Cambridge History of Christianity, Volume 1: Origins to Constantine

Hardcover (Print)
Buy New
Buy New from
Used and New from Other Sellers
Used and New from Other Sellers
from $101.51
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
(Save 61%)
Other sellers (Hardcover)
  • All (5) from $101.51   
  • New (3) from $224.68   
  • Used (2) from $101.51   


Over thirty essays provide a comprehensive overview of the essential events, persons, places and issues involved in the emergence of the Christian religion in the Mediterranean world over the first three centuries. The collection traces the dynamic history from the time of Jesus through to the rise of Imperial Christianity in the fourth century. It provides a thoughtful and well-documented analysis of the diverse forms of Christian community, identity and practice that arose soon after Jesus's death, and which through missionary efforts were soon implanted throughout the Roman Empire.

Read More Show Less

Editorial Reviews

From the Publisher
"The editors have recruited squadrons of experts, pulled their chapters into well integrated order, and themselves offered unusually useful summaries and conclusions. The treatment of traditional themes and historical Christian regions is superb, but even better is the innovative work on fresh subjects and new Christian areas of the globe."
-Mark A. Noll, The Christian Century

"An outstanding collection of essays that chronicle the theological, intellectual, political, social, cultural, regional and global ideas and events that situate the Christian movement in the context of world events and thought. This is the first of nine volumes in what will surely be a major influence on the twenty-first century understanding of the impact of Christianity on world history and culture."
-Catholic Press Association

"It is an ambitious and welcome undertaking...the value of this volume is considerable, for it pours forth a rich bounty of data and interpretive ideas to help scholars and students in the ongoing task of understanding the formative years in the history of Christianity."
-Robert Louis Wilken, The Catholic Historical Review

"As a reference work this history provides what it should provide, a compendious account of early Christianity consistent with the best recent scholarship, indicating, when appropriate, matters where the state of the question is not settled. It does this in an accessible way and directs readers to further information, mostly in English, in notes and bibliographies."
-Joseph W. Trigg, Christ Church, La Plata, Maryland, Church History

"The first volume of The Cambridge History of Christianity is highly recommended for any library but especially for theological collections. All the contributions are of the highest quality. They challenge us to rethink everything we knew about the beginnings of Christianity."
-Lucien J. Richard, OMI

"...inspires awe....enormous diversity of of excellent scholars....stands out from rivals by its sheer scale....provide an effective structure....identification and development of themes is thoroughly successful....deeply impressive..."
—Philip Jenkins

"The solid and deft historical scholarship evidenced throughout the volume is at the same time not insensitive to the properly theological issues and concerns at stake in the growth and development of Christianity. The editors of this collection have set the bar high for subsequent volumes." —Michael Heintz, University of Notre Dame: Religious Studies Review

Read More Show Less

Product Details

  • ISBN-13: 9780521812399
  • Publisher: Cambridge University Press
  • Publication date: 1/19/2006
  • Series: Cambridge History of Christianity Series, #1
  • Pages: 790
  • Product dimensions: 5.98 (w) x 8.98 (h) x 1.93 (d)

Meet the Author

Margaret M. Mitchell is Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Literature at the University of Chicago. Her many publications include Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation (1993).

Frances Young is a Fellow of the British Academy and received an OBE for services to Theology in 1998. She is Emeritus Professor of Theology, University of Birmingham and served as Pro-Vice-Chancellor from 1997–2002.

Read More Show Less

Read an Excerpt

Cambridge University Press
0521812399 - The Cambridge History of - Christianity - by Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young

1 Galilee and Judaea in the first century

The gospels provide contrasting theatres for the public ministry of Jesus. Whereas the Synoptics have a shared focus on Galilee, with one final journey to Jerusalem, the fourth gospel views Galilee virtually as a place of refuge from a ministry conducted for the most part in Judaea and Jerusalem. In the most recent wave of historical Jesus research, there has been a marked preference for Galilee, due to a variety of factors, not the least of which are current trends among scholars interested more in the social than the theological significance of Jesus' life. Historians are missing an important clue to his career, however, if they ignore the fact that it was in Jerusalem rather than in Galilee that he eventually met his fate.1

