Rating: 
Summary: Must read
Review: This is, simply put, one of the most important books I have ever read. I'm not surprised to see so many 5-star reviews mixed in with 1-star reviews ... this is a provocative, moving account that can't help but stir up extreme emotions. Early on, Mr. Carroll cites demographic figures that suggest that the world Jewish population should be more than 10 times what it is today, if not for the rampant killing and persecution Jews have been subjected to for the last 2000 years. Yes, Mr. Carroll lays much of the blame for this to Christianity, mostly Catholicism. Are you surprised this book has elicited this kind of polarized response? My suggestion: Ignore the nay-sayers and read this book. You will see how the prevalence of anti-Judaism has caused incalculable suffering, and how Catholic absolutism led to this hatred of Jews. Mr. Carroll deftly shows how developments in Christianity - long after Jesus - had tragic consequences for Jews, while showing many paths that could have been taken which would have saved countless Jewish lives. Most provocative, but also quite convincing, is Mr. Carroll's argument about how Christian anti-Judais paved the way for the Nazi holocaust. Hatred of Jews went beyond religion to become racism 500 years before the Nazis during the Catholic Inquisition, and Mr. Carroll shows how this, among many other factors, fueled the engines of history which made Hitler possible. (more reason not to be surprised that there are many people who don't like this book ...) Yes, Mr. Carroll includes much autobiographical information, as many of his critics point out, but he does a masterful job of tying his personal experiences into the history, such as when he describes his skepticism at a rare viewing of the robe of Jesus when he was a teenager. Most all of his personal anectdotes served a useful purpose in making the narrative readable and understandable. I will be recommending this book strongly to my friends. Catholics should certainly read it, but it is most important for Jews to read. Anti-Judaism or anti-semitism has been a real force in our world for two millenia, and Jews need to understand this ugly reality, even those who are living in relative comfort these days. Next time you hear about a terrorist yelling "death to all Jews," it won't seem like empty rhetoric.
Rating:
Summary: goes to the heart of the matter of anti-semitism
Review: The book says everything that needs to be said and needs to be heard by Christians about the history and presence of anti-semitism. Judaism is a vibrant, progressive, compassionate religion that stands along side Christianity as a great world religion and contributor to humanity. It is appalling that Christians have felt the need to denigrate Judaism, for hundreds of years but especially in the modern era. The book lays this all out in beautiful detail. I found it a little rough going in the middle parts, a little long, but it is a fantastic book, in my view.
Rating: 
Summary: Base Venality
Review: I'm glad I borrowed this book and did not buy it. It is dirty and venal. Anti-Christian books are very popular with Jews and guaranteed excellent reviews. Carrol wrote this unscholarly work of hateful passion knowing he'd be loved by the New York Times and the Washington Post. I heard the smug and self-righteous interview that National Public Radio gave him. If you heard that interview - imagion 300 pages of it. That is what this book is about.
Rating:
Summary: Pride and Prejudice
Review: I'm afraid that after reading this angry and unscholarly book, I could only agree with the reviewers who have detected and denounced its anti-Catholic bias. What surprised me, however, was the extent of Carroll's anti-Semitism. Following the discredited exegetical work of Crossan, he wants to paint Jesus as a jolly Jewish rabbi, but the Judaism is very much the deism of the Enlightenment, not the Judaism of 1st century Palestine or of historic orthodox Judaism. He ridicules Jewish ritual laws, worship at the Temple---anything that separates Israel from the nations. Not surprisingly at the book's end, when his anti-Catholicism reaches a fury in his fantasy of a Vatican III that will throw out the millenial convictions of the Catholic Church, he says that Judaism must abandon its belief in revelation and salvation. In other words, both creeds must destroy their most basic beliefs so that we can walk hand-in-hand in a vaguely unitarian faith without dogma or code. How could any believer, Jewish or Christian, fall for this attack on the faith of Abraham?
