Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #15 on Jun 28, 2011, 4:06am »
humphreyclarke:
My point above was not that sacred chickens were somehow more rational than the Son who is identical with his Father and whose flesh and blood are literally consumed as wafers.......I leave such fatuous wrangling to those with a taste for it.
My point was rather more serious: that Christianity's takeover of Rome destroyed a relatively open society and replaced it with a closed one, hostile to free debate. The pagan religion was at least compatible with considerable exchange of ideas and the possibility of different religions flourishing together. Christianity put an end to all that for centuries. Socrates was an incomparably more urbane personality than Jesus, infinitely more open to debate. That fact tells its own devastating story, and the pompous Christian apologists are helpless in the face of it.
I take it by your severely monotheistic standard the Taliban are better than polytheistic Hindu India.
blessedkarl Bachelor of the Arts member is offline
Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 52 Karma: 3
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #16 on Jun 28, 2011, 4:29am »
Your conception of history is so wrong its not even funny. Perhaps you should stop reading what popular authors have to say and concentrate more upon what scholars have learned in the past few decades.
Your claim is classical learning was revitalized in the Italian Renaissance. That is ridiculous. Arabic and Greek texts on philosophy, mathematics, logic and a wide variety of other subjects were translated during the High Middle Ages. Granted it was not until the Italian Renaissance that it became widespread among intellectual circles to actually be able to fluently read and write in Greek.
Also you seem to take the line of thought that was expressed by my high school teacher who stated that the Renaissance was great because human progress could occur "because people began to think that God is up here and we are down here and therefore we have to concentrate on working to build up down here." Utter nonsense. Howe about Scholasticism? You do understand that the theological discourses of the scholastics helped organize society on matters of marriage, inheritance and other fields, correct? How about the development of logic by the scholastic thinkers? Also, how about the application of scholastic principles to understanding Greek and Arabic thought, including logic, and further developing that thought?
Furthermore, the burning of the library of Alexandria in the late fourth century is a myth.
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #17 on Jun 28, 2011, 9:35am »
blessedkarl:
I prefer, I suppose, a funniness that goes with secularism than one that traps me in the world of religion.
The basis of all hope of criticising human ideas and institutions with some objectivity has to be secularism - that looks upon all the religious traditions and their extravagant and supernatural claims with a rational eye.
I do not think Christian theology was any more justified by some laboriously claimed development of logic than Hindu theology is validated by the discovery of the concept of the zero in ancient India (making all serious mathematical study feasible) or that the pioneering of algebra by the Arabs vindicates Mohammed's marvellous Night Flight to Heaven.
I had not known there was no marriage prior to Christianity's advent, true enough. A rather hard truth for Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists to swallow.
What there was, prior to Christianity, was a Graeco-Roman world that had vigorous raditions of philosophical and scientific development - and after the advent, for centuries, this freedom of debate was brutally curtailed.
Today, we have Islam claiming to be able to morally regenerate us all. Should we give it the chance, on the assumption that after some centuries it too might unfreeze and become slightly tolerant?
What there was, prior to Christianity, was a Graeco-Roman world that had vigorous raditions of philosophical and scientific development - and after the advent, for centuries, this freedom of debate was brutally curtailed.
Was there? The treatment of the early Christians doesn't really bear that out. Caligula and Nero weren't famed for their love of free debate.
Perhaps you could cite your sources, or give examples of where you think ancient civilizations were more developed?
I prefer, I suppose, a funniness that goes with secularism than one that traps me in the world of religion.
The basis of all hope of criticising human ideas and institutions with some objectivity has to be secularism - that looks upon all the religious traditions and their extravagant and supernatural claims with a rational eye.
I do not think Christian theology was any more justified by some laboriously claimed development of logic than Hindu theology is validated by the discovery of the concept of the zero in ancient India (making all serious mathematical study feasible) or that the pioneering of algebra by the Arabs vindicates Mohammed's marvellous Night Flight to Heaven.
I had not known there was no marriage prior to Christianity's advent, true enough. A rather hard truth for Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists to swallow.
What there was, prior to Christianity, was a Graeco-Roman world that had vigorous raditions of philosophical and scientific development - and after the advent, for centuries, this freedom of debate was brutally curtailed.
Today, we have Islam claiming to be able to morally regenerate us all. Should we give it the chance, on the assumption that after some centuries it too might unfreeze and become slightly tolerant?
You didn't address a single point I made. This freedom was NOT curtailed and if you think that you really need to start reading some books on the subject beyond Charles Freeman and Richard Carrier. I just proved that there was immense philosophical progress in the time of the Middle Ages, when this "brutal curtail" was supposed to have happened until the Renaissance.
Scholastic thought was a rationalist system which was a method, or rather, I combination of methods, which sought to acquire truth through rigorous discussion and debate held in accordance with the rules of logic. Catholicism did not hinder this but helped it. Actually, for the intellectual pioneers of the High Middle Ages who went to great lengths (even endagering their lives) to obtain texts from foreign lands, it became a religious mission. Same with the scholars themselves in the cathedral schools and, later on, the universities.
If you want to know where I am getting this from I can assure you I am not pulling it out of thing air. I did a 90 page honors' thesis on this matter (which I would email to you if you wish). The sources I used were from Anders Piltz, C.H. Haskins, R. W. Southern, Hunt Janin, Brian Tierney and several others. In case you are wondering, all of those people are extremely respected historians (although some are deceased). Though Haskins and Southern are dead there works are still hailed as historical masterpieces which have greatly developed our knowledge of the medieval period.
By the way, who was it who told you that our knowledge of this topic has not progressed since Edward Gibbon was around? Much of what Gibbon said has been proven to be wrong.
points out about the role of the Church:“In the account of the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus, detailing the actions of Valens, the eastern emperor in the fourth century, who conducted a persecution of pagan practices, he said that “throughout the Orient provinces, owners of books, through fear of a like fate, burned their libraries, so great was the terror that had seized upon all.”
Yes - this is referring to the seizure and public burning of magic and prophetic books under the Emperor Valens. Valens conducted a trial of Palladius who revealed knowledge of a conspiracy involving magic and divination that threatened Valens's throne. Valens's reaction was to form a tribunal to charge conspirators and destroy works containing traditional pagan divination (a Roman tradition going back to Augustus)
His editor remarked : “Valens greatly diminished our knowledge of the ancient writers in particular the philosophers.”
Well, he certainly diminished our knowledge of Pagan magic (or 'woo' as the gnus would have it). Seems a bit of a stretch to say he diminished our knowledge of the philosophers - especially given he passed a law creating Greek and Latin copyists for the library of Constantinople and granting them grain rations.
Several observers noted that books ceased to be readily available and that leaning was increasingly an ecclesiastical preserve. In Alexandria it was noted that “philosophy and culture are now at a point of a most horrible desolation.”
Yes - although another source noted in the late fourth century that 'the various disciplines in that city are not silent even now' especially impressive given the damage caused to the city by Caracalla, Aurelian and Diocletian.
Edward Gibbon reported a story that Bishop Theophilus of the city allowed the library to be pillaged, and 'nearly twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator whose mind was not totally darkened by religious prejudice.'
Basil of Caesarea lamented the atrophy of debate in his home city. “Now we have no more meetings, no more debates, no more gatherings of wise men in the agora, nothing of all that made our city famous”. ....
Doesn't help your case here though because Basil (a christian) is here basically writing an apologia for Classical education on the grounds of an affinity between the two bodies of education.
Rome was virtually devoid of books by the middle of the fourth century, according to Luciano Canfora.....
How does he work that one out ? There were 28 libraries in Rome according to a census conducted under Constantine (313-337). Macrobius wrote his Saturnalia in the late 4th century in the form of a philosophical dialogue between Roman men of letters of the time. In 395 Sallust held a great debate in the forum of Augustus on the works of Apuleius. Roman nobles of the time venerated the great Latin authors. That doesn't give an impression of an environment devoid of books. Certainly the libraries were in decline and things would become worse. Fires and political instability during the 3rd century crisis reduced their contents and material was removed to the new capital at Constantinople in 325. Then Rome was sacked in 415 & 455.
In Alexandria, in 391, the Christian archbishop had destroyed the great library of the temple of Serapis, second only to the Mouseion in size and prestige.
one by one, the schools of classical antiquity closed (Justinian....had shut the philosophical school of Athens in 529), so that by the middle of the sixth century only Constantinople and Alexandria remained.
Justinian shut off public funding for the school which then folded. But the pagans that taught there continued to teach unmolested - including Olympiodorus who went to Alexandria.
Blaming the babarians for the Dark Ages is a cheap gambit. Barbarians normally assimilate quickly into the superior civilization they overrun.
As Tim explained to to you 'The western half of the Empire never recovered from its virtual collapse in the Third Century, was always the sick sibling of the Empire in the Fourth Century and then went into a spiral of economic, political and administrative decay, decline and final collapse in the Fifth.....the barbarians were a symptom of all this, not its cause.'
Joined: May 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 602 Karma: 14
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #21 on Jun 28, 2011, 2:55pm »
Jun 25, 2011, 3:39am, indianchap1234deep wrote:Rome was virtually devoid of books by the middle of the fourth century, according to Luciano Canfora.....
This is from a quote in Ammianus again. Except that Ammianus blames Rome's pagan inhabitants for being party animals and not spending enough time down the library so they are "shut up like tombs".
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #22 on Jun 29, 2011, 8:41am »
I suppose it is a thankless task to request the zealots of Middle Eastern monotheism to admit that persecution of other religions has been a key feature of the takeover by their own cults. They would not be zealots had they been willing to acknowledge abundant evidence on this score.
Here I make a few extracts from Wiki. I note that even the Catholic Encyclopaedia speaks of the "stamping out"of Paganism.
If these long-lasting, persistent and ruthless suppressions of all those who had the temerity to question Middle Eastern monotheistic claims to dominance in the Roman world is tolerance, if there really was NO "curtailment of freedom" by the Middle Eastern cult followers, as one brave zealot asserts above, then we have a right to wonder if there IS, anywhere, such a thing as an oppressive government? Were Hitler and Stalin defamed?
I suppose the fairest assessment is this:
"...Pagans were tolerant to any religion in their midst that tolerated and respected Paganism itself. Even in the early days of Christianity however, this was not the case. Christians refused to honor any of the Roman gods, causing a general mistrust of their religion and disruption of the pax Romana or Roman Peace. In this regard the intolerance of monotheistic religions can explain both their own persecution, and their persecution of others."
The link to the fate of science is that lack of free exchange of ideas would have vitiated science's growth, as it has done in other places subjected to Middle Eastern monotheistic takeover like India. In pre-modern times, particularly, science has needed a measure of societal freedom to grow. (In modern times oppressive states can make the growth of science a priority, however; there was plenty of it under Hitler and Stalin. )
By the way, is Christian anti-semitism also a mere hostile legend?
The actions of Constantius II, which reined from 337 till 361, marked the beginning of the era of formal persecution against Paganism by the Christian Roman Empire, with the emanation of laws and edicts which punished Pagan practices.[4][5]
From the 350s, new laws prescribed the death penalty for those who performe or attended Pagan sacrifices, and for the worshipping of idols;[16] temples were shut down,[2][5] and the traditional Altar of Victory was removed from the Senate.[6] There were also frequent episodes of ordinary Christians destroying, pillaging, desecrating, vandalizing many of the ancient Pagan temples, tombs and monuments.[7][8][9][10]
The harsh imperial edicts had to face the vast following of paganism among the population, and passive the resistance of governors and magistrates.[2][17][18][19] The anti-Pagan legislation, beginning with Constantius, would in time have an unfavourable influence on the Middle Ages and become the basis of the much-abused Inquisition.[20]
Under the sole rule of Julian the Apostate from 361-363, Paganism saw an attempt at restoration; while from 363 till 375, under the reigns of Jovian, Valens and Valentinian I, it received a relative tolerance.
Under Ambrose's major influence, emperors Gratian, Valentinian II and Theodosius I carried on a persecution of Paganism.[11][12][21][22] Under Ambrose's zealous pressure,
Theodosius issued the infamous 391 "Theodosian decrees," a declaration of war on paganism,[12][13] and the Altar of Victory was removed by Gratian. Ambrose Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius to rejects requests to restore the Altar.
Gratian, under the influence of his chief advisor the Bishop of Milan Ambrose,[23][24] took active steps to repress Pagan worship.[1][25] In 382, Gratian appropriated the income of the Pagan priests and Vestal Virgins, confiscated the personal possessions of the priestly colleges and ordered another removal of the Altar of Victory.[26][27] The colleges of Pagan priests also lost all their privileges and immunities. Gratian declared that all of the Pagan temples and shrines were to be confiscated by the government and that their revenues were to be joined to the property of the royal treasury.[28]
Valentinian II, advised by Ambrose, and in spite of pleas from the Pagans, refused to restore the Altar of Victory to the Senate House, or their income to the priests and Vestal Virgins.[29] In the year 391, Valentinian II issued a law that not only prohibited sacrifices but also forbade anyone from visiting the temples.[30] This again caused turbulence in the West. Valentinian II quickly followed this law with a second one, which declared that Pagan temples were to be closed, a law that was viewed as practically outlawing Paganism.[31]
The Christian persecution of paganism under Theodosius I began in 381, after the first couple of years his reign in the Eastern Roman Empire. In the 380s, Theodosius I reiterated Constantine's ban on Pagan sacrifice, prohibited haruspicy on pain of death, pioneered the criminalization of Magistrates who did not enforce anti-Pagan laws, broke up some pagan associations and destroyed Pagan temples.
Between 389-391 he emanated the infamous "Theodosian decrees," which establed a practical ban on paganism;[31] visits to the temples were forbidden,[30][32] remaining Pagan holidays abolished, the eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum extinguished, the Vestal Virgins disbanded, auspices and witchcrafting punished. Theodosian refused to restore the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, as asked by Pagan Senators.
In 392 he bacame emperor of the whole empire (the last one to do so). From this moment till the end of his reign in 395, while Pagans remained outspoken in their demands for toleration,[33][34] he authorized or participated in the destruction of many temples, holy sites, images and objects of piety throughout the empire.[1][35][36][37][38] participated in actions by Christians against major Pagan sites.[39] He issued a comprehensive law that prohibited any Pagan ritual even within the privacy of one's home,[2] and was particularly oppressive of Manicheans.[40] Paganism was now proscribed, a "religio illicita".[41] He is likely to have suppressed the Ancient Olympic Games, whose last record of celebration is from 393.[42]
Christian persecution of paganism after Theodosius I until the fall of the Roman Empire involved a long series of emperors, from both the Eastern and Western parts of the Empire, and ranged from 395 till 476.
Anti-Pagan laws were emanated throughout this period, by emperors like Arcadius, [43][44][45][46][47] Honorius,[48][49][50] Theodosius II,[51][52] Marcian[53] and Leo I the Thracian. The reiterations of the bans, especially on Pagan religious rites and sacrifices, and the increases of the penalties, indicated that the "Pagan" religion had still many followers.[54][55] Significant support for Paganism was present among Roman nobles,[56] senators, magistrates,[57] imperial palace officers,[58] and other officials,[57] which often omitted to apply the edicts or protested.
"Paganism" kept being followed by a large part of the population, which kept more and more undercover to formally comply with the edicts.[59] Many Christians pretended to be such while continuing Pagan practices,[60] and many converted back to Paganism; numerous laws against apostasy kept being promulgated and penalties increased since the time of Gratian and Theodosius.[61][62][63][64] Pagans were openly voicing their resentment in historical works, like the writings of Eunapius and Olympiodorus, and books blaming the Christian egemony for the 410 Sack of Rome. Christians destroyed almost all such Pagan political literature, and threatened copyists with the cutting of their hands.[65][66]
Laws declared that buildings belonging to known Pagans and heretics were to be appropriated by the churches.[67][68][69] St. Augustine exhorted his congregation in Carthage to smash all tangible symbols of paganism they could lay their hands on.[68] The persecution was somewhat reduced in some periods under the influence of the high-ranking general Stilicho[59][70][71][72] and under the "usurper" Joannes Primicerius;[73] a revival was attempted by Anthemius from 467.[74][75]
.....the Pagans made one last attempt to revive the Pagan rites. In 484, the Magister militum per Orientem, Illus, revolted against Eastern Emperor Zeno and raised his own candidate, Leontius, to the throne. Leontius hoped to reopen the temples and restore the ancient ceremonies and because of this many Pagans joined in his revolt against Zeno.[74] Illus and Leontius were compelled, however, to flee to a remote Isaurian fortress, where Zeno besieged them for four years. Zeno finally captured them in 488 and promptly had them executed.[76]
As a result of the revolt, Zeno instituted a harsh persecution of Pagan intellectuals. With the failure of the revolt of Leontius, some Pagans became disillusioned and many became Christian, or pretended to, in order to avoid persecution.[77] The subjugation of the Roman Empire to Christianity became complete when the emperor Anastasius I, who came to the throne in 491, was forced to sign a written declaration of orthodoxy before his coronation.
The caverns, grottoes, crags and glens that once were used for the worship of the gods were now appropriated by Christianity: "Let altars be built and relics be placed there" wrote Pope Gregory I, "so that [the pagans] have to change from the worship of the daemones to that of the true God".[78][79]
"The triumph of Catholic Christianity over Roman paganism, heretical Arianism [and] pagan barbarism", asserts Hillgarth[80] "was certainly due in large part to the support it received, first from the declining Roman state and later from the barbarian monarchies".[81]
Except for the most recent literature, for at least the last 200 years historical scholarship has followed a conceptual scheme in which the persecution of those Mediterranean religions that we now label "paganism" was seen as the result of the religious intolerance inherent in the monotheistic Christian faith. By the very nature of their belief in one singly, almighty God, so it is concluded, Christians were unable to tolerate the existing beliefs in a variety of Gods. The classic expression of this view occurs in the work of Edward Gibbon, who, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, had equated Christianity with intolerance and paganism with tolerance. "It is difficult to overestimate the influence of Gibbon's interpretation on subsequent scholarship."[82]
However, "while there is obviously some truth in the proposition that intolerance follows from the rejection of other gods that lies at the core of monotheistic belief", this alone could neither explain why pagans had previously persecuted Christians, nor why there were "important voices for moderation in the early Christian community".[83] As H.A. Drake writes: "Gibbon skirts a serious problem: for three centuries prior to Constantine, the tolerant pagans who people the Decline and Fall were the authors of several major persecutions, in which Christians were the victims. ...Gibbon covered this embarrassing hole in his argument with an elegant demur. Rather than deny the obvious, he adroitly masked the question by transforming his Roman magistrates into models of Enlightenment rulers — reluctant persecutors, too sophisticated to be themselves religious zealots."[84]
Peter Garnsey would hesitate strongly to describe the attitude of the "plethora of cults" that are labelled 'Paganism' as "toleration" or "inclusiveness".[85] What Ramsay MacMullen wrote, that in its process of expansion, the Roman Empire was "completely tolerant, in heaven as on earth"[86] (with the notable exceptions of the Jews, Christians and Druids), is for Garnsey a simple "misuse of terminology."[87] The foreign Gods were not tolerated, but made subject together with their communities when they were conquered. The Romans "cannot be said to have extended to them the same combination of disapproval and acceptance which is toleration."[87]
Other Scholars explain this apparent contradiction by indicating that Pagans were tolerant to any religion in their midst that tolerated and respected Paganism itself. Even in the early days of Christianity however, this was not the case. Christians refused to honor any of the Roman gods, causing a general mistrust of their religion and disruption of the pax Romana or Roman Peace. In this regard the intolerance of monotheistic religions can explain both their own persecution, and their persecution of others.
[edit] Legacy for ChristianityMain article: Christian debate on persecution and toleration The example of Constantine, Theodosius and Justinian, who were seen as "godly emperors (...) serving the church and crushing its enemies", was cited repeatedly by Christian author who endorsed religious persecution.[88] When Louis XIV of France issued the Edict of Fontainebleau in 1685, revoking the Edict of Nantes and persecuting the schismatic Christian Huguenots, he was saluted as a 'new Constantine' by Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet.[89]
This also goes for the later medieval Emperor Charlemagne, who in September, 774, decided that the Saxons (Westfali, Ostfali, and Angrarii) must be presented with the alternative of baptism or death.[90] and is also reported as having 4,500 pagan Saxons beheaded in the Massacre of Verden. According to the historian Ramsay MacMullen a council of bishops at Toledo in 681 called on civil authorities to seize and behead all those guilty of non-Christian practices of whatever sort.[91]
The Christian view shifted away from an endorsement of religious persecution in the 17th century. The first Christian church to grant adherents of other Christian denominations freedom of worship was the Church of England, with the Act of Toleration 1689 (still retaining some forms of religious discrimination and with the notable exception of Catholics).
The Catholic Church issued the decree "Dignitatis Humanae" that fully embraced the right of every human person to religious freedom, as part of the Vatican II council, on the seventh of December 1965. On 12 March 2000 Pope John Paul II prayed publicly for forgiveness because "Christians have often denied the Gospel; yielding to a mentality of power, they have violated the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions"[92]
[edit] Notes and references1.^ a b c d R. MacMullen, "Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D.100-400, Yale University Press, 1984, ISBN 0-300-03642-6 2.^ a b c d e f "A History of the Church", Philip Hughes, Sheed & Ward, rev ed 1949, vol I chapter 6.[1] 3.^ a b Eusebius Pamphilius and Schaff, Philip (Editor) and McGiffert, Rev. Arthur Cushman, Ph.D. (Translator) NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine quote: "he razed to their foundations those of them which had been the chief objects of superstitious reverence" 4.^ a b Kirsch, J. (2004) God against the Gods, pp.200-1, Viking Compass 5.^ a b c "The Codex Theodosianus On Religion", XVI.x.4, 4 CE 6.^ a b Sheridan, J.J. (1966) The Altar of Victor – Paganism's Last Battle. in L'Antiquite Classique 35 : 186-187. 7.^ a b Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae 22.4.3 8.^ a b Sozomen Ecclesiastical History 3.18. 9.^ a b Theodosian Code 16.10.3 10.^ a b Theodosian Code 9.17.2 11.^ a b Byfield (2003) pp.92-4 quote: In the west, such [anti-Pagan] tendencies were less pronounced, although they had one especially powerful advocate. No one was more determined to destroy paganism than Ambrose, bishop of Milan, a major influence upon both Gratian and Valentinian II. [...] p.94 The man who ruled the ruler - Wether Ambrose, the senator-bureaucrat-turned-bishop. was Theodosius's mentor or his autocrat, the emperor heeded him--as did most of the fourth-century church.
12.^ a b c d MacMullen (1984) p.100 quote: The law of June 391, issued by Theodosius [...] was issued from Milan and represented the will of its bishop, Ambrose; for Theodosius--recently excommunicated by Ambrose, penitent, and very much under his influence43--was no natural zealot. Ambrose, on the other hand, was very much a Christian. His restless and imperious ambition for the church's growth, come what might for the non-Christians, is suggested by his preaching.
See also note 43 at p.163, with references to Palanque (1933), Gaudemet (1972), Matthews (1975) and King (1961) 13.^ a b King (1961) p.78 14.^ Gerberding, R. and J. H. Moran Cruz, Medieval Worlds (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004) p. 28. 15.^ Peter Brown, The Rise of Christendom 2nd edition (Oxford, Blackwell Publishing, 2003) p. 60. 16.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.6 17.^ Catholic Encyclopedia (1914) Flavius Julius Constantius 18.^ Ammianus Marcellinus Res Gestae 9.10, 19.12. quote summary: Ammianus describes Pagan sacrifices and worship taking place openly in Alexandria and Rome. The Roman Calendar of 354 cites many Pagan festivals as though they were still being openly observed. See also the descriptions of Pagan worship in the following works: Firmicius Maternus De Errore Profanorum Religionum; Vetus Orbis Descriptio Graeci Scriptoris sub Constantio. 19.^ Bowder, D. (1978) The Age of Constantine and Julian 20.^ C. G. Herbermann & Georg Grupp, "Constantine the Great", Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, New Advent web site. 21.^ Roldanus (2006) p.148 22.^ Hellemo (1989) p.254 23.^ "Gratian", Catholic Encyclopedia, 1909 24.^ "Letter of Gratian to Ambrose", The Letters of Ambrose Bishop of Milan, 379AD.[2] 25.^ Theodosian Code 2.8.18-2.8.25, 16.7.1-16.7.5 26.^ Sheridan, J.J., "The Altar of Victory – Paganism's Last Battle." L'Antiquite Classique 35 (1966): 187. 27.^ Ambrose Epistles 17-18; Symmachus Relationes 1-3. 28.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.20; Symmachus Relationes 1-3; Ambrose Epistles 17-18. 29.^ Ambrose Epistles 17, 18, 57. 30.^ a b Theodosian Code 16.10.10 31.^ a b Theodosian Code 16.10.11 32.^ Routery, Michael (1997) The First Missionary War. The Church take over of the Roman Empire, Ch. 4, The Serapeum of Alexandria 33.^ Zosimus 4.59 34.^ Symmachus Relatio 3. 35.^ Grindle, Gilbert (1892) The Destruction of Paganism in the Roman Empire, pp.29-30. Quote summary: For example, Theodosius ordered Cynegius (Zosimus 4.37), the praetorian prefect of the East, to permanently close down the temples and forbade the worship of the deities throughout Egypt and the East. Most of the destruction was perpetrated by Christian monks and bishops, 36.^ Life of St. Martin 37.^ Gibbon, Edward The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch28 38.^ Catholic Encyclopedia (1912) article on Theophilus, New Advent Web Site. 39.^ Ramsay McMullan (1984) Christianizing the Roman Empire A.D. 100–400, Yale University Press, p.90. 40.^ "The First Christian Theologians: An Introduction to Theology in the Early Church", Edited by Gillian Rosemary Evans, contributor Clarence Gallagher SJ, "The Imperial Ecclesiastical Lawgivers", p68, Blackwell Publishing, 2004, ISBN 0631231870 41.^ Hughes, Philip Studies in Comparative Religion, The Conversion of the Roman Empire, Vol 3, CTS. 42.^ Kotynski, p.3. For more information about the question of this date, see Kotynski. 43.^ Theodosian Code 2.8.22 44.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.13 45.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.14 46.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.16, 15.1.36 47.^ Theodosian Code 15.6.1, 15.6.2 48.^ Gibbon, Edward The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch28, note 54. 49.^ Theodosian Code 16.5.42 50.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.19 51.^ Theodosian Code 16.5.63 52.^ Constitutiones Sirmondianae 6 53.^ Justinian Code 1.11.7 54.^ Theodosian Code 16.7.7 55.^ Justinian Code 1.11.8 56.^ Sidonius Epistle 1.11.6 57.^ a b Theodosian Code 16.5.46 58.^ Zosimus 5.46 59.^ a b Gibbon, Edward The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch28 60.^ This law (Theodosian Code 16.10.24) is interesting because it officially recognizes the fact that there were many people who only pretended to be Christian. 61.^ Theodosian Code 16.5.51 62.^ Theodosian Code 16.7.1, 16.7.2, 16.7.3, 16.7.4, 16.7.5, 16.7.6 63.^ Justinian Code 1.7.2. 64.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.25 65.^ MacMullen, Ramsay (1986) Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries, Yale University Press, p.4 quote: "non Christian writings came in for this same treatment, that is destruction in great bonfires at the center of the town square. Copyists were discouraged from replacing them by the threat of having their hands cut off 66.^ Kirsch, R. (1997) God Against the Gods, p.279, Viking and Compass 67.^ Constitutiones Sirmondianae 12. 68.^ a b MacMullen, R. Christianizing The Roman Empire A.D.100-400, Yale University Press, 1984, ISBN 0-300-03642-6 69.^ Theodosian Code 16.5.43 70.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.15 71.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.17 72.^ Theodosian Code 16.10.18 73.^ A law in the Theodosian Code (16.2.47) refers to a tyrant who issued edicts in opposition to the church. This tyrant (i.e. usurper) is most likely to be identified with Joannes the Primicerius. 74.^ a b Photius Bibliotheca cod. 242 75.^ Marcellinus Chronicle s.a. 468 76.^ Theophanes Chronographia s.a. A.M. 5976-5980; John Malalas Chronicle 15.12-15.14. 77.^ There continued to be a sufficient number of Pagans during the reign of Justinian for a law to be published, in 527 (Justinian Code 1.5.12), which barred Pagans from office and confiscated their property. 78.^ The modern Church takes a much less antagonistic stance to non-Abrahamic faiths. see Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate 79.^ R. MacMullen, "Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries", Yale University Press, 1997. 80.^ J.N Hillgarth, ed "Christianity and Paganism 350-750,:The Conversion of Western Europe", rev ed, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1986. 81.^ R. Kirsch, "God Against the Gods", p278, Viking Compass, 1997. 82.^ H.A.Drake, Lambs into Lions, p. 8 83.^ H.A.Drake, Lambs into Lions, p. 5 84.^ H.A.Drake, Lambs into Lions, p. 7: Drake refers to Gibbons, Decline and Fall, Chapter XVI, Part 2; online text from Project Gutenberg 85.^ Garnsey 1984: 24 86.^ quoted after Garnsey 1984: 25 87.^ a b Garnsey 1984: 25 88.^ John Coffey (2000), Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689, Studies in Modern History, Pearson Education, p. 31; O. O'Donovan (1996), The Desire of the Nations: Rediscovering the Roots of Political Theology, esp.ch.6. 89.^ John Coffey (2000), Persecution and Toleration in Protestant England 1558-1689, Studies in Modern History, Pearson Education, p. 49 90.^ Thomas J. Shahan & E. Macpherson, "Charlemagne", The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III. Published 1908 [3] 91.^ Ramsay MacMullen, "Christianity & Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries", Chap 1:16,"Persecution", ISBN 0-300-07148-5 92.^ "POPE JOHN PAUL II ASKS FOR FORGIVENESS", (MARCH 12, 2000)
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #23 on Jun 29, 2011, 9:47am »
The Catholic Encyclopedia provides a history of censorship by the Church:
"The First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (325) condemned not only Arius personally, but also his book entitled "Thalia"; Constantine commanded that the writings of Arius and his friends should everywhere be delivered up to be burned; concealment of them was forbidden under pain of death. In the following centuries, when and wherever heresies sprung up, the popes of Rome and the oecumenical councils, as well as the particular synods of Africa, Asia, and Europe, condemned, conjointly with the false doctrines, the books and writings containing them... The latter were ordered to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense. The authorities intended to make the reading of such writings simply impossible... "
"As regards the kinds and content of writings forbidden in ancient times, we find among them, besides apocryphal and heretical books, forged acts of martyrs, spurious penitentials, and superstitious writings... at the beginning of the Middle Ages, there existed, in all its essentials, though without specified clauses, a prohibition and censorship of books throughout the Catholic Church. Popes as well as councils, bishops no less than synods, considered it then, as always, their most sacred duty to safeguard the purity of faith and to protect the souls of the faithful by condemning and forbidding any dangerous book."
"During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times... in the thirteenth and fourteen century, there were also issued prohibitions against various kinds of superstition writings, among them the Talmud and other Jewish books..."
"During the earlier Christian centuries, and until late in the Middle Ages, there existed, as compared with our times, but few books. As they were multiplied by handwriting only, the number of copies to be met with was very small; moreover none but the learned could make use of them. For these reasons, preventive censorship was not necessary until, after the invention of the printing press and the subsequent large circulation of printed works, the harm done by pernicious books increased in a manner hitherto unknown. Nevertheless, a previous examination of books was not altogether unknown in more remote times, and in the Middle Ages it was even prescribed in some places..."
"...in the most flourishing period of the Middle Ages we find censorship... established by law in the very centres of scientific life. According to the papal statutes of the University of Paris (1342), the professors were not allowed to hand any lecture over to the booksellers before it had been examined by the chancellors and the professors of theology. (In the previous century the booksellers were bound by oath to offer for sale only genuine and "corrected" copies.) A similar censorship occurs in the fourteenth century at all universities." [cc] This censorship was not always effective, but it clearly had a major impact on both the survival of pagan and other "heretical" literature and culture, and freedom of thought in the Christian world. Few pagan works survive from early Roman collections [jf] and the Catholic Church did not abandon it's official Index of Prohibited Books until 1966 [de p260]. (Even Church fathers like Tertullian did not escape censure.
Charming non-oppression, this. Resembles Iran under Khomeini.
Joined: Jun 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 941 Location: The Dominion of New England Karma: 11
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #24 on Jun 29, 2011, 12:09pm »
OK - two things
1) You need to be a bit clearer on what exactly it is that you are arguing. When this conversation started out you seemed to be saying that the rise of Christianity was responsible for the loss of ancient learning - which is rubbish. Now you seem to the arguing that Christianity destroyed Paganism and censored various texts - which is historically true. If you are going to make a case for the destruction of ancient learning by Christians in late antiquity you are going to have to point to some specific examples which support your case - otherwise this thread is a complete waste of time.
2) If you are going to quote from different sources you need to show this is the case. So for example you have taken a chunk of the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913 edition) and added in this text as a conclusion:
'This censorship was not always effective, but it clearly had a major impact on both the survival of pagan and other "heretical" literature and culture, and freedom of thought in the Christian world'
The way you quoted it, it looks like this comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia but it is actually from this site http://ptet.dubar.com/christian-pagan-works.html#jf and was written by some cretin named 'PTET' a member of something called 'Planet Atheism'. I'm sure that wasn't deliberate but it does look a tad dishonest.
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #25 on Jun 29, 2011, 6:15pm »
humphreyclarke:
First, an apology about that last sentence in the passages I cited in my last posting and which you identified correctly as not coming from the Catholic Encyclopaedia. I should have made clear where the last lines came from; there was no intention to mislead.
If the abundant instances of intellectual terrorisation and suppression and intensive censorship of intellectual life by the Church and Christian states I cited (it is so easy to finger Church zealots' whitewashing operations nowadays with Wiki - God's gift to infidels) in the Roman world is still not enough to convince you that Christianity was a blow for enlightened discourse, I know no way to convince you.
As the Catholic Encyclopaedia itself notes: "During the Middle Ages prohibitions of books were far more numerous than in ancient times... "
What needeth words more?
Why the necessity for such intense and ruthless and incredibly long-lasting censorship, if the Church was not in the business of preventing people from thinking thoughts that might go outside of or against the received fanatical dogmas? How could this NOT stultify intellectiual discourse?
Would you hold that if a communist regime were imposed in the world with similar censorig and monopolising of learning mechanisms that would not be a problem for intellectual life?
Until I started to acquaint myself with these episodes in the life of the Church, I had not realised fully to what extent the mechanisms of totalitarian oppression - racial ostracism as with anti-semitism, ruthless censorhip, the attempt to monopolise learning, the whole Orwellian apparatus - had been pioneered by the Church.
For me as a Hindu, pre-Christian Romehas to be far preferred if only because there the likes of me could hope for a friendly reception, respectful and curious with regard to my religious heritage; whereas after the establishment of the Son of Man, I would be in danger of extirpation as a vicious infidel.
I leave you to decide which of the two situations is more conducive to learning.
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #26 on Jun 29, 2011, 6:26pm »
I said:
"For me as a Hindu, pre-Christian Rome has to be far preferred if only because there the likes of me could hope for a friendly reception, respectful and curious with regard to my religious heritage; whereas after the establishment of the Son of Man, I would be in danger of extirpation as a vicious infidel."
In other words. pre-Christian Rome was an open society, and the Christians turned into an ancient version of Hitler Germany, the Stalinist regime or Iran.
blessedkarl Bachelor of the Arts member is offline
Joined: Aug 2010 Posts: 52 Karma: 3
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #27 on Jun 29, 2011, 6:38pm »
I LOVE all of the information you left out!
Aside from basically ignoring me and admitting you are wrong you forgot something about the condemnations of 1234. Those condemnations were rescinded. No one cared about them. Attempts to ban Aristotle's teachings at Paris fell flat as people just ignored them. The faculty of Arts even had reading Aristotle as a REQUIREMENT.
You need to: a) be more clear about what your thesis is. b) start being more objective.
Re: Discussion of James Hannam's book? « Reply #28 on Jun 29, 2011, 6:52pm »
blessedkarl:
The core of my thesis:
"Why the necessity for such intense and ruthless and incredibly long-lasting censorship, if the Church was not in the business of preventing people from thinking thoughts that might go outside of or against the received fanatical dogmas? How could this NOT stultify intellectiual discourse?
Would you hold that if a communist regime were imposed in the world with similar censornig and monopolising of learning mechanisms that would not be a problem for intellectual life?
Until I started to acquaint myself with these episodes in the life of the Church, I had not realised fully to what extent the mechanisms of totalitarian oppression - racial ostracism as with anti-semitism, ruthless censorhip, the attempt to monopolise learning, the whole Orwellian apparatus - had been pioneered by the Church.
For me as a Hindu, pre-Christian Rome has to be far preferred if only because there the likes of me could hope for a friendly reception, respectful and curious with regard to my religious heritage; whereas after the establishment of the Son of Man, I would be in danger of extirpation as a vicious infidel.
In other words. pre-Christian Rome was an open society, and the Christians turned into an ancient version of Hitler Germany, the Stalinist regime or Iran.
I leave you to decide which of the two situations is more conducive to learning. "
The comparison with Hitler Germany is not a capricious one. It is chillingly appropriate. The use of yellow patches to stigmatise a cursed race, the Jews, was instituted in Christian Rome, as well as many other pioneering devices to render them a brutally calumniated and shunned people.
Orwell's "1984" was not so oiginal: he would have known where the mecahnisms of monopolising learning and whitewashing the past, and the use of Doubletalk by the apologists, came from.
"Why the necessity for such intense and ruthless and incredibly long-lasting censorship, if the Church was not in the business of preventing people from thinking thoughts that might go outside of or against the received fanatical dogmas? How could this NOT stultify intellectiual discourse?
Would you hold that if a communist regime were imposed in the world with similar censornig and monopolising of learning mechanisms that would not be a problem for intellectual life?
Until I started to acquaint myself with these episodes in the life of the Church, I had not realised fully to what extent the mechanisms of totalitarian oppression - racial ostracism as with anti-semitism, ruthless censorhip, the attempt to monopolise learning, the whole Orwellian apparatus - had been pioneered by the Church.
For me as a Hindu, pre-Christian Rome has to be far preferred if only because there the likes of me could hope for a friendly reception, respectful and curious with regard to my religious heritage; whereas after the establishment of the Son of Man, I would be in danger of extirpation as a vicious infidel.
In other words. pre-Christian Rome was an open society, and the Christians turned into an ancient version of Hitler Germany, the Stalinist regime or Iran.
I leave you to decide which of the two situations is more conducive to learning. "
The comparison with Hitler Germany is not a capricious one. It is chillingly appropriate. The use of yellow patches to stigmatise a cursed race, the Jews, was instituted in Christian Rome, as well as many other pioneering devices to render them a brutally calumniated and shunned people.
Orwell's "1984" was not so oiginal: he would have known where the mecahnisms of monopolising learning and whitewashing the past, and the use of Doubletalk by the apologists, came from.
Several points:
1) Who is to say that Rome would have tolerated your Hinduism. You don't know that. The Romans persecuted a variety of people including the cult of Dionysius, Christians, druids of England, and others.
2) To suggest that Medieval society was some sort of Totalitarian regime where fanatical monks would slaughter you if you said anything against the Church is ludicrous. Actually there was a great deal of leeway when it came to issues of philosophy. Theology, on the other hand, certainly did have the Church trying to protect what it saw as the truth.
3) The society of the High Middle Ages WAS NOT HOSTILE TO OPEN AND FREE DEBATE! Rather it encouraged it. It encouraged logic, reason and using our intellect to find the answers to important philosophical questions and discover the truths located in Greek and Arabic texts.
4) You keep citing Gibbon. You do know that much of his work has largely been debunked, right? His central thesis which you so eagerly espoused is largely rejected in academic circles.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Calendar]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/calendar.gif "[Calendar]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
Author
Logged![[avatar]](http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/files/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-21-at-14.20.16.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img543.imageshack.us/img543/9020/basil.png "[avatar]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")