<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: a bit unbalanced
Review: Dudley takes his place along with the other historians (some very capable) who seem to criticise the Church for what took place at Nicea as the usurpation of power by Constantine. Obviously there is an element of this at Nicea, but to claim, among other things, that Christians were not already and from the beginning worship and celebrating the Eucharist on Sunday and that it took the emperor to settle it is a stretch. Argue if you want, but at least read a few other books that are not so biased. If you think that the Church became something radically different after Nicea, you have some learning to do. The Orthodox tradition only makes sense, however, if you believe that some theological opinions are more faithful to the apostolic tradition than others. In other words, "rainbow theology" is not how the early Church functioned. If she did, then the Lord's apostles were in extreme delusion, for they too discerned light from darkness in aspects that were not strictly moral (i.e. gnostic trends, although many false teachings lead to immorality). I recommend Davis' "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils" and Allison's "The Cruelity of Heresy" to start with (and no, they are not "let's dump on the heretics" sort of books). Others include "God For Us" by LaCugna, "Jesus as God" by Harris, "Christology" and "THe Tripersonal God" by O'Collins. If you're interested in the cannon of scripture, check out Metzger's "The Canon of the New Testament: It's Origin, Development, and Significance".
Rating:
Summary: More than unbalanced
Review: I wanted to add a little note. For those people who read this book to prove that Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy are just the result of political intrigue, but that their Protestant traditions are not, let me say this: This book is not for you. Why? Becasue the very thesis that underlies this book would undercut your own traditions from the Reformation era of Calvin Luther and Zwingli. Just because there was political pressures placed upon the FAthers of the council proves nothing either way about the legitimacy of the council's outcome. THis is just plain history, and a Protestant must also beleive this when reading the lives of the Reformers. They may ahve been right or wrong, but not just because they used or were used by the rulers of their times. OF course it may be the case, but God Himself uses the rulers of the world for His own will. It shouldn't surprise us that he can use COnstantine to do His will even if Constantine's own motives were in part political (which not many Christian scholars would deny, i.e. Jaroslav Pelikan and Wilken) Furthermore, I would say to those who are reading this book to disprove Christianity in general that they should look elsewhere. THis book is historically weak in its scholarship (and its outdated thesis). Most "debunkers" of Christianity have long since discarded the attempt to disprove the Faith by criticizing the sources. They typically resort to saying that the early church was just wrong in its assumption about who Jesus of Nazareth was. Read the Jesus Seminar folks for this view, or the popular heretical bishop of the hertical episcopal communion the Rev. Shelby Spong. About nonbiased scholarship. THere is no such thing. So while I criticize the author for his weak treatment of the subject, I am not saying that it is weak becasue he has a chip on his shoulder. We all have views and opinions. My ONLY complaint with this work is that it is poorly done. Strong arguments can be chewed on and debated. But how do we debate with someone who distorts the historical account? Not on historical grounds only, but by attacking the methodology of the work. This work is methodologically silly. Look elsewhere.
Rating: 
Summary: It wasn't the Council of Nicaea!
Review: To the previous reviewer from South Africa, who was disappointed that the Bible canon wasn't extensively discussed in this book about the Nicene Council: the reason why is because that subject was never brought up at Nicaea. The Council was convened at Nicaea at Emperor Constantine's request to resolve the Arian controversy about the nature of Christ. It also fixed the date on which Easter was to be celebrated, and decided that the bishop of Alexandria would have a kind of patriarchal authority in the East, like the bishop of Rome had in the West. The canon was not dealt with there, so look elsewhere if that is all you want to find out.
<< 1 >>
| 