Rating:
Summary: Untruthful
Review: The book claims to be a history of the relationship between Catholics and Jews, but it doesn't meet the first criteria of serious historical work. It does not use primary sources. Rather, it uses secondary sources often drawn from anti-Catholic journalists. As a professional historian of the Middle Ages, I was appalled at how Carroll systematically ignores or explains away the many clear condemndations of anti-Semitism by popes, councils, and theologians. It is astonishing to read his criticism of Pius XI with no reference at all to his anti-Nazi and vigorously pro-Semitic encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge and numerous other solemn condemnations of anti-Semitism. This is not history. It is pure anti-Catholic fantasy for the lesiured classes.
Rating:
Summary: To A Better World
Review: This is a momentous work of Christian faith based on honesty and respect, and repentance and reconciliation. James Caroll unflinchingly details the history of Christian antisemitism through the times and philosophies that shaped both Christianity and the Church. He notes key points in history where the foundation of Christian thought turned from opportunities of inclusiveness and respect for different faiths for an iconoclastic exclusive Christianity that defined itself as opposed to "the other," especially the Jew. Key personages of Christian thought such as John of Chrysostom, Augustine, Anselm, Abelard, Bernard, Thomas Aquinas and temporal Christian rulers from Constantine through Queen Isabella of Spain and the Church's spiritual rulers from Peter to John Paul II are examined on how they shaped or were shaped by the ambiguities in Christian teachings about the Jews as Christ-killers (finally denied by the Church in 1965) who had outlived their time, and Jews as necessary "witnesses" who must be protected until the Second Coming--as demons eternally damned or as Christians' venerable "elder brothers." The impact of Greco-Roman philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato, Jewish Talmudists and Kabbalists, Enlightenment thinkers from Marx to Spinoza, as well as the inevitable world development through science and democracy are examined for their impact on the Church and often the resultant counter-attack by an immutable and self-proclaimed infallible Church/Pope with negative, and often deadly, repercussions for the Jews. Well-meaning Christian reviewers here have defensively derided and slandered Mr. Carroll, unwilling to accept the need (in everyone) to question themselves, their faith, and their Church. How easy it has been to blame living Jews for the death of Christ, but not to accept responsibility for the actions (or inaction) of prior Christians from the time of Anselm to Hitler. "Israel" translates as "strives with God," and this dissent and questioning of even God in the context of love and on-going commitment is not only desirable but also essential. James Carroll undertakes this striving with his beloved Christianity and his Church, to return us to the Church's core message of love. His call for Vatican III, for the Church to not only attest to its sins but also to truly repent by making the necessary changes to assure the sin is not repeated: by accepting the plurality of faiths in lieu of its claim of exclusive salvation through the Church; and by embracing the principles of equality of all men (and women) inherent in democracy--thus restoring the authority of the Church, as at the time of its conception, "with the people with whom the Spirit breathes." This is an honest book, shining the light of acceptance of guilt and desire for repentance on the darkest parts of Christian history while similarly acknowledging the moments of near glory and the continuing human struggle to do better. He leaves hope for a new Church, "celebrating a Jesus whose saving act is only disclosure of the divine love available to all...(a Church that embraces) a pluralism of belief and worship, or religion and no religion, that honors God by defining God ... as the horizon, (a God) equally bidding all people to approach," and a Church that shares the recognition, as eloquently phrased by Rabbi Abraham Herschel, that: "God is greater than religion ... faith is greater than dogma."
Rating:
Summary: Historical novelty
Review: Many reviewers underestimate the novelty of James Carroll's approach to history. This book, claiming to be a history, truly breaks new ground in historiography: 1. Do not use primary sources. Use only secondary sources, preferably those written by anti-Catholic prejudices. 2. When Church documents condemn anti-Semitism, such as many public and diplomatic messages of Pius XII, ignore them. Paying attention to them might make you and your reader think too much about the issue. 3. Flatter your reader's anti-Catholic prejudices. Talk about birth control, celibacy, divorce, all those sexual issues upper-middle-class readers hate in Catholic teaching. Your reader will then be ready to accept anything you want to say on the supposed issue of your book. 4. When in doubt, shift to autobiography. Talk about your father, your favorite bar, your little junkets through the Holy Land. Since you're so sad, the Church couldn't be that great. A breathtaking masterpiece of the new historiography!
