The Early Church (33–313): St. Peter, the Apostles, and Martyrs (Reclaiming Catholic History)

This first volume read very fast and quite easily. I read the entire book within 24 hours. I was disappointed that the author made the bad mistake of dating Jesus' birth wrong and when Herod died (find Jimmy Akin articles online to see why), and that he even dates Matthew's gospel to the 80's (see Brant Pitre the case for jesus for better work).The book is kinda basic, not really in-depth info. It feels harsh to give it 3 stars, but 4 is a bit too much also. I suspect the other volumes will be probably better than this one.It's not a bad volume, if someone knows nothing or very little this will be a decent introduction into the early church. But if u want more information etc and serious about the topic of the early church, it's best to find something else.The good thing about this book is the fact that the author is on the right side of history and not a raging anti-catholic or anti christian,But try find another non-anti-christian author for the early church in history if u want in depth info

I've always liked reading about history. Not so much about big events or dates but rather the little details that act as spices to the story. This is one such book. I recommend it.

My first reaction to the appearance of this series was that its volumes might be an excellent introduction to Church history for the casual reader, or perhaps serve as a textbook for a basic course on the subject. This first volume, however, has demolished my initial reaction. This is not a history, nor even an effort to set the early Church into the history of its time. It is a prolonged apologetic, fortified with a hagiography, which seeks to demonstrate that all the elements of Catholic belief and practice were firmly and universally established by the early 300s. And, Professor Papandrea's failure as a historian casts doubt over the validity of his apologetics. How might I presume to say that? Because I am a Catholic, who grew up amid such efforts 60-70 years ago, and because I am also a retired minor-seminary teacher of classical languages, literature, and history. Consider, then, the grounds for my statement about history and apologetics. Like many non-historians who try to write history, Professor Papandrea falls into the trap of not knowing, or choosing to ignore, the history of the wider world of which the Church was a part. For example, he correctly observes that the persecution of Christians changed from Nero’s effort to avoid suspicion to the widespread ferocity of Decius' and Diocletian's, but he offers no real insight into why that happened or why the latter should have been so unlike earlier, sporadic, and localized persecutions. (There were many more of the latter than most believers are aware.) In the early second century, Trajan was little concerned about Christians. In the middle of the century, Justin offered an explanation of Christian belief and practice to Antoninus Pius without fear of reprisal. A hundred years later mere identification as a Christian often brought immediate and often brutal execution. Why the change? Because Decius was more of a grouch than Antoninus? A second example. The professor passes over the deep significance of Rome’s transition from a centuries-old oligarchy to what was, in effect, a monarchy, through the actions of Gaius Julius Caesar and his adopted son and heir, another Gaius Julius, later named Caesar Augustus. A change most subtly accomplished and never formally acknowledged by any Roman, yet profoundly significant in the history of the City and its imperium. And then there is the professor’s claim that young Caesar “forced” the Senate to declare his adoptive father “a god” in the summer of 44 BC. Young Caesar, at that point in his career, had nowhere near the political “clout” (auctoritas) needed to force the Senate to do anything. Nor did he ever refer to himself as “a god,” only as the “son of the deified (Caesar).” That was great publicity and certainly a way to add to his “respect” (dignitas), but nothing more, and not nearly as much as was his formal and legal command of most of Rome's legionary forces. Oh yes, young Caesar did achieve the same status as his father -- by senatorial decree, after his death. The average Roman, then as now, was adept at recognizing such things for what they were and at playing along. (Never assume that those who lived then were less sophisticated or insightful than we are now.) Perhaps the greatest historical oddity is the Professor’s description, at the beginning of his sixth chapter, of what caused the “weakness” of the western Empire in the third century and helped lead to Diocletian’s invention of the Tetrarchy: it is a truly startling addition to historical speculation. In addition to the historical fumblings, there are also the usual dismissive cultural slurs about Roman creativity made by historians of this sort, e.g., that the “Aeneid” is a Roman re-run of Homer's great Greek epics. The professor, I assure you, would not ever have passed my high-school course on the "Aeneid" with such a review. And then there are the linguistic quirks. For example. The Greek word whence comes our “heresy” means “a choice,” and has nothing to do with separations, deviations, or tangents. The era under study is the “Graeco-Roman” period: “Greco” was a Spanish artist. “Resurrection” is a noun, “resurrected” is the correct adjective to describe a body raised from death. Finally, there is the cheesy language, e.g., “this Chrestus guy” and “the soothsayers were unable to say the sooth.” (That was funny in the mouth of Pseudolus in both the Broadway musical and the movie, Professor, but you really ought to have credited it.) And so it goes: one historical or cultural or linguistic mistake or bungle after another, until the reader decides that the author is clearly far out of his depth in the history of this period and that his apologetic claims, therefore, probably cannot be trusted either. This volume, therefore, is hardly a reclamation of any history, Catholic or otherwise. Perhaps the next in the series will offer more of what is claimed to be its goal? (By way of P.S. The author would have done well to have read the first volume of Msgr. Philip Hughes' "A History of the Catholic Church to the Eve of the Reformation: Vol. I, The Church and the World in Which it Was Founded" for a more valid and fruitful approach to the topic.)

Extremely well written to summarize the early church from the Catholic perspective.

I wasn't sure if I'd like this book as much as the next in the series, which I read first, by a different author. But I shouldn't have worried. This book is just as chockfull of truthful Catholic history that's easy to read and that busts some of the ubiquitous myths about Catholicism. Even though I've read a fair amount about these early Church days, I still found new information. I especially appreciated that it was never assumed we knew basic information. This ranged from explaining the difference between numbering in plain years versus by century (the year 300 is the beginning of the fourth century) to outlining how the Church hierarchy came about.Occasional "Up Close and Personal" boxes showcase different personalities or aspects of Christianity from that time, such as looking at the real Saint Valentine. "You Be the Judge" boxes examine common questions and set the record straight on topics like "Weren't Christian holidays originally pagan holidays?" or "Didn't the Church silence the voices of people who didn't follow the dominant party line?"I liked it. Can't wait for the rest of the series.