Jonathan Hill's "Zondervan Handbook to the History of Christianity"

My eye was attracted to this book for the colourful illustrations. It eads moderately well. It tries to be popular, but to be honest the history of Christianity is a bit of a bore with all the theological squabbles and long history of this and that. I find I read a section and realize that nothing really "stuck" so I go back and read it again.

What I can say that is positive: this book doesn't take sides. It is a pretty honest account without the trappings of any "approved dogma". For example it starts:

Palestine, c. AD 30: an obscure Jewish preacher, the latest in a line of charismatic relibious figures, is executed by the Roman authorites. His followers scatter. The wider world pays no attention whatsover.

Now that is an accurate portrayal of the facts. It goes on to explain the intended audience of this book:

How did a group of scared peasants from a backwater of the Roman empire, followers of an executed criminal, become the largest religion on the planet? The story of Christianity, its transformation from the illegal sect to the religion of emperors, kings and presidents, and its spread across the globe, is an endlessly fascinating one. This book offers and overview of these extraordinary two thousand years. It is written to be accessible to readers without any background in the subject, but the hope is that it will also contain plenty of interest to those who are already familiar with much of the story.

It doesn't quite achieve this laudable goal. For somebody with no background, this book would be a bizarre read with interminable details about seemingly pointless persons, events, debates, and battles. But if you do have a background, it tries to give a neutral introduction with a modern neutral interpretation with historical accuracy.

Here's what it says about early Christianity:

The truth is that there has been enormous disagreement over how to reconstruct the history of the very first Christians. Our main sources are the book of Acts and the letters of Paul. But certain disagreements between them mean that scholars have to choose which is the more reliable at certain points. As a result,there is much uncertainty and disagreement over what actually happened -- for example, how many times did Paul visit Jerusalem? He says three; Acts says five.

...

The first Christians, then, were Jews who believed that God had raised Jesus from the dead, thereby vindicating his messenger. But Acts 6:1-6 hints at a more complex group, describing a dispute between 'the Hellenists' and 'the Hebrews'. Who were these 'Hellenists'? Were they Jews from the diaspora rather than from Palestine? Were they Jewish Christians who wanted the group to dissociate itself more from mainstream Judaism? Or were they non-Jews, that is, Gentiles, who also believed in Jesus? Nobody knows.

Some of the crazy theological debates of the early church:

• Docetism (c. 100 AD) - the Son/Word of God only "seemed" to take on human flesh bud did not, thus all that pertained to Jesus' humanity -- birth, eating, suffering, dying, and so on -- was only apparent and not real.


• Montanism (c. 150-200 AD) - founded by the Phrygian Montanus, he believed he had a new revelation which appointed him leader of the church which a much harsher ethic. It held that any sin after baptism could be forgiven. It opposed the role of women in the church. It was against wild ecstatic prophesying. In some ways it resembled the pagan mystery religions with its mystical rites celebrated in secrecy.


• Ebionism - descendents of the original Jewish Christians, they held that Jesus was simply human and regarded themselves as simply Jews who believed in Jesus. They viewed Paul and his adherents as heretical.


• Gnosticism - Not a single movement but many groups. They accepted a dualism and was strongly affected by Zorastrianism. They had a complex hierarchy of divine beings from a kind of dumb 'Creator god' associated with the Old Testament to 'loving Father' associated with the New Testament. They like many mystery religions of the time, had secret teachings and many denied that Jesus the Saviouor was a material being. All clearly distinguished between the man Jesus and the spiritual being 'Saviour'.


• Arianism (c. 320) - a theological position at odds with the evolving theology of a 'trinity', this viewpoint elaborated Justin Martyr's view that Christ was the 'Logos', a sort of quasi-God who funcions as God's agent. It therefore took the position that the Son was definitely lower than the Father, breaking the evolving orthodoxy of the trinity (3-in-one, same substance, different aspects, a kind of compromise position that straddled all the various positions with a one-size-fits-all interpretation).


• Jovian (c. late 300s) - he reacted to the growing adulation of monastic life by arguing that a life of virginity was no better than married life. He was vigorously attacked by Jerome who stressed the virginity of Mary, Jesus' mother, he held that Mary remained a virgin all her life and that Jesus' siblings came from an earlier marriage. Jerome held that Mary preserved her virginity even in parturition, i.e. Jesus was a miraculous birth that left Mary physically unchanged. Jovian denied this, and was condemned in a synod in Rome in 390.


• Pelagius (a Briton of the late 300s) - he held that humans are intrinsically sinful, but they have free will and are called by Jesus in Matthew 5:48 'to be perfect' so he held that a normal worldly life was incompatible with real Christianity, so he felt monastic life was what all Christians should choose. He was attacked by Augustine for not accepting that people can be saved by God's grace but must earn it through living a perfect life.


• Nestorianism (circa 450 AD) - the view that Jesus was a composite person made from the Son of God as well as a human person, i.e. Christ has "two natures". The Son of God cold not "become a man" and be born of a woman and have hunger, thirst, or die. Only the human part experienced these, not the Son of God.


• Monophysites (circa 451 AD at the council of Chalcedon) - was a reaction to Nestorianism and developed a theory of incarnation, i.e. Jesus was truly the Son of God and man in one person and as such fully suffered and was buried. He refused to accept the position of one substance with two natures. The monophysites hold that the Son is 'one with the Father'. There are not three persons. There is a single God who was both Father and Son.