What are you currently reading?

[The Diner]

[asin]0679601287[/asin]

[val]

ANTONIO DAMASIO:       "Self comes to Mind"  (2010)

Very interesting work, centered in the evolutionary development of the brain until reaching the "biographical I", the identity. As usual, Damasio - one of the world's greatest scientists of the brain - gives us the information about the most recent discoveries on this subject.

[Jaakko Keskinen]

Dr. No by Ian Fleming. One of the best ones even though he almost stopped writing Bonds after From Russia with love.

Moby Dick by Herman Melville. No wonder this was Khan's favorite. One of the greatest books I have ever read.

[Bogey]

[asin]0451166892[/asin]

[Scarpia]

Maybe I'll read this next:
[asin]0375413316[/asin]

[Brahmsian]

Moby Dick by Herman Melville. No wonder this was Khan's favorite. One of the greatest books I have ever read.

One of the greatest I have ever read also.  The climax of the story though seemed to happen too suddenly though, and I think I missed a lot of the details.  I'm going to have to reread the last four or five chapters.

[Rinaldo]

[asin]0671695886[/asin]
I'm new to Abbey, got this one together with Journey Home. Reads like a modern day, practical Thoreau. And there's also a classical connection as Abbey was a huge Beethoven fan.

[SonicMan46]

The Cello Suites: J. S. Bach, Pablo Casals, and the Search for a Baroque Masterpiece by Eric Siblin (2011, reprint edition) - mixture of Bach & Casals biographies w/ much of the author's own personal relationships to these works - and not really a 'note by note' analysis of the actual suites; enjoyable and light reading - 

[Brahmsian]

The Cello Suites: J. S. Bach, Pablo Casals, and the Search for a Baroque Masterpiece by Eric Siblin (2011, reprint edition) - mixture of Bach & Casals biographies w/ much of the author's own personal relationships to these works - and not really a 'note by note' analysis of the actual suites; enjoyable and light reading - 

Loved that book, Dave! 

[Bogey]

[asin]0451166892[/asin]

Had to give this one up. The tidbits about the life during this time were fascinating, but the story was just too contrived.

[Fëanor]

On the other hand it's pretty clear the Constantine (screwdly) adopted (i.e. coopted) Christianity as the state religion to use it as a unifying factor in the Empire.

Actually, the following are true:

(1) Christianity was the actual religion of the vast majority of Roman citizens across the Empire prior to St. Constantine giving it legal status;

(2) St. Constantine did not make Christianity THE state religion; he merely gave it equal status to all other religions of the Empire and allowed (at least in theory) anyone to freely worship whatever deity they chose. I wonder how many anti-Christian GMG-ers are aware of this simple historical fact?

(3) St. Constantine did nothing more officially than acknowledging a state of affairs --- from a de facto state he moved on to a de jure state.
...

Actually your response is mostly incorrect, viz.

(1) Christians remained a small minority throughout the Empire at the time -- Charles Freeman estimates about 10% -- although they were a substantially larger minority in many places.

(2) It's true that Constantine's initial action was just ban persecution of Christians.  But it went on from there: in particular Christians (specifically the Christian bishops) henceforth received the patronage of the state.  And then increasingly both pagans and "heretic" Christians were subject to persecution, e.g. Theodosious in 381 made it a crime to espouse any belief other than the "equal", (my own term), trinity doctrine -- despite the fact the the majority of Christians themselvs still believed that Jesus was subordinate to God the Father; (c.f. Freeman, below).

(3) Again, the de facto to a de jure state argument is Christian wishful thinking.  The majority of citizens remained pagan or of other religions, (e.g. Jewish), in all major divisions of the Empire.

I'm just finishing ...

Charles Freeman: A New History of Early Christianity


Yes, it's good.  It covers the period from begining of the Rome control of Palestine through about 600 C.E.  About 1/3 of the book discusses the canonic, and to a lesser extent non-canonic, scriptures with an emphasis on historic context.  The remainer is disusses theological evolution and Christian "politics", (for want of a politer word).

Freeman expresses good deal of speculation and opinion but it seems always based on good, current historic research.  Traditional Christians, though, have been pretty derogatory, (see Amazon.com review); some have dismissed the book as a pack of "lies".  My guess this is on account of Freeman's major points, including:

= Texts, including the canonic texts, are far more contradictory than the pious, (Cathlics and Fundamentalists equally), usually assume.
= The definition of the canon itself was, even at the time, remarkably controversial and "political".
= The canon and much theological discussion of time didn't support the "equal" trinity doctrine.
= The unsaintly nature of such nominal "saints" as Constantine, Jerome, Ambrose, John Chrysostum, and others.
= The state of intellectual freedom, largely reflecting Greek philosophy, existing before Constanine was thence eroded to nothing by the end of the sixth century.

