What do you think?
Rate this book
The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries
By the time Christianity became a political and cultural force in the Roman Empire, it had come to embody a new moral vision. This wise and eloquent book describes the formative years-from the crucifixion of Jesus to the end of the second century of the common era-when Christian beliefs and practices shaped their unique moral order. Wayne A. Meeks examines the surviving documents from Christianity's beginnings (some of which became the New Testament) and shows that they are largely concerned with the way converts to the movement should behave. Meeks finds that for these Christians, the formation of morals means the formation of community; the documents are addressed not to individuals but to groups, and they have among their primary aims the maintenance and growth of these groups. Meeks paints a picture of the process of socialization that produced the early forms of Christian morality, discussing many factors that made the Christians feel that they were a single and "chosen" people. He describes, for example, the impact of conversion; the rapid spread of Christian household cult-associations in the cities of the Roman Empire; the language of Christian moral discourse as revealed in letters, testaments, and "moral stories"; the rituals, meetings, and institutionalization of charity; the Christians' feelings about celibacy, sex, and gender roles; and their sense of the end-time and final judgment. In each of these areas Meeks seeks to determine what is distinctive about the Christian viewpoint and what is similar to the moral components of Greco-Roman or Jewish thought.
275 pages, Hardcover
First published November 24, 1993
12 people are currently reading
152 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews
June 19, 2012
Constructing the moralities and ethical sensibilities of people is always difficult, especially when you’re at a remove of about twenty centuries, yet this is what Wayne Meeks, Woolsey Professor of Biblical Studies at Yale University, does in “The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries.”
Some of the things Meeks looks at won’t surprise people, but the depth and breadth of the readings that he can bring to the conversation is striking. He discusses conversion and how it always emphasizes both the personal and the communal, breaking away from a wider community and joining a more “select” one. He looks at some of the conversion stories, like Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho,” as a way of trying to concretize this change of a primary reference group. By emphasizing the world from which they turned, new Christians (mostly Jews, but later Gentiles, too) also serve to provide exhortatory stories of the morality of the new group itself.
Another common topic in early Christian morality is whether we should come to love or hate the world. By looking at a variety of texts, including Gnostic, Pauline, and Johannine, he shows how they all give different advice about how connected we should be to the world. In John, for example, the goal was not what Meeks calls “philosophical high-mindedness,” but the cultivation of “a passionate, sectarian, practical love that binds members to the group exclusively to one another and to the God they believe in” (p. 61). Gnostics, on the other hand, were often accused of being ascetics who hated the world because of the way they wanted to escape the creation of the Demiurge.
Meeks includes a fascinating section on the specific language of Christian obligation, and how those took certain literary forms. Christian moral practice took a number of shapes, some of which were quite simply lists of dos and don’ts, while others included gnomes (gnomia in Greek, sententiae in Latin) which were collected aphorisms or witty maxims. Still others were moral imperatives (precepts and commands), or discussions of certain topics and commonplaces (like “on friendship” or “on the family”). Meeks composes a grammar of moral obligation through these forms and how they are connected with some schools of Hellenistic philosophy. He goes on to discuss similar topics in the following chapters, including “The Body as Sign and Problem,” “A Life Worthy of God,” “Senses of an Ending,” “The Moral Story,” and “History, Pluralism, and Christian Morality.”
I really took a lot away from this book, and would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the first two centuries of Christian ethics, especially with an emphasis on the development of moral communities. It’s a scholarly book, with no hint of an agenda that we usually associate with books on subjects like this. As you might be able to tell from my discussion above, Meeks arranges his discussion topically, making use of the appropriate texts as he goes along. He also writes in the best of ethnographic traditions, with a thorough, rigorous knowledge of the material and an objective, concerted effort to better understand his subjects.
Some of the things Meeks looks at won’t surprise people, but the depth and breadth of the readings that he can bring to the conversation is striking. He discusses conversion and how it always emphasizes both the personal and the communal, breaking away from a wider community and joining a more “select” one. He looks at some of the conversion stories, like Justin Martyr’s “Dialogue with Trypho,” as a way of trying to concretize this change of a primary reference group. By emphasizing the world from which they turned, new Christians (mostly Jews, but later Gentiles, too) also serve to provide exhortatory stories of the morality of the new group itself.
