This Month
Date 25-07-2008
GMTime 18:02:11
Banner header

Christians like to hear the voices in their own heads, it’s the ones in everyone else’s they don’t like.

Did Christians Destroy Classical Culture and Create the Dark Ages? 3

Adore what you once burned, and burn what you once adored.
S Remy to Clovis
cited by Pope Pius X (excommunication of A Loisy)

© Dr M D Magee
Contents Updated: Monday, November 23, 1998

Abstract

Once the Empire was administered by Christians, public libraries had their Pagan books progressively replaced by Christian books. Christians closed Pagan temples and academies, destroying or scattering their libraries. Even as early as 235 AD Christians, like Sextus Julius Africanus, were in powerful and influential positions in Rome. By 391 AD, an edict of Theodosius prohibited visiting Pagan temples and even looking at their ruins. In Alexandria, Pagans revolted, led by the philosopher Olympius. They locked themselves inside the temple of the god Serapis—the Serapeion. Christians violently sieged and captured the building, demolished it, burnt its famous library and profaned its images. Christians try to deny that they ravaged the Pagan learning accumulated over the whole of previous history. Since this vandalism started the Dark Ages, it is difficult to prove…

Bookburning? And the Rest: Chronology

To help counter Christians in denial, a Greek correspondent, Florin Achaios, has submitted the following chronology of Christian persecution especially of the Greeks…

Source: Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them!… published in Greek, Athens 1994, Diipetes Editions, ISBN 960-85311-3-6. Any similar material will be received gratefully.


Discussion

From Florin

Mike, I have the following comments on: AskWhy! on Did Christians Destroy Classical Culture and Create the Dark Ages? Christianity Revealed. A small erata: in 0780Bookburning.php it writes “850 to 860 Violent conversion of the last gentile Hellenes of Laconia by the Armenian ‘Saint’ Nikon”, like in www.wcer.org. But in www.ysee.gr which seems the original is “950 to 988 Violent conversion of the last Gentile Hellenes of Laconia by the Armenian ‘Saint’ Nikon”. Which one is true? There is others?

I checked the sources you mentioned. I notice that both were from the book cited on my page and they were given in full, but the one with the tenth century date for S Nikon seems to be correct and this is cited as the second edition published in 2000 whereas the other was the first edition published in 1994. So, my guess is that the second edition has corrected the error in the first. I shall do the same.

From James H

I was interested in your article on askwhy.co.uk about the destruction of Pagan manuscripts by Christians and was wondering if I could ask a couple of questions. I have been examining this subject for a while and have found some evidence that “orthodox” Christians deliberatedly destroyed the work of “heretics” and some magical texts. However, I can find nothing at all that supports the claim that Pagan literature went the same way. In particular you mentioned the demolition (it was not burnt down) of the Serapeum in Alexandria. That this happened cannot be doubted but it would appear the library was long gone at the time. Have a look at this essay that covers all the primary sources for the Great Library of Alexandria and shows that the Christian destruction was a myth relating to Gibbon reading too much into his sources (not a surprise!). The essay is here. May I ask what you make of this essay and also what sources you been able to find. Given that we should not expect the early Christians to be ashamed of burning the work of the devil their silence about the matter is even more surprising.

Thanks for showing me Bede’s site. I do not agree with your final remark. Early Christians might have been proud of it, but later Christians, after the rediscovery of learning, were not. Christians are always defensive about this and part of the reason it is problematic is because they are dab hands at destroying evidence, then pleading innocence. They had 1500 years in which to do it.

There is an expression to damn with faint praise but it works just as well expressed as to praise with faint damnation. General Pinochet, doubtless a faithful mass-taking Catholic, was extremely kind as a destroyer of the aspirations of the Chilean people because normally far more than 3000 people die when fascist Generals overturn the will of the people—as in Spain. This I heard on TV this very afternoon and illustrates my point. Praising with faint damnation is accepting responsibility for a small crime to exculpate oneself from a large one.

