity. I think the arguments happening here in the customer review pages are going in a different direction from the main problems I have with the book. One of the main problems that I have is really quite simple -- while rejecting what has become dogmatic interpretation of biblical text, Freeman then offers his own, sometimes bizarre, theories to fill in what he sees as historical gaps.

The theory about Caiphas and Jesus's body is particularly bizarre given that it would result in short-term problem solving but an even greater, long-term problem for Caiaphas and the Jewish hierarchy. The psychology that Freeman offers to explain the apostles' post-crucifixion behavior is equally paltry and fits with many popular psychological reductions of all spiritual experiences as hallucinations and delusions. The kind of argumentation presented at these moments in Freeman's text is thin and eyebrow-raising.

Really -- stealing Jesus's body was going to solve Caiaphas's problems? It would appear to me that producing the body would solve many more problems (they could have had a centurion handle it), as would hunting down as many apostles as possible and raining fear down on all of them -- that would have solved a lot for Caiaphas, it seems to me -- much more than saying "he's gone; now go away," which would fuel more speculation and conspiracy than just leaving Jesus alone. Freeman's speculations just don't hold any water for me in this regard.

In a text that purports to be historical, I find that the author looks uncritically through a lens of contemporary culture theory in order to explain how (in his view) Christianity came about solely as a by-product of cultural struggles and ambitions apart from any spiritual transformation or impetus. At the very least, one can hardly disagree with the observation that Jesus's presence and life on earth was personally transforming for many, many people -- his was a life that brought about personal, spiritual transformation in others. This, itself, is an overt, historical fact arising from the life of Jesus on earth -- he caused others to go through a change of heart and understanding. Freeman gives this fact very little, actual attention in the text. For example, he mentions that the apostles were traumatized by the crucifixion but fails to connect this to pre-crucifixion discussions or teachings they had about what Jesus said would happen to him. Even a discussion of the cock-crowing reflection and its impact on Peter would have been worthwhile in this context.

In other words, the story of Jesus is not just about societal changes and forces -- it is equally about personal change and transformation, and this is what is not discussed even remotely adequately in the text -- that is, the historical fact of the personal transformation that people went through when they encountered the life of Jesus or a person testifying or witnessing to that life. What was so powerful about Jesus that he caused people to leave their former lives and selves and follow him? What was so powerful about Jesus that people continued to talk about him, write about him, give up their lives in his name, even though he, at the time, seemed to have been corporally wiped out by the Jewish and Roman authorities? What was so powerful about Jesus that he caused people in his lifetime and those of later generations to change? These also are important aspects of social history to discuss -- personal transformation, not just social power struggles. Let's face it: the apostles did not gain secular authority because of Jesus, yet they persisted in their counter-cultural work of evangelization, despite extreme social forces pressuring them to give up.

Therefore, another main problem in terms of Freeman's interpretation of Christian history is that he cuts out the very heart of what Christian's see as the prime mover of that transformative process, which, of course, is God through the Holy Spirit. Instead, Freeman decontextualizes the life of Jesus, or at least curtails that context in the extreme. Naturally, for those who would like to discuss a history of Christianity from a secular perspective, discussion of God's role and the actions of the Holy Spirit would be a ridiculous proposition. For others, removal of God and the Spirit from a discussion of Christianity would, itself, be absurd, although, for Freeman, it is not. However, whether or not Freeman believes, the fact is that the apostles believed, and this belief propels them. I can't help but think of 1 Corinthians (particularly verse 18) as I write these words, as surely the views of believers and unbelievers will not be reconciled through Freeman's text. One either believes or does not, and Mr. Freeman appears to be on the side of not.

As a result, what is certain is that Mr. Freeman is not able to please everyone with this text. Many Christians likely will be offended by it and shocked by some of Freeman's personal theories about Jesus's life, death, and resurrection (although they will not be shocked by discussions of inconsistencies between the gospels etc., as these issues are well-known and discussed widely by Christians and non-Christians alike). I, myself, have a mixed review of Freeman's text -- his description of and speculations about the relationship between the Roman and Jewish authorities were detailed and seemed reasonable as well as credible. His speculation about conspiracies around Jesus's life and death were simply incredible and sidestepped a scientific approach to history rather clumsily. He did not bracket out and identify his apparent stance in cultural theory, and, as a result, takes a rather uncritical approach to the values informing his methodology. In addition, he certainly has appeared to have ignored much scholarship with regard to Christian history: one cannot write an account of early Christianity and simply ignore much of what has already been published -- or at least not mention much of it.

I also have to agree with an earlier customer/commenter who noted that a certain "tone deaf" quality exists in the text. One does not necessarily have to be a Christian believer to understand that Jesus's life and death had a greater significance to his followers than just secular overthrow of authority. As the realization came that the second coming would not be in their life times, certainly deeper learnings and theology developed. Freeman, however, is quick to point out inconsistencies in texts but weak on the natural unfolding of theology that occurred as apostles shared with disciples, who shared with other disciples and so on.

Freeman also does not give as much credence to oral history as I would like to have seen. Written history can be examined as autonomous text; however, all of Christian history exists first and foremost within an oral history and tradition that has always existed as the context and primary form of intergenerational transmission of both history and faith (even to the present day), as well as guided the faith-based interpretation of the gospels.

I suppose I could go on, but, essentially, the text puts forth a promise that it does not fulfill and appears erratic in its methodology. Therefore, I don't feel that I can recommend it to others.

Reading this book and Freeman's book "AD 381" reveals just how much Christianity's sense of orthodoxy isn't a "God Delivered" belief as it has changed over time as well as having it's beginnings enmeshed in controversy. Yet Christians will shun another believer simply because of doubt believing that Jesus was God. The irony is that if the "other side" (Arias) had won then those same Christian today would be defending Arianism as orthodoxy. I personally believe that Jesus lived,died, rose again and sits at the right side of the Father. But was he God? Does it matter?

I doubt that any historian can present an "objective" account of the past, but when it comes to early church history, Charles Freeman gives us plenty to think about. The first 400 years of church history set the stage for much to come even to this day. My seminary professor called it the period of crystallization. I'm tempted to call it the period of ossification.

I can't always agree with Freeman. "Paul is never tolerant," he says (p.49). Paul occasionally expressed his affection for congregations and individuals. And as for his sexism, I suppose it depends upon which epistles you believe Paul wrote.

God warned Adam that he would die if he ate the forbidden fruit (p. 150). "Yet Adam did eat and failed to die," wrote Freeman. "In fact, he went on to found the human race!" A lot of readers will jump on Freeman for a view that suggests the fruit was poisonous and that death would arrive shortly after consumption. I don't think many of us looked at it that way. We assumed death would follow old age, and although Adam lived a long time, he eventually died. God didn't lie.

I'm under the impression that many Christians are afraid of their own history. I've heard the usual accounts of how the early church was an intimate fellowship that met in houses or caves, how they loved one another, how horribly the Romans persecute them, and how the ungodly empire fell because it was so terribly corrupt. Simplistic summaries of this kind cloud the facts of history. Freeman's book corrects impressions of this kind in a book that covers the roles of major actors in the first four centuries of church history, with special highlights given to Constantine and Theodosius for their parts in developing the "orthodox" Trinity. Here we see how faith that began with a "leap" eventually became enforced as a rule of state.

Freeman made me rethink my views on the church fathers. They weren't quite so gentle and sweet as I had imagined. I had thought the Cappadocian Fathers were an upbeat threesome that pulled a trick on the Arians by drawing attention to the Trinity. Nor was Augustine of Hippo so sweet and gentle as I had once believed. And as for Constantine the Christian emperor, I thought it was rather impolite of him to drown his wife in boiling water.

Actually, the church hasn't changed much. The members are more polite now, but good manners are an easy substitute for love. Clergy and parishioners are continually searching for empirical signs of heavenly grace. For Constantine, victory was the empirical sign; he had found the god of grace. For many American Christians the empirical evidence lies with wealth. God loves Americans so much, that he wants them to be rich!

I liked Freeman's Closing of the Western Mind, but my reservation about his view of Paul in that book should have been a warning.

This is a very odd reading of early Christianity that is not in touch with serious scholarship of the period. His view of Paul shows no contact with rhetorical studies, for example. As a result he takes Paul's self-depreciation as literal rather than a persuasive tactic. He can't imagine how any original reader found Galatians to be useful.

Even more amazingly he describes the middle of Luke as "difficult to give any kind of coherence," a very odd thing to say about Luke, the redactor of tightly written parables. Freeman is amazed that Jesus tells one person to give up his money and another to use wealth well - he could have tried reading any modern commentary for help, perhaps.

And that is a clue, for his bibliography is replete with popular sources, and less so quality ones. Perhaps that is only designed to be accessible to the average reader, but he misses the opportunity to introduce those readers to the work that has been done.

Given his books ignorance of what is discussed in any New Testament department you have to wonder if he actually knows the good sources.