Rating: 
Summary: Imperfect but EXCELLENT!
Review: Constantine's Sword is a profound, soul-searching piece written by a man trying to come to terms with an important aspect of his identity, Catholicism. The esteem in which the author holds his faith and the Church, the institution at the center of that faith, requires honest, heartfelt reflection -- that is, a consideration of vice as well as virtue. Introspective analyses of the Church's vices are far less common than are Catholics' accounts of Catholicism's virtues. Hence James Carroll's decision to concentrate on areas where there is room for improvement and his particular preoccupation with the historical relationship of Jews and Catholics. (Written in a similar vein are Hans Kung's Infallible? and Gary Wills' Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit.)This is not, as one reviewer suggested, history in autobiographical form; rather it is an account of "the objective record" through a highly personal lens -- what Carroll refers to as "an intensely subjective examination of conscience." Facts still leave room for interpretation. (Witness the various accounts of Pius XII, most of the details of whose papacy were public knowledge.) The presentation of facts and the relative weight assigned them can have major consequences for the end result. To the extent this is informed by the author's opinions, Carroll's approach is a useful one. He relates facts with memoir-esque personal candour. Understood correctly, this gives the reader more freedom. Revelations of background announce the assumptions upon which Carroll's argument is constructed, making it easier for the reader to disagree with his analysis on a point-by-point basis. That said, Constantine's Sword is not without flaw. The aforementioned memoir style is not just a boon to the book; it is also the source of its most significant shortcomings. Carroll's ruminations on parts of his own life (i.e. his adolescent search for an identity) do not resonate with all readers. Moreover, at times Carroll's experiences are connected only abstractly to the issue at hand. In such cases, the articulation of such thoughts serves as a distraction to the reader. Fortunately, this accounts for only a tiny fraction of the book; (As a general proposition, events in Carroll's life are obviously relevant; certain emotions he describes are not.) All else aside, it is the historical content of the book that makes Constantine's Sword a true gem. This is the second book I've read one the subject; the first was Dan Cohn-Sherbok's The Crucified Jew: Twenty Centuries of Christian Anti-Semitism. Cohn-Sherbok's book gives a good overview of the development of Christian anti-Semitism, but does not afford anywhere near the details of Carroll's book. Carroll raises new issues even as he adds a dimension of novelty to the old. Very illuminating. A thorough and splendid work!
Rating:
Summary: At long last
Review: At long last, the truth about the roots of anti-semitism.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent review, sympathetic yet critical
Review: Readers might be interested to know that a very fine and thoughtful review of Carroll's book has been written by Eamon Duffy, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and President of Magdalene College. It can be found in the New York Review of Books vol. 58, no. 11, July 5, 2001.
Rating:
Summary: Good overview, but many mistakes
Review: This book is popular, and written with a personal stance. It has not been endorsed by any scholar, but mainly by journalists, as the covers of the book shows. Nevertheless, Carroll has read many reference books. There is certainly a need for a recent overview of Western Christian anti-Semitism throughout the centuries, a subjects that embarrass many Christians given that Nationals-Socialists reenacted the traditional, anti-Semitic Western views and laws, and given the perpetual media emphasis since the sixties on the Jewish Holocaust. Carroll's book reads very easily which makes it accessible for a very large readership. The author is not a Jew himself, but a liberal Catholic who loves the people of Jewish religion.
This book has infuriated many Catholic readers who completely reject it. This seems to be an overreaction, as the book does not contain too many mistakes when dealing with history. It does have a lot of mistakes (this may be why no scholar endorses it), but this can be expected when one deals with such large topics, and the author is no scholar. Whereas I think that the books of Karen Armstrong, which contain in my opinion enormous, major mistakes on most pages, may deserve "one star ratings", I think that Carroll's book is of a higher quality that Armstrong's works and deserves more.
I think that what enrages Catholics are Carroll's dealings with theology and philosophy, especially his quick proposals for reforming Catholicism (at the end of the book). There is Carroll's advocacy of Sola Scriptura, a principle not found in the Christian Holy Scriptures and thus false by its own standard, which also contradicts the tradition that decided about the composition of the New Testament in the fourth century and about what is orthodox or heretic, and has led to millions of different Protestants sects and crazy cults. His proposition to purge politically incorrect passages from the Bible is arbitrary as it is entirely defined by today's present political correctness. And removing Greek thought from Christian culture, forgetting all the great thinkers and goods it bestowed upon the West, would lead us right away into obscurantism... On the other hand, once the Roman church has broken its own tradition, removing many things that they had always taught (the Church being the new Israel, etc.), it cannot pretend to maintain a (fixed) standard, hence I think that according to the Vatican II perspective, people like Carroll can rightly ask for a third council. Once the Vatican has started moving, if it moved this much, why shouldn't it move more? Besides the good things in the book, there are also mistakes, too many to list them all. I would like however to mention two common flaws that have been taken over by Carroll and are not especially his own. First the problem of the Jewishness of Jesus. Certainly Jesus was a Jew in the sense that this is how the inhabitants of Palestine (and their expatriates) were called at the time or that he was raised in second temple rabbinic Judaism. But there are two problems. One is that Judaism now is something different, based on Talmud and other books, all largely older than the books of the Old Testament, and many other things. (see also Michael Hoffman's book Judaism's Strange Gods.) Second, Jesus himself rejected this rabbinic Judaism , that famous "Tradition of the Elders" (Marc 7, something many Protestant fundamentalist wrongfully attribute to the Roman Catholic tradition, which did not exist at the time), claiming that his teaching was the true fulfillment of the Hebrew religion, in opposition to Judaism. When Carroll wants to judaize Jesus, he mentions Jesus's continuity with the Hebrew tradition (which is fine), but makes the mistake of calling this "Jewish", by which word he also mean that rabbinic, Talmudic tradition which Jesus precisely rejected. So making of Jesus a Jew (in the sense of rabbinism, Talmudism, according to what is nowadays meant by the word) would mean to destroy the identity of Christianity. As a logical consequence, Christians would then have to convert to Judaism or revert to their former, ancient pagan religions from which they were converted to Christianity.
Another common mistake Carroll takes over is about Jesus's command to love one's enemy neighbor (p. 117). These was only about personal, individual problems with one's neighbors, an addition to the legalism of Moses' law where one would have to settle all private matters in the courts. Besides, Jesus, although claiming to fulfill the Old Testament, never condemned all those divine commands about common, political matters such as genocide, slavery, racism, execution of homosexuals and heretics, etc., tacitly approving them. Finally, there were two words for "enemy" (either personal or common, political enemy), and Jesus when speaking of loving one's enemies spoke only used the word for personal ones, not political ones, as Carl Schmitt rightly remembers us in his authoritative book The Concept of the Political. In conclusion, I can recommend this book as an easy historical overview of Western Christian anti-Semitism, but not as a reference, authoritative work on history. As for the theological parts, well I don't think there are much worth except for enraging Roman Catholics...
For those who would like more reliable books, I can rather recommend two books by Jewish university professors. One is Albert Lindemann's authoritative book Esau's Tears : Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews. (Cambridge University, 1997), which may be the most objective and balanced among recent academic books. And the other is David Kertzer's The Pope against the Jews, a shorter book that is partly academic but also partly emotional, and also deals with the modern period.
Rating: 
Summary: A remarkable meditation, but some serious historical flaws
