The Theological Ruminator
I know missing Oprah is really hard for you.
Doh - I forgot that March Madness is now going on!!! Oh well.
I really enjoyed reading the DaVinci Code, but it really annoyed me that people would read it and believe that crap. It does feel very irreverent to be revising history about Christ like that. It did make me grumpy about it. It also made me feel really smart, because I knew specifically where he deviated from history.... I also noticed that Brown completely left out Orthodoxy from the history of the church. But hey, it was better for making his case.
Right. Good writing. Bad history.
Actually, Brown's writing in his novels is very predictable, which is a sign of BAD writing. The first time it's good but then it gets frustrating. In each one, the third major character is always the bad guy, though this is never apparent when the character is introduced. And though he does focus on the Catholic church for his foil (a tad bitter about something perhaps?), it's understandable that he would leave Orthodoxy out considering that he brings the founding of Christianity to Constantine, which was pre-Orthodox and he is coming from a Western perception. In any case, it seems to me that by starting in the 4th century, he's really free to trace either strain of Christianity, don't you think? Brian, I'd be interested in why you think Catholicism was a better foil for Brown to make his case (though according to him he had no case, as John Mark said, he insists he is writing fiction).
Ah, the height of irony! To have so many ESPN channels after so many years in the desert and the very first March Madness is spent fasting!
Two more things on Dan Brown:
Did anyone else think that Brown should have got a cut from the movie "National Treasure"?
This book was the focal point of several long conversations with my sister about truth and the nature of Christianity. So, while I'm very much aware of his errors, I'm rather grateful it was written given that it allowed an opening in a slammed shut and locked tight door that had been so for nearly 20 years.
Roy's point on the book opening "conversational doors" is true. I've had several good conversations because of the book.
My point about irony is also true for you, alas. But, think of it this way: Bickley watched one of those games tonight. Do you think he wishes he was fasting?
I read about it...
I've read your comment a few times and I'm a little confused. Did you say that Constantine was pre-orthodox? From what I've found the Orthodox church was the church from New Testament times till present, and the Catholic church broke off from the Orthodox church around 1050 or so. I'm sure you church history buffs might have more info than I, but that's what I've discovered. Since then, Catholicism developed a lot of the weird tendencies they're famous for now.
To answer your question (why does only mentioning the catholic church make a better case for Brown): Since Browns revisionism extends much farther back than 1054, it would muddy things for him to have to explain that the Roman Catholic church isn't as old as Christianity itself. Best for his ruse to just leave the Orthodox church out of it.
To say Nicea was Orthodox is anachronisitic for sure. One measure of this was that for that Council alone it took at least 40 years to be accepted--East and West (that's from memory; I know it was contentious and took a while). To my mind, we're looking at another 300-400 years before something resembling what the Orthodox church calls Orthodoxy took root. One problem especially is defining anything that can be called orthodox (small o is intentional)prior to, I think, the 5th century. There was just too much confusion.
As for Brown's foil, I think most Catholic historians would dispute your calling the Great Schism the founding of the Western Church and I think they'd have just as much claim to antiquity as does Orthodoxy. Both claim to lead back to the apostolic witness. What makes one claim prior to another? (There's the rub, isn't it?) And, from an outsider's perspective, they're not the only group with idiosyncracies 
You're right, it's likely the Catholic church would in fact dispute my point of saying they were founded in the Great Schism. It's true that until the Schism they were the Roman arm of the Orthodox church - so their apostolic witness would stay in tact from that respect.
They changed their beliefs at some point (Papal supremacy, procession of the Holy Spirit, etc) and at that point the Orthodox church said - no changey those beliefs and basically gave them the boot. The Orthodox church stayed true to their beliefs at that point, so one would have to say that, at that point, the Catholic church in it's incarnation as we see it now was born.
Well, I wouldn't put it quite that way but yes, in essence, I agree with that. Where my problem would come is that theological innovation was part and parcel for the first millenium and especially the first four hundred years. For instance, what was the orthodox (small "o" again intentional) position on the nature of Christ? Was it Logos theology or Monarchianism (Sabellianism)? These were, really, the only two options in the second/third century, yet neither is really held by the fifth (generally).
My only point here is that Orthodoxy, as it exists today, was itself a product of theological development. The difference, it seems to me, is that Orthodoxy got to the point where it felt no need for further innovation (a gross oversimplification and a crass way to say it, but it states my point by over-dramatizing it).
I don't, by the way, think that is necessarily a negative thing and please don't take any of this to be a slam against Orthodoxy.
OK, now that I've caused problems once again, I'll give full disclosure and note that when I talked to my sister about this last year I pointed out that one of Brown's major flaws was that he assumed that Catholicism WAS the Church and completely ignored Orthodoxy, which also held to an ancient lineage and counted Nicea as their own. I also pointed out that I would be surprised if Brown had read the actual documents from the fourth century given his complete misunderstanding of the situation then. Also, his readings of the Nag Hammadi stuff is quite selective. How's that for back on topic?
