pelseach's review
4.0
As an ex-vangelical, I love how much Ehrman makes me think. It's very interesting to me how people of different faiths and backgrounds can read his work without anyone getting offended.
waynewaynus's review
4.0
Well written and interesting insight into the early centuries of the Christian faith.
kurtpankau's review
5.0
A great read if you're interested in the confluence of academic writing, archaeological statistics, and the history of the early Christian church. Which I am.
Ehrman, as ever, takes a potentially dry subject and makes it imminently readable. His central thesis is that Constantine's conversion in 312 CE was a symptom of Christianity's meteoric rise, not a cause. To bolster this claim, he provides a brief history of the relevant political goings-on--there was a great deal of upheaval at the time as Constantine's predecessor had radically changed the rules of Imperial succession--context about what it meant to be "pagan" and details about how Paul might have seeded his early churches. Ehrman's work is rigorously sourced, but he is quick to point out that despite the massive volumes of scholarship about this period, very little is known from trustable first-hand sources.
I found it thoroughly intellectually engaging and it has challenged some of my assumptions about early church history and the church's role in the philosophical evolution of Western Civilization. If that sounds intriguing to you--and honestly, who wouldn't find it thus? :)--read this book and then hit me up so we can discuss it in bars.
Ehrman, as ever, takes a potentially dry subject and makes it imminently readable. His central thesis is that Constantine's conversion in 312 CE was a symptom of Christianity's meteoric rise, not a cause. To bolster this claim, he provides a brief history of the relevant political goings-on--there was a great deal of upheaval at the time as Constantine's predecessor had radically changed the rules of Imperial succession--context about what it meant to be "pagan" and details about how Paul might have seeded his early churches. Ehrman's work is rigorously sourced, but he is quick to point out that despite the massive volumes of scholarship about this period, very little is known from trustable first-hand sources.
I found it thoroughly intellectually engaging and it has challenged some of my assumptions about early church history and the church's role in the philosophical evolution of Western Civilization. If that sounds intriguing to you--and honestly, who wouldn't find it thus? :)--read this book and then hit me up so we can discuss it in bars.
alpho's review
3.0
It was interesting, but I feel like Ehrman's books always feel slight to me in a frustrating sort of way. They're always a fine read, but they always feel like they could be excellent if he'd just plumbed the depth a little more, but he never is.
And as much as he was trying to be evenhanded about Christianity and very carefully not condemn it, I really found myself thinking how toxic it was early on no matter how much he was telling me it was fine. And I don't know whether to attribute that to my biases (but generally I don't dislike early Christianity, though I am not Christian) or to his writing, but something about the angle he was approaching Christianity on just did not work for me.
And as much as he was trying to be evenhanded about Christianity and very carefully not condemn it, I really found myself thinking how toxic it was early on no matter how much he was telling me it was fine. And I don't know whether to attribute that to my biases (but generally I don't dislike early Christianity, though I am not Christian) or to his writing, but something about the angle he was approaching Christianity on just did not work for me.
More...