Review: John Carroll's book is at once remarkably insightful and frustrating at the same time. His thesis is that a systemic anti-Semitism originated in the early Catholic Church out of sectarian competition (as early Christianity was, after all, originally an offshoot of Judaism in the Roman province of Syria), that this hostility became manifested in the early Gospels, and that it became ingrained in orthodoxy upon the coalescence of the church as a formal organization in the 4th century A.D., a process promoted by the writings of early church fathers such as St. Ambrose and Augustine. It's a fascinating idea, the notion that factional strife in an essentially regional context became transmogrified into something else entirely due to the contingencies surrounding the atmosphere of the early church. Carroll traces the effect of this purported doctrinal feature down through the centuries, arguing that it has had a tragic effect on the way that the Jews were regarded in their communities. In calling for such a contemplation, Carroll deserves praise-it's often easy to forget that all beliefs owe much to the historical context in which they arose, and Carroll is attempting to draw attention to this. He writes well, in a clear expository fashion, and his own autobiographical ruminations, on balance, are refreshing. And, Carroll is not blindly anti-Catholic; for instance, he comes to the Church's defense in regard to the anti-Semitic environment of the bubonic plague, noting that it did much to protect Jews throughout Europe, clearing up a misconception that occasionally crops up. Nonetheless, Carroll does grave damage to his own cause by being so careless in too many places with his history; too often, he hasn't done his homework. He confesses in the first chapter that the book's purpose is more a philosophical investigation than a historical one, but on a topic this sensitive, there is simply no substitute for the utmost discipline and rigor in historical analysis, and it is here that he falls short. Most reviewers have objected to characterizations of recent church history, and many aspects of the Reformation and religious-war periods of the 16th and 17th centuries are also problematic; but my greatest concern arises from his depictions of the early history, specifically, early Rome, where Carroll builds his thesis but commits many errors. He states, for example, that Roman policy made the emperor an object of worship; while some emperors were added to the polytheistic Roman pantheon, this occurred *after* their deaths, not during their lifetimes, as Carroll suggests on numerous occasions. Carroll also fails entirely to depict the complexity of the political situation in Roman Syria/Judea; Augustan imperial Rome was actually remarkably *tolerant* of the religious practices of the province, and instituted a set of policies unique to that region to provide accommodation. The fighting that occurred later in 70 A.D. had important causes inadequately explored by Carroll; furthermore, he casually accepts the claim from a second-hand source that Rome was "the world's first totalitarian state," an utterly ridiculous notion that pops up every few years in classical studies circles, only to last all of 5 minutes before being crushed by the mountain of evidence to the contrary. This all suggests a worrisome pattern, because it indicates that Carroll is too often willing to swallow whole even weak and unsupported notions that support his thesis, yet not willing to do the hard work of scrutinizing it in detail, thus providing the nuance that would so strongly help his cause. Most crucially of all, Carroll views Emperor Constantine's conversion to and promotion of Christianity, in the Council of Nicaea and the founding of Constantinople as a Christian capital, as a work of "imaginative genius" whose purpose was a political unification of the Roman Empire on the basis of a uniform Christian doctrine. This is an old debate, but while the Nicene Creed undoubtedly had a unifying feature to it, Constantine for his own part had a streak of religious toleration, openly allowing and respecting continued pagan worship and, as much research has shown, even alternate forms of Christian worship. "Constantine and the Bishops : The Politics of Intolerance" by H.A. Drake discusses this in depth; it is a far more scholarly examination of the same themes that Carroll is investigating, and I highly recommend it. Thus I find that both the positive and negative reviews of this book have a grain of truth. There's a lot to laud in Carroll's work, but it would be a disservice not to recognize where it also falls substantially short. Read it with this in mind (and preferably read H.A. Drake's book as well), and you can learn quite a bit.
Rating:
Summary: My reation to Constatine Sword
Review: An excellent book. 5+ stars! each Jew and each Christian should read it. It is an eye opener. Well written, full of information and feeling.
Rating:
Summary: Quick Review
Review: I was not well acquainted with the history of the Catholic church or Christianity and found the book to be completely fascinating reading. A real eye opener, very well written and easy to read. The book is undoubtedly controversial and should most likely be balanced by some other points of view.
Rating:
Summary: Great subject, good history, overwrought conclusions
Review: This is a timely, important book. The subject of this book is the devastating effect of Christianity on Jews as far as the actions of the Catholic Church. Protestants can read in the actions of their own churches and both will find his discussions of the Gospels provocative. Making the effort to overlook his "Boomer academic" conclusions is well worth it for any serious student of the Bible and anyone involved in religious education.
Rating:
Summary: thorough
Review: I found this book fascinating and well informed, but at times a bit pedantic. I strongly suggest it for anyone who has ever asked the question "Why is there so much antisemitism in the world?"
Rating: 
Summary: Vote early and often! Bill Clinton for Pope!