Geographical factors

As one moves from west to east, both Galilee and Judaea follow a similar pattern in geomorphic terms - coastal plain, central hill country, rift valley and the uplands of Transjordan. On a north-south axis, however, real differences emerge due to the variety of climatic conditions. The marked decrease in annual rainfall from north to south is quite obvious in the landscape. Whereas the central Galilean hill country, with its rich alluvial soil and many springs, has a number of wide valleys running in an east/west direction, the Judaean hill country has much less soil covering and tapers off quickly into the dry, arid desert region of the Dead Sea valley. These variations, which were recognised by such ancient writers as Strabo (Geog. 16.2.16), Josephus (BJ 3.41-3; 3.506-21) and Pliny the Elder (HN 5.66-73), also point to diversity in lifestyles and settlement patterns in both regions. The threefold division of upper and lower Galilee and the valley reflects a recognition that, even in Galilee itself, there are several micro-regions from an ecological perspective (m. Shevi'it 9.2; cf. BJ 2.573; 3.41-3; 3.506-21).

Historical outline

Early history

These differences should not be neglected when the historical factors having to do with the ministry of Jesus are investigated. The name Galilee, meaning 'the circle', is derived in all probability from the experience of the early Israelites inhabiting the interior highlands and surrounded by Canaanite city-states. Judaea, on the other hand, is a tribal name which came to particular prominence in the period of the Davidic monarchy, inasmuch as David himself was from the tribe of Judah. The Galilean tribes were Zebulon, Naphtali and Asher, with the tribe of Dan migrating north later. The accounts of tribal characteristics and behavioural patterns, found especially in the Blessings of Jacob (Gen 49) and Moses (Deut 33), as well as in the Song of Deborah (Judg 5), suggest that the northern tribes were exposed to greater cultural diversity over the centuries. Certainly the region bore the brunt of the Assyrian onslaught in the eighth century BCE, with Tiglathpilesar III's invasion resulting in the destruction, and possible depopulation, of many centres in upper and lower Galilee (2 Kgs 15:29; Isa 8:23, LXX). Judah succumbed to the Babylonians a century and a half later with the destruction of the temple and the deportation to Babylon of the king and the leading members of the aristocracy in 587 BCE. Unlike the north, however, restoration in Judaea occurred quickly under the Persians, with the edict of Cyrus in 515 BCE allowing the Jews to return and rebuild the temple. Josephus acknowledges the significance of these events for later Judaean history, linking the return from Babylon to the etymology of the name Ioudaioi/Judaeans (AJ 11.173).

A firm grasp of the history of both regions during the intervening centuries before the Common Era is vital to an understanding of the religious, cultural, and political context of Galilee and Judaea in the first century CE.3 The Persian province of Yehud, as it was officially named, remained a fairly insignificant temple territory for several centuries, despite the hopes of restoration expressed by various prophets. All that was to change after the conquest of Alexander the Great and the advent of the Hellenistic kingdoms. In the second century BCE, the Seleucid empire in Syria began to collapse and various ethnic groups, including Judaeans, were able to establish themselves within national territories. Once the threat from Antiochus Epiphanes (175-164 BCE) of forced assimilation of the Judaean temple cult of Yahweh to that of Zeus had been averted under the leadership of the Maccabees, the desecrated temple was rededicated in 164, and the foundation of an autonomous Jewish state soon followed in its wake. Thereafter the second generation of the Maccabees, the Hasmoneans (135-67 BCE), initiated campaigns of expansion, which eventually led to the establishment of a kingdom that was as extensive territorially as that of David and Solomon in the tenth to the ninth centuries (1 Macc 15:33).

For the first time in almost a millennium, therefore, Galilee and Judaea were under the same native rulership, and significantly in the literature of the period the name Ioudaios/Judaean begins to be used, not just for the inhabitants of Judaea in the strict sense, but for all who embraced the Jewish temple ideology by worshipping in Jerusalem.4 By the mid-first century BCE, Rome was emerging as master of the eastern Mediterranean, and the Hasmoneans had been replaced by the Herodians, an Idumean dynasty entrusted by Rome with maintaining its interests in the region as client kings. Galilee, with Sepphoris - only approximately six kilometres from Nazareth - as its administrative centre, was recognised as a Jewish territory, together with Judaea in the south and Perea across the Jordan. These sub-regions were soon incorporated into the kingdom of Herod the Great, and were expected to make their contribution to the honouring of his Roman patron, Augustus.

The Herodian period

The long reign of Herod (37-4 BCE) made a deep impact on both Galilean and Judaean society, so much so in fact that on his death an embassy was sent to Rome requesting that none of his sons should replace him. Augustus responded by dividing the kingdom between Herod's three sons, assigning Antipas to rule over Galilee and Peraea, Archelaus over Judaea and Philip over Batanaea, Trachonitis and Auranitis in northern Transjordan. Galilee was once again, therefore, administratively separate from Judaea, as reflected in the gospel of Matthew's explanation of how Jesus, though born in Judaea, came to live in Galilee (Matt 2:23). Josephus gives a broader background to the political situation. Archelaus had so outraged his subjects that he was deposed by Rome in 6 CE; and thereafter Judaea proper was administered by a procurator who resided in Caesarea Maritima, thus reducing Jerusalem to the role of a temple city controlled by a priestly aristocracy.

Antipas, called simply 'Herod' in the New Testament (cf. e.g. Matt chs. 2 and 14; Mark chs. 6 and 8; and Luke chs. 1, 3, 9, 13 and 23), aspired to, but was never given, the title 'king'. He ruled in Galilee and Perea until 37 CE, when he too was deposed and his territory was handed over to his nephew Agrippa I. Despite his lesser status as 'tetrarch', Antipas continued with the style and policy of his father in ensuring that Roman concerns be addressed in his territories. John the Baptist suffered at his hands, probably for the reasons given by Josephus rather than those of the gospels, namely, that John's popularity and espousal of justice for the poor was cause for concern that an uprising might occur (AJ 18.116-19; Mark 6:14-29; Matt 14:1-12; Luke 9:7-9). This would have been deemed a serious failure in imperial eyes, since client rulers were tolerated only if they could ensure stability and loyalty to Rome and its values.

Apart from a major renovation of the Jerusalem temple, Herod the Great had for the most part confined his building projects to the periphery of the Jewish territories: Samaria was renamed Sebaste (in Latin, 'Augustus'), with a temple to Roma and Augustus constructed there, as also at Caesarea Maritima on the coast where he developed a magnificent harbour. In the north, Herod constructed a temple to Augustus at Paneas, which his son, Philip, later renamed Caesarea (Philippi). Antipas continued this tradition of honouring the Roman overlords through monumental buildings in Galilee. Sepphoris was made 'the ornament of all Galilee' and named autokrator, probably honouring the sole rule of Augustus (AJ 18.27). Tiberias on the sea of Galilee was a new foundation, in 19 CE, honouring the new emperor who had succeeded Augustus, and Bethsaida got the additional name Julias, in honour Augustus' wife, Livia/Julia.

Social and economic conditions in Galilee

In the past twenty-five years, no region of ancient Palestine has received more attention than Galilee, because of Jewish and Christian interest in the career of Jesus and the emergence of rabbinic Judaism there after the revolt of Bar Kochba (132-5 CE).5 In addition to the study of the literary evidence - mainly Josephus' works, the gospels, and the rabbinic writings - the focus has been on archaeology, both at key sites like Sepphoris and in surveys of various sub-regions. These studies give varied, sometimes even contradictory, accounts, as scholars from various disciplines attempt a complete description of the region in Hellenistic and Roman times. Nowhere is this tendency more in evidence than when historical Jesus studies and Galilean studies become intertwined. Ever since Albert Schweitzer exposed the anachronistic concerns of many of the nineteenth-century liberal lives of Jesus, it has become increasingly evident that objectivity is often asserted but rarely fully achieved, as various proposals for the ministry of Jesus are advanced.