Go WVU! And Baylor Lady Bears!
Am I going to have to seperate you guys?
No you shouldn't have to. We're pretty much to the point where Roy kills the conversation.
Ah, don't be so quick to give up. I picked a situation that I know about so it makes me look like I know more about this than I do. And, frankly, I've never exactly understood much of Orthodoxy's Christology. Maybe it fits one of these paradigms, making your case stronger?
What I do know is that the debate about whether or not orthodoxy in the 2nd-4th century can be defined is raging right now and is being argued from the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers. It seems to me that the Orthodox Church would have a vested interest in this one.
Roy, is this (early church history) what you are focusing on in your graduate studies? If not, I seem to remember it was something like that. Say more about this 2-4th century debate. What is being said?
The second-fourth century is my secondary area (my major is New Testament) and within that my focus has been on second century "heresies," particularly Montanism. The problem with that much specialization is it tends to obscure the forest by looking at the bark on one tree.
The basic question is whether or not there was such a thing as pre-Nicene orthodoxy (remembering that it took some time for Nicea to be accepted as the standard). The answers range from no to a qualified yes to a definite yes. As you might suspect, many, especially since Walter Bauer's _Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity_ answer no. My take on Bauer is that he is not only quite difficult to read, but he rather selective in his evidence, rarely taking documents as a whole. (cont.) . . .
That was quick and unfair to Bauer, but if you want some heavy reading, you'll see what I mean, I think. That being said, I can't give an unqualified yes either. The best I can do here is give another example like the previous one on the nature of Christ, though I will admit that in several senses this is not as strong an argument. Notice that once again, I pick an example with which I am familar and argue from the specific to the general.
By the 4th-5th century, Montanism, which held that prophetic utterances continued in the post-apostolic period, was largely condemned as a movement (obviously not in a councilar statement, since this is a little too early for that).
(cont.)
Despite the later condemnations, which were vivid and strong--Justinian ordered the destruction of a Montanist shrine to be carried out by John of Ephesos to make the position clear in his See in 550. Most mark this as the end of Montanism--there was quite a bit of uncertainty in the late 2nd-early 3rd century as to what to do with Montanism.
As you might expect, our evidence is mostly negative--4-5 century Christians tended to destroy works they saw as heretical--but in the case of Montanism we have 3 possibly early witnesses. The first two, an Anonymous source used by Eusebius, and what is possibly an early source in Epiphanius, are decidedly hostile, using strong words of condemnation.
(one more after this)
The last, however, is from a proponent of Montanism (he calls it the New Prophecy)--Tertullian. Though we see Montanism being strongly condemned (and losing in the end), it apparently existed and even flourished for at least a time and its proponents were considered orthodox. We have a considerable amount of archaelogical evidence for Montanism in Turkey, the evidence of Tertullian that it was in Carthage, the evidence of Tertullian that the bishop of Rome intended to grant it favor but changed his mind, and evidence that a movement like it existed in France.
Thus (if you've made it this far ), we have a movement that brought into question the nature of authority, revelation and prophecy and it took the church perhaps as long as 100 years to deal with it and our evidence suggests that, like other issues, including Arianism (the focus of Nicea), it was individual Sees that established orthodoxy in their jurisdiction and sometimes orthodoxy would change with the next bishop (we have no evidence of this changing with Montanism, though--I made the leap due to space/time considerations).
One more with a concluding disclaimer!
So, the basic point is that theology was developing, especially in 2-4 century. The Christological developments are the most dramatic instances, at least to me, since you actually see the understanding change over time, in ways that I think are much more important than what eventually brought about the Great Schism.
It just seems difficult to pin down the Church of this time span with a particular viewpoint regarding most doctrinal issues. This is true later as well, even in the East (iconoclasts, for example), but seems to be more pronounced in this early period.
Keep in mind that this was way too brief, way too selective and quite slanted simply due to the format in which this is taking place. I can point to more detailed resources if anyone is interested. If you're interested in Montanism, I have a paper on their teachings (not their history), but due to time limitations I was under, I didn't translate any of the Greek, Latin or French in it, which can make it hard to follow. I may do that for my own purposes this Summer, but really, who cares? There is also a great website on Tertullian: tertullian.org.
If you made it this far, you're either really interested, really bored or masochistic
Roy, don't they have email logs from the 2-4th centuries to get more details from?
They did, but I was watching Alias the other night and it turned out that Rambaldi had stolen them all and the Covenant found them but then Bristow destroyed them to keep away from Sloan.
OK, I didn't participate with John Mark's fast--at least in regards to Alias.
Commenting by HaloScan