Review: The dust jacket calls this book an "intensely personal examination of conscience"; rest assured, as an angst-ridden middle-aged, white, male product of the 60s, Carroll's examination finds him feeling very guilty indeed: guilty that he was healthy while his bother had polio; guilty about slavery, at the tender age of 10; guilty about Vietnam ("the anguish of my own unhappiness as a young American at the mercy of that conflicted age" p50); guilty that as a boy he "knelt with mom before the Pieta, secretly, shamefully aroused by the swan-like neck of the mother of God" (p225); guilty that he had to break his bonds with his mommy and "marry a woman who was not a mother." ("My joy was shameful to me, but also it was precious, as were my unleashed unbelief and the lust I was determined to act on . . . Of all this, my mother, in whom it was my solemn duty to confide everything, knew nothing." p225) Carroll even feels guilty for not having felt guilty enough earlier. I'm serious. Note the "unleashed unbelief"-yes, Carroll makes clear that he does not believe that Jesus had a divine nature, which makes him a bizarre sort of "Catholic"-one who thinks that all other Catholics are wrong to believe as they do. (It's odd how excessive guilt so often breeds skepticism and/or heresy, as with Luther.) What's this got do with Christians and Jews? Well, it seeems Carroll feels guilty about the Jews-hard to tell through the sentimental self-righteousness. ("Although I self-consciously refused to reject Jews, I was still defining them by my refusal." Huh?) Carroll, having looked inside and found things he doesn't like, does what every self-un-respecting child of the 60's does: he looks outward to find a culprit. (The latest therapy, and journalism, "Pointing Your Way to Guilt-Free Self-Righteous Happiness!") Carroll's been sort of anti-Semitic, and sort of a "Catholic", ergo Catholicism is anti-Semitic. Hmm. There's so many silly, wrong points in this book--Carroll has fallen prey to all sorts of theological quacks. Rather than beat up on his numerous historical and theological errors, there's only space to focus on one ludicrous leitmotif that reaches a crescendo in the chapter, "The Holiness of Democracy" (a hilarious oxymoron that demonstrates ignorance of both). The claim is that Christianity is anti-Semitic because it believes its doctrine to be true and contrary doctrines to be in error. This is not nice. The Church's adherence to its doctrines could be eliminated if Catholics embraced skepticism. Since truth is "elusive," we need a "community of conversation" that is "respectful of all opinions" and proceeds in "creative mutuality"; rather than an emphasis on elucidating and preserving reliable doctrines, the Church should be open to all viewpoints in a democratic process. Sadly, three obstinate facts escape Carroll's teary gaze. First: Believing that the doctrines of Judaism are less true than the doctrines of Christianity, Buddhism, or any other doctrine, is not anti-Semitism. Second, humans are by nature tribal. If their own ethnic affiliations are weak, they manufacture tribes of fraternity brothers and sorority sisters, lodge members, fellow Yankees fans. (It still mystifies moderns that the workers of the world didn't unite--see post-Soviet Yugoslavia.) Tribalism is not the fault of a pope or of Christianity. Christianity is the most universalist of major religions-"go forth and teach the nations." But the tribal patients do not always take the universalist medicine. Thus people in Christian cultures still suffer from spasms of tribalism (sometime of the anti-Semitic variety) though typically to a far lesser degree than in non-Christian cultures. But don't blame the medicine for the disease. Some may accept Carroll's view that one gentle old man in Rome is the source of humanity's problems, but if Hutus and Tutsis, and Hatfields and McCoys, like to kill one another for sport, it's sure not the pope's fault. Third, if Carroll pulled his head out of his guilt and read his own facts, he'd realize that the authority he wants to eliminate has been the only check on the bloodthirsty mob to whom he'd give the vote. When panic-stricken mobs attacked Jews thought to cause the plague, the pope firmly forbade violence against Jews. Would Carroll engage the mob in a "community of conversation" on the matter? In the Incident in Trier (Ch.25) when the bishop tried valiantly to restrain errant thugs marauding against Jews, should he have taken their votes in a mutuality of respect instead? One could list examples for pages. Carroll's own skewed account of history details the dynamic that any intelligent and objective historian knows, with the Church hierarchy acting as a check on the excesses of crazy local preachers inciting mobs, witch-burning local magistrates, etc. (Even the Inquisition was a reform to prevent local princes from branding rivals as heretics and executing them, a popular technique until the Church stopped it.) In the 1800s the first American black to be ordained as a Catholic priest had to go to headquarters in Rome to do it. The Vatican should have engaged in a "conversation" with American racists and respected their opinions? Is Carroll's "community of conversation" to include Nazis? Hitler was elected. So was Governor Wallace. The idea that a democracy generates truth, much less holiness, is simply ridiculous. Imagine Jesus sitting around with his apostles voting on whether he should go forward with "the crucifixion agenda"-or the Buddha, Dalai Lama, Moses, or Mohammed taking a vote among their adherents on what their teachings should be. Presumably Carroll's democratic church would count only the votes of hyper-sensitive non-believing angst-ridden journalists with 60s sensibilities. (If the world's 1 billion Catholics really could vote, I'd take odds that a strong majority would vote mushy agnostics like Carroll right out the door.) Does Carroll think that we should hold elections for Supreme Court judges? If we did, the jurisprudence of the Court so constituted would not be to Carroll's liking. (Hey, maybe we should!)
|
