Richard E. RubensteinAnmeldelser

Helpful historic background for the prophetic writings of Isaiah and Jeremiah (and Jesus a little). Given his explanations of how he shares the verses of the prophets---picking from several English translations of the Bible, including one Jewish one (the JPS)---I don't think the author knows Hebrew. Lots of endnotes. I picked up the Uncorrected Proof of the book.½

Sixty years after Boris Nicolaevsky wrote his account of the notorious Ievno Azef — the most infamous police agent to ever infiltrate a revolutionary organisation — Richard E. Rubenstein took a crack at the same subject. His book, published 30 years ago, is very readable and well-researched. It’s probably a better introduction to the Azef case than Nicolaevsky’s. Interestingly, Rubenstein says he learned more about what might have motivated Azef to betray his comrades from John LeCarre’s fiction than from other sources. To me, the Azef case — like those of Roman Malinovsky and Josef Stalin — is endlessly intriguing, and teaches us much about how underground revolutionary parties functioned in tsarist times, and how they were manipulated by the Okhrana, the tsarist police.

Currently reading.

I inherited a few nonfiction books from my grandfather years ago, this among them. I'm finally getting around to reading a couple of them to see what I want to hold on to.
This book added somewhat to my knowledge of the Council of Nicea and its aftermath, of which I really knew nothing. However, it was rather dry and I probably would have been at least as enlightened, if not more, by reading a condensed article. I was interested in the subject! But I guess I like my history humanized a bit, and this didn't work for me.

The astonishing story of revelation and transformation in the Middle Ages. When Aristotle's lost works were translated and available once again, the medieval world was galvanized, the Church and the universities were forever changed, and the stage was set for the Renaissance. The book shows the struggle between faith and reason as philosophers and institutions grappled with the new/old works of Aristotle.

I skimmed through this very quickly looking for some specific information, but I'd give this three and a half stars based on its general approach and writing style.

The author describes it, in the acknowledgements, as "a work of storytelling and interpretation," and this seems an apt description. If you'd like to know more about how Christianity came to believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine (ie, the Arian controversy) with more attention to human history and historical context than to theological subtleties, in a lively rather than dry academic style, this is the book for you. (A fair warning: Christians who think that the theological developments of the early church were pure and unsullied by human venality are in for a sad disillusionment.)

The book is definitely aimed at the general reader and requires no prior knowledge of either the theology or the history of the time. Endnotes provide pointers to the historical and theological details for the more academically oriented reader, citing both primary and secondary sources. And there's a fine map of the "the Roman world in the fourth century" inside the front and back covers that's very helpful in visualizing where all these people were from and where these things were happening.

We all know the story of Jesus' life, his death, his resurrection, and the persecution of his early followers. Less well known is the struggle the early Christians had in deciding whether Jesus was God Himself or the holiest of men, adopted by God and raised to divine rank

Aristotle’s Children by Richard E Rubenstein is a five-star book marred by the last nine pages (below).

Rubenstein offers good descriptions of some of Aristotle’s philosophy, contrasting it well with other philosophical and religious systems with which it competed through the ages, and follows the particulars of the survival of many of his works (and later commentaries thereon) from ancient Greece through the Mediterranean Muslim world into Spain and then beginning about 12th century into France and Italy, where Catholic scholars attempted to reconcile this gift of ancient wisdom with mutually incommensurate religious dogma, and where it seeded the Renaissance. Very readable and recommended.

The last nine pages in my edition comprise an inept purported attempt to draw lessons from the preceding which might be useful for the world. It’s a jarring disconnect from the rest. The author should have made this into a separate chapter and omitted the chapter. Among the more easily denoted problems are anthropomorphism, tautology, self-contradiction, straw-men, bombast, lumping, cliche, hand-waving, and repeated mischaracterizations of science. Aristotle would have puked. An undefined “Aristotelian project” is touted twice in these last pages. I did not recall such a thing from the previous (290) pages and could not find it there or in the index. One must then wonder how freely the author borrowed for those 290 pages.

Quite interesting look at the Council of Nicea, the opposing factions of early Christianity and the political maneuvering that resulted in the doctrine of Jesus' divinity as opposed to him being just the son of God. Not for light reading, this is a dry read for a casual historian, but it portrays the story behind the events that kept apologists employed trying to explain the trinity.

This book had some interesting things in its journey through Aristotelian history and his influence on thinking and reasoning through time, but it was tough to stay interested...

This book had some interesting things in its journey through Aristotelian history and his influence on thinking and reasoning through time, but it was tough to stay interested...

I didn't expect it to be this good. It was very interesting and I probably would still have read the entire book even if I am not required to for class.

Read this with [b:The Subversion of Christianity|274828|The Subversion of Christianity|Jacques Ellul|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1173330053s/274828.jpg|266494] by Jacques Ellul. Rubenstein describes the battle between the Arians and the Athanasians, a dispute finally resolved by Constantine in the 4th century. The alliance with Constantine's political force then made orthodoxy and heresy possible. Levy's book on the history of [b:Blasphemy: Verbal Offense Against the Sacred from Moses to Salman Rushdie|537763|Blasphemy Verbal Offense Against the Sacred, from Moses to Salman Rushdie|Leonard W. Levy|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1175627649s/537763.jpg|525181] is also a really good companion book)

The Arians, lead by Arius, believed that it was crucial that Jesus was human and not God, otherwise his death and resurrection were meaningless. Athanasius, leader of the Nicene Christians, promoted the belief that Jesus was always divine.

The book is quite a page-turner and you realize how much Christian thought had to evolve and change during the first three centuries; an evolution that was a much politically driven as theological

Update: Found my original review, written several years ago:

Rubenstein is an American Jew who specializes in conflict resolution. Several years ago he became interested in the great Arian heresy, the debate over whether Jesus was simply a great prophet or, in fact, divine. The outcome of this debate, which occurred some three hundred years after the crucifixion, had profound implications for Western society and the relationship between Christians and Jews. Before its resolution, dialogue existed between the two religions; afterwards, “the closeness faded,” heresy became rigidly defined and was prosecuted vigorously and harshly.

Gregory of Nyssa, writing around 380 C.E. reveals in a sermon that the debate over Christ’s divinity was a subject for common discourse. He spoke of ordinary tradesmen, not just theologians arguing the matter. Arianism was at least as popular a belief as the doctrine that Jesus was, in fact, God; or, to put it another way, “whether he is a creation of God or the Creator himself.” The intensity of the argument reflected its importance. What today might seem obviously heretical was not at all at that time. The decision, to some extent, was in the hands of the laity. Whichever way they could be persuaded would determine the future doctrine of the relatively young church. Eminent churchmen discovered they were leaders of politically potent mobs.

By the beginning of the fourth century, Christianity had become more than just a minor new cult. It no longer consisted of wild-eyed madmen eagerly awaiting the end of the world and more than willing to sacrifice themselves on the cross. Church leaders had become institutionalized, future-minded, and willing to compromise. The Great Persecution under Diocletian was Rome’s last attempt to limit Christianity’s expansion. Not just slaughtered wholesale, Christians were afforded the option of sacrificing to pagan gods, and ordered to turn over their relics and sacred texts in return for their lives. Many church officials cooperated; those who did not became heroes and the justification for much of what was to follow. The Donatists, followers of Donatus, one of those priests who did not cooperate and who survived Roman torture, demanded that “corrupt” priests should not be allowed to return to their former positions of leadership in the church. This led to basic adoption of the principle that the office held was sacred even though the humans who filled that position might not be. The feeling remained strong enough that even St. Augustine, a century later, urged the massacre of all Donatists.

When Constantine gained power following the death of Galerius and Diocletian, he was concerned by the growing rifts in the Christian church. Having adopted Christianity, he was reluctant to see these disputes threaten his political power. The followers of Arius were growing in number and added additional themes to the Donatist debate. Was a worldly organization and hierarchy compatible with the goals of the church? What standards should be required of church leaders? Was Jesus’ life to be emulated or was this possible only for saintly individuals? The Edict of Milan in 313, in promising freedom of religion, created an environment that encouraged more open debate.

The dispute in Egypt over Christ’s divinity was getting out of hand, however, and Constantine sent his trusted bishop, Hosius, to mediate. Constantine considered the argument as basically trivial. He wanted the name-calling and violence stopped, suggesting that surely they could debate the issue sensibly much like the Greek philosophers had.

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, also known as “papa” or Pope to his many minions, was very powerful. The position of Arius, that Christ was created, represented a challenge to his temporal authority. In 318, Arius was called before a council to defend his position. He was ex-communicated and prohibited from taking communion. Being a wily fellow, he garnered his old friend Eusebius and other bishops to his position — all bishops were considered equal at this time. Eusebius was highly respected and he gathered his own council at which Arius’s views were proclaimed “orthodox.” This was truly schismatic.

The great Council of Nicaea suggested by Hosius was held in that place at the request of Constantine. It is interesting to note that the Arians were considered to be the conservatives because they were trying to preserve the distinction between God and Jesus that made sense to those coming from Jewish roots. The anti-Arians thought this belief was outmoded. Many now considered Judaism to be anachronistic — Constantine hated Jews — and they believed that while moral development was important, security was more so and only a strong God, strong Church, and strong empire could provide that security. Naturally, Constantine concurred with this position. He planned to imbue the Church with “the Roman virtues of law, order, and efficient administration.”

Ironically, the Council at Nicaea was not ecumenical. It also did not result in the rapprochement that Constantine hoped for. Instead, a Greek word that he suggested meaning “essence” was to cause all sorts of trouble. He was appalled by the diversity of tradition and belief that seemed to thrive in the early Christian church. Rules for priests varied, church holy days were not consistent, penances for sins were harsher in some parishes than others. Nicaea became a sort of watershed, the last time Christians with opposing theological beliefs acted civilly toward each other. Positions hardened, heresy became more rigidly defined — and became linked to temporal power — and those in opposition became subject to persecution as the Church allied itself with the state. It was only a short leap from anti-Christian to satanic and evil and soon the power of the Roman state became available to enforce the majority view.

After the death of Constantine, the empire was split between Constans in Rome, a supporter of the anti-Arians, and Constantius, in Constantinople, more favorably inclined toward the Arians. The distinction became less clear with time and by allying themselves with different political loci the religious factions often condemned themselves to assorted political whims. The eventual outcome was a split between east and west, between Greek and Latin churches.

For a concise summary of the debate between the two factions, see pages 115-119. Rubenstein, being an expert in conflict resolution, uses the debate to illustrate several principles of conflict resolution including, “false consensus may be more productive of conflict than honest disagreement.” This is a fascinating book that reveals how much the Church’s alliance with the power of the state influenced eventual Church doctrine.

After nearly three hundred years of persecution, Christianity made a breakthrough in 324, when Constantine became emperor of Rome. Led by two charismatic priests—Arius, who preached that Jesus is subject to God, and Athanasius who argued that Jesus is God himself in human form—the debate over Jesus’ degree of divinity escalated from heated argument to violence and bloodshed. Rubenstein guides you through the power struggles of the time, concluding in the year 381, when the Council of Constantinople affirmed that Jesus Christ was…

the only-begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, homoousios with the Father, through Whom all things came into existence.

Theodosius left no doubt about the church’s official stance by demanding,

We now order that all churches are to be handed over to the bishops who profess Father, Son and Holy Spirit of a single majesty, of the same glory, of one splendor, who establish no difference by sacrilegious separation, but [who affirm] the order of the Trinity by recognizing the Persons and uniting the Godhead.

Arianism was officially denounced, and possession of Arian writings would become crimes punishable by death. Jesus Christ was pronounced God. This book is the story of how Christianity reached this conclusion.

Christians correctly believe that Athanasius and several subsequent councils in the 4th century were simply affirming what the vast majority of Christians already knew after over two centuries of use, that the 27 letters or "books" of the NT were Scripture.

At that same time in 325 A.D., The Great Council of Nicaea attempted to settle speculative disputes about the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ. Later, that council, in conjunction with the Council of Constantinople of 381 A.D., produced the Nicene Creed that we have today. However, you'll be surprised to know that unlike the previous councils , the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople conducted their business in a spirit of violence, coercion, and State interference.

Although written by a non-Christian with an inaccurate presuppositional view, enough truth shines through in this book to reveal that these councils went beyond Scripture into the realm of speculation, when considering the theories of both Arius and Athanasius on the nature of Christ. Because of the Nicene Creed's unscriptually supported view of the nature of God, today's ecclesiastical Christian priesthood have no choice but to rely on mental gymnastics and unreasoned mysticism to weakly justify the Nicene Creed and enforce it as orthodoxy on a bewildered Body of Christ.

In the Fourth Century AD, the newly legalized and consolidating Christian church was rocked by a bloody and seemingly intractable theological argument which involved roman emperors (Constantine, Theodosius) as well as bishops (Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Athanasius, St Jerome) and brought about synods (Councils of Nicea and Constantinople), official confessions of beliefs (Nicene Creeds) and accusations of heresy (Arianism). At issue was the exact nature of the divinity of Christ, whether a created being or unbegotten and emanating from one same substance. The author is in complete command of the subject matter: the history and politicking are griping and the all sides of the theological debate clearly expounded. This quarrel hinges on a fine point of semantic detail with enormous repercussions on faith. The author makes clear that this polemic was driven by bishops. However, I would have loved to read how ordinary people were engaged in the debate: how did it affect them in their lives? How did they receive these creeds and accept them as faith? Perhaps the historical record is too thin, but mourir pour des idées, l’idée est excellente… Read in French. A great book which got me interested in early church history and Christian doctrine.

Religion and Science½