Gerhard Lenski's description of advanced agrarian empires from a social scientific perspective has been highly influential in many recent studies, providing, as it does, a model for understanding social stratification in advanced agrarian empires such as that of Rome. In such societies agriculture is the main industrial occupation and the management of labour is directed towards achieving a surplus rather than mere subsistence.8 This exercise of modelling through an ideal type must, however, always take account of local factors. In first-century Palestine the evidence of two major revolts, both of which had a social as well as a religious component, has convinced many scholars of the need to supplement the Lenski model with another approach which highlights the causes of social conflict and the strategies adopted by elites for its management.9

Cultural identity

Discussion of the ethnicity of the Galilean population during the first century CE is concerned with the identity of the dominant strand in the ethnic mix of the region by examining traces of cultural and religious affiliations, comprising Israelite, Judaean, Iturean and even Babylonian elements. Certain claims can be ruled out as highly unlikely on the basis of our present knowledge of the situation. Thus, the argument for a pagan Galilee is poorly supported by the literary evidence and receives no confirmation from the archaeological explorations.10 Nor is there any real evidence of a lasting Iturean presence in the region, even though they may have infiltrated upper Galilee briefly before the arrival of the Hasmoneans. There are several problems with the idea of Galilean Israelites also. It is difficult to imagine a largely peasant population having maintained a separate Yahwistic/Israelite identity over the centuries in the absence of a communal cultic centre. Mount Gerazim, the sacred site of the Samaritans, who styled themselves 'Israelites who worshipped on holy Argarizin', might have been expected to play such a role.11 Yet all indications are that the Samaritans were as hostile to Galileans as they were to Judaeans, especially when they went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Luke 9:52; Josephus AJ 20.118-36).12 Thus, the theory of the Judaisation of Galilee in the sense that adherents to the Jerusalem temple in Judaea were settled there, would appear to be the most likely hypothesis, in our present state of knowledge. Archaeological surveys have shown a marked increase in new foundations from the Hasmonean period onwards, and at the same time the destruction of older sites, like Har Mispe Yamim (between upper and lower Galilee) which had a pagan cult centre.13 Excavations at various sites have uncovered such instruments of the distinctive Jewish way of life as ritual baths (miqvaot), stone jars and natively produced ceramic household ware. These finds indicate a concern with ritual purity emanating from Jerusalem and its temple as well as an avoidance of the cultural ethos of the encircling pagan cities.14

Social stratification

Lenski's model envisages a pyramid view of society in which most of the power, prestige and privilege resides at the top among the narrow band of ruling elite and native aristocracy (if and when these are to be distinguished). Beneath these are the retainer classes, who help to maintain the status quo on behalf of the elites, thereby gaining for themselves some measure of relative prestige. On a rung further down the ladder, as the base broadens, are the peasants, the free landowners who are the mainstay of the society, but cannot themselves aspire to a higher position on the social scale. Instead, they are in constant danger of falling among the landless poor, due either to increased taxation, a bad harvest or simple annexation of property by the ruling elites. Lenski's model indeed corresponds generally with what we know of Roman Galilee, once certain adjustments are made to this ideal picture to account for local circumstances.

While Antipas never seems to have been given the title king, despite the attribution by Mark (6:14), there is no doubt that within Galilee itself he and his court represented the ruling elite. In one sense they could be considered retainers on behalf of the emperor, since Antipas was prepared to accept the role that Roman imperial policies in the east had dictated for him. Josephus informs us that he 'loved his tranquillity' (AJ 18.245), a characterisation that fits well with the gospel portraits, despite his attempts to upstage the governor of Syria at Rome on one occasion (AJ 18.101-4). Augustus had decreed that he could have a personal income of 200 talents from the territories of Galilee and Perea, and presumably he could also introduce special levies for building and other projects, especially when these were intended to honour the imperial household (AJ 17.318). Not only Antipas and his immediate family benefited from these concessions, but a new class seems to have emerged around Antipas, whom the gospels refer to as the Herodians (cf. e.g. Mark 3:6; 12:13). While the identity of this group is unclear, a discussion of various other groups mentioned in the gospels may shed some light on their social role.15

One passage that opens up an interesting perspective on Galilean society is Mark's account of Herod's birthday celebration, where three different groups are distinguished among the attendees: megistanes, chiliarchoi and protoi tē s Galilaias (Mark 6:21). The first term ('great men') is known both in the LXX (Dan 5:23) and Josephus (Vit. 112; 143), where it refers to courtiers of king Agrippa II, and so should probably be understood in the same way here. Their special relationship to Antipas is underlined by the use of the possessive pronoun autou/'his' with reference to this group only of the three mentioned. The presence of military personnel (chiliarchoi) suggests that the tetrarch had some form of permanent army, as distinct from a militia which he might call up for a particular engagement (AJ 18.251-2). 'The leading men of Galilee' (hoi protoi) are also known from Josephus' writings, as he uses the expression some seventy times in all. In two separate incidents, the protoi are influential Jews, at least ostensibly concerned about religious values, but they are also interested in the maintenance of law and order and the payment of the tribute to Rome (AJ 18.122, 261-309). They represent, therefore, an aristocracy of birth, similar to the senatorial class at Rome. At the time of the first revolt (c.66 CE), two people bearing the name Herod were numbered among the ruling class of Tiberias, each of whom, as landowners across the Jordan, recommended loyalty to Rome (Vit. 33). The Herodians in Galilee could best be described, therefore, as a wealthy aristocracy, stoutly loyal to the Herodian house and its policies, presumably because they were its beneficiaries and possibly also involved in administrative duties.

From our knowledge of village administration in other parts of the Roman east, we can presume a whole network of lesser officials within the highly bureaucratic structures that had been put in place in the early Hellenistic period by the Ptolemies, who ruled Palestine from Egypt in the third century CE. These officials would have included market managers (agoranomoi), tax collectors (telōnai), estate mangers (oikonomoi), judges (kritai) and prison officers (hyperetai/ praktores), all of whom are alluded to in the gospels. The tax collectors appear to be ubiquitous, an indication of the high levels of taxation - religious as well as secular - that obtained. The tributum soli (land tax) was probably paid in kind, as we hear of imperial and royal granaries in both upper and lower Galilee at the outbreak of the first revolt (Vit. 71.119). Tolls were another important source of revenue for local rulers and landowners; in all probability the tax collectors of the gospels, with whom Jesus seems to have had friendly relations, belong to this category.16 Like some other professions, theirs was suspected of dishonesty by the more religious circles, but Jesus does not exclude them from his retinue, even when this meant a certain opprobrium for fraternising with 'sinners' (Matt 11:19; Luke 7:34; Mark 2:16).

Landowning patterns in Galilee, as elsewhere in the ancient world, are difficult to determine with any degree of precision. Large estates farmed by lease-paying tenants rather than freeholding peasants were already present in Persian times (Neh 5:1-11). Under Ptolemaic rule this trend continued, as we learn from the account of the Egyptian businessman Zenon's inspection tour of royal estates - including some in Galilee - in the mid-third century BCE. The gospel parables also reflect this pattern (Mark 12:1-9; Luke 16:1-9). On the basis of scattered pieces of information from Josephus, as well as from archaeological surveys, the trend was towards larger estates, and thus a move away from mere subsistence farming of the traditional Jewish peasant class. Pressure could fall on small landowners as the ruling aristocracy's needs had to be met. In a pre-industrial context, land was the primary source of wealth, but it was in short supply in a Galilee that was densely populated by the standards of the time (BJ 3.41-3). Increased taxation to meet the demands of an elite lifestyle meant that many were reduced to penury. These landless poor and urban destitute correspond to the lowest level on Lenski's pyramid (Vit. 66f). The slide from peasant owner to tenant farmer, to day labourer - all recognisable characters from the gospel parables - was inexorable for many and, thus, gave rise to social resentment, debt, banditry and, in the case of women, prostitution.