I say on the page, the Christians claim that the Serapeum library which they admit they destroyed was a small temple library, not the original massive library of Alexandria. It is sophistry, but even if the library was a fraction of what it was, it was still a massive source of ancient scholarship.

I took a look at Mr Bede’s pages, and I think they are well presented and well researched, but Christians are unrepentantly tendentious in everything they argue and Mr Bede is no less so than any other Christian. Put bluntly he is trying to kid us, as Christians do.

OK, the Serapeum was not itself torched, but it seems more likely that the truth in the story that the Moslems destroyed the library was that the Christians had fed the rolls to the holocausts of the bath houses. I do not deny in the piece I wrote that the library had been attacked before Theophilus ordered the destruction of the temple, but why should it be assumed that the books were not replaced, even if only in part? Why is Plutarch not to be relied on when he says that Mark Antony replaced 200,000 books from the library at Pergamum, yet should be taken seriously when he says that Caesar destroyed the library. This is what you would call tendentious!

Hirtius says Alexandria would not burn because it was made of stone, and this must be a lie because all cities burn, yet Caesar admitted freely that he burnt the Egyptian fleet in its harbour and the quays caught fire too. He made no such admission regarding the library. Like modern politicians, he did not want obvious blots on his CV, but it is not proof of dissimulation. I cannot see that Hirtius should be dismissed as he is except because it suits Bede’s argument. Stone built temples and palaces would not easily catch fire simply because a nearby quayside is ablaze. The owners or priests would be taking measures to make sure the fire would not spread. Assuredly, if Caesar had have wanted to incinerate the city, he could have done so. Preston Chesser, in eHistory, online, notes that Caesar had his public opponents and enemies, and indeed they eventually murdered him, so he could hardly have kept the scandal of burning a national treasure like the library from public debate:

“If he was solely to blame for the disappearance of the Library it is very likely significant documentation on the affair would exist today.”

The evidence is that he did not burn the Brucheium. It would have been a crime that could not have been hidden.

Mr Bede has to accept that Cicero does not mention the crime when he should have done—had it happened!—Bede’s assumption throughout. He simply dismisses the omission with a few half-hearted excuses. An argument from silence he tells us is to be doubted—unless it is a Christian argument from silence. Next he tries the technique of suggesting an answer—his answer—with a leading question. “Can we conclude that the library was no longer there?” It is a conclusion to do so, no doubt about that, but the conclusion that he dismisses is more likely—he could not describe it because the library was inside and quite possibly in the vaults, since it was not designed to take a large collection. The palace was built on an artificial mound fully one hundred steps above the level of the city. The mound had an interior cavity supported by arches, split into vaults and apartments. This is possibly where the bulk of the library was kept.

When Mr Bede talks about there being less information than earlier librarians had, according to someone called Mostafa El-Abbadi, there is no dispute—the library was not as big as it had been.

Bede blandly concedes that the relevant book of Livy’s history has been “lost”. Considering they tried to have the credit of being the preservers of culture and knowledge, the Christians were most careless about “losing” books. This makes my point, they were doing the opposite—they were destroying books. Seneca quotes Livy on this but Bede discounts it! Tendentious? Seneca says 40,000 books were destroyed, only ten percent of the smallest estimate of the original collection. That is why it does not suit the Christian argument.

The evidence of Dio Cassius is similarly dismissed. Tendentious! No one seems to dispute that the quay was destroyed and Dio Cassius says the books that were destroyed were on the quays, one imagines having just been unloaded or waiting to be loaded. The librarians collected books from everywhere they could, promising to copy and return them. That is how the library was built up and presumably repaired when books were damaged or destroyed. Furthermore, obviously an industry of copying books for other libraries existed to help finance and maintain the collection. No one disputes this. So there were quite likely to have been cargoes of books at the docks. Why should Bede cavalierly dismiss this possibility? It does not suit the Christian defence!

On the other hand, a passage in Gellius accepted by many as an obvious interpolation, is admitted as evidence because it says the entire library of 700,000 books went up in smoke. Ask yourself too, if this was an interpolation, who would be interpolating it? Christians controlled book production for well over a millennium.

He quotes Marcellinus and Orosius and, like the American attorney in court, implants the evidence that he knows will be overuled. It is both late and dependent on Gellius, or is it Gellius that is dependent on Marcellinus, being an interpolation? These historians are 500 years, almost, from the event. In any case, Orosius admits that the books were scattered by “our own men”—Christians—but please don’t notice that.

Mr Bede comes to his summing up, and calls one of the witnesses a “crony”. Tendentious? It is a “cover up”. Their “silence” about the crime is not “surprising”. In case you did not notice, Bede has decided that they had done it. Yet Caesar and other witnesses he has quoted, the most reliable ones closest to the events, do not confirm that the whole library was destroyed. It is the later ones who do that.

He tells us that the library did not exist at the time of Strabo “as a separate building”? He tells us that Plutarch, Seneca and Aulus Gellius all say the library was destroyed. Tendentious? Plutarch did, but also said that Cleopatra got 200,000 more books from Mark Antony to restore the collection (and this according to Gibbon, horrid man daring to criticise Christian saintliness). Gellius is quite probably an interpolation. Seneca says 40,000 books only were destroyed. Bede repeats that Seneca said “the books perished”, despite giving the figure. He also, paradoxically admits that scholarship continued! What were the scholars studying? What was the mathematician Diophantus trying to restore in 270 AD only to have his efforts frustrated at the hands of Aurelian? The Serapeum had become the main library, so it is hardly surprising that the original library should be described as a memory. But a library is its books not the building that houses it.

“Theodosius was emperor and energetically converting all his subjects to Christianity”. Bede makes it sound like a virtue. When communists allegedly ban Christianity, it is a dastardly crime, but when Christians ban Paganism, it is God’s own work. From where I stand they look to be exactly the same crime—people are being obliged to think in somebody else’s prescribed way.

“Alexandria remained a centre of scholarship and other libraries existed”. Well, well! “The Emperor Claudius set up the eponymous named Claudian to be a centre for the study of history and Hadrian founded a library at the Caesarean temple during his visit”. “The fourth century Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus (died 402 AD) in his Weights and Measures (actually a biblical commentary!) says that there were over 50,000 volumes in the “daughter” library that he places in the Serapeum”.

Is Bede now trying to tell us that these libraries were not destroyed at all? Caesar did not destroy them because some were endowed by Caesars in the next century or two after him. The Christians never destroyed anything because they are so kind. The Moslems did not destroy any libraries because the sources are late and the stories are fantastic. My article points out that the destruction of books was not merely one act in 391 BC. It is merely that that one seems to have captured the popular imagination and is remembered. Justinian closed and dispersed any remaining schools or made them Christian and scattered their libraries in the sixth century to finish off the job.

That Marcellinus speaks of the libraries in the perfect tense is hardly convincing. If he is writing his history after the destruction and putting it in an historic present, he only needs to lose his concentration briefly to get this error. Equally it could be scribal. Marcellinus is also always called a Pagan, yet is sympathetic to Christianity. He supported Julian but was perhaps sensible enough to accept the signs of the times when Theodosius ruled, for the sake of his career. This is Mr Bede’s best point but hardly enough to build on.

Rufinus Tyrannius did not mention any libraries at all, yet Bede has just mentioned three that Caesar did not destroy. What then is the point of this? Is he trying to show that Rufinus is a bad reporter? He “puts the blame squarely on the local Pagans for inciting the Christian mob”. You mean there were Christian mobs? The same applies to Eunapius and Socrates. The Christian predilection for censorship now has to be considered too. The offending passages, if present originally, could easily have been excised at a later date when Christian publishers were more cautious about being depicted as barbarians.

Orosius is quoted to show there were no other libraries in Alexandria when Caesar burnt the books, but he says "today there exist in the temples book chests which we ourselves have seen and which we are told were emptied by our own men in our own time when these temples were plundered (and this is indeed the truth)." Mr Bede tells us Orosius is a “useless” historian. Wonder why!

Mr Bede tries to wheedle his way out: "Christians did empty some temples of books but we cannot go much further." Hope you are still alert. Why do we have to go any further? A Christian eyewitness (they normally believe anyone who claims to be an eyewitness) tells us just what we wanted to know! The chests of books were emptied by Christians when they plundered the temples. QED.

What was the rest of all this about other than blather and flannel aimed at apologising for the barbarism of Christian history? Christians know the tree is known by its fruit, and the fruit of Christian history is death, torture and destruction. They have to deny it and cover it up, but it is God’s Truth—deceit!

Thanks for your long and detailed reply but I must admit that I found it a bit of a disappointment. I asked if you had any sources for the Christian book destruction and you have only been able to tell me that Christians must have destroyed the evidence.

I do not get your point about evidence. I have a page for bibliography where I list all my sources for the whole site. If you want formal scholarship, why don’t you go to a university? I am a reporter, and my reportage has higher standards than many pseudo-scholarly books (in that they give endless footnotes to give an aura of scholarship). Unlike Christians, I am not an habitual liar, secure in the thought that lying for god gets them a place in heaven. And Bede quotes the relevant evidence on this topic, so what more do you want? You sound like a Christian. They will not accept any evidence however good it is because their faith is their evidence. I said the evidence has mostly been destroyed—by Christians! I showed that Bede’s interpretation of what remains is tendentious, but if you disagree, at least I cannot burn you at the stake.

Regardless of whether this happened it does not help from a historical point of view.

It helps the Christians. That is why they did it.

If we have no evidence then that is that. The lack of ancient texts today is adequately explained by 2000 years of war, neglect, accidental fires and decay. I certainly cannot take on an apologist with silence.

It shows how gullible you are. Do you seriously believe that all of those books, widely dispersed over an empire half as big as the US could have been destroyed accidentally by the means you mention? Was there only one copy of each book? My page points out that there were many libraries including private ones. I try to point out in my reply and on the page that large libraries ran an industry for producing books. To think that so many books could have been utterly destroyed not deliberately is puerile. Even if your apology for the Christians is true and the books went the way you say, it proves that Christians had stopped the manufacture of books, content in the knowledge that they would decay.

Bede is certainly an apologist but I found his essay was a fair piece of work.

I showed he was not fair, but your drift is plain to me. You will believe what you want.

On the Serapeum library he is right—it was almost certainly gone before Theophilus got his claws on it. The silence of Eunapius and the words of Marcellinus seem proof positive that Gibbon was mistaken.

Why was Gibbon mistaken? He agrees with Bede, stating very clearly that the old Library of the Ptolemies was destroyed. But Cleopatra started a new one with the help of Antony. I think it is unlikely that it was totally destroyed, but it does not matter either way, since many books were replaced and a large library remained. Antony’s gift was to start the new library, so plainly the procedure of collecting books from everywhere would have continued. It is, if you like, evidence that the Christians must have deliberately destroyed books that they all disappeared except for the selection Christians tolerated. The end of one library does not destroy all knowledge because much of it is repeated elsewhere and can be reassembled.

It was finding this out that made me keen to find any other evidence for ancient Christian book burning and I’m sorry you haven’t been able to give me any. I do not mean to lessen such crimes as the Inquisition and Crusades (for which we have warehouses of evidence—the new book on the Cathars may interest you) but we must stick to the highest standards of scholarship when cataloguing these matters. I fear that you are perhaps an anti-Christian apologist. This is all well and good but does not take scholarship very far. For that we need references and objective facts. Given the abuse of these concepts by fundamentalist Christians over the years it doesn’t help to find others doing the same thing.

You speak of references and objective facts, sounding just like any Christian apologist. They have destroyed the evidence and then claim there is no objective evidence against them. You read the travesty of an interpretation of evidence that they have presented, and believe it even when its utter bias is exposed. Though Christians bleat over an over again to their critics, like me, who say, where is Solomon? where is David? where is Moses? etc, etc, the mantra: “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”, denying that the absence of a whole culture can be explained away, will still use the failure of Eunapius et al to mention a library explicitly as evidence—conclusive evidence to you. The last word is that the Christians admitted the crime. If that impresses you less than someone not mentioning the library, you must examine your own thinking.

If you have read my pages and not noticed that I am utterly anti-Christian, your perception is faulty. Christianity has destroyed everything it could, including thousands if not millions of people, and created misery throughout the world for over a millennium of history. Anyone who can read that and, as you point out, it is not arguable, can hardly maintain that the highest standards of scholarship must necessarily remain neutral. Even scholars can come to a conclusion—that is the point of evidence. Only Christians pretend that this should be a polite debate. Christianity is respected in our society because its true history is unknown to most people. Bede’s article, and your own position, shows that they present what little evidence remains in a wholly tendentious way, to make themselves look saintly. Those who believe they were saints present them as saints. It is Christians who argue about being fair or scholarly, because they want to win arguments by tying down their opponents then jumping on them. Righting a wrong cannot be done by being neutral. This has to be fought the way you would fight any bully, using his own tactics. Only the bully’s friends would defend him. Regards, Mike.


Page Tags: Church Fathers, Bookburning, Classical Culture, Dark Ages, Barbarians, Books, Christian, Christianity, Christians, Church, Edict, Emperor Theodosius, Empire, God, Libraries, Library, Orders, Pagan, Pagans, Destroyed Temples

Last uploaded: 24 April, 2008.

Blog Back

Here you can give short responses and suggestions.

* Required.  No spam




New. No Blogs Back posted here yet. Be the first one!

If you are having trouble with this form, read this helpful comment From Amelia on Sunday, 6 April 2008

I filled out the comment section below this page… More…

Visitors

Google
Web askwhy
adelphiasophism askwhy-science

Exposing Biblicist Falsehoods

Who Lies Sleeping? cover
Who Lies Sleeping?
The Dinosaur Heritage and the Extinction of Man
ISBN 0-9521913-0-X £7.99

Mystery of Barabbas cover
The Mystery of Barabbas.
Exploring the Origins of a Pagan Religion
ISBN 0-9521913-1-8 £9.99

Hidden Jesus cover
The Hidden Jesus.
The Secret Testament Revealed
ISBN 0-9521913-2-6 £12.99

Themes

Exodus

The Resurrection

Evolution

Website Topics

Sign my Guestbook from Bravenet.com
Free Guestbook from Bravenet.com

Speak! Put your view on the forum
Free Message Forums from Bravenet.com
Join My Community at MyBloglog!
IP Address Lookup
Open Standards Add Feed to Google

Before you go, think about this…

To the Jews who formulated the meaning of the term, righteousness is the quality of living according to the law of Moses. Christians abandoned that law, but tried to maintain the notion of righteousness without a law. Consequently it was wrongly expounded by them, and still is. An example of this faulty exposition is found in the only extant sermon of the pious Bishop Ambrose (1842-1913), a passage from which is here given:
Now righteousness consisteth not merely in a holy state of mind, nor yet in performance of religious rites and obedience to the letter of the law. It is not enough that one be pious and just, one must see to it that others also are in the same state, and to this end compulsion is a proper means. Forasmuch as my injustice may work ill to another, so by his injustice may evil be wrought upon still another, the which it is as manifestly my duty to estop as to forestall mine own tort. Wherefore if I would be righteous I am bound to restrain my neighbor, by force if needful, in all those injurious enterprises from which, through a better disposition and by the help of Heaven, I do myself restrain.