It received criticism from some scholars of late antiquity and the Middle Ages such as Averil Cameron, who accused it of telling a simplistic, polemical narrative and exaggerating the extent to which early Christians suppressed aspects of older Greek and Roman cultures.

[4] After expressing the opinion that traditional historical narratives tend to depict pre-Christian Rome in an unfavorable light (chilly and nihilistic), Nixey proceeds to describe what she sees as an attack by Christians against classical heritage during Late Antiquity, which is a period generally encompassing the Later Roman Empire and the Early Middle Ages.

[2] For Nixey, these episodes of violent religious zeal are explained by a widely promoted belief that pagan religions actually harbored demons, and also by the powerful rhetoric Christian leaders used against the enemies of the early church.

[3] Professor Tim Whitmarsh of University of Cambridge said, "in seeking to expose the error and corruption of the early Christian world, Nixey comes close to veiling the pre-Christian Romans’ own barbarous qualities," but added it is, "a finely crafted, invigorating polemic against the resilient popular myth that presents the Christianisation of Rome as the triumph of a kinder, gentler politics.

[8] Medieval historian at the University of Exeter Levi Roach called it "a salutary reminder of the darker side of the rise of Christianity" but argued the book endorses an outdated vision of the European Middle Ages as an intellectual backwater.