Sunday, October 9, 2022

Political Scientists Tend to Get History Wrong

It's not a law of nature, it's however the kind of statistical fact that political scientists do deal with in their more legitimate capacities. Here is one dealing in a less legitimate one, namely mistreating history, as my title says:

How Islam Saved Western Civilization
1st of Oct. 2022 | The Austin School

2:32 Rome fell 1918, when Charles the First (sometimes called Charles the Last) left Hofburg and when the Czar was shot.

4:44 Would Doctor Casagranda please tell how he sources 26 Gospels were thrown away by the Council of Nicaea?

I mean, I suppose sourcing claims is one of the things taught in PhD thesis studies?

5:02 You have just referenced the Nag Hammadi library.

It's 52 texts, and four of them are texts of 3 Gospels not in the Bible : "of Truth" "of Thomas" and "of Philip" ... that's 3, not 26!

My source is, by the way, "Nag Hammadi library" on Wikipedia.

5:27 I definitely do not think that a Coptic priest said "these are the 26 apocrypha" - you are wrong or dishonest.

There were not 26 apocryphal Gospels, only 3, and there were more than 26 apocrypha of other than Gospel type.

The French wiki actually mentions a Coptic priest, but only as selling the codex III (or rather his brother in law sells it) to Coptic Museum in Cairo. Where Jean Doresse actually goes "wow" ...

5:39 Now you are making up a story about the Coptic Church, that you cannot source either.

No, the Coptic Church has not declared it a miracle, and has not said all 30 Gospels are legit.

And you have still no source for 30 Gospels going strong up to Council of Nicaea throwing out all but four.

5:49 And no, "apocrypha" does not mean wrong, "apocrypha" means "hidden away" - from prefix "apo" meaning "off" or "away" and verb "cryptein" with perfect participal form "cryphos" ...

And they very much were hidden away, in a jar.

The opposite, canonic, is about something being a known rule, since canôn literally means the "plumb bob, plumb bob level, or plummet, is a weight, usually with a pointed tip on the bottom, suspended from a string and used as a vertical reference line, or plumb-line."

In order to serve as such, the Gospels obviously have to be public - the real opposite of "apocrypha" ..

Interestingly the canonical gospels were not public at all for most of their history. They were hidden with select clergy only in churches. It was illegal for public to have then and read them. It was illegal to translate the bible into other languages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Ashley Interestingly, you are wrong.

During the persecution era, they were read in Mass. Usually in Greek, but in North Africa and later all the West in Latin.

It was very much not illegal to translate them to other languages for peoples who happened not to speak Latin.

In St. Jerome's time a new Latin translation was made, because people were still speaking a language not quite like Classical Latin, but very close, so that no one in AD 400 had an impression French or Spanish were other languages than Latin.

In England, Gospel translations were made to Anglo-Saxon.

By 800, the Latin pronunciation in Gaul had become unintelligible to clergy from elsewhere, while it was intelligible to the people. Hence Alcuin was invited from England, as Latin had been a foreign language for 200 years and been imported from Italy, not Gaul, Alcuin's Latin was far better internationally.

By 813 he had educated the clergy of Tours so they could speak Latin with a correct pronunciation again. Unexpected backlash : the people couldn't. So, that year, a council obliged clergy to add a paraphrase of the Gospel of the day in what is now called a Sermon.

Even in times when Gospels were indeed only available in one language and that one not the people's (like in Bulgarian Church Slavonic in Romania or like in Latin in much of the West after Alcuin and after the Norman Conquest, the Gospels were very far from "hidden away" since anyone speaking Latin (that meant all of the clergy) could understand them.

Have I made my point?
Do you want more facts?
Or did you just want to make your point and shy away?

@Hans-Georg Lundahl you e not really given any reference. I’m sure clergy did get hold of the bible in various languages and select people but the masses were denied acces to the bible on their own in the west especially ie western Christianity.

Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.): "We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books."
Ruling of the Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E.: "No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments in the Romance language, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over to the local bishop within eight days after promulgation of this decree, so that they may be burned..."

Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E.: Oxford professor, and theologian John Wycliffe, was the first (1380 C.E.) to translate the New Testament into English to "...helpeth Christian men to study the Gospel in that tongue in which they know best Christ's sentence." For this "heresy" Wycliffe was posthumously condemned by Arundel, the archbishop of Canterbury. By the Council's decree "Wycliffe's bones were exhumed and publicly burned and the ashes were thrown into the Swift River."

Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English. According to Tyndale, the Church forbid owning or reading the Bible to control and restrict the teachings and to enhance their own power and importance.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Ashley "the masses were denied acces to the bible on their own in the west especially ie western Christianity."

The masses had no Bibles at home up to the Gideons.

At the Reformation, perhaps every landlord could get a Bible, but the sharecroppers needed the Bible in Church or of their landlord.

"Fate of William Tyndale in 1536 C.E.: William Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English."

No. He could have been burned for it if he had stayed in England, since precisely English bishops were a bit nuts on giving the Bible to laymen. In Belgium, or then (Spanish) Netherlands he was burned because he misrepresented Romans 3 as saying Abraham could have been justified even without any will to subsequently do good works. He and his inquisitor agreed Abraham had no meritorious works to merit justification before being justified. But they differed on what he signed up for by being justified.

"Decree of the Council of Toulouse (1229 C.E.)"
"Council of Tarragona of 1234 C.E."

These were not Ecumenical councils, but took local to regional conditions into account. There weren't Albigensians all over the entire Christendom.

The text you give for the Council of Tarragona seems faulty. No decree was ever made that all copies of the New and Old Testament books needed burning, however, at that point, a translation may have circulated that was faulty and at least unedifying.

"Proclamations at the Ecumenical Council of Constance in 1415 C.E."

You are not giving any quote from it's decrees. Hence, you cannot prove that the council as such was approving the burning of his bones simply for translating. Arundel was of course an Englishman, confer what I have said about the English bishops.

@Ashley "you e not really given any reference"

Neither are you, except:
  • 1) one possible but very local
  • 2) one very local and impossible as you cite it
  • 3) one you aren't citing, avoiding to quote - and the decisions of the Council of Constance are actually online.

6:37 While Arius may have been denying the real incarnation, he was not saying Jesus was God

7:53 No, The Last Temptation of Christ by Kazantsakis is not Orthodox Christian belief. While he was not excommunicated, many wanted him excommunicated.

He was also friendly with the Soviet Union ...

8:25 And neither the novel by Kazantzakis, nor the film by Scorsese was "the Church's official teaching" ...

9:24 w a i t - you are not a historian, you are a political scientist ... explains a lot.

No need to waste more energy on your lecture then ...

Forgive me for offering him a few more views, but with 114 910 views already (in 8 days) I don't think I am hurting that way as much as I am trying to help those who get to my blogs, far fewer.

No comments: