As Josef Lössl states in the introduction to his Early Church, the writing of a church history raises a number of basic questions. When, for instance, do we think early church history began? And when does it end? And how would we entitle it: a history of the Church, however understood, or a history of Christianity? And can we approach such a subject with a degree of objectivity, especially given its perceived importance for the Church today? In this context Lössl illustrates, with reference to mainly recent examples, some of the recent approaches to the subject, whether Henry Chadwick's with its supposed perception of the Church as a corporation, through Lane Fox's understanding of it as another manifestation of antique religion, to Markschies's concentration on the inner structures of the religion.

Both Lössl and the author of the other history under review, Charles Freeman, agree that ‘early’, at least from a contextual point of view, should be understood as the Judaism of the Hellenistic era. They differ, however, implicitly at least, on where it ends Freeman putting it into the late sixth century, and Lössl, here with not a lot of justification, to the more conventional date of 451 and the Council of Chalcedon. Lössl prefers the word ‘Church’, Freeman, ‘Christianity’ and it is only Lössl, the professional scholar, whose book betrays a more self-aware approach to the subject, who justifies such a usage on the basis that early Christians rarely used the term ‘Christianity’ but always conceived of themselves, whatever their form of belief, as a Church: ‘Groups thought of themselves as churches whether modern scholars classify them as orthodox, heretical or altogether different religions’. The term then appears better to reflect early Christian self-perception and the diversity of those who could be designated Christians. Freeman accepts, in broad terms, the diversity of the Church while retaining the word ‘Christianity’ in his title.

Lössl and Freeman have different understandings of the way in which the subject has been and continues to be studied. So Lössl, who devotes a whole section of his book to the history of the study of the subject (this as a part of his commitment to the idea of writing a church history not just taken up with Christianity's primary sources but also ‘with its scholarship, past and present, and the cultural memories attached to it’ [p. 10]), is quick to highlight differences between Catholic and Protestant approaches to the subject (in the former there is a general attempt to defend and cherish the ancient doctrines of the Church on the basis that these formed continuities with the present Church, while in the latter there is a general tendency to see the history of the early Church as a story of decline from the pristine, unadorned Gospel of Jesus and his followers to the distortions of those who followed them); and to assert the very diverse manner in which the subject is studied today. Lössl will attempt to reflect these diverse approaches in his own account. Freeman, by contrast, simply refers to the inadequacies of those who have preceded him, at least by implication, rather than exploring these, and asserts the newness of his approach, rather than arguing for it.

The structure of the two books differs considerably. Freeman's ‘new’ history is divided up chronologically whereas Lössl proceeds thematically, although his final chapter, entitled ‘Leading the early Church’, ends with the latest of the events covered by the book, namely Chalcedon. Within these differing structures, the approach of the two authors diverges considerably. Freeman, as would befit his chronological structure, is intent upon telling a story with an overarching theme, in this case the regrettable tendency of the developing Church to move towards ever more rigid and exclusivist doctrines about God and related matters from which the Enlightenment was to rescue the west, a sort of Protestant tale of decline with no affirmation of the original Gospel, however conceived. Accordingly the book is populated by heroes and villains, and some chapters have jarringly evaluative titles (cf. ‘The stifling of Christian diversity’; ‘An obsession with the flesh’; ‘The end of optimism’). Lössl, by contrast, while only too aware of all the developments that Freeman delineates, prefers to adopt a less judgemental approach. One example of this relates to his whole understanding of the debates about God and the person of Christ. ‘The point’, he writes, ‘is not to demonstrate the “necessity” of the emergence of one irrefutably “true or orthodox doctrine, but the variety of attempts to put into words an experience that was in itself beyond the grasp of any human comprehension or expression’ (p. 159). Here the fact that what the early Christians sought to define was beyond their comprehension is not used as something with which to beat them, as it is by Freeman. To some, of course, Freeman's evaluative tone may seem preferable and it can make for a better read, but too often it appears to be taken up with an imposed and unilluminatingly modern agenda. It should also be noted that Lössl's thematic approach, which broadly eschews old-fashioned teleologies, also allows for more complex and nuanced exploration of a range of themes (themes covered are the origins of the Church, Jewish and Christian identities in the early Church – here taking seriously some recent work on the non-separation of Judaism and Christianity in the early period of the Church's history as well as seeking to place Christianity within a wider pagan context – early Christian religious practices, early Christian doctrine and the leadership of the Church).

There is not a lot in these studies which would surprise the aficionado of the subject, though Freeman's explanation of the resurrection is certainly original, if quite unconvincing (Caiaphas, keen to empty Jerusalem of followers of Jesus for fear that they would cause a disturbance, ordered the body of Jesus to be stolen and for a young man at the tomb to state that Jesus had gone away to Galilee). Lössl's book is a more accomplished and informed piece of work (if not as well written as Freeman's) and the early reflections on the character, nature and identity of church history, which in part reflect the work of Mark Humphries, are strikingly helpful. A brief review of the bibliographies of each book, and, in particular, the endnotes of Freeman's, will provide good evidence for the different stables from which each author hails.