mh8782

Dear all,

I'm sorry if this has been asked before. I'm interested in finding a book on the early history of Christianity, roughly from around 30AD to its adoption by Constantine as the official religion in the Roman Empire.

I'm a beginner, but at the same time, I've no aversion to reading something moderately scholarly. I'm also interested in something that is perhaps as balanced as possible. I can imagine with Christianity, that many (if not all scholars) will have their own particular biases. I suppose I'm looking for something that could be defined as the scholarly mainstream view

I'd be grateful for any recommendations.

ETA: I noticed the sticky on reading, but I couldn't quite what I was looking for. I've googled, and found various books, but don't know the quality or biases

Jeffrey Gibson

Constantine did not adopt Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. He allowed it to be one among others. It was not until Theodosius that Christianity became the Empire's official religion.

Try The Rise of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) by W. H. C. Frend

It's available on Googel Books here.

Jeffrey

Roger Pearse

Read Eusebius of Caesarea's History of the Church in the Penguin edition. This is the basic data for all discussion, although biased towards the East since E. didn't know Latin, and every other discussion of the subject will reference it.

I know that what you want is some modern textbook. But I find all of those I've ever looked at risibly biased and prone to assert all sorts of stuff for which there is no ancient evidence. Thus my suggestion.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Following T.D. Barnes I totally disagree with your representation here. Here is the pivotal argument from Barnes:

Source: Constantine's Prohibition of Pagan Sacrifice
T. D. Barnes, The American Journal of Philology, Vol. 105, No. 1 (Spring, 1984), pp. 69-72

Best wishes,


Pete

mountainman

Dear mh8782,

I will second Roger's suggestion. In the Roman empire all road leads to Rome, but in Christendom all roads lead to Eusebius. The Ecclesiatical History of Eusebius is the best place to start because you can rest assured you will eventually be lead there.

If you are capable of reading ONLINE material instead of a physical paperback, although Roger failed to mention it, Roger's site is probably one of the best resources on the internet to find a presentation of the literary remains from antiquity, carefully collated to a high academic level. Many if not all of the works of Eusebius are there online.

FInally, allow some time for yourself to stroll around the perimeter and get used to the different terminologies and scope and history. To do the task justice you will need to allocate time to cover the ground. Good luck!

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Ah but there are problems with this, Pete.

First, it's not an argument. It is a statement about what might be argued if we make certain assumptions.

Secondly, it is thoroughly refuted in one of the very articles you yourself cited in order to show that Constantine engaged in desrtuction of "pagan" temples. i.e., in "Constantine and the Problem of Anti-Pagan Legislation in the Fourth Century".

That you seem to be unaware of this, let alone that Barnes wrote a much lengthier work on Eusebius and Constantine, is another indication of your inability to read things correctly and your penchant of misusing the sources you cite, if not of the fact that you actually haven't read Bradbury's article, as well as the one by Barnes.

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

I have the two articles in front of me. They have been listed on my external papers index for some time. And yes, I have read the longer works of Barnes. And no I am not convinced by Bradbury's attempt to ameliorate this assessment by Barnes. The way I see it, following Barnes, is that Constantine established a state religion and supported it from c.324 CE.

Best wishes,


Pete

Jeffrey Gibson

Great. But having them in front of you does not mean you've read them. I have several books in front of me right now (and more an arms reach away on my shelves) that I have not yet read.

Listed and read are two different things.

Didn't you say you had no access to JSTOR?

.

Funny, I only spoke of one longer work. So which of the longer works of Barnes have you read?

Which of Bradbury's arguments do you find unconvincing, and why?

Note that Barnes does not say -- and evidently would find the idea ridiculous -- that Constantine invented Christianity, let alone that what he thinks Constantine "established" as a state religion, was not in existence prior to Constantine. And Barnes is an avid proponent of the view of Eusebius as a good historian.

What does he know that you don't?

Jeffrey

mountainman

Dear Jeffrey,

Bradbury appeals to an "edict of toleration" in the letter to the eastern provincials to ameliorate the image of Constantine, and claims Barnes is appealing to the evidence as "agressively anti-pagan actions". I find no evidence whatsoever for any tolerance in the actions of Constantine, and I follow Barnes. Neither researcher mentions Ammianus' account of Constantine's destruction of the obelisk (perhaps from the Karnack temple) in Egypt.



Like Basilicas?


Hey, I am not making the claim that Barnes is divine.

Things like Tertullian must be treated as a living figure.

Best wishes,


Pete

Sheshbazzar

Hey there mh8782 ! Guess you can see that most anything and everything is controversial here, sacred cows get slaughtered here day and night!
A whole lot of kicking against the pricks goes on, and there's no shortage of pricks that are in need of a good kicking!