Economic realities: roots of conflict

Relatively speaking, Galilee was well endowed with natural resources. The melting winter snows from Mt Hermon and seasonal rains ensured good yields and allowed for the production of a variety of crops. Josephus speaks lyrically about the climatic conditions of the plain of Gennesareth in the region of Capernaum, with its luxuriant range of fruits (BJ 3.506-21). But, according to both Josephus and rabbinic sources (BJ 3.42-3), the valleys of lower Galilee also yielded a variety of grains and flax. The slopes of upper Galilee were suitable for the cultivation of the vine and the olive tree, supporting the abundant production of wine and oil, so graphically illustrated in the entrepreneurial activity of John of Gischala, as reported by Josephus (Vit. 74f; BJ 2.259f). In addition to this agricultural activity, the lake of Gennesareth supported a thriving fish industry. The names of Bethsaida and Magdala suggest a connection with fish, and Jesus' first followers were actively engaged in this industry (Mark 1:16f). The Greek name of Magdala, Tarichaeae, refers to the practice of salting fish for export, and this industry must have necessitated such specialised services as potters making vessels for export of liquid products, as well as boat, sail and net makers.

The most pressing question about the Galilean economy is the extent to which the benefits of these products accrued to the peasants themselves. Was the Galilean economy a politically controlled entity in which the peasants were mere serfs? In whose interest were the primary resources utilised? If, as we have suggested, the Galilean landownership pattern represented a combination of large estates and family-run holdings, then some degree of commercial independence would have been granted to the Galilean peasants. However, the refurbishment of Sepphoris and the building of Tiberias must have marked a turning-point in the Galilean economy, one which coincided with Jesus' public ministry. This provides the most immediate backdrop to his particular emphasis on the blessedness of the destitute and his call for trust in God's providential care for all.23 The new Herodian class required adequate allotments in order to maintain a luxurious lifestyle (cf. Matt 11:19), and, inevitably, this brought further pressure on the native peasants.24

Yet this picture has to be balanced by evidence from later sources which shows that a Jewish peasant class did survive the crisis of two revolts. The rabbinic sources are replete with references to markets, village traders and laws having to do with buying and selling.25 This cannot be dismissed as the mere idealisation of later generations, but is rather a continuation of patterns already discerned in such first-century sources as the gospels and Josephus' writings. The dividing line, however, between subsistence and penury was always a thin one, as the threatened strike by the Galilean peasants in the reign of the emperor Gaius (Caligula) demonstrates (39/40 CE). In protest at the proposed erection of the emperor's statue in the Jerusalem temple, they decided not to till the land. Significantly, some members of the Herodian family were dismayed, fearing that there would not be sufficient resources to pay the annual tribute, which would lead to social anarchy (AJ 18.273-4). Julius Caesar had recognised the problem caused for Jewish peasants by his restoration in 47 BCE of their rights to support their temple, and, consequently, he reduced the annual tribute due to Rome (AJ 14.190-216). The 200 talents (the equivalent of 600,000 Tyrian silver shekels) from Galilee and Peraea to which Antipas was annually entitled as a personal income made a considerable demand on the populace. A direct tribute to Rome was presumably still applicable on top of this, even though this is not mentioned explicitly.26

A monetary system is essential for any developing economy, since as stored value it allows for a wider and more complex network of trading than the barter of goods, which can only occur at a local level. Tyrian coinage seems to dominate the numismatic finds at locations not just in upper Galilee, such as Meiron, Gischala and Khirbet Shema, but even at Gamala and Jotapata as well, both lower Galilean strongholds of Jewish nationalism in the first revolt.27 This suggests trading links with the important Phoenician port, despite the cultural differences between the city and its Jewish hinterland, which could often boil over into open hostility (BJ 4.105). Most surprising is the fact that despite its pagan imagery, the Tyrian half-shekel was deemed to be 'the coin of the sanctuary' which all male Jews were obliged to pay for the upkeep of the Jerusalem temple. The usual reason given is that the Tyrian money retained a constant value in terms of its silver content for over a century and a half (126 BCE-56 CE).

© Cambridge University Press
Read More Show Less

Table of Contents

Prelude Frances M. Young; Part I. The Political, Social and Religious Setting: 1. Galilee and Judea in the first century Sean Freyne; 2. The Jewish Diaspora Tessa Rajak; 3. The Roman Empire Hans-Josef Klauck; Part II. The Jesus Movements: 4. Jewish Christianity Joel Marcus; 5. Gentile Christianity Margaret M. Mitchell; 6. Johannine Christianity Harold W. Attridge; 7. Social and ecclesial life of the earliest Christians Wayne A. Meeks; Part III. Community Traditions and Self-definition: 8. The emergence of the written record Margaret M. Mitchell; 9. Marcion and the 'Canon' Harry Y. Gamble; 10. Self-definition vis à vis the Jewish matrix Judith Lieu; 11. Self-definition vis à vis the Graeco-Roman world Arthur J. Droge; 12. Self-differentiation among Christian groups: the Gnostics and their opponents David Brakke; 13. Truth and tradition: Irenaeus Denis Minns; 14. The self-defining praxis of the developing ecclesia Carolyn Osiek; Part IV. Regional Varieties of Christianity in the First Three Centuries: 15. From Jerusalem to the ends of the earth Margaret M. Mitchell; 16. Overview: the geographical spread of Christianity Frank Trombley; 17. Asia Minor and Achaea pre 325 CE Christine Trevett; 18. Egypt Birger A. Pearson; 19. Syria and Mesopotamia Susan Ashbrook Harvey; 20. Gaul John Behr; 21. North Africa Maureen A. Tilley; 22. Rome Markus Vinzent; Part V. The Shaping of Christian Theology: 23. Institutions in pre-Constantinian ecclesia Stuart George Hall; 24. Monotheism and creation Gerhard May; 25. Monotheism and Christology Frances M. Young; 26. Ecclesiology forged in the wake of persecution Stuart George Hall; 27. Towards a Christian paideia Frances M. Young; Part VI. 'Aliens' Become Citizens: Towards Imperial Patronage: 28. Persecutions: genesis and legacy W. H. C. Frend; 29. Church and state up to c.300 CE Adolf Martin Ritter; 30. Constantine and the 'Peace of the Church' Averil M. Cameron; 31. The first council of Nicaea Mark Edwards; 32. Towards a Christian material culture Robin M. Jensen; Conclusion: retrospect and prospect Margaret M. Mitchell.

Read More Show Less

Customer Reviews

Be the first to write a review
( 0 )
Rating Distribution

5 Star


4 Star


3 Star


2 Star


1 Star


Your Rating:

Your Name: Create a Pen Name or

Barnes & Review Rules

Our reader reviews allow you to share your comments on titles you liked, or didn't, with others. By submitting an online review, you are representing to Barnes & that all information contained in your review is original and accurate in all respects, and that the submission of such content by you and the posting of such content by Barnes & does not and will not violate the rights of any third party. Please follow the rules below to help ensure that your review can be posted.

Reviews by Our Customers Under the Age of 13

We highly value and respect everyone's opinion concerning the titles we offer. However, we cannot allow persons under the age of 13 to have accounts at or to post customer reviews. Please see our Terms of Use for more details.

What to exclude from your review:

Please do not write about reviews, commentary, or information posted on the product page. If you see any errors in the information on the product page, please send us an email.

Reviews should not contain any of the following:

  • - HTML tags, profanity, obscenities, vulgarities, or comments that defame anyone
  • - Time-sensitive information such as tour dates, signings, lectures, etc.
  • - Single-word reviews. Other people will read your review to discover why you liked or didn't like the title. Be descriptive.
  • - Comments focusing on the author or that may ruin the ending for others
  • - Phone numbers, addresses, URLs
  • - Pricing and availability information or alternative ordering information
  • - Advertisements or commercial solicitation


  • - By submitting a review, you grant to Barnes & and its sublicensees the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable right and license to use the review in accordance with the Barnes & Terms of Use.
  • - Barnes & reserves the right not to post any review -- particularly those that do not follow the terms and conditions of these Rules. Barnes & also reserves the right to remove any review at any time without notice.
  • - See Terms of Use for other conditions and disclaimers.
Search for Products You'd Like to Recommend

Recommend other products that relate to your review. Just search for them below and share!

Create a Pen Name

Your Pen Name is your unique identity on It will appear on the reviews you write and other website activities. Your Pen Name cannot be edited, changed or deleted once submitted.

Your Pen Name can be any combination of alphanumeric characters (plus - and _), and must be at least two characters long.

Continue Anonymously

    If you find inappropriate content, please report it to Barnes & Noble
    Why is this product inappropriate?
    Comments (optional)