Rating:
Summary: Self-hatred
Review: This sad little book (well, it's not so little---thrown quickly, it could kill a man at fifty yards) is nothing but an autobiographical exercise in self-hatred. The author, an excommunicated and defrocked priest, uses the sufferings of Jews to catalogue his hatred of his father, of the Church he once served, of political conservatives, of Judaism---of himself. This is not history. Sources are misquoted, suppressed, or even concocted to suit an anti-Catholic agenda. One can only watch with amusement the supporters of Carroll in the media. First, they insisted that this was a great work of history. Next, when professional historians pointed out all the errors and the lack of scholarly rigor, they said that Carroll hada right to used a "different methodology" than serious historians do. Now, when so many critics have pointed out the fabrications and the self-indulgence of the book, they admit that the book is fraudulent history but still a good attack on Christianity. Let's not let the facts count for anything!
Rating:
Summary: Self-pity wrapped in postmodern journalism
Review: Does history matter? Do we really relate to what people of the past have thought and done? A historian from ancient Rome would answer that history is the Ôcustom of nations.Õ He instinctively understood that past customs generate laws of the present and commitments for the future. My grandfather died in Auschwitz. James Carroll knows as well as I, that most Nazis in the upper echelons, whoÕd sent Jews to the phony shower-rooms, had a strict catholic up-bringing, and this troubles his conscience. So more for his own than our benefit, he explores whether there is a connection between the Nazi death camps and the Church. In 180 AD. the Roman emperor Marc Aurel expressed concern over the Òmilitary disciplineÓ of the early church; 135 years later, emperor Constantine decided to employ exactly this quality and issued his famous edict of tolerance. It legalized an institution which to the present day sees it as its god-given right to prosecute every dissenter, even so it had originated itself in dissent from its Jewish parent. Hence anti-Semitism is an in-build mechanism, the ChurchÕs persecution of culture, learning, science and art whenever and wherever they happen to disagree with Catholic doctrine is no accident. So Mr. Carroll is certainly entitled to discuss the nature of early Christianity. Like any other institution, the Catholic Church is built on a series of legal charters and specific precedents, which in the ChurchÕs case are constituted by the New Testament. While being distracted by the ambiguities of Christian teaching, Mr. Carroll misses the crux of his own argument and ignores the legal aspect. It is open to everybody who can read, that the New Testament, since St. Paul, as matter of principle, opposes Jewish law as the means of salvation. It also contains testimonies to the contrary, but they didnÕt carry the debate. So when in 385 AD. a Syrian bishop incited his flock to burn a synagogue, the angered EmperorÕs personal adviser and most prestigious cleric of his period, St. Ambrose (epist. vol. 2: 40-41,) counselled against indemnifying the afflicted Jews, not just here and now, but on principle! Legally this has set a pivotal precedent in Christian-Catholic history and it follows Luke 19:27 to the letter. ÒWhat could be less Christian, than killing others for being different?Ó asks a reviewer. Well, the New Testament can be curiously explicit on how to deal with opposition. And this inspired ecclesiastical law which in turn carried over to secular law. We look at the incitement to commit atrocities and at an institutionalized mechanism to anesthetize the perpetratorsÕ conscience. We look at an all out assault on culture and people! Jewish people, Moslems, heretics, just about anybody who had the audacity of begging to differ. In 1071 the celibacy campaigner Pope Gregory VII invited his counterparts in Constantinople, Michael Cerularius and Constantine Psellus, to celebrate the reunion of the two churches over a bonfire. As an expression for their stance on sexuality, they burned 11,000 verses of Sappho and Alceios (which till then had survived for 1,600 years. Today barely 270 lines are left of AntiquityÕs greatest poetess.) The ÒreunionÓ dissolved in 1078. So Pope Innocent III took the opportunity to redirect a pending ÒCrusadeÓ towards the sister-church. Until April 13, 1204 Constantinople had been the last vestige of antique civilization. Then the Christian mob in- and outside the city-walls, burned, looted, and smashed to smithereens the last intact remains of ancient art and science. After such exertions, they proceeded to rape 20,000 women. (The film-maker Bunuel once explained, that no Eskimo or Chinese could possibly enjoy sex as much as a sin-stricken Catholic!) Now, Pope Innocent III did indeed express remorse -- but only because he had lost control over the events! So he decided to strengthen the ChurchÕs executive powers: in 1208 he introduced the Holy Inquisition. During the Dark Ages sciences had emigrated to countries under Muslim rule and only one workable banking system existed - the network of Jewish money-lenders. Now and then magistrates and royal courts would find it convenient to clear their debts in a ÒspontaneousÓ pogrom. No pope lost his sleep over this and Pope Gregory IXÕs address on the issue in 1255 came only AFTER Knights Templar and Italian bankers had established their own networks. (DanteÕs Beatrice was a Bardi.) Besides the Holy Office had blood on its own hands, and not just from involvement in dynastic policies. The crusade against Albigensian ÒhereticsÓ was conducted under RomeÕs direct supervision. The genocide in the Languedoc lasted from 1208 to 1244. It became the dress rehearsal for future prosecutions of Muslims and Jews. Mr. Carroll tells of forced conversions and ethnic cleansing in Spain. But he is too involved in his own little reform agenda to do jutice to the InquisitionÕs instrumental role in setting up the events. Resistance was futile. Documents tell us of a converted son, who followed his mother into exile and persuaded her to return to the InquisitionÕs jurisdiction. She did -- and was tortured and immolated. And with her every Sephardic Jew who refused baptism or exile. The Renaissance improved the ChurchÕs image but not the attitude. The Holy OfficeÕs response to the printing press was the infamous index of forbidden books, Bruno burned at the stake and Galilei faced thumbscrews. But Jews had to wait for another century, for SECULAR enlightenment and Napoleon, to lay down their stigmatizing garb and leave the ghettos, of which the last to open, was next door to the Vatican. The signatories of the American Constitution swore to the principle of tolerance and the separation of State and Church - they have created a paradox! We allow Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to get away with preposterous claims to exclusive truth, because tolerance cannot make exceptions, even for its enemies. On 600 pages Mr. Carroll could have given us some hard and unsentimental evidence, but he preferred to wallow in self-pity. A time-waster.
