The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World
- Downloads：9050
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-11-07 09:53:48
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Bart D. Ehrman
- ISBN：1786074834
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
From the New York Times bestselling authority on early Christianity， the story of how Christianity grew from a religion of twenty or so peasants in rural Galilee to the dominant religion in the West in less than four hundred years。
Christianity didn’t have to become the dominant religion in the West。 It easily could have remained a sect of Judaism fated to have the historical importance of the Sadducees or the Essenes。 In The Triumph of Christianity， Bart Ehrman， a master explainer of Christian history， texts， and traditions， shows how a religion whose first believers were twenty or so illiterate day laborers in a remote part of the empire became the official religion of Rome， converting some thirty million people in just four centuries。 The Triumph of Christianity combines deep knowledge and meticulous research in an eye-opening narrative that upends the way we think about the single most important cultural transformation our world has ever seen—one that revolutionized art， music， literature， philosophy， ethics， economics， and law。
Christianity didn’t have to become the dominant religion in the West。 It easily could have remained a sect of Judaism fated to have the historical importance of the Sadducees or the Essenes。 In The Triumph of Christianity， Bart Ehrman， a master explainer of Christian history， texts， and traditions， shows how a religion whose first believers were twenty or so illiterate day laborers in a remote part of the empire became the official religion of Rome， converting some thirty million people in just four centuries。 The Triumph of Christianity combines deep knowledge and meticulous research in an eye-opening narrative that upends the way we think about the single most important cultural transformation our world has ever seen—one that revolutionized art， music， literature， philosophy， ethics， economics， and law。
Reviews
Ray
，
Quite illuminating on how Paul is absolutely paramount in the spread of Christianity。
Mike Cross
，
The author is a great， unbiased historian who has done his research。 Well put together book that is easy reading。 Excellent if you want the historical， non-religious perspective on Christianity。
Ana M。
，
Scholarly but readable history of very early Christianity。
Leew49
，
At the time of Christ's death， his followers were only a dozen or so illiterate laborers， yet in less than four centuries Christianity had become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire。 Despite the reputation of Paul for converting huge numbers of people in dramatic fashion， Christianity most probably spread by word of mouth， person to person， a few converts at a time。 But even this humble method of persuasion resulted in an exponential growth of the faithful。Contrary to popular belief， there At the time of Christ's death， his followers were only a dozen or so illiterate laborers， yet in less than four centuries Christianity had become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire。 Despite the reputation of Paul for converting huge numbers of people in dramatic fashion， Christianity most probably spread by word of mouth， person to person， a few converts at a time。 But even this humble method of persuasion resulted in an exponential growth of the faithful。Contrary to popular belief， there was no long-term and empire-wide persecution of Christians as a state policy in Rome， although local mobs often inflicted beatings and other humiliations on practicing Christians。 Christians were viewed with suspicion owing to their "secret" meetings， misunderstanding of the Eucharist， and their refusal to take part in public sacrifice to the gods and other governmentally sanctioned religious rites。 Nero， Decius， Valerian， and Diocletian all persecuted the followers of Christ， but for the most part they were left alone with intermittent periods of suppression。 With the conversion of Constantine in 312 AD， Christianity gained acceptance， and later became the official religion of the Roman Empire。 Later， under Theodosius and others， Christians turned the tables and went from persecuted to persecutor。 Christian conversions were accelerated in relation to pagan ones by the monotheistic nature of Christianity; one could not be both a Christian and a pagan at the same time， while the same was not true for pagans worshiping more than one god。 Tales of heroic martyrdom （whether true or not） and miracles also added to the impetus of conversion， as did promises of an afterlife--motivating through promise of heaven or threat of hell。 Claims that the Old Testament prophesied the coming of the Messiah leant an ancient luster to Christianity， since Moses predated even Homer。 As a historian， Ehrman relies solely on history and scholarship to explain the rise of Christianity， omitting divine intervention not necessarily as a falsehood but as something which cannot be evaluated by the tools of his academic discipline。 。。。more
Stephen Bedard
，
This is typical Ehrman， a mix of good scholarship and his own frustration with Christianity。 He makes some good points， especially the role of conversion。 However， he is overly skeptical about Christian sources。
Carlos
，
Ehrman seeks to account for the turnaround in the fortune of the Christian religion in the Roman Empire: from small， reviled and persecuted by the end of the first century to the majority by the beginning of the fifth。 He also seeks to do so without celebrating or bemoaning the end result but acknowledging the abuses perpetrated by pagans and Christians alike in the process。 He starts out giving the reader the context for understanding how radically different Christianity was to the inclusive po Ehrman seeks to account for the turnaround in the fortune of the Christian religion in the Roman Empire: from small， reviled and persecuted by the end of the first century to the majority by the beginning of the fifth。 He also seeks to do so without celebrating or bemoaning the end result but acknowledging the abuses perpetrated by pagans and Christians alike in the process。 He starts out giving the reader the context for understanding how radically different Christianity was to the inclusive polytheistic religions that Romans knew。 He provides the reader a sober-minded analysis of the possible growth curve of the Christian population as well as an analysis of the reasons that aided its steady growth。 While not ignoring the political context that cemented Christianity’s gains with the conversion of Constantine， Ehrman emphasizes the many ways in which this conversion was the end product of the simple growth of the number of Christians。 Definitely an interesting read that steps away from the hagiography of Church history and seeks instead to give a very unabashedly miracle-free explanation for the growth and ultimate triumph of Christianity， leaving it to the reader to decide whether or not that was a good thing for the world。 。。。more
David
，
"According to the New Testament， some days after Jesus's crucifixion， eleven of his male followers and several women came to believe he had been raised from the dead。 Before four centuries had passed， these twenty or so lower-class， illiterate Jews from rural Galilee had become a church of some thirty million。" （Introduction， 24 / 715）Christians sometimes cite the growth rate of Christianity as evidence of its supernatural character。 Dr。 Ehrman argues that the initial growth of Christianity appe "According to the New Testament， some days after Jesus's crucifixion， eleven of his male followers and several women came to believe he had been raised from the dead。 Before four centuries had passed， these twenty or so lower-class， illiterate Jews from rural Galilee had become a church of some thirty million。" （Introduction， 24 / 715）Christians sometimes cite the growth rate of Christianity as evidence of its supernatural character。 Dr。 Ehrman argues that the initial growth of Christianity appears miraculous because it was exponential， and the human brain is poor at comprehending such growth。 The exponential growth rate of Christianity during its first few centuries becomes less shocking as Ehrman breaks down the number of converts each Christian community would need to acquire per year in order to sustain such growth。Still， we are left wondering why the growth of Christianity was exponential。 If we grant that the number of Christian converts per year followed an exponential curve for several hundred years， then we must still explain why these converts arrived in such numbers during this time。 Ehrman walks through the primary sources and analyzes the causes of Christian conversion to be found in the textual and archeological evidence from the period。Chapter 1Chapter 1 focuses on the first Christian Emperor Constantine。 Constantine's contribution to the growth of Christianity was immense。"Constantine commissioned and financed the building of numerous Christian churches both in Rome and abroad， most notably the Lateran Basilica， which was to play such an instrumental role in the history of Christianity as the official cathedral of the Roman bishop （i。e。， the pope）。 He showered beneficences on Christian clergy。 He instructed the leading administrator of Africa to restore all the property that had been confiscated from the Christian churches during the persecutions。" （74 / 715）We get some idea of why Constantine was so enthusiastic about Christianity from his Oration to the Saints。 Numerous divinities all vying for attention would create division， envy， and jealousy。 This， in his words， "would mar the harmonious concord of the whole， as many disposed in different way of the shares allotted to each， and took no thought to maintain the whole world in the same state and according to the same principles。" Such a state of affairs would lead to the "confusing of all things。" And by "all" Constantine really means all。 "The constellations would be in disarray， the seasons could not change in consistent patterns， the fruits of the earth could not grow， day and night would be confused。" There has to be one ruler over all。 The implication， should anyone miss it， is that there needs to be one emperor over all as well。 Constantine's work proved a decisive step towards establishing Christianity as the religion of the Roman Empire。 After Constantine， all Roman emperors （except Julian the Apostate） were Christians， and the growth of Christianity continued rapidly in consequence。Chapter 2This chapter focuses on the Apostle Paul。 Paul provides the earliest written records of how Christians gained Roman converts。 Ehrman asserts early on that Jews of Paul's day had no expectations that the Messiah would suffer or be raised from the dead （Chapter 2， 27%）。 This is dubious。 The Jewish Gospels makes the case that some Jews at the time were expecting the Messiah to suffer for the sins of others （they had read Isaiah 53， after all）， and the discovery of the tablet called "Gabriel's Revelation" （see Haaretz and Craig Hazen） strongly implies some Jews of the early 1st-century AD were expecting the Messiah to rise on the third day。 The Gospels repeatedly emphasize that the Jewish Scriptures predicted these events （see Matt 26:56， Mark 15:28， Luke 24:27， John 20:9）， as did the earliest Christian apologists （e。g。， Justin Martyr）。 How did all Jews miss these prophecies for hundreds of years until the advent of Jesus Christ and the Apostles？Ehrman is clear that Paul became Christian because he had a vision of the risen Jesus （Chapter 2， 39%）。 Paul most likely acquired converts by conversing with business clients during the course of his daily work。 The core of Paul's message was that， "God raised Jesus from the dead。" （Ehrman， Chapter 2， 82%; Rom 10:9; Gal 1:1）。 His conviction and message would not have had nearly the same effect if they had not been backed up by miracles。 2 Corinthians 12:12 mentions "signs， and wonders， and miracles"， for instance， and so Ehrman accepts that people believed in such things and that this belief played a critical role in the growth of Christianity。Chapter 3This chapter discusses the pagan religions and philosophies of the ancient Roman world。 The religions fell into three broad categories: public temple worship， the Mystery Cults， and the Imperial Cults。Ehrman does not discuss what influence ancient Roman temple worship might have had on the Latin Mass， the Liturgy of St。 John Chrysostom， and other ancient Christian liturgies， but he does observe that temples were everywhere。 This was partly because they were， for lack of a better word， steakhouses:We have a list of buildings in a papyrus document from ancient Alexandria。 It enumerates 845 taverns， 1，561 baths， 24，396 houses， and 2，478 temples。 [Cited in Edward J。 Watts， The Final Pagan Generation （Berkeley: University of California Press， 2015）， 18， 2n。）] That would be nearly one temple for every ten houses。 If that were true in my neighborhood， there would be five temples - or， in my Christian environment， churches - just on my relatively short street。 [。。。] They were houses of the gods。 The cult statue， representing the god， would be kept there， in a specially appointed room that normally was closed off and not accessible to the public。 Sacrifices would take place not in this room， in the presence of the statue， but outside the temple， in front， on the altar。 That is where people would gather together for the ceremony to hear prayers and music and to observe the slaughter。 These were normally festive occasions。 Most people could not afford to eat meat on a regular basis， and a public sacrifice provided a rare and welcome exception。 [。。。] Most temples had dining rooms， and if it was a large public ceremony with a number of sacrificial animals， as opposed to a small private occasions， there might be a distribution of meat。 Public paganism was "almost entirely about practice" （Chapter 3， 19%）， and this consisted of sacrifices， prayer， and divination （Chapter 3， 33%）。 These were chiefly focused on health: Virtually every god of the Roman pantheon， whatever else his or her primary function， occupation， or interest， could be and was invoked for healing。 （Chapter 3， 44%） Roman paganism was also deeply concerned with the mos maiorum， or "custom of the ancients" （Chapter 3， 51%）。 This was the primary guide of pagan religious practice， not written scriptures。 Roman paganism， "。。。had no orthodoxy or heresy， no doctrines， almost no ethical requirements （with a few exceptions， such as a proscription of parricide）， and no sacred 'Word of God' giving instructions about theology or daily ethical practices。" （Chapter 3， 67%）。The Roman philosophical schools （Stoicism， Platonism， Epicureanism， etc。） shared with Christianity a keen interest in ethics that pagan Roman religion did not: "Philosophers talked a lot about how people should act toward one another， as members of a family， in relationships with friends and neighbors， as citizens of a city。 Good behavior was part of being a worthwhile human being and a responsible citizen。" （Chapter 3， 35%）。 Roman Philosophical schools speculated widely on life after death: "Those who followed Pythagoras held to the transmigration of the soul。 Adherents of Plato talked about rewards for the good and punishments for the wicked。 The Epicureans were infamous for taking a hard line: there would be no life after death at all; instead， the body would dissolve into its original state as a mass of atoms and whatever there was of the soul would dissipate。" （Chapter 3， 37%）The "mystery cults" of Rome were secretive communities featuring initiation rites （often called "mysteries"）， personal deities， hope in life after death， and communal meals。 These features they shared with Christianity， prompting some scholars to category Christianity as one of the mystery cults。 Modern Evangelical apologists reject this by highlighting the differences between Christianity and the mystery cults。 Ehrman does not buy it。"。。。any one of the mysteries could be selected - say， the cult of Cybele that is associated with Anatolia （modern Turkey） - and shown to be different in numerous ways from all the others。 Each had its own distinctive features， sometimes extremely distinctive ones， such as only men being allowed to worship in underground caves [the Cult of Mithras]。 The fact that Christianity differed from other mysteries does not alter the fact that it also shared numerous features， probably more than it shared with other cults scattered throughout the empire。" （Chapter 3， 84%）Evangelical apologists are sensitive to this topic in part because of Jesus Mythicism， a school of thought propounded by scholars such as Richard C。 Carrier， David Fitzgerald， and Robert M。 Price。 Mythicism argues that there was no historical Jesus; instead， Jesus was composed exclusively of legends， myths， and other narratives in circulation at the time。 Ehrman does not agree with this view; he merely acknowledges the strong similarity between Christianity and the Roman Mystery Cults without speculating on how much transfer， if any， occurred between them。Imperial cults were concerned with worshiping the Roman Emperors， or more specifically， their "genius。" Ehrman uses the plural "cults" rather than "cult" to describe them because， "。。。there was no centralized control， no detailed set of rules they had to follow or leaders who oversaw the entire operation empire-wide。" （Chapter 3， 93%）。 These cults were in more direct conflict with Christianity than any other form of Roman paganism， as they regularly featured in both Christian and pagan accounts of Christian trials and martyrdoms。Chapter 4In this Chapter， Ehrman describes the distinctive features which he believes account for the exponential growth rate of Christianity in its early centuries。 Unlike pagan religions， Christianity involved "conversion"， in other words: it was not possible to practice both Christianity and pagan rituals at the same time。 This was unique in the gentile world， and Christianity would not have grown as it did without this feature （Chapter 4， 19%）。Secondly， Ehrman argues that the religious movement of "henotheism" effectively funneled pagans into Christianity （Chapter 4， 24%）。 As an example of "henotheism"， Ehrman quotes Maximus of Madaura， a devout pagan:Who is so insane， so deluded， as to deny the utter certainty that there is one highest God， without beginning， without offspring in nature， like a great and glorious father？ We invoke under many names his powers that are diffused through the created world， because， obviously， none of us knows this name: God is the name common to all religions。 So it is that while we honor his parts （so to speak） separately， with various supplications we are clearly worshipping him in his entirety。 [Augustine， Epistle 16。1; translation by G。 Clark; slightly modified; quoted by Stephen Mitchell and Peter van Nuffelen， Monotheism Between Pagans and Christians in Late Antiquity （Leuven， Belgium: Peeters， 2010）， 2。] （Chapter 4， 38%） Like henotheists， Christians worshipped one God above all other gods。 Unlike henotheists， Christians insisted the Christian God was the only one whom it was acceptable to worship （Chapter 4， 41%）， albeit the definition of "Christian God" was， and is， highly controversial among Christians。Ehrman also observes the persuasive power exercised by Christian predictions of an imminent global apocalypse during which anyone who was not a Christian would be destroyed （Chapter 4， 49%）。 The imminent nature of this apocalypse is plain in Matthew 16:28， Mark 9:1， Luke 21:32， 1 Thessalonians 4:15， 1 Corinthians 7:29， 1 Peter 4:7， Philemon 4:5， Hebrews 10:25， and James 5:8， among others。 Such apocalypticism was not only effective at gaining converts， it was also effective at motivating fresh Christians to stand fast in the Faith after conversion; however， apocalypticism became an increasingly dubious feature of the Faith over time， to the point where C。 S。 Lewis would eventually refer to Matthew 24:34 as， "。。。the most embarrassing verse in the Bible。" （The World’s Last Night: And Other Essays， p。97）。Chapter 5Chapter 5 focuses on Christian accounts of miracles。 Accounts of conversion written by the early Christians are unambiguous about the fact that miracles attracted converts （Chapter 5， 32%）。 These miracles didn't need to actually happen for people to believe （Chapter 5， 98%）。 Most Christians today have never seen any miracles， yet they believe in them nonetheless。The second century features accounts of the afterlife that included， "。。。the ecstasies of the saved and， especially， the torments of the lost， presented with barely concealed voyeuristic glee。" （Chapter 5， 79%）。 These accounts are often quite graphic。 Women who perform abortions are sunk in excrement， people who doubt Christ's righteousness have their eyes burned with red-hot irons， and slaves who disobey their masters are forced to gnaw their tongues while being burned with fire （Chapter 5， 81%）。 Pagan critics recognized the force of such descriptions:Thus the second-century critic Celsus pointed out that Christians succeeded in their proselytizing because they "invent a number of terrifying incentives。 Above all， they have concocted an absolutely offensive doctrine of everlasting punishments and rewards， exceeding anything the philosophers 。。。 could have imagined。"[Hoffman， Celsus， 70] （Chapter 5， 84%）St。 Augustine agrees: "Very rarely， no never， does it happen that someone comes to us with the wish to become a Christian who has not been struck by some fear of God。 [Augustine， "On Catechizing the Uninstructed" 5。9; translation by Robin Lane Fox， Pagans and Christians， 263。]" （Chapter 5， 84%）。Chapter 6This chapter focuses on estimating the rate of Christian growth over the centuries from Christ to Constantine。 Christians were still only a "tiny fraction" （Chapter 6， 25%） of the Roman population by the third century。 Christianity was mocked for spreading among the poor and uneducated， but Ehrman dryly points out that， "。。。this was most of the population。" （Chapter 6， 45%）。 The growth of Christianity was uneven in terms of both time and geography （Chapter 6， 48%）， but， and this is Ehrman's main point: "。。。the triumph of Christianity over the pagan religions of Rome did not require a miracle from on high。 It required a steady growth in the church， one convert after the other， year after year， for the first three centuries。" （Chapter 6， 48%）。 Ehrman repeats this point at the end of the chapter: "But the triumph of Christianity would not have required supernatural intervention。 It would have required a steady rate of growth as people converted for reasons I laid out in the preceding chapters。" （Chapter 6， 93%）。To make his point， Ehrman produces a chart graphing the estimated growth in the number of Christians starting from the Crucifixion （20 Christians） to 400 AD （approximately 30 million Christians）。To non-statisticians， these raw numbers - especially toward the end of the chart - may look incredible。 But in fact they are simply the result of an exponential curve。 If 25，000 to 30，000 Christians were added in the half century between 100 and 150 CE， then at the very same rate of growth， during the half century between 250 and 300 CE， something like 2 million or 2。5 million Christians would be added。 （Chapter 6， 65%）To grow from 3 million to 30 million in the fourth century， each group of 100 Christians needed to convert 1 male with a small family every two years （Chapter 6， 65%）。It's worth observing at this point that Christian growth has followed the same "S-curve" pattern that， "。。。seems to describe the population histories of all species， from bacteria to chimpanzees。" （"Contingency， Pattern and the S-curve in Human History" by Dr。 David Christian） as well as the U。S。 GDP， the number of Internet users， and the number of car accidents， among other things （Why the Singularity Cannot Happen by Theodore Modis）。 Ehrman does not discuss the period during which Christian growth declined and flattened out， forming the above-mentioned S-pattern， but it clearly did; otherwise， Earth would be 100% Christian by now。Chapters 7 - 9These chapters cover the most dramatic period of Christian growth。 Before the middle of the third century， Christianity was not illegal and most Christians lived peacefully and publicly （Chapter 7， 3%）; however， Christians were sporadically martyred for being "troublemakers" （Chapter 7， 10%） and for "obduracy" （Chapter 7， 19%）。 Pagans feared Christian impiety against the pagan gods was provoking these gods to wrath and vengeance （Chapter 7， 21%）。 Given the legal customs of the time， Roman authorities acted with restraint （Chapter 7， 50%）; nevertheless， empire-wide persecution began in the middle of the third century （Chapter 7， 53%） with Valerian （Chapter 7， 68%）。 By the mid-fourth century， Constantine had become the first Christian Emperor and had invaded the Eastern Roman Empire in a crusade that made him sole ruler of the Empire （Chapter 8， 44%）。 By the end of the fourth century， Theodosius would make Christianity the de-facto state religion of Rome （Chapter 9， 92%）。 This breathtaking period of history features epic wars， devastation， and， above all， the death of Roman paganism。 。。。more
Sanford Wood
，
The Triumph of Christianity by Bart D。 EhrmanEhrman shows step-by-step how Christianity grew from about 20 followers at the time of Jesus's death to around 30 million members in the year 400。 As he explains， it may look miraculous， but it is no more miraculous than compound interest。 Christianity is inherently evangelistic， and it spread by neighbor converting neighbor。 At first the Christians were an obscure， insignificant minority who were considered atheists because they would not worship the The Triumph of Christianity by Bart D。 EhrmanEhrman shows step-by-step how Christianity grew from about 20 followers at the time of Jesus's death to around 30 million members in the year 400。 As he explains， it may look miraculous， but it is no more miraculous than compound interest。 Christianity is inherently evangelistic， and it spread by neighbor converting neighbor。 At first the Christians were an obscure， insignificant minority who were considered atheists because they would not worship the gods of Rome。 Then， as they became a more significant minority， they were often subjected to persecution。 Finally， with the conversion of Roman emperors， Christianity became the state religion。Ehrman also explains how the image of hell as a place of eternal torment was the product of the period of persecution。 The apologists of the faith proclaimed that those who persecuted Christians would suffer for eternity the torments they had imposed on the faithful。 Unfortunately， the doctrine of hell became a weapon in the battle over orthodoxy。 Christians told other Christians that they were subject to the torments of hell for incorrect beliefs。This is a very good book， well written and well documented。 And Ehrman's positions on the various controversies seem so reasonable！ 。。。more
Leib Mitchell
，
Book Review5/5 starsThe Triumph of Xtianity（ISBN: 9781501136719）Food For ThoughtThe inflammatory title of this book notwithstanding， it is essentially one among a million other studies of the Early Church--this one in particular with an eye to trying to explain how Xtianity became the dominant religion of the Roman empire。 To that end， the author spends a lot of time trying to describe what were conditions in the Roman Empire at the time periods of concern。 Bart Ehrman is a very prolific author， Book Review5/5 starsThe Triumph of Xtianity（ISBN: 9781501136719）Food For ThoughtThe inflammatory title of this book notwithstanding， it is essentially one among a million other studies of the Early Church--this one in particular with an eye to trying to explain how Xtianity became the dominant religion of the Roman empire。 To that end， the author spends a lot of time trying to describe what were conditions in the Roman Empire at the time periods of concern。 Bart Ehrman is a very prolific author， and he has actually written 25 books in addition to this one （by the time of publication）。 All told， he's written something like 30 books。 One for every single year of Life over age 35。 This book feels like a wild goose chase for several reasons。 1。 The first is that the sample size of history is always and everywhere 1， and so you can never know whether or not things would have been different。 Or why。 2。 From the perspective of individuals: what people remember becomes what happened。 From the perspective of broad strokes of history: what people take the trouble to write down becomes what actually happened。 （And anybody who has studied Chinese history knows that the Chinese view became the prevailing view--over， say， the Mongolian--because they were better than others at writing things down。） Even just in the first chapter， Ehrmann is trying to piece together conflicting accounts of the conversion of Emperor Constantine to Xtianity。 And then trying to deduce which story was most plausible based on the emperor's actions。 Given that heads of state / politicians routinely separate their actions from their beliefs （Hillary Clinton had a Southern drawl when she went down south and wore a hijab when she visited Pakistan - - and nobody anywhere still knows what she believes）， the author's attempt to infer beliefs from actions is somewhere between silly and impossible。 3。 I also have questions about using the Bible as a historical book。 Scriptures get sliced and diced and redacted and recompiled so often， that the events they are describing may have had no basis in observable reality。 4。 How much is this is can even be put within a frame of reference for modern Western people？ We change governments on a regular basis， and almost all of us are citizens of the country in which we live。 But， the overwhelming majority of people in Rome weren't even citizens， and political instability was an ongoing thing for hundreds of years。 Probably the most useful function of this book is to create a narrative arc about the lives of many of these people that is not readily observable from studying scripture。 The spread of a mass movement / major religion is not a new thing， and the cases are simultaneously interchangeable and yet idiosyncratic。 （Indonesia is Muslim， but no Arab army ever trod there。 China is in the process of being Xtianized， but for some reason Catholicism just didn't catch on there。） Chapters: 1。 Lots of people think that the Roman emperor Constantine's conversion to Xtianity was a seminal event in the spread of that religion。 Ehrman tries to get the facts together on the story。 （As you guessed: different sources tell different stories。） 2。 Who was Paul？ Was he a Jew？ Was he a persecutor of Xtians？ Was he the first pope of the Catholic church？ What circumstances surrounded his conversion？ The author offers a plausible mechanism of action in that: a） He was a skilled tradesman; b） He preached the people while at work in the shop; c） Because of extremely high population density in the ancient world and the fact that heads of household chose the family religion。。。。 Then there was enough for liftoff。 3。 Paganism did not have a set pantheon。 Also， paganism was not an "ism" in the sense that there was one group of people that had one set of holy books and believed one thing。 If we believe this author， pagan religions were entirely about demonstration of doxastic commitment and ritual action （Not about mythology。） If the question is "Are Xtianity and Judaism similar to each other？" then the answer depends on at what time you compare them。 They were very similar to each other during the days of the Roman empire in the sense that each of them required renunciation of all of the deities except for their one / 3-in-1。 Pre-destruction-of-the-Second-Temple-Judaism was very similar to the many-varieties-of-paganism that existed in the Roman Empire in that it was primarily sacrificial。 （The other practices were prayer and divination。） 4。 The author brings some initial explanations as to the reason for the success of early Xtianity。 Paganism and Judaism both did not proselytize。 （It is clear that Xtians did and do。） There is also the observation （nod to Nicholas Taleb's "Skin in the Game"） that people who are extremists can win out by merely holding their ground。 （This explains why all kosher food certification agencies are Orthodox。 Or how we changed from "Merry Xmas" to "Happy holidays。"） People who were pagans had no type of exclusivity， but the Jews （and later the Xtians） insisted on it and they were able to effect a sea change just by holding their ground。 5。 Expansion of some of the techniques that the Xtians used to become dominant。 a。 No shame in proselytizing to lower class people， because there are a lot more of them than upper class people。 b。 No shame in proselytizing to sick people， because in the event that even half of them get well they will attribute it to a miracle。 （Sickness is， in fact， a lot of what drove Falun Gong: healthcare in China is cash only， and there were a lot of very sick people looking for something， anything to help with unaffordable care。） c。 There are both carrots and sticks as reasons for acceptance， and for some reason the Xtian clergy were extremely effective at crafting imagery of the things that would happen （Gehinna）。 d。 Ehrman believes that the spread for the first four centuries was mostly based on networks and less about active evangelizing。 6。 Slow and steady wins the race。 2-3% per year can make a huge difference over the space of a few centuries。 It doesn't have to be in all at once moment， and other sources have drawn parallels to the growth rates in China。 7。 There was some persecution of Xtians before the time of Constantinople but it was not widespread。 8。 （Extracted from a good bit of waffle。） Constantine did not treat his conversion as a spiritual issue， but as a practical issue for the unity of the fractious empire。 It is not unusual for leadership to co-opt religious communities in service of their political goals。 （And so the author's attempts to deduce what was Constantine's level of doxastic commitment are irrelevant。） Whatever he was， Constantine was not a rabid proselytizer。 9。 Not too long after Constantine died， Xtianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire with some coercion。 （All pagan temples were shut down。） 10。 Xtianity then had his moment like Islam is having now: violent， destructive， expansive and coercive。 But， once it reached The Tipping Point there was a positive feedback loop that drove the process to completion。 Second order thoughts: 1。 The author spends a lot of time trying to explain whether or not miracles that caused a lot of converts needed to happen。 And I can't imagine why， because that has not been necessary to explain why a large portion of Korea became Xtianized。 （They export the largest number of missionaries in Asia。） It's not necessary to explain why China is following the same path。 Different mass movements answer the same questions of different people at different times/places。 2。 Malcolm Gladwell has written the excellent "Tipping Point，" and he explains to us that some Small Things Become Big Things with not much rhyme or reason。 Much like this author， Gladwell tried to bring across certain concepts （compound / exponential growth） in the most ginger way possible， lest he avoid alienating his audience。 3。 （p。 267） The other seems to be baffled then when there exists some religious group on the upside。。。 They will become the oppressors that they once hated。 This book was written well after the pivotal events of the religion of Communism。 The religion of environmentalism was on The Fringe for a long time， and now they are having their moment in the sun and using it to destroy as much industry as they can。 4。 The Roman Empire has a lot of teachable lessons， but it's a very uncomfortable source of information because: Of something that happened so variably over so much space and time， and with so little written down。。。。。 How do we know that this author's case is not a bunch of disparate pieces of reality jackhammered together to create a narrative that never existed？ （If you just took a single newspaper every 6 months from "New York Times" or "Slate，" you could get a picture of reality that had no basis in reality。） And Ehrman mentions many times that conditions on the ground were quite different to what the theoretical law was because The Emperor relied on local governments for enforcement。 So， if you are relying on central government archives。。。。 What information do you actually have？ 5。 It's really easy to adduce the takeaway lesson that: church and state must be separate。 But then， how is that lesson applicable to current times in Europe （or the United States）？ They have a seriously bad infestation of Muslims in the European Union （as documented by Douglas Murray）， and if we know that extremists can hold the day just by standing their ground。。。 Does that mean that there needs to be some mechanism of action by which the State can stop quirky religions from coming and taking over？ Verdict: it's a good thought book of suitable length and I recommended at the price of $3 Plus shipping。 。。。more
Scott Thompson
，
Good book for people that like history。
Tobias Wallbaum
，
In short， a great overview and starting point
Wood Duck
，
Clear and engaging full of new concepts or rather ways of viewing remembered history。 Intellectually sound and free fr bias or religious sectarianism。
Rox
，
I was wondering the very thing this book title says， saw the book and had to get it。 I am not disappointed。 This is a great read， and when it’s paired with Reza Aslan’s Zealot **chef’s kiss** brilliant
Bethany
，
Bart Ehrman is one of my favorite writers。 While I haven't read everything of his， this is I feel his best， and that's saying something。 This time in history is fascinating， and his careful arraying of arguments and evidence is masterful。 Bart Ehrman is one of my favorite writers。 While I haven't read everything of his， this is I feel his best， and that's saying something。 This time in history is fascinating， and his careful arraying of arguments and evidence is masterful。 。。。more
Andy Todd
，
There are some sections that are useful， particularly the earlier parts and the chapter on Constantine。 Yet there is quite a lot of repetition and digression。 It covers some similar ground to Holland's 'Dominion' but in a much less interesting way。 There are some sections that are useful， particularly the earlier parts and the chapter on Constantine。 Yet there is quite a lot of repetition and digression。 It covers some similar ground to Holland's 'Dominion' but in a much less interesting way。 。。。more
Helena
，
A suspiciously snarky and selective tone from someone who claims to be Christian。 The Orthodox do a much better job explaining the history and success of Christianity in a basic catechism。
Nelson
，
This book explores how Christianity spread in the centuries after Jesus's death。 It was not as interesting as 'How Jesus Became God" （probably because I just didn't find the history of the Roman emperors that interesting） and the topics discused in the latter parts of the book felt a bit haphazard。 This book explores how Christianity spread in the centuries after Jesus's death。 It was not as interesting as 'How Jesus Became God" （probably because I just didn't find the history of the Roman emperors that interesting） and the topics discused in the latter parts of the book felt a bit haphazard。 。。。more
Alex
，
This is Bart Ehrman's historical analysis of Christianity's rise - which he professes to be the greatest cultural transformation the world has ever seen。 Primarily he focuses on Christian growth in the Roman Empire from 30CE to 500CE。 Contrary to popular opinion， Ehrman argues that the single greatest moment leading to the triumph of christianity is not the conversion of Constantine in 312CE， but the conversion of the apostle Paul。 This is primarily due to Paul's commitment to spreading the gosp This is Bart Ehrman's historical analysis of Christianity's rise - which he professes to be the greatest cultural transformation the world has ever seen。 Primarily he focuses on Christian growth in the Roman Empire from 30CE to 500CE。 Contrary to popular opinion， Ehrman argues that the single greatest moment leading to the triumph of christianity is not the conversion of Constantine in 312CE， but the conversion of the apostle Paul。 This is primarily due to Paul's commitment to spreading the gospel to pagan gentiles。 We know that nearly all early christian converts were not Jewish， but Pagan。 Not only were Paul's missionary journeys on a scale unlike any other documented in early Church history， but he set the stage for large scale pagan conversion。 Furthermore， Ehrman discussed how， prior to christianity， the concept of "conversion" was unheard of。 Paganism wasn't even really a religion because there were so many Gods which people believed in and worshipped in many different capacities; pagan simply was what everyone "was" in antiquity。 People could come to believe in new Gods without denouncing their old ones。 They could even practice Henotheism by worshipping one God as superior to all others。 Christianity was the first time people's choice to believe in one God meant the complete abandonment of all their former beliefs。 Thus， for every new Christian converted there was one less Pagan - slowly leading to it's demise。So how did Christianity go from 20 devout followers during the time of Christ to 30 million followers （~50% of the roman empire） at the end of the fourth century？ It would initially appear that a miraculous event or mass conversion would have to happen。 To many， this was the result of Constantine's conversion and an immediate Christianization of the Roman Empire。 In reality， Christian growth actually slowed slightly during the fourth century。 More than likely， Christians simply grew their numbers steadily by 3-4% each year。 This exponential growth， similar to compounding interest on investments， slowly skyrocketed Christianity into the spotlight。 Certainly there were many factors that played a roll in this steady growth。 Firstly， Christian zeal。 Rarely before in human history had people been so dedicated to their faith。 Though not in the high numbers we have often been taught， many christians were more than willing to be martyred for their faith。 Such commitment certainly caused intrigue。 Furthermore， for people who were previously interested in Judaism but found it's requirements， for lack of a better word， weird， Christianity was very appealing。 It is a little easier to make the conversion if you don't have to chop off your foreskin and keep kosher。 The patriarchal nuclear family structure also aided conversion numbers。 If a man was converted， that meant his entire family became christian。 So， not through mass missionary journeys or political coercion or even miracles did Christianity take over an empire。 It was steady growth through evangelism in normal life - discussions at home and work。While I appreciate Ehrman's work for it's historical focus and detailed academic framework， there is an additional point I took from this book as a Christian reader。 You don't necessarily need to become a pastor or plant a church or go on a mission trip。 The greatest testament to Christ is your faith in daily action。 "Good" Christians aren't ones who do more religious work。 Christians are truly great when they live out the teachings of Jesus every day by loving their neighbor， fighting for justice， and walking humbly in all facets of life big and small。 。。。more
Ann D
，
This book is written by Bart Ehrman， an agnostic scriptural scholar who views the story of Christianity from a strictly historical viewpoint。 This book covers the early history of Christianity through about 400 CE。I found it fascinating。 Ehrman attributes the rise of Christianity foremost to the belief in miracles by the converted。 He also acknowledges the great importance of the belief in eternal life in heaven， the fear of horrible suffering in hell， and the appeal of a superior system of ethi This book is written by Bart Ehrman， an agnostic scriptural scholar who views the story of Christianity from a strictly historical viewpoint。 This book covers the early history of Christianity through about 400 CE。I found it fascinating。 Ehrman attributes the rise of Christianity foremost to the belief in miracles by the converted。 He also acknowledges the great importance of the belief in eternal life in heaven， the fear of horrible suffering in hell， and the appeal of a superior system of ethics。 The conversion of Constantine around 312 was also significant。 After Constantine， there was only one non-Christian emperor who ruled only 19 months。 Christianity natuarly became more appealing to the upper class once the emperors converted， although the early adherents were mostly from the lower classes。Per Ehrman， the conversion to Christianity， took place very rapidly at first and then leveled off some。 Paganism allowed the belief in multiple gods at the same time。 The God of Christian was exclusionary。 Once the head of the household converted， all of his family， and members of his household became Christians and the religion spread naturally。 In this book， there is also very interesting information about the nature of paganism in the Roman Empire and the extent of the persecution of Christians。 The latter was not as common as I had believed， but brutal incidents did occur。Not recommended for devout Christians， but highly recommended to those interested in historical explanations for the spread of religion。 。。。more
Chris
，
The author states early on， “As a historian， I will remain neutral on [。。。] value judgments。” He again reiterates in the afterword， “I do not think the Christianization of the Roman Empire was inevitable and I do not celebrate it either as a victory for the human race and a sign of cultural progress on the one hand， or a major sociopolitical setback and cultural disaster on the other。” And throughout the book， he approaches the subject with the training of a historian; he documents rather than w The author states early on， “As a historian， I will remain neutral on [。。。] value judgments。” He again reiterates in the afterword， “I do not think the Christianization of the Roman Empire was inevitable and I do not celebrate it either as a victory for the human race and a sign of cultural progress on the one hand， or a major sociopolitical setback and cultural disaster on the other。” And throughout the book， he approaches the subject with the training of a historian; he documents rather than works towards a desired or preconceived outcome。I remember reading the reviews on this book a few years ago， and his neutrality was mentioned。 It’s hard to approach religion with the neutrality of a historian， and this was one point that the book ended up on my reading list。 Additionally， because my knowledge of history prior to the High Middle Ages is limited， save large brushstrokes and especially impactful events， this served as the second point。 I wasn’t disappointed。It was interesting to read new conclusions on Constantine， specifically that he was more than an opportunist or casual Christian。 It was also interesting to read the growth of Christianity over four centuries until it reached a tipping point。 The use of onomastics， specifically to see how Christian names were adopted to correlate with its spread， was entirely new。Overall， a recommended read。 。。。more
Alec Rill
，
Scary how a targeted message and good marketing， with only 20 people， can start a worldwide cult。 Christianity at the beginning was labeled a a cult that killed children and eat them， sounds familiar these days？
J。 Browning
，
Excellent， highly readable analysis of how this obscure religion in a corner of the known world took over。 His major fascinating argument is that it wasn't really Emperor Constantine that caused it to grow， but that the religion would have dominated even if he had never championed the faith Excellent， highly readable analysis of how this obscure religion in a corner of the known world took over。 His major fascinating argument is that it wasn't really Emperor Constantine that caused it to grow， but that the religion would have dominated even if he had never championed the faith 。。。more
Mark
，
Well。 Hwaet。 Or something。 I first heard about Bart Ehrman in whispers， about how he's the next level up from the new atheists， because， you know， he actually is a historian and has knowledge on the topic， unlike the buffoons of Dawkins et al。 But really， this book wasn't as polemical as I expected it。 I'm not sure if I'm let down or what。 It only really got spicy in the middle half when he finally had to address the martyrs and miracles。 But it was interesting to witness an admittedly biased， a Well。 Hwaet。 Or something。 I first heard about Bart Ehrman in whispers， about how he's the next level up from the new atheists， because， you know， he actually is a historian and has knowledge on the topic， unlike the buffoons of Dawkins et al。 But really， this book wasn't as polemical as I expected it。 I'm not sure if I'm let down or what。 It only really got spicy in the middle half when he finally had to address the martyrs and miracles。 But it was interesting to witness an admittedly biased， atheistic historian at least attempting to feign neutrality and kindness toward a religion he no longer believes。 That would have to be a difficult area to study and do， because religion is such a personal thing。 But anywho， enough hemming and hawing， let's see some blood:In the intro， Bart （I could call him "Dr。 Ehrman， but I like Bart more， more earthy）。。。。 where was I？ Oh， yeah， Barty boy。 He used to be Christian， isn't anymore。 Nice to know the biases off the bat。 He didn't seem to hold the resentment one could easily assume from such a person， which was refreshing。 Even more refreshing was that Bart was totally on point in regards to Christianity being a unique force for social， political， and philosophical change that has created the assumptions we take for granted in the west。 I thought that that admission was huge coming from a secular figure。 Sure， it was disappointing that he doesn't know whether or not the world is in a better place morally because of Christianity （um。。。。？） but he at least showed he had nuance。 Another thing he had was a slew of passive aggressive （implied） claims。 We're a lot alike， Bart and I。 We both don't want to insult people directly， so we do it very indirectly。 But more on that later。Bart did a good job writing for a non-specialized audience。 I know a decent amount about this topic， but he helped flesh out quite a few blind spots of mine， especially the particulars of the old pagan religions （Roman， specifically）。 In contrasting these， he made an interesting point about how conversion was a new idea and how only Christians and Jews had a concept of exclusivity， while all other polytheists in the region just added new gods at will。 This goes into a general idea of how "tolerant" the Romans were when it came to new religious movements and novelty generally。 Bart also aptly points out how the sociopolitical and the religious never used to be distinct。Other main differences between "pagan" religion and christianity/later world religions include: no main holy text， no dogmas， gods were local， wasn't directly impacting upon ethics/morality， gods just needed prayer， sacrifices， and sometimes provided guidance [divination]He helpfully defined "Atheism" in those days as simply ignoring the gods， not necessarily declaring they dont exist （and as such Christians were accused of atheism）。 He pointed out that Christians saw christianity as a complete system which impacted all parts of one's life， and as such you had new categories like "pagan"Lastly， he attributed christian spread to exclusivity + missionary approaches （both unique to the Roman religious scene） and then pivoted to talk about paul。Admitted the entire storyline of paul （persecuted， had a dramatic conversion， and then went around preaching and people believed because he was doing miracles）。 Its laughable how hard he has to try to shove that down， because the most obvious answer to the quandary is "perhaps he really was committing miracles" and likewise "perhaps christ really did rise from the dead" and "perhaps christ really did appear to him"。。。。。 but once you preclude those explanations， which in all cases are the most obvious explanations （if we take off our pretentious materialistic glasses）， then you cannot honestly address the situation。 Bart shows that hes biased but only admits it in indirect ways。Bart admits that people converted primarily because of miracles， but is forced to claim that all conversions were results of hearsay， never actually witnessing miracles。 Knowing him and his biases， his little attempts to say “I’m not saying miracles did or didn’t happen” ring hollow， as you can tell he scrapes the ground dry trying to think of some way to get rid of the miracles。 He implies a lot without explicitly stating how egregious and stupendous his position is。 He is implying that the early christians were utter ignoramuses who were able to be convinced by outright liars。 Both of these points are important。 Both the originators had to be willfully lying （since they couldn’t do miracles）， and the early converts had to be so stupid as to believe unfounded lies。 Neither of those would create strong faith， but a faith which would scatter instantly once struck， like during persecution， or even in the face of common sense。Don’t get me wrong， both sides have an awkward time about all of this。 Either the miracles didn’t happen， and the people in the middle east back then were extremely stupid （and the masterminds of Chritianity were all pathological liars）， OR these sorts of things did happen （which is stupidly crazy and thus also something we must take seriously）。 But some of these accounts were fictional， even according to Christians today。 So the real question is “to what extent were the Christian miracles true？” Was every single miracle a fabrication？ This seems unlikely， unless one is predisposed to assume that all miracles are fictitious and who isn’t honest enough to leave open the possibility。 No one （except perhaps a delusional zealot） would claim every story about Christ and his apostles’ miracles are true （both canonical and apocryphal）。 [Also， why even narrow down a canon with comparatively so few miracles when there’s droves of apocryphal books claiming more？ Why not the more the merrier？ Unless they knew some were real and some were forgeries。。。] So where in between do we land？ Do we go the modernist route of claiming that some false ones implies they are all false？ Or do we go the Chestertonian route and say that forgeries point back to original true miracles （albeit things sometimes got twisted and expanded along the way）？The miracle claims are too early and too consistent to have been total fabrications。 Perhaps some later claims were based more on hearsay as Ehrman fears， but the extremely early， extremely consistent， and extremely convincing miracles （to the contemporaries） seem to have some sort of validity。 It seems to be stretching skepticism far too thin to claim that every single one of them was faked， or that every single one was hearsay。 That is frankly speaking more miraculous than someone just doing a miracle。Bart holds tight to a claim that all the stories of miracles were secondhand （or thirdhand or worse） stories and that none of them were historical （i。e。 none of them actually witnessed）。 This is such a stupendous claim that the only way it got published is because he words it in a deflective manner， one which makes the true claim indirect。 But Bart can’t fool me。 His unstated （heavily implied） claims are all egregious。 Bart seems to be making the same laughable argument as Hemant Mehta， where “The only way I could believe is if I saw a miracle myself” （with of course the caveat that they likely wouldn’t believe even if they saw it， because they wouldn’t trust their senses）。 This is implied in his “there were no witnessed miracles， only claims of witnessing miracles” claim。 This is also a similar tactic Mehta uses。 The only evidence we have （and the only evidence which could possibly pass down to us） is testimonies of people witnessing miracles leading to conversion。 Either every single Christian was lied to outright （by apostles who knew they weren’t doing miracles） and every single Christian was stupid enough to fall for ghost stories， or some of them did really happen， and people did really witness them and convert as a result。 It seems incredible， almost more incredible than miracles actually happening， to assume that literally every Christian was so stupid and gullable。 The profounder thing is how droves of people somehow left their entire lives behind and took up an insane sounding， exclusive， foreign new religion overnight。 His argument that it can naturalistically be explained via inclusive membership and exclusive religiosity is just stupid and so fragmentary as to be utterly dismissed。 But that’s all one can argue when one de facto assumes that miracles are impossible。 He doesn’t even try to come up with a naturalistic explanation for the miracles because he knows he’ll be laughed out of the room by the amount of stretching of his already thin argument he’ll have to do。Refusing to mention the martyrs （as a means of spreading faith） until halfway through the book was highly suspect。 Bart realizes how consistently people converted because they claimed they saw miracles， and how they never recanted。 Not that they heard someone committed miracles， but that they saw the miracles themselves and that’s why they converted。 None of the textual evidence goes along with his thesis。 Literally all Christan writings （canonical and apocryphal） show people converting because the people saw the miracle， not that they heard someone did a miracle。 All of the written accounts are claims of testimony。 Not claims of testimony of testimonies。 He has a false view of the actual evidence itself。 Even if we grant this and sweep all of this under the rug， we have the added problem of people dying for A） a willing lie [in the case of the disciples]， B） a group hallucination [which doesn’t exist]， C） hearsay [which， as I just points out， is never claimed]， etc。After that。。。 stuff。。。。 he talked about statistics and how the growth could have been slow if steady and if the assumptions taken in the population guesses were accurate。 He also pointed out how there were no explicit laws on the books against the earliest Christians， but the evidence points to the death penalty being used early on anyway （kinda interesting quandry）。 The possible reasons he mentioned for this included claims of "atheism，" leading to the disfavor of the gods， lack of patriotism， etc。 The irony of bragging how tolerant the Romans were while expounding on how they murdered Christians was。。。。 not funny， that's the wrong word。It was at this point that the implied points became obvious and I stopped being offended by them （unlike the miracle ones）。 It had become obvious that he was not putting in the effort to looking like he was neutral， he just started being contrarian and to prevent the book from bloating， he only kept those parts in， nevermore the hemming and hawing （until the end）。 He ended up gibing every excuse/counter-argument that he could， especially concerning the population statistics， conversion reasons， and the persecutions， and left it at that。One of the more insulting parts was when he pretended to agree with the social points of the early Christian apologists， but then cynically and wrongly claimed that early Christians believed in a separation of church and state for utilitarian reasons （not that it's obviously in the new testament）。 Of course he pointed out Christians who still called upon Deuteronomy as justification for religious persecution， but this implicitly ignores "love your neighbor as yourself" and "turn the other cheek" and "my kingdom is not of this earth" and "render unto caesar"。 All of those form a solid metal wall against that sort of despotism。 Oh well。Overall I felt bart portrayed the differences between christianity and paganism in odd ways， and you can feel him struggling within himself to keep the charade of neutrality while still consistently attacking christianity， the church， faith， and miracles。 Bart spent much of the book dealing with Constantine。 Bart seemed to like him， mentioning his 1） toleration of all religions 2） calling of ecumenical councils to decide by reasoned debate instead of the sword which side was right。 I was pleasantly surprised to see he wasn't bitter or conspiratorial about Constantine being the first Christian roman emperor， and he actually believed constantine was being honest。 Bart speculated earlier in the book that christianity might have taken over/done well without Constantine's conversion， but thankfully he keeps the speculation to a minimum in the book， and focuses on history。 He mentions funny things like the Iota controversy:https://dailymedieval。blogspot。com/20。。。I was very interested in the pagan reactionary response in emperor julian （short but regressive reign）， and it was especially funny that Julien was the first non christian to attempt to steal christian ethics and claim them as secular （let's care for the poor but like in a pagan way lol）The book ended talking about sporadic and random intolerance/destruction of idols/temples by Christians after taking power， and thankfully Bart was intelligent/honest enough to realize it isnt the exclusivity of christianity which caused the intolerance， since the nonexclusive pagans also did similar things （he didn't just say it was human nature， which would be the obvious explanation）。 Things inexplicably trail off by the 400s （end of the roman empire）， and he wraps it up nicely。 Bart is a gifted writer， that much is sure， and he thankfully doesn't foster the resentment I feared he might。 But yeah， those miracles man， they're the real popcorn hull in my teeth。。。 。。。more
Beth
，
Good with plenty of information but his writing style was not as engaging as usual。
Angela Gyurko
，
I probably would have enjoyed this book more had I read it before Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth。 But because I read Aslan first， I cannot help but look at Paul differently。 Yes， he was the person with the political connections， the urban upbringing， the ability to read and write， but he never actually knew the physical person named Jesus， and for all his scholarly research， Ehrman completely ignores the differences between what Paul was teaching and what the people who actually I probably would have enjoyed this book more had I read it before Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth。 But because I read Aslan first， I cannot help but look at Paul differently。 Yes， he was the person with the political connections， the urban upbringing， the ability to read and write， but he never actually knew the physical person named Jesus， and for all his scholarly research， Ehrman completely ignores the differences between what Paul was teaching and what the people who actually knew Jesus were teaching。 For a book published five years after Aslan's， I find the omission troubling。 Great if you don't accept Aslan's research， but at least acknowledge that the controversy exists。That small rant out of the way， Ehrman marches through the years between Paul and Constantine， starting each chapter with a specific focus or message， and supporting this point with well-researched information。 The source list is exhausting。 It reads a bit like a textbook， but if you're looking for a good starting place on how early Christianity fit into the Roman Empire， this is a start。 。。。more
Dan
，
Ehrman largely attributes Christianity’s rapid rise to its evangelical nature and compelling stories of miracles。 He is unconvinced that Constantine’s conversion played a pivotal role。 While plausible， the thesis is unprovable and thus a little unsatisfactory。 His discussion of pagan religions and their role in everyday life was informative。
Jesse De jong
，
The spread of Christianity through the surprisingly easy acceptence of second-hand stories about miracles performed， strongly resembles the spread of baseless conspiracies in our own day。 Funny how a 2000 year old story can become so relevant again in our time。 Humans are generally willing to believe any heresay if you bring it with unwavering conviction。
Matt
，
A historical look at how a small Jewish sect of less than 30 people grew into the large scale Christianity we see today。 Factual and objective。 It isn’t preachy but details the events in history that allowed the followers of Jesus Christ to go from hiding in houses to large scale churches through the Middle Ages， renaissance to the modern day mega church
Barbara James
，
A history of the early church， the first 400 years or so of Christianity。 It made for an interesting read。 I borrowed it from the library then bought a copy for my e reader。
Vanni Pulé
，