[Florestan]

Freeman expresses good deal of speculation and opinion

That pretty much sums it up.

Just curious: does he mention the time and place when Constantine was officially proclaimed a saint by the Church?

[Fëanor]

That pretty much sums it up.

Just curious: does he mention the time and place when Constantine was officially proclaimed a saint by the Church?

Freeman doesn't talk about this.  However ...

...
(3) St. Constantine did nothing more officially than acknowledging a state of affairs --- from a de facto state he moved on to a de jure state.
...

I noticed that you put the "St." in front of his name.  Apparently he is a saint of the Eastern Orthadox Church, (confirmed by Wikipedia), but not the Roman Catholic Church.  Apparently the latter has some nit-picking pertaining to his late, formal conversion.  (I don't pretend to understand this hair-splitting and tend to dismiss it as political manovering.)

[Florestan]

Freeman doesn't talk about this. 

That's because there never was a formal proclamation of the Church elevating Constantine to sainthood. He and his mother Helene gained this status by way of tradition, which in the Eastern Orthodox Church (and Roman Catholic Church as well) is just as authoritative as the Bible itself. It is the general piety that made them saints, not a formal decree. Why the RCC does not recognize him as a saint, I don't know.

BTW, Theodosius' Edict of Thessalonica was issued in 380, not 381. An error of one full year in dating a well-documented historical event doesn't look like anything based on "good, current historic research".

If you want a truly scholarly presentation of the issue, you might try this book. (The other 4 volumes of the series are equally valuable).

[Bogey]

Great discussion, gents.  For a very quick overview of the Catholic Church, I would rec, this one (as posted some time back):

[Fëanor]

...

BTW, Theodosius' Edict of Thessalonica was issued in 380, not 381. An error of one full year in dating a well-documented historical event doesn't look like anything based on "good, current historic research".

If you want a truly scholarly presentation of the issue, you might try this book. (The other 4 volumes of the series are equally valuable).
...

Yes, I checked and you are right about the 380 date for the Edict.  However I thing 381 was my mistake, not Freeman's: I was confusing the Edict with his discussion of the First Council of Constantinople wherein the trinity was further defined and various "heresies" condemned.

Thank you for your referal to the Pelikan book, but I'm unlikely to read it doe to insufficient interest in theological hair-splitting.

[Fëanor]

Great discussion, gents.  For a very quick overview of the Catholic Church, I would rec, this one (as posted some time back):

Catholic triumphalism, eh?  It ain't going to happen, broh.

[Florestan]

Thank you for your referal to the Pelikan book, but I'm unlikely to read it doe to insufficient interest in theological hair-splitting.

Ah, great. The rants of Freeman, who comes out as unfamiliar with most of the issues he tackles and even plainly ignorant of some basic Bible and ancient history facts, make a good book, while a scholarly treatise which is carefully researched and universally praised in the academic environment and addresses exactly the same issues as Freeman is dismissed as "theological hair-splitting". Very interesting --- and telling. It's like dismissing a scholarly history of the Roman Empire because it fails to mention any emperor fighting gladiators in the arena --- and hey, everybody knows that Commodus did just that. 

[Fëanor]

Ah, great. The rants of Freeman, who comes out as unfamiliar with most of the issues he tackles and even plainly ignorant of some basic Bible and ancient history facts, make a good book, while a scholarly treatise which is carefully researched and universally praised in the academic environment and addresses exactly the same issues as Freeman is dismissed as "theological hair-splitting". Very interesting --- and telling. It's like dismissing a scholarly history of the Roman Empire because it fails to mention any emperor fighting gladiators in the arena --- and hey, everybody knows that Commodus did just that. 

Again, no reason to blame Freeman for my choice of words: "hair-splitting" is my terminology.  But please watch your own choice of words: I'm not dismissing Pelikan; I said what I meant, i.e. I'm not interested in the fine points of theology.  As Freeman did say, it's all speculation that can be proven neither by empirical observation nor by literal reference to the scriptures (which are dubious in their own right).

I have caught you in gross errors, e.g. that the majority of the popluation of the Empire were Christians, so I'm scarcely going to take your word for it that Freeman is "plainly ignornant".  (Did you say that you had actually read an of his books?)

[Florestan]

I said what I meant, i.e. I'm not interested in the fine points of theology. 

Then why do you read books on Early Christianity, which is exactly about fine points of theology?

Did you say that you had actually read his book?

I wouldn't waste my time reading a book which claims that Saul was David's father or that Paul did not believe in the physical ressurection of Christ. If he has it wrong on facts that can be correctly gathered from even a cursory reading of the Bible I'm afraid I can't take him seriously on anything. And that's just my last comment on the topic.