Another common topic in early Christian morality is whether we should come to love or hate the world. By looking at a variety of texts, including Gnostic, Pauline, and Johannine, he shows how they all give different advice about how connected we should be to the world. In John, for example, the goal was not what Meeks calls “philosophical high-mindedness,” but the cultivation of “a passionate, sectarian, practical love that binds members to the group exclusively to one another and to the God they believe in” (p. 61). Gnostics, on the other hand, were often accused of being ascetics who hated the world because of the way they wanted to escape the creation of the Demiurge.
Meeks includes a fascinating section on the specific language of Christian obligation, and how those took certain literary forms. Christian moral practice took a number of shapes, some of which were quite simply lists of dos and don’ts, while others included gnomes (gnomia in Greek, sententiae in Latin) which were collected aphorisms or witty maxims. Still others were moral imperatives (precepts and commands), or discussions of certain topics and commonplaces (like “on friendship” or “on the family”). Meeks composes a grammar of moral obligation through these forms and how they are connected with some schools of Hellenistic philosophy. He goes on to discuss similar topics in the following chapters, including “The Body as Sign and Problem,” “A Life Worthy of God,” “Senses of an Ending,” “The Moral Story,” and “History, Pluralism, and Christian Morality.”
I really took a lot away from this book, and would recommend it to anyone who is interested in the first two centuries of Christian ethics, especially with an emphasis on the development of moral communities. It’s a scholarly book, with no hint of an agenda that we usually associate with books on subjects like this. As you might be able to tell from my discussion above, Meeks arranges his discussion topically, making use of the appropriate texts as he goes along. He also writes in the best of ethnographic traditions, with a thorough, rigorous knowledge of the material and an objective, concerted effort to better understand his subjects.
March 24, 2017
One of my good friends, an Episcopal priest, is going through a doctorate of ministry program and had to read this book. he ordered two copies by accident, so I took the second copy and am glad I did.
I learned a lot about the history of Christian morality. The author is a good historian, employing an ethnographer's method to understand early Christian communities, which he argues were largely urban in nature. (His proof for this claim is not as solid, empirically, as I'd like.)
Because Ive written a bit about the uses of ancient texts in moral formation in nineteenth-century America, I enjoyed learning how authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, Lucian, and even Juvenal (misspelled in the book), shaped Christian morality. Ninteenth-century detractors of the ancients cited their paganism as reasons for not studying them; here the author proves how central they were to Christian ideas about moral formation.
I learned a lot about the history of Christian morality. The author is a good historian, employing an ethnographer's method to understand early Christian communities, which he argues were largely urban in nature. (His proof for this claim is not as solid, empirically, as I'd like.)
Because Ive written a bit about the uses of ancient texts in moral formation in nineteenth-century America, I enjoyed learning how authors such as Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, Lucian, and even Juvenal (misspelled in the book), shaped Christian morality. Ninteenth-century detractors of the ancients cited their paganism as reasons for not studying them; here the author proves how central they were to Christian ideas about moral formation.
February 5, 2022
A book published almost thirty years ago about Christians living 1800 or more years ago is comforting to read in these troubled times. And also illuminating.
March 8, 2020
I read this book as part of an undergrad course in Religious Studies, back in the early 1980s. I remembered nothing about it but it remains in my library. I decided to have another go at it, since I've been reading several books steeped in the fringe elements of of Christianity (Educated-Tara Westover; Women Talking-Miriam Toews). Unlike these other books, this one is a purely academic read (even though the author says he intends it for a general audience). It's a very dense read and one has to be either excited by Christianity (which I am not) or a determined reader.
The author begins by making very useful distinctions between ethics (the method, logic, grounds for judgement; the science of morality) and morality (virtues given; comeing from authority [God's will]). I'm not interested in the latter much, the former, a lot. The latter leaves adherents (moral agents) unable to decide on their own where new conditions are not already prescribed, unless they have a grounded ethics. It's my major complaint about autocratic religions.
I take away a number of important understandings from the book:
1) The (nebulous) "world" is a bad influence on adherents; evil; basic message, "don't trust the material world"
2) There is very definitely an "us" (the righteous and good) and a "them"; them can be defined narrowly to include only your specific "denomination" or version of Christianity, or it can be defined a bit more broadly to include variously some other versions of Christianity. The emphasis of the scriptures is ultimately on division (as it relates to morality). Herein is my major division (pun intended) from Christianity (and to be fair with most other religions). Religions tend to divide rather than attempt to unite, or build broad community. Narrow community yes but steeped in suspicion, these organizations need an enemy in order to find their purpose. (eg. p117. "Whoever is not with me, is against me." Luke 11:23) I don't believe in the concept of "sacred text," that being a body of text that is unassailable, unquestioned. But Christianity (and other religions also) lives by a sacred text, despite often disagreeing on the particular version of such text to adhere to. The irony of this seems to escape them.
3) on the matter of discerning God's will in order to live a life worthy of God: it is not an easy or foolproof matter to discern. Yowsa! Without a method to do so for oneself, we are condemned to trust an earthly mediator (read: authority). Does anyone see a problem here? I sure do.
Finally, the author does admit (p114) "...distinction between magic and religion ... in practice the distinction is often unclear at best." I don't find in the book, a resolution to this dilemma. The author is not a critic of Christianity. Yet his book, as I read it, stands more because of the omissions as an indictment to it. To me this is the fatal flaw of channelized belief systems.
The Postscript posits 7 theses (I prefer to use the word hypotheses) to consider in a pluralist morality.
1) Making morals and making community are one dialectical process
2) A Christian moral community must be grounded in the past.
3) The church's rootage in Isreal is a priviledged dimension of the past.
4) Faithfulness ought not be be confused with nostalgia.
5) Christian ethics must be polyphonic
6) Moral confidence, not moral certainty, is what we require
7) God tends to surprise
My comments:
Given the emphasis on division it's no wonder 1) tends in practice to succeed only in narrow communities; the ideas of 4&6 have been totally lost in the American brand of popular Christianity. 7) is the get out of jail free card; against all comers, invoke 7; in practice, this invocation is why Christianity fails to be pluralistic.
The author begins by making very useful distinctions between ethics (the method, logic, grounds for judgement; the science of morality) and morality (virtues given; comeing from authority [God's will]). I'm not interested in the latter much, the former, a lot. The latter leaves adherents (moral agents) unable to decide on their own where new conditions are not already prescribed, unless they have a grounded ethics. It's my major complaint about autocratic religions.
I take away a number of important understandings from the book:
1) The (nebulous) "world" is a bad influence on adherents; evil; basic message, "don't trust the material world"
2) There is very definitely an "us" (the righteous and good) and a "them"; them can be defined narrowly to include only your specific "denomination" or version of Christianity, or it can be defined a bit more broadly to include variously some other versions of Christianity. The emphasis of the scriptures is ultimately on division (as it relates to morality). Herein is my major division (pun intended) from Christianity (and to be fair with most other religions). Religions tend to divide rather than attempt to unite, or build broad community. Narrow community yes but steeped in suspicion, these organizations need an enemy in order to find their purpose. (eg. p117. "Whoever is not with me, is against me." Luke 11:23) I don't believe in the concept of "sacred text," that being a body of text that is unassailable, unquestioned. But Christianity (and other religions also) lives by a sacred text, despite often disagreeing on the particular version of such text to adhere to. The irony of this seems to escape them.
3) on the matter of discerning God's will in order to live a life worthy of God: it is not an easy or foolproof matter to discern. Yowsa! Without a method to do so for oneself, we are condemned to trust an earthly mediator (read: authority). Does anyone see a problem here? I sure do.
Finally, the author does admit (p114) "...distinction between magic and religion ... in practice the distinction is often unclear at best." I don't find in the book, a resolution to this dilemma. The author is not a critic of Christianity. Yet his book, as I read it, stands more because of the omissions as an indictment to it. To me this is the fatal flaw of channelized belief systems.
The Postscript posits 7 theses (I prefer to use the word hypotheses) to consider in a pluralist morality.
1) Making morals and making community are one dialectical process
2) A Christian moral community must be grounded in the past.
3) The church's rootage in Isreal is a priviledged dimension of the past.
4) Faithfulness ought not be be confused with nostalgia.
5) Christian ethics must be polyphonic
6) Moral confidence, not moral certainty, is what we require
7) God tends to surprise
My comments:
Given the emphasis on division it's no wonder 1) tends in practice to succeed only in narrow communities; the ideas of 4&6 have been totally lost in the American brand of popular Christianity. 7) is the get out of jail free card; against all comers, invoke 7; in practice, this invocation is why Christianity fails to be pluralistic.
July 26, 2022
This fits into the "fact based entertainment" genre and is just wildly more niche and pointless than the entertainment today. Now you can open Netflix or Vice Media for all the fact based entertainment you could desire, so books like this are totally pointless and boring.
I'm reading this in 2022. Today, the book seems laughably worthless, I mean beyond worthless, it's like poison to read it now. We've now had 30 years of books on the "historical Jesus" and the "early church" which were just fads. There is no such things as the "early church" or "historical Jesus" as scholars really can't give anywhere near a clear picture, instead cherry picking random stuff they do know. I think both of those genres are falling out of favor hard, especially since churches are losing numbers quickly, nobody cares anymore.
Who are these books for? If you're not a Christian, I don't see why you'd care at all about random thoughts of people living 2000 years ago. Even stuff about Gnostics, I feel that topic is an old fad at this point, nobody cares. I tried to talk to people about this stuff, they were dumbfounded why anyone would care at all about these topics, since it has absolutely zero impact on today. New Agers might still be interested in some of this, they may want to start a cult or have some new material for their gnostic youtuber channel?
The only real impact I would see, would be to help people leave Christianity who didn't yet understand the propaganda. The internet is already so full of this stuff, and this book is pretty boring to slog through. Much newer books have come out to expose the lies & deceptions of Christianity.
For Christians, I don't think the average person will change. People are part of churches not because of some logical conclusion, but it's purely emotional. Reading about early Christian morality won't change anything.
Toss this book, it has absolutely no value or purpose. Morality should be current, I don't care what they did 2000 years ago.
I'm reading this in 2022. Today, the book seems laughably worthless, I mean beyond worthless, it's like poison to read it now. We've now had 30 years of books on the "historical Jesus" and the "early church" which were just fads. There is no such things as the "early church" or "historical Jesus" as scholars really can't give anywhere near a clear picture, instead cherry picking random stuff they do know. I think both of those genres are falling out of favor hard, especially since churches are losing numbers quickly, nobody cares anymore.
Who are these books for? If you're not a Christian, I don't see why you'd care at all about random thoughts of people living 2000 years ago. Even stuff about Gnostics, I feel that topic is an old fad at this point, nobody cares. I tried to talk to people about this stuff, they were dumbfounded why anyone would care at all about these topics, since it has absolutely zero impact on today. New Agers might still be interested in some of this, they may want to start a cult or have some new material for their gnostic youtuber channel?
The only real impact I would see, would be to help people leave Christianity who didn't yet understand the propaganda. The internet is already so full of this stuff, and this book is pretty boring to slog through. Much newer books have come out to expose the lies & deceptions of Christianity.
For Christians, I don't think the average person will change. People are part of churches not because of some logical conclusion, but it's purely emotional. Reading about early Christian morality won't change anything.
Toss this book, it has absolutely no value or purpose. Morality should be current, I don't care what they did 2000 years ago.
August 5, 2017
Upsides: tackling the question of morality from a variety of angles that it usually isn't approached from (ritual, location in society, narrative, etc) is a more complete and unique look at the question of Christian ethics than one normally sees.
Downsides: Because you're approaching the same question from so many angles, the payoff is usually pretty repetitive.
Downsides: Because you're approaching the same question from so many angles, the payoff is usually pretty repetitive.
July 29, 2025
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
June 20, 2025
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries by Wayne A. Meeks is a thoughtful, scholarly examination of how early Christianity shaped a distinct moral identity. Through an analysis of early Christian writings, Meeks explores how community behavior, rather than individual ethics, formed the backbone of early moral teachings. The book is richly detailed and insightful, especially for readers interested in religious history, ethics, or the social formation of early Christian groups. While it’s not a casual read, it offers a meaningful look at how early believers saw themselves and their moral obligations in the world around them.
The Origins of Christian Morality: The First Two Centuries by Wayne A. Meeks is a thoughtful, scholarly examination of how early Christianity shaped a distinct moral identity. Through an analysis of early Christian writings, Meeks explores how community behavior, rather than individual ethics, formed the backbone of early moral teachings. The book is richly detailed and insightful, especially for readers interested in religious history, ethics, or the social formation of early Christian groups. While it’s not a casual read, it offers a meaningful look at how early believers saw themselves and their moral obligations in the world around them.
August 21, 2016
A bit intense for me -- I was only a minor in theology, and that was decades ago. This is an "academic" book, not for the general reader, but if you are acquainted with the historico-critical method, you should be able to handle it. Four stars - I find no fault with it, but it did not change my life.
June 2, 2015
great summaries, great for easy-reading assignments, undergrad.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews