Historical Myths Thread

[acornuser]

Well, I've heard people suggest that the contents of his footnotes don't actually say what White says they say. But I've not read his book. In any case, if he is wrong, someone needs to be ready to show it (Bjorn could maybe put his Walsh book to use) or Wikipedia will be conflict hypothesis central...

" Well, we need more specifics as to what White (and Draper) argued for in their books.

I own White's, and in it he methodically addresses origins of the universe, origins of the human species, geology/geography/age of the earth, astronomy/Galileo, archeology/Egyptology/anthropology, history, meteorology, chemistry, physics, modern medicine/germ theory, psychology, linguistics and mythology -- all while illustrating the resistance put forth by entrenched Christian organizations. If White's detractors think Christianity did more to HELP advance these areas of knowledge than to OBSTRUCT them, I want specific examples, not vague generalizations like "most scholars have abandoned the conflict thesis." What 700-page books were published showing all the ways Christendom promoted the overthrow of its own dogmas?

Because the ways in which hard sciences and religion disagree are relatively well known, I think the best way to strengthen this article is to share the philological/linguistic/textual analysis facts that White addressed in his final couple chapters. The general public is less aware of them, but they are facts -- ones which Christianity has at time acknowledged but currently seems to be suppressing. The subject is how dramatically the oldest extant manuscripts of biblical stories (both those in Hebrew and those in Greek) differ from the translated bibles the churches built their theologies on. If one grew up on the King James bible, one grew up on an error -- perhaps an intentional fraud. People who can read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek have known this for AT LEAST 150 years, and translations like the New Revised Standard Version utilizes the oldest, most trustworthy texts.

Often, White refers us to the works of Matthew Arnold who, although best known as a poet, wrote on the developments of bible-text analysis. Let's utilize White's extensive footnotes and list the names promoting the research (like Matthew Arnold's) and the works written by Christian clerics opposing it. Then people can check them out from their local library and see if White was wrong about claiming a consistent conflict between science and religion.

www.victorianweb.org/authors/arnold/works.html Biblical works are near the bottom."

[noons]

Perplexedseeker: On the burnings of heretics, I do not have any statistics or stories on what may have happened, but your interpretation is certainly plausible, as charges like heresy are impossible to deny. Once one is accused, he (I think then it was usually he) is at the mercy of the inquisitors, who may be subject to any outside influence. It's possibly the most corruptible system in existence.

Things were similar with the Salem witch trials. Everyone accused of witchcraft was sentenced to death. The trials occurred amid a dispute over land between two very powerful families.



Next historical myth: Vikings. Did their helmets really have horns? Did Wagner make it all up? Or is there something more to this story? Check back later to find out.

[merkavah12]

The best part of that whole "Conflict Thesis" discussion on Wikipedia?

Each time the fruitcake who started the "An Article Proving the Thesis; Religious Apologists at Work" writes in, the mod basically responds with:

"Yeah that's nice sweety. Now are you going to make a coherent argument or not? By the way, just a hint: use REAL historians."

[unkleE]

Jan 2, 2010 7:18:02 GMT merkavah12 said:

The best part of that whole "Conflict Thesis" discussion on Wikipedia?

Each time the fruitcake who started the "An Article Proving the Thesis; Religious Apologists at Work" writes in, the mod basically responds with:

"Yeah that's nice sweety. Now are you going to make a coherent argument or not? By the way, just a hint: use REAL historians."

How do you know about this? Is there somewhere where Wikipedia lists these things that I am ignorant of?

[humphreyclarke]

Jan 2, 2010 5:05:15 GMT acornuser said:

Well, I've heard people suggest that the contents of his footnotes don't actually say what White says they say. But I've not read his book. In any case, if he is wrong, someone needs to be ready to show it (Bjorn could maybe put his Walsh book to use) or Wikipedia will be conflict hypothesis central...;

Dickson White's polemic is something of a running joke among historians of science. A common observation is that, although it contains substantive footnotes to appear more scholarly, when you follow them back you can't help concluding that he never read the works he references. It says something that those promoting the conflict thesis have to go back to the writings of a late nineteenth century polemicist to find anything that supports their conclusion.

[bjorn]

Jan 2, 2010 11:30:08 GMT humphreyclarke said:

Jan 2, 2010 5:05:15 GMT acornuser said:

Well, I've heard people suggest that the contents of his footnotes don't actually say what White says they say. But I've not read his book. In any case, if he is wrong, someone needs to be ready to show it (Bjorn could maybe put his Walsh book to use) or Wikipedia will be conflict hypothesis central...;

Dickson White's polemic is something of a running joke among historians of science. A common observation is that, although it contains substantive footnotes to appear more scholarly, when you follow them back you can't help concluding that he never read the works he references. It says something that those promoting the conflict thesis have to go back to the writings of a late nineteenth century polemicist to find anything that supports their conclusion.

I would be glad to put Walsh to use, however as it is more than 400 pages, I think it may take some time - and it tastes too much of work

I've also got White's book (which BTW is available on the net) and Sir Humphrey is rather precise about the footnote farce.

The best way to proceed would be to look at specific topics and contrast it with how modern scholars (like our James, Colin Russell and others) read the same (and other) sources.

Trust, me, it will be a revelation.

[noons]

Hey guys, I know its fun to talk about the conflict thesis and all, but I started this thread to discuss other historical myths, because the conflict thesis and the Jesus myth have been discussed extensively on other threads.

[himself]

Jan 2, 2010 5:22:13 GMT noons said:

Perplexedseeker: On the burnings of heretics, ... Once one is accused, he (I think then it was usually he) is at the mercy of the inquisitors, who may be subject to any outside influence. It's possibly the most corruptible system in existence.

Not necessarily. Once you were accused, there was a period when the magistrates investigated to determine whether or not there was a case. They were quite well aware that neighborly jealousy and political rivalry could lead to malicious accusations and that confusion and misunderstanding could lead to false accusations. They were much to serious about catching heretics to waste time over people who were not heretics. In fact, there were severe penalties for making deliberate false accusations.

The facts of the case were laid out in a written document that, stripped of all identifying names (replaced by Latin pseudonymns), were given to a panel known as the boni viri (men with a reputation for uprightness and probity) who reviewed the case and decided whether it was worth pursuing. The local ordinary was no obligated to follow their recommendation, but almost always did.

The inquisitions were regularly constituted legal tribunals that followed the laws of the day. They were considered preferable to the lynch mobs and even to the royal and imperial courts. The latter were far more profligate with capital sentences, largely because of the equation of religious conformity with political loyalty. The tribunals were equivalent to Continental law, with its "investigating judge" and to the Anglo-American coroner's inquest or grand jury proceeding. The Anglo-American petit jury system is different.

Like any system, it could be corrupted, but what it was not was the "secret police" of modern history.

[himself]

Dec 21, 2009 18:07:29 GMT perplexedseeker said:

How many people were "burnt by the Church" during the middle ages? I have often heard that this is not as large a number as people commonly believe, but it would help to have some decent sources.

Whatever records existed in the Middle Ages were largely destroyed in the Napoleonic Wars. For the Spanish Inquisition, a different kettle of fish, we have spotty records.

In the Tribunal of Valencia there were 3075 trials between 1566-1609, just under 70 per year. Of these, 44% were penanced, 40% reconciled, 3% absolved, 9% suspended, 2% burnt in effigy, 2% burnt in person.

In the Tribunal of Galicia, there were 2203 cases between 1560-1700, about 16 trials per year. Of these, 63% were penanced, 16% reconciled, 19% absolved, 2% burnt in effigy, and 0.7% burnt in person.

So in the two tribunals, there were about 77 executions for heresy in the course of 5278 trials. A roughly equal number skipped town and were burned in effigy.

[himself]

Jan 2, 2010 5:05:15 GMT acornuser said:

I own White's, and in it he methodically addresses origins of the universe, origins of the human species, geology/geography/age of the earth, astronomy/Galileo, archeology/Egyptology/anthropology, history, meteorology, chemistry, physics, modern medicine/germ theory, psychology, linguistics and mythology -- all while illustrating the resistance put forth by entrenched Christian organizations.

Our host mentions a few examples here:
www.bede.org.uk/conflict.htm

[humphreyclarke]

Carrier wades in on 'the dark ages'.

richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2010/01/flynns-pile-of-boners.html

[joel]

Carrier's labelling of the eras is really odd. He puts 1000-1300 as the "Late Middle Ages" when it's considered the High Middle Ages. And then he says 1300-1600 is the Renaissance, even though historians put 1300-1500 as the Late Middle Ages (sometimes ending a little earllier than 1500). I know labelling eras is a somewhat arbitrary thing anyway, but he suggests Mike is being dishonest by putting the fourteenth century in the Middle Ages ("semantic legerdemain") when that's just normal mainstream history.

[perplexedseeker]

So... he abandons the idea that Christianity caused the fall of the Empire, he abandons the idea that Christians tried to destroy pagan learning, and basically tries to salvage his argument by redefining the Dark Ages??

It seems he's already decided on his conclusions and is constantly moving the goalpoasts whenever they are challenged. Or am I being too harsh? Is there anything to his claims that all these things were invented in the ancient world?

Or if these things were invented and subsequently lost, were they independently reinvented during the middle ages?

Speaking as a scientist, his claims about what does and doesn't count as science or scientists seem confused and bizarre. It seems that by his decision you are automatically a scientific rationalist even if you're a philosopher or mystic (provided you're not a christian) and no theologian can possibly be a scientist? I would define anyone who works on natural philosophy as a scientist, personally.

And... is it just me, or did he claim at one point that lots of things were invented by the Greeks, but we have no evidence for this because Christians didn't preserve them?

[bjorn]

Jan 5, 2010 23:41:24 GMT perplexedseeker said:

So... he abandons the idea that Christianity caused the fall of the Empire, he abandons the idea that Christians tried to destroy pagan learning, and basically tries to salvage his argument by redefining the Dark Ages??

It seems he's already decided on his conclusions and is constantly moving the goalpoasts whenever they are challenged. Or am I being too harsh? Is there anything to his claims that all these things were invented in the ancient world?

Or if these things were invented and subsequently lost, were they independently reinvented during the middle ages?

Speaking as a scientist, his claims about what does and doesn't count as science or scientists seem confused and bizarre. It seems that by his decision you are automatically a scientific rationalist even if you're a philosopher or mystic (provided you're not a christian) and no theologian can possibly be a scientist? I would define anyone who works ion natural philosophy as a scientist, personally.

And... is it just me, or did hhe claim at one point that lots of things were invented by the Greeks, but we have no evidence for this because Christians didn't preserve them?

It is not just you...

RC seems also to have gone from "Christianity actively destroyed science" to "lost interest in science", an attitude which - as he makes very clear - still did not cause The Dark Ages (TM).

He does not mention that this loss of interest was present among Greek/Roman intellectuals in Galen's time (Galen even complained about it), and is not mentioning (or aware of) other theological voices than those who had "lost interest".

So even if Christianity is not to blame for The Dark Ages, The Dark Ages shows how Christianity really is.

And placing the Renaissance from 1300 is amusing. It confirms my observation from popular magazines that if you've bought the Medieval=Ignorant=Christian angle, then any medieval person you look close at turns out to be the First Renaissance Man (or Woman) and a closet atheist.

[eckadimmock]

Jan 3, 2010 0:08:22 GMT himself said:

Whatever records existed in the Middle Ages were largely destroyed in the Napoleonic Wars. For the Spanish Inquisition, a different kettle of fish, we have spotty records.

In the Tribunal of Valencia there were 3075 trials between 1566-1609, just under 70 per year. Of these, 44% were penanced, 40% reconciled, 3% absolved, 9% suspended, 2% burnt in effigy, 2% burnt in person.

In the Tribunal of Galicia, there were 2203 cases between 1560-1700, about 16 trials per year. Of these, 63% were penanced, 16% reconciled, 19% absolved, 2% burnt in effigy, and 0.7% burnt in person.

So in the two tribunals, there were about 77 executions for heresy in the course of 5278 trials. A roughly equal number skipped town and were burned in effigy.

Could I ask where these figures are found, in case I need them next time I hear claims of "mass genocide" of millions of heretics?