Rating:
Summary: Brave, Ambitious, and Mostly On The Money
Review: I thoroughly enjoyed this book, and highly recommend it. As others have noted, it's light on primary research, but given its span, I just don't think a book like this could be written by a specialist. I found Carroll's autobiographical inclusions moving -- not self-aggrandizing, but sincere and engaging. From a pacing and storytelling standpoint, they also give a little relief from 600 pages of tough material. I admire Carroll's effort, and I think that his thesis is basically correct. It should be obvious to anyone that if Christians had not singled out the Jews as a special minority, they would have never been the objects of modern antisemitism. Carroll's project is connecting the dots, filling in the details, which he does well and convincingly. This is a fine book in nearly every regard. Carroll does get into trouble here and there, mostly because he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He acknowledges anti-Judaism in the earliest church documents, but wants to separate it from an ideal Christianity that has always existed as a potential in the church (and mythically, existed in the earliest church). In particular, Carroll wants to remove the persons of Jesus and Paul from taint, so he has to resort at times to an odd circumlogic (details below). My other quibbles have to do with the same kinds of things: (1) In the early chapters, Carroll outlines John Dominic Crossan's thesis that the anti-Judaism of the gospels (especially of John's) is part of a theologized mythology brought to the Jesus story by the early church, under pressure from early rabbinic Judaism--in other words, that "the Jews" of the passion are fictionalized, following a script written by Christians. I personally agree, but it must be acknowledged that this thesis is debatable, and it is not nearly as strong (evidentially) as the rest of Carroll's material. Carroll makes no such admission, however, and takes his premise for granted throughout the book. What troubles me further is that Carroll positions his rehabilitated "factual" narrative, where Jews are exonerated of the "crime" of deicide, as a premise to the rest of his history -- as if this were somehow crucial to forming a moral judgement about the "Christkiller" libel. Something is very wrong about this. It may be true (though who can tell), that Jewish leaders never called for the death of Jesus. But why does it even matter? The implication is that if some Jews might have objected to Jesus' teaching strongly enough to allow or to facilitate his death, the rest of Christian antisemitism is somehow less unjustified. A juridical analog might be a rape case, where the defense goes to great lengths to argue that the victim wasn't wearing a short skirt. As if that mattered! It isn't pertinent in the slightest whether some Jews wanted the death of Jesus--Christian antisemitism is unjustified, period. The history and ethical status of Christian antisemitism is not contingent on believing one way or the other WRT the passion narrative. That Carroll insists so stridently on his reconstructed history is indicative, I think, of a Catholic-centric christology that still misses the point of its own chauvinism. (2) The book's chapters on the Jewishness of Jesus are also well-intentioned, but again, a christological agenda limits their perspective. Carroll walks a fine line in admitting the anti-Judaic inflections of the gospels, while at the same time dissociating anti-Judaism from the person of Jesus. His solution is to construct a Jesus of love, a devout Jewish visionary in the prophetic tradition. In my opinion, this is an oversimplification of Jesus' relationship to his contemporaries. To keep Jesus as a reformer rather than a schismatic, Carroll (following Crossan and others) is forced to impute much of the gospels' "us-versus-them" sentiment to later authors, which may or may not be credible (as I mentioned before, it's mostly a matter of how you choose to read). It's not so much whether Carroll's portrait is true to the text, though--I'm more bothered by the picture that his christology paints of Judaism. Carroll uses the phrase "Jewish faith" quite a bit in chaps 9-14, a phrase which I think is unfortunately chosen, since (1) it seems a reduction of Jewish religion to a propositional form, and (2) it treats the body of Jewish ritual practice (halacha) as though it were incidental. Though admittedly Judaism at the time of Jesus was undergoing radical change and much Jewish "theology" was under construction & contention, Judaism is not and never has been a religion of doctrine--especially not in the Pauline sense of salvific doctrinal faith. Carroll is aware of this, but his discussion of Jesus as a Jewish reformer centers primarily on Jesus' teachings about "love," as in the good-samaritan, turn-the-other-cheek sayings. The way Carroll casts him, Jesus brings a "message" to the people, which leaves unaccepting Jews looking as if they have a shoot-the-messenger mentality. Carroll defines Jesus in terms of his doctrine (morals, parables, messages), not ritual practice or politics. And who could object to a message of brotherly love? In his effort to bring Jesus into the Jewish fold, Carroll synthesizes the least objectionable elements of Jesus' teaching into a generic message, ignoring the elements of his life and practice that would have been the most troubling to his contemporary Pharisees. By glossing Jesus' relationship to law, Carroll inadvertently casts the Jews, once again, as the people who unreasonably (as per Aquinas) reject the loving God. In his effort to reconcile Judaism and the life of Jesus, Carroll eliminates difference by ignoring Jewish practice in deference to Christian doctrinalism. In consequence, rather than presenting Christianity as a kind of Judaism (which it is), he presents Judaism as a kind of Christianity, minus Christ. This is not, I am sure, what he intended, but that's what he did. I wanted to say more, but I am out of space. In summary, though -- it's a good book.
|
