What are you currently reading?

[The Diner]

[asin]0441142044
[/asin]

[Scarpia]

[asin]0441142044
[/asin]

I'd say this book lacks substance.   

[Florestan]

John Fowles --- The French Lieutenant's Woman

Excellent. Much more so when the place of the action can be visualized, and the steps of the characters traced, on Google Earth. 

[The Diner]

I'd say this book lacks substance.   

DEATH OF A DISSIDENT - Stuart M. Kaminsky

[Fëanor]

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

Freeman's book is rather more about politics and power than about theology, but since theology was the pretext for so much of the relentless squabbling and in-fighting in the early Church, (and the subsequent Church), it is necessary talk about it.

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.

Well maybe you ought to read the book before (mis)quoting it.  I dont' recall Freeman expounding the theory that David was Saul's son in the book in question; maybe I'm forgetful but I'd rather be reminded by somebody who's actually read the book.

Freeman suggests that Paul might have believed in a spiritual ressurection of Jesus rather than necessarily a physical ressurection.  This is a reasonable suggestion based on the Letters thought by scholars to have actually been written by Paul, (not necessarily on those gratuitously attributed to him, or on Acts).

And this is without giving much consideration to the possibility that Paul's writings were "diddled" by later scribes who sought to "clarify" what he said; in the regard some might want to consult ...

Bart D. Ehrman: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why

[Florestan]

Well maybe you ought to read the book before (mis)quoting it.  I dont' recall Freeman expounding the theory that David was Saul's son in the book in question; maybe I'm forgetful but I'd rather be reminded by somebody who's actually read the book.

See page 9. Of course, it's not a theory but a gross blunder, since David's father was Jesse. It's really embarrassing for an author who pretends his book is based on modern historical research to hugely miss the mark on the first pages.

Freeman suggests that Paul might have believed in a spiritual ressurection of Jesus rather than necessarily a physical ressurection.

Actually, when Paul speaks about Christ appearing to him he uses the Greek words "soma" and "ophthe", both implying flesh, body, physical appearance.

This is a reasonable suggestion based on the Letters thought by scholars to have actually been written by Paul, (not necessarily on those gratuitously attributed to him, or on Acts).

Who are these scholars? Does Freeman mention any name? Which of Paul's Letters are authentic and which ones are spurious?

Look, Bill, bottom line: you read what you like and like what tends to agree with, or support, your own vision. I have no problem with that, since I do the same. But this Freeman, far from suggesting anything new, seems to recirculate all the old Gibbon-esque myths and fabrications about Early Christianity, its raise to prominence in the Roman Empire and its social, cultural and intellectual impact, that have been dispelled long ago by modern scholars, while making blatantly false claims like the one above about Saul and David, or advancing absurdly contrived hypotheses like... Caiaphas stealing Christ's body! For God's sake (pun intended), is this a scholarly book or some sort of Gothic novel?

For all your reluctance to read Pelikan's work, I still suggest you at least try. It will offer you a much broader and balanced picture about why, how and in what circumstances the Orthodox / Catholic Church was established and her dogmas defined. It might even change some of your views.

But hey, even if you won't read it, I think the world's big enough to accommodate both of us. You stick to Freeman, I stick to Pelikan... and we can both be happy listening to some music.  0:)

[Fëanor]

...
Look, Bill, bottom line: you read what you like and like what tends to agree with, or support, your own vision. I have no problem with that, since I do the same. But this Freeman, far from suggesting anything new, seems to recirculate all the old Gibbon-esque myths and fabrications about Early Christianity, its raise to prominence in the Roman Empire and its social, cultural and intellectual impact, that have been dispelled long ago by modern scholars, while making blatantly false claims like the one above about Saul and David, or advancing absurdly contrived hypotheses like... Caiaphas stealing Christ's body! For God's sake (pun intended), is this a scholarly book or some sort of Gothic novel?

For all your reluctance to read Pelikan's work, I still suggest you at least try. It will offer you a much broader and balanced picture about why, how and in what circumstances the Orthodox / Catholic Church was established and her dogmas defined. It might even change some of your views.
...

Of course I will agree that naming David Saul's son is a blatant error; it's surpising the Freeman's editor missed it.  And I'll agree too that theory that Caiaphas stole Jesus' body is far-fetched.  Nevertheless a few such lapses don't invalidate an entire book -- unless the critic is totally biased to a contrary point of view.  Indeed, this is the nature of most of the negative reviews on Amazon.com (for example).

I am an atheist and materialist; fundamentally I see all theology as bunk.  It consists of sets of notions that are unprovable by empirable evidence; furthermore they are unprovable by recourse to scriptures which in case of the Christian gospels are 2nd or 3rd hand and contradictory at best. Thus it is really, really easy for me to see theology-based conflict as basically political power struggle for influence and wealth -- this especially after the state afforded the bishops much patronage and power in civil matters.

I will look for Pelikan's book. Very likely I will read it if it's available at the public library, otherwise we shall see.

[Florestan]

I am an atheist and materialist; fundamentally I see all theology as bunk.  It consists of sets of notions that are unprovable by empirable evidence; furthermore they are unprovable by recourse to scriptures which in case of the Christian gospels are 2nd or 3rd hand and contradictory at best. Thus it is really, really easy for me to see theology-based conflict as basically political power struggle for influence and wealth -- this especially after the state afforded the bishops much patronage and power in civil matters.

All these notwithstanding --- and I'm not going to start another debate over what I find questionable --- Christian theology is part and parcel of our heritage and had a tremendous impact on the European social, cultural and intellectual life. It is impossible to understand, for instance, Dante, Michelangelo, Bach or Dostoievsky without any reference to it. It is equally impossible to understand the birth of science without any reference to it. Therefore some basic knowledge about its history and basic tenets could only be helpful for anyone seeking to understand the origins and the evolution of what we call Western civilization (Byzantium and Eastern Europe included).

[The Diner]

[asin]0843957786[/asin]

[karlhenning]

Alexander Waugh, The House of Wittgenstein: A Family at War

[Solitary Wanderer]

[Bogey]

Taking the lead from our Minnesota friend:

[Bogey]

[asin]0843957786[/asin]

Used to read her comic books.  A gent over on the monster forum I chatted with, Terry Beatty, did the art for them.  Cool.

[listener]

The Westminster Alice
Hector Hugh Munro  (Saki)
A political parody based on Lewis Carroll's Wonderland
Great fun. I know almost nothing about the BoerWar, much less about English politics at the time so this is a nice  way of getting acquainted with some of the people.  I knew the Carroll original and had read some Saki short stories (had a collection that I seem to have given away).  Usefully annotated.

[The Diner]

Taking the lead from our Minnesota friend:

I've read like three or four Kaminskys and enjoyed them all. I have the Bela Lugosi one coming in the mail, and another as well.

[The Diner]

Used to read her comic books.  A gent over on the monster forum I chatted with, Terry Beatty, did the art for them.  Cool.

The author posts on my book forum. 

[Bogey]

I've read like three or four Kaminskys and enjoyed them all. I have the Bela Lugosi one coming in the mail, and another as well.

They did not have the first one in the series at my library, but they looked as if it were not a stretch to read a few out of order.  I almot snagged the WC Fields one, but when I saw the Peter Lorre....well

[The Diner]

They did not have the first one in the series at my library, but they looked as if it were not a stretch to read a few out of order.  I almot snagged the WC Fields one, but when I saw the Peter Lorre....well

Let me know how you like 'em.

[Bogey]

Let me know how you like 'em.

Even with a busy week ahead, it should not take long to get through it.  Pretty short, which as you know can be a plus!

[Fëanor]

All these notwithstanding --- and I'm not going to start another debate over what I find questionable --- Christian theology is part and parcel of our heritage and had a tremendous impact on the European social, cultural and intellectual life. It is impossible to understand, for instance, Dante, Michelangelo, Bach or Dostoievsky without any reference to it. It is equally impossible to understand the birth of science without any reference to it. Therefore some basic knowledge about its history and basic tenets could only be helpful for anyone seeking to understand the origins and the evolution of what we call Western civilization (Byzantium and Eastern Europe included).

By the way, Florestan, I do agree with every single word you say in the paragraph above.