Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DCHindley · 07-18-2013, 07:58 PM

I seem to recall that kind of talk was by a Christian father who was chiding fellow Christians who wanted to get a good classical education: "If you want to learn about history, you have the Gospels, Genesis through the books of Kings. If you want to learn Philosophy then read the Wisdom of Solomon..." and so on. I thought it may have been Epiphanius, although Tertullian also says things similar. Depending on the context of this citation in Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity (or via: amazon.co.uk), (1971, p. 93), Julian may have been echoing this kind of anti-classical sentiment among certain elements of the Christian clergy. He did support Christian schismatics as much as pagans.

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by neilgodfrey

I imagine Riley was referring to Julian's School Edict. Wikipedia explains:

Quote:

In his School Edict Julian required that all public teachers be approved by the Emperor; the state paid or supplemented much of their salaries. Ammianus Marcellinus explains this as intending to prevent Christian teachers from using pagan texts (such as the Iliad, which was widely regarded as divinely inspired) that formed the core of classical education: "If they want to learn literature, they have Luke and Mark: Let them go back to their churches and expound on them", the edict says.[96] This was an attempt to remove some of the power of the Christian schools which at that time and later used ancient Greek literature in their teachings in their effort to present the Christian religion as being superior to paganism. The edict was also a severe financial blow, because it deprived Christian scholars, tutors and teachers of many students.

Neil

James The Least · 07-19-2013, 06:54 AM

Nothing is new under the sun. The destruction of writing by authorities is probably as old as writing itself.

andrewcriddle · 07-20-2013, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I seem to recall that kind of talk was by a Christian father who was chiding fellow Christians who wanted to get a good classical education: "If you want to learn about history, you have the Gospels, Genesis through the books of Kings. If you want to learn Philosophy then read the Wisdom of Solomon..." and so on. I thought it may have been Epiphanius, although Tertullian also says things similar. Depending on the context of this citation in Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity (or via: amazon.co.uk), (1971, p. 93), Julian may have been echoing this kind of anti-classical sentiment among certain elements of the Christian clergy. He did support Christian schismatics as much as pagans.

DCH

An English translation of Julian's rescript forbidding Christians to teach the pagan classics is online at julian_rescript_on_christian_teachers

Andrew Criddle

mountainman · 07-20-2013, 03:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

An English translation of Julian's rescript forbidding Christians to teach the pagan classics is online at julian_rescript_on_christian_teachers

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor Julian

It is true that, until now, there were many excuses for not attending the temples,
and the terror that threatened on all sides men for concealing the truest beliefs about the gods.

What on earth might Emperor Julian be referring to with this "terror that threatened on all sides"?

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Clivedurdle · 07-20-2013, 03:07 PM

Quote:

But I give them this choice: either not to teach what they do not think admirable, or, it they wish to teach, let them first really persuade their pupils that neither Homer nor Hesiod nor any of these writers whom they expound and have declared to be guilty of impiety, folly and error in regard to the gods, is such as they declare. For since they make a livelihood and receive pay from the works of those writers, they thereby confess that they are most shamefully greedy of gain, and that, for the sake of a few drachmae, they would put up with anything. It is true that, until now, there were many excuses for not attending the temples, and the terror that threatened on all sides absolved men for concealing the truest beliefs about the gods. But since the gods have granted us liberty, it seems to me absurd that men should teach what they do not believe to be sound.

Julian starts quite clearly by stating teachers must be honest. He is not banning xians from teaching the stories of the true gods but noting as they do not believe in them they cannot be honest teachers and will therefore seriously mislead and corrupt their students. They are not fit to teach.

It is strange how a quite correct criticism of their professional and moral standards has been corrupted into something very different - an alleged persecution.

andrewcriddle · 07-21-2013, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

But I give them this choice: either not to teach what they do not think admirable, or, it they wish to teach, let them first really persuade their pupils that neither Homer nor Hesiod nor any of these writers whom they expound and have declared to be guilty of impiety, folly and error in regard to the gods, is such as they declare. For since they make a livelihood and receive pay from the works of those writers, they thereby confess that they are most shamefully greedy of gain, and that, for the sake of a few drachmae, they would put up with anything. It is true that, until now, there were many excuses for not attending the temples, and the terror that threatened on all sides absolved men for concealing the truest beliefs about the gods. But since the gods have granted us liberty, it seems to me absurd that men should teach what they do not believe to be sound.

Julian starts quite clearly by stating teachers must be honest. He is not banning xians from teaching the stories of the true gods but noting as they do not believe in them they cannot be honest teachers and will therefore seriously mislead and corrupt their students. They are not fit to teach.

It is strange how a quite correct criticism of their professional and moral standards has been corrupted into something very different - an alleged persecution.

Neither the pagan intellectuals nor the Christian intellectuals of Julian's day took Homer's gods literally.

Julian is trying to prohibit some non-literal interpretations while accepting others.

Andrew Criddle

Clivedurdle · 07-22-2013, 02:08 AM

Not sure about the term literally - The Iliad gives me a strong impression of the gods interfering at their whim - they are as real as the black ships - I thought that was accepted, so people then were using a working hypothesis that gods were involved when things happened, much like the bloke whose hut was eaten by termites and killed him, why was he in there when it fell down?

If you haven't modern ideas of science, what hypotheses do you use? Gods are reasonable - an echo in a cave is someone talking back to you.

Jaybees · 07-22-2013, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Neither the pagan intellectuals nor the Christian intellectuals of Julian's day took Homer's gods literally.

I see no more evidence for that generalization then for the assertion that modern "intellectuals" no longer take the Xtian/Judaic/Muslim god seriously.

However, I'm willing to listen to your arguments in support of any insights into the "true" feelings of past or present intellectuals.

Thanks.

Horatio Parker · 07-22-2013, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jaybees

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Neither the pagan intellectuals nor the Christian intellectuals of Julian's day took Homer's gods literally.

I see no more evidence for that generalization then for the assertion that modern "intellectuals" no longer take the Xtian/Judaic/Muslim god seriously.

However, I'm willing to listen to your arguments in support of any insights into the "true" feelings of past or present intellectuals.

Thanks.

The Greek gods did not create the universe; the gods were created by the demiurge and their domain was the vicissitudes of life. Not a good basis for comparison with Judaeo-Christian culture.

Quote:

Neither if we mean our future guardians to regard the habit of quarrelling among themselves as of all things the basest, should any word be said to them of the wars in heaven, and of the plots and fightings of the gods against one another, for they are not true. No, we shall never mention the battles of the giants, or let them be embroidered on garments; and we shall be silent about the innumerable other quarrels of gods and heroes with their friends and relatives. If they would only believe us we would tell them that quarrelling is unholy, and that never up to this time has there been any, quarrel between citizens; this is what old men and old women should begin by telling children; and when they grow up, the poets also should be told to compose for them in a similar spirit. But the narrative of Hephaestus binding Here his mother, or how on another occasion Zeus sent him flying for taking her part when she was being beaten, and all the battles of the gods in Homer--these tales must not be admitted into our State, whether they are supposed to have an allegorical meaning or not. For a young person cannot judge what is allegorical and what is literal; anything that he receives into his mind at that age is likely to become indelible and unalterable; and therefore it is most important that the tales which the young first hear should be models of virtuous thoughts.

mountainman · 07-22-2013, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Quote:

But I give them this choice: either not to teach what they do not think admirable, or, it they wish to teach, let them first really persuade their pupils that neither Homer nor Hesiod nor any of these writers whom they expound and have declared to be guilty of impiety, folly and error in regard to the gods, is such as they declare. For since they make a livelihood and receive pay from the works of those writers, they thereby confess that they are most shamefully greedy of gain, and that, for the sake of a few drachmae, they would put up with anything. It is true that, until now, there were many excuses for not attending the temples, and the terror that threatened on all sides absolved men for concealing the truest beliefs about the gods. But since the gods have granted us liberty, it seems to me absurd that men should teach what they do not believe to be sound.

Julian starts quite clearly by stating teachers must be honest. He is not banning xians from teaching the stories of the true gods but noting as they do not believe in them they cannot be honest teachers and will therefore seriously mislead and corrupt their students. They are not fit to teach.

It is strange how a quite correct criticism of their professional and moral standards has been corrupted into something very different - an alleged persecution.

Neither the pagan intellectuals nor the Christian intellectuals of Julian's day took Homer's gods literally.

The existence of, and the sponsorship and maintenance (by the Roman Emperors in their role as "Pontifex Maximus") of the pagan temples to various gods (from the epoch BCE to the arrival of Bullneck) refutes this assertion. Eusebius's polemical diatribe against the pagan god Asclepius also immediately refutes this assertion.

However by Julian's day the major ancient pagan temples had been destroyed by Constantine and Constantius. No longer could the pagan intellectuals gather at the temples. Use of the temples had been prohibited under penalty of death.

Hence .....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Emperor Julian

It is true that, until now, there were many excuses for not attending the temples,
and the terror that threatened on all sides men for concealing the truest beliefs about the gods.

The terror that threatened men on all sides was the characteristic malevolent, intolerant and persecutory anti-Pagan Christian agenda of the 4th century Christian emperors. This agenda included the destruction of the pagan temples and the torture and execution of "numbers without end" of pagans on account of their intellectual beliefs about the pagan gods. (See Ammianus Marcellinus (Book 19,CH 7))

These 4th century Christians of course were just going by the canonical books they had ....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me.

εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-19-2013, 06:54 AM	#32
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	Nothing is new under the sun. The destruction of writing by authorities is probably as old as writing itself.

07-22-2013, 02:08 AM	#37
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Not sure about the term literally - The Iliad gives me a strong impression of the gods interfering at their whim - they are as real as the black ships - I thought that was accepted, so people then were using a working hypothesis that gods were involved when things happened, much like the bloke whose hut was eaten by termites and killed him, why was he in there when it fell down? If you haven't modern ideas of science, what hypotheses do you use? Gods are reasonable - an echo in a cave is someone talking back to you.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.