"To compensate a little for the treachery and weakness of my memory, so extreme that it has happened to me more than once to pick up again, as recent and unknown to me, books which I had read carefully a few years before . . . I have adopted the habit for some time now of adding at the end of each book . . . the time I finished reading it and the judgment I have derived of it as a whole, so that this may represent to me at least the sense and general idea I had conceived of the author in reading it." (Montaigne, Book II, Essay 10 (publ. 1580))

Tuesday, February 23, 2021

The Triumph of Christianity - How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World (Bart D. Ehrman, 2018)

(294 pages)

Book club selection (via me; session held (via Zoom) February 21, 2021).

Re-read of a book first read in 2019, here's what I wrote then.

Notes from this time:

  • Be honest - most or all probably wondering why I picked this.  Kind of disjointed; in part the author seems to be rationalizing his own spiritual journey.
  • I didn't pick it to support a particular religion, or the idea that religions end up being very convenient for secular purposes.
  • The selection is for my usual reasons.  Best way to process current news cycle is to ignore the current news cycle as much as possible, while learning as much as possible about history.  Then things that seem unprecedently difficult or dangerous turn out to be anything but. 
  • When looking for books on history, I'm looking for ones that offer up a few ideas I wasn't previously seeing.  For its shortcomings, this book fits the bill.
  • For better or worse, western civ is dominated by Christianity.  Other parts of the world deeply affected.  Seems useful to know how that happened, and how some of the key elements got launched.
  • Jesus was a loser.  Jews were losers.  Jesus's followers were losers.  Provincial dorks.  No money.  No military (unlike say Islam).  Nothing written down, no "orthodoxy."  No central authority.  How did this possibly grow from a few dozen to many millions (with little growth in first century or two)?  
  • Paganism as just "living" - something everyone did (except the Jews).  Relatively unstructured.
  • Christianity as radical in so many ways

            --incorporating ethics into religion

            --even if lip service too often - unprecedented idea that each individual is equal before God

            --exclusivity - zero sum game - for the first time, a convert to the new religion means one less member of the old religion.  Threatening to the older religion.

            --hellfire!  Heaven!  Ups the stakes immensely.  Pascal's wager makes sense.

            --perceive a Duty to "save" third parties

  • Old religions constantly adding new deities - minimizes conflict.  Monotheism + exclusivity + heaven/hell + duty to save + doctrinal debates = recipe for all sorts of religious conflict.
  • Constantine - Rome - centralized authority.  What a path it set the church on.
  • Nicene creed - 325 A.D.   The whole point was "one God" - now are there three?  Heretics - three persons in one God!  Etc.
  • Challenges where a charismatic founder (see also Muhammed) writes down nothing and provides little or no structure. What are presented as sacred writings were prepared by others decades, hundreds of years later.
  • No grand synthesis.  Some ideas.  Hopefully useful as you process western art, literature; think about religion as part of private and public life.


Tuesday, February 02, 2021

Pride and Prejudice (Jane Austen, 1813)

(367 pages)

My first time reading a Jane Austen work - much liked it.  Her ability to write dialogue!  Scene-setting invariably economical, interesting. I should have picked up her works long ago.

Always enjoyed the Greer Garson - Laurence Olivier movie version of this story, which somewhat tracks the book.

Elizabeth Bennet the lead character; her mother and her sisters (save one) are quite a bit less attractive characters than in the movie version.  Prideful Darcy.  Elopement with Wickham.  Bingley.  Mr. Collins (the heir).  

I just like following the plot and enjoying the writing, but I can see why there's lots of critical analysis about how the book illustrates changes in society, role of women, economics, inheritance issues, etc.  But written early - 1813 - situation with Napoleon not even resolved.