Christians Destroying Pagan writings...
Posted on: March 24, 2008 - 4:28pm
Offline
Christians Destroying Pagan writings...
I've read about this happening but was wondering what evidence is there of it actually taking place? This is a counter question I'm expecting to a reply in Sunday morning Bible study so I'd like to be prepared for it. The more verified references that I can look up the better. Thanks
"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."
- Login to post comments
- Login to post comments
What is the question you are countering?
By "destroy," do you mean incorporating into the Bible to subvert paganism in Christianity? Or, as in modern book-burning?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I think it would depend on what works you are referring to. We have to thank Christian monasteries for preserving all of the Greco-Roman classics that otherwise would have been lost during the dark ages. Most often it was a lack of concern for pagan writings like gnostic works that allowed them to deteriorate without replacement. It was more from neglect than any kind of direct intent.
You may check this out: http://www.rationalresponders.com/compilation_of_works_from_rook_hawkins
He should have references at the end of each post, there may be something in there for you to pull from.
Slowly building a blog at ~
http://obsidianwords.wordpress.com/
I would say actual book burning and/or destroying of Pagan writings. Without any evidence to show that kind of behavior, and not just one case in one town, I would have to say that any missing or lost Pagan writings that refute Christian claims would be do to apathy more then an actual attempt at silencing the critics.
"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."
This is nonsense. Christians only preserved what was beneficial to them, and destroyed quite a bit. The burning of classical Libraries such as the one in Alexandria was only the start. If anything, the muslims--being the neoplatonics they were--did more to preserve the Greek texts of antiquity than any early Christians. Get with the program.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Rook where can I find the references to the book destroying and even the Muslim saving books? Christians destroying would be best but the Muslims contrabution to saving them would be of help as well.
"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."
Most of the information is found from reading the printed manuscripts themselves, such as those found in Loeb Texts. Also catalogs of manuscripts recovered from archaeological sites like Oxyrhynchus are helpful in determining such things (although Oxyrhynchus' fragments are mostly in khoine Greek, so you'll have to locate sites elsewhere). The only Greek manuscripts that the Christians really preserved for a short time are Homer's epics, specifically because of their mimetic quality and use in schools for the purpose of literacy education. Once Christians transitioned to using Christian texts in place of Homer, there was no more need to continue setting forth the resources to continue copying the texts for classrooms. A good introduction on this particular instance can be found in books by Bart Ehrman, who does a very good job of explaining it.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
You have to love selective history. Its a known fact that major works of antiquity were preserved and used for training in education throughout the history of the church. Any suggestion that they didn't is patently false and more than bad history. Just the keeping of libraries satisfies this fact. Muslims also did much to preserve these works. Can we get beyond childish conspiracy theories and own up to realism here?
Yes, realism: Of the works preserved by Christians, only parts were copied, and they were only the parts that were considered beneficial to their faith. This is why so much of antiquity went missing until fragments were found in sites like Oxyrhynchus which were basically trash heaps of papyri. You do not know what you are talking about Spumoni. You have not provided any work to the contrary. Even Homer's epics were ignored and had stopped being copied after a specific time period when Christians started using their own church fathers in place of them for education. Christians did more to ignore antiquity than preserve it. The works of Plato, for example, or Aristotle, were not copied by Christians. We have them from very serendipitous means. The same goes for the 13 codices found near Nag Hammadi. It simply cost too much money for the Christians to care about putting into the copying of these works, and spent their money instead to copy their own church fathers. You should spend more time reading books outside your required church reading.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
That was just the entire theme for The Name of the Rose. I love that book.
That does bring up the question: was the destruction intentional, or was it more from careless neglect? Were perfectly good copies of non-Christian texts thrown out into the midden heap, or only the old-and-moldy? Would it really qualify as "destruction" if it wasn't active?
I'm not defending the actions. I'm just curious if destruction-through-neglect would qualify for the debate the OP is having.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I've read a few of Elaine Pagel's books and she does make reference to the destruction of books by the church from time to time.
You can read portions of "The Gnostic Gospels" from a PBS site. She does make numerous references to the destruction and outlawing of all Gnostic texts by the church. While Gnosticism does not = Paganism I think there are parallels/similarities. Most of my books are packed away or I'd look up her references. Any larger bookstore/library should have this stuff.
A short excerpt:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html
"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Intent plays a big role. To be clear, "destroying" a manuscript was as easy as simply not recopying it. You didn't need to burn a manuscript for it to fade away. By not copying it the papyri left behind will disintegrate and often will destroy itself. The fastest way to do this was to bury them. In doing this, you also are certain that future generations of scribes will not stumble across them and recopy them. However, as Morton Smith points out, it was common for early church fathers to get rid of manuscripts that they disagreed with. Dom Crossan points out that Luke would probably not be so happy that Matthew and Mark survived, and so to with John about the so-called synoptic traditions. Sometimes recopying a manuscript and changing it was the best way to destroy a document.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)
Nigel- I believe that if the destruction was only do to simply not caring then it’s not “destroying”. Everyone here is under no obligation to keep ANYTHING. There is no destructive intent in simply not doing something. I don’t see any attempt to silence if the church threw out their own copies. I have thrown out copies of books myself because they were delusional crap. If no one else saves their copies, especially people who actually believe what was written, then why should I be blamed with “covering up” their opinions? Now if the church actively went out, found these books, then burned, buried, or destroyed them in some other manner then I would say that they were trying to “silence” the opposition (In regards to written literature that is). That would be the stuff I am looking for. I’ll have time tonight to look at the stuff posted so far but this is all helpful. =)
"Those who have stepped into the arena shall forever cherish a feeling the protected will never know."
how do you delete a comment in editing?
Intent plays a big role. To be clear, "destroying" a manuscript was as easy as simply not recopying it. You didn't need to burn a manuscript for it to fade away. By not copying it the papyri left behind will disintegrate and often will destroy itself. The fastest way to do this was to bury them. In doing this, you also are certain that future generations of scribes will not stumble across them and recopy them. However, as Morton Smith points out, it was common for early church fathers to get rid of manuscripts that they disagreed with. Dom Crossan points out that Luke would probably not be so happy that Matthew and Mark survived, and so to with John about the so-called synoptic traditions. Sometimes recopying a manuscript and changing it was the best way to destroy a document.
Sorry buddy, gonna have to disagree. We have works of antiquity today because they were not destroyed but stored in places where they would be kept in good shape. I think your tendency is to equate gnostic works with antiquity. They are not the same. The works found in Nag Hammadi and other sites were placed there by gnostics themselves. Gnosticism died out as a belief system so if burying something is bad then the gnostics deliberately tried to destroy their own works. We both know thats not true so one need not suggest it about Christians either. The Renaissance itself is the prime counter example to your contention. As for Crossan and the synoptics, thats pure pejorative scholarship. They knew each other's works and used them to produce their own unique accounts for their purposes. This is basic source criticism. There is no reason for any rivalry between them and there is plenty of evidence in the church fathers of their cirulation together as complete collections. It might do to actually read sound history before chasing rabbit trails of conspiracy that don't exist. In fact, destroying a work by changing it is exactly the opposite of what happens in text criticism. If you have geographic distributions, different text families and scribal tendencies you can see exactly what happened to a work because the original never leaves, it simply is changed around. By comparing with other works one can see exactly what happened and nothing is lost. This is proven over and over when certain textual idiosyncacies have a tendency of popping up in later texts. It is possible to see these and disregard them as original. People like Erhman love to overstate the case in these situations. That is one reason I think Erhman uses more sensationalism than scholarship in his presentation of his material. I'm not saying he doesn't have a lot to say, I'm just noting his ax he has to grind and the tendency for that to say more than is actually there.