Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!husc6!caip!lll-crg!nike!aurora!ames!barry From: barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) Newsgroups: net.religion,talk.religion Subject: Re: More Non-History Message-ID: <1639@ames.UUCP> Date: Wed, 3-Sep-86 03:37:14 EDT Article-I.D.: ames.1639 Posted: Wed Sep 3 03:37:14 1986 Date-Received: Tue, 9-Sep-86 04:53:24 EDT References: <15499@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Organization: NASA-Ames Research Center, Mtn. View, CA Lines: 104 Xref: linus net.religion:10686 talk.religion:44 From: gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith): > Plot synopsis: Brian "Easter Bunny" McNeill takes on Stuart "2001" >Gathman. Kismet, probably. In any case, Brian seems to be a recent graduate >of the Oleg Kiselev School of Historical Analysis. We find: ...problem's with McNeill's version of history, true. But I have a few problems with Gene's, as well. >In article <3554@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes: >>The reason why one of the few >>documents from the 1st millenium is the Bible is because the church >>took over and instituted a "purge" wherein all non-Xian documents >>were destroyed, as well as most non-Xian's (hear about the >>Crusades?) Guess why the Church was all-powerful during the middle >>ages? Because of the above purge. Why? Because the people had no >>exposure to anything non-Xian (fortunately, this changed). Note >>that the middle ages were one of the most stagnant in all ways >>non-Xian (no technology, little non-Xian artwork, slavery rampant, >>power concentrated COMPLETELY in the hands of the Church and nobles, >>etc) > > While there were book burning incidents, on the whole the Church is >credited much more for *saving* the literature of the ancient world than >destroying it. It is true that one of the monastic orders preserved ancient writings. One might wonder if anti-Xian and heretical tracts numbered among the documents they preserved :-). But books were also ordered destroyed by the church. An edict of Theodosius II in 448 ordered the works of Porphyry (a leading pagan) destroyed, and no more than fragments of his works survive, in fact. Seems he wrote a treatise called "Against The Christians" which Theodosius didn't like. But most book-burning was reserved for heretical Xian beliefs, not the pagans, and sources on many of these heresies are quite fragmentary as a result. Pagans were won over more gently: they were usually allowed their beliefs, and most of their books, but were not allowed to *practice* their religion; and at the same time, Xianity adopted more and more pagan practices, making the conversion of pagans more genial to them. > It is false that all non-Christian documents were destroyed, >many remain. True. Perhaps what Mr. McNeill meant to say was that *anti*-Xian works were destroyed, as they frequently were. >It is false that the Crusades destroyed most non-Christians >(that is not even what they attempted to do). The Albigensian campaign >and the Spanish Inquisition were the main attacks on non-Christians I >can recall. The Medieval church was distinctly discriminatory towards Jews from at least the 5th century on. Even leaving aside the Inquisition, I think it's fair to say that the Church's attitude toward pogroms was a bit like a 1920's Southern sheriff's attitude toward the Klan; just look the other way (and maybe wink). >It is false that the Middle Ages were stagnant. In particular, >there was a considerable development of technology then. Agreed. >It is false that >the art of the Middle Ages was almost all religious. Read the poetry, >listen to the music, then judge if the secular art was so insignificant. True. But "art" is sometimes used as a synonym for "painting", and the paintings were mostly religious until the late Middle Ages. >And the Middle Ages were not one of the worst times for slavery by any means. Matter of definition. Slavery, per se, went into a decline in the Middle Ages, but serfdom rose to take its place. And the difference bewtween serf and slave (serfs can only be bought/sold/traded along with the land they work, not seperately) can seem slight to modern eyes. >In article <3556@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za56@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes: > >>Really? The only evidence remaining from that time period [1st cent.] (due to >>the Xian purge in the middle ages, wherein all "heretical" works >>were destroyed (or at least as much as could be found)) we have >>is the Bible, plus a very few other scattered works of no relevence. > > Care to document this claim? I've mentioned one instance; here's another. Here's a quote from J.B. Bury's HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE, vol. 1, p. 380: "Marcian's law of A.D. 455 against the Eutychians was severe enough. They were excluded from the service of the State; they were forbidden to publish books criticising the Council of Chalcedon; and their literature, like that of the Nestorians, was condemned to be burned." Marcian was Emperor, Eutychians and Nestorians are sects deemed heretical. Ironically, in some cases our best source of information on a heretical work is a Xian refutation, because the work being refuted no longer exists. - From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry NASA-Ames Research Center Moffett Field, CA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry