andrewcriddle

One of Porphyry's works that survived is the Cave of the Nymphs
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/po...ranslation.htm
Which is an important source for his views about Mithraism.

Andrew Criddle

vid

Roger: Thanks, I see your point now. I am not aware of any more direct literaly references to burning pagan books.

However I still think this happened along with all other forms of suppression against pagans. I don't mean it was "one wave" that destroyed it all quickly, more like many repeated waves which slowly filtered out writings. I will try to build my case:

As for suppresion of Mithraism by Catholic Roman state, following is collection of laws concerning paganism from Corpus Juris Civilis: http://uwacadweb.uwyo.edu/blume&just...ook%201-11.pdf

In short:
354 - All temples closed, all pagan religions banned, those still keep practicing these religions killed
385 - Torture for those who sacriface
399 - Ban to destroy pagan art (quess it happened, otherwise no law would be needed). Pagan literature to be confiscated by authorities!
399 - "As we have already destroyed profane rites by a salutary law", old traditions reallowed but without religious parts
415 - All pagan buildings confiscated.
423 - Ban to attack Jews and pagans who were living quitely, again, I only see reason for this law if such attacks were common
451 - Ban to reopen temples even as tourist attractions. Desire to "let our be free" of pagan art. Death for those who sacrifice, or who know about such people and don't accuse them.
??? - Death to all who are still pagans. Unbaptized must register themselves, and attend church, their property confiscated and they are forbidden from holding any property, they are subject to punishment. All children must be baptized.

You see that for those 100 years from which these laws come, pagan temples were closed, pillaged, torn down, paganism completely forbidden under thread of death. We don't have any record what exactly happened to pagan books, except for one decree which commanded people to hand them over to authorities. Do you suppose all this even *could* happen without mass burning of pagan literature? What did those christian authorities do with literature that was confiscated, archive it?

If these laws were even vagualy carried out (as repeating same law again and again suggests), they still had devastating effect on paganism, mithraism included. And AFAIK it indeed did cease out in 100 or so years following adoption of christianity by empire. I think that saying christianity is responsible for lack of information on mithraism is justified.

Roger Pearse

I quite understand. I'm not sure that they exist, not least because the attitude of both the state and the fathers towards pagan literature was not of that kind. Indeed the school syllabus continued to be based on Greek classical literature until 1453.

I think that this is to confuse two different things; the official adoption of Christianity as the state religion under Theodosius, and the consequent programs of temple closures (and remember this happened sporadically over time -- this wasn't a modern state), and the loss of ancient literature written in antiquity, which didn't really happen in a sudden way (unless we include the sack of Constantinople in 1204). I would advise against this.

Although this is a text several centuries later than the Council of Nicaea.

Again, I draw your attention to what I wrote above about the distance between what emperors enacted, the violence of what they wrote, and what actually happened. (I don't want to repeat this more times than I have to!)

Points of detail:

Paganism was the state religion in 354. I know that your source attributes this to Constantius, but it must be a much later edict.

No... this is an edict against divination, attempting to predict the future.

You mean this? --

1.11.3. Emperors Arcadius & Honorius to Macrabius and to Proclianus (Vicar of the Five Provinces). As we prohibit sacrifices, so too, we want to preserve all ornaments of public buildings. Persons who attempt to destroy them cannot rely as authority to do so by bringing forward any rescript or law. Documents of that sort shall be taken from them and referred to us. Given at Ravenna January 29 (399). C. Th. 16.10.15."

But surely this bans anyone from attacking temples and other public buildings, not encourages it? It protects art, not otherwise.

The "documents" are not pagan books; they are imperial rescripts or laws being used to justify the attacks -- the order is to forward them to Constantinople, not pagan books.

This perhaps indicates the popular hostility to official paganism in the aftermath of Julian's attempts to reinstate it. It also probably reflects the sort of thing that is seen also at the reformation; the unscrupulous see a chance to get rich by looting what was previously untouchable.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this might be.

Um, all *temples* made state property. Clearly, then, this had not generally happened. Probably didn't happen even then.

The law protects jews and pagans, in other words. But how does this relate?

I'm sorry, but your argument is really very diffuse. I am unclear what all this is supposed to demonstrate.

You mean this?

"1.11.7. Emperors Valentinian and Marcian to Palladius, Praetorian Prefect. No one shall re-open the temples, already formerly closed, for the purposes of veneration and adoration. Let our age be free from rendering the pristine honor to nefarious, execrable statues, hanging garlands on impious doors of temples, lighting fires at profane altars, burning incense on them, slaughtering victims, pouring wine from bowls as a libation, and considering (what in fact it) sacrilege as religion."

No question arises of 'tourist' use -- this is about use as temples for worship of pagan deities. No question of 'art' arises either.

I must say that I don't quite see why any atheist would object to the actions of Marcian here?

Again, not what the edict actually says.

No, I don't see this. What I see is some edicts, which mostly don't say these things. Please don't exaggerate.

I'm afraid that you misread the edict.

Easily. Laws are words unless carried out.

The repetition by itself rather indicates that nothing much happened. The closing of the temples was in general a gradual process, as we know from other sources.

The link of all this with Mithras and its sources is non-existent.

Only in the sense in which the death of paganism -- however achieved -- naturally means that we don't have pagan temples at every corner to consult. In that sense, yes, the victory of Christianity means that our knowledge of paganism is limited. Whether that is a non-trivial or meaningful statement might be debated (but not by me).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

vid

Hmm, quoted texts appear to come from 4th and 5th century, altough I am not competent to judge if these dates are correct. Fact that they were collected in 6th century doesn't matter, if they were .

I understand this, but still it at least allowed things to happen, and I suppose this decree had at least some effect. If it was carried out in small measure, and then repeated by following emperors and repeatedly carried out in small measure, resulting effect is still big. Or, do you think that it was possible such edict was completely ignored, and there were no people who invoked this advantage against their "enemies", and did what law allowed them? That seems unlikely to me.

Hmm, bad news for my source

Correct, my bad, sorry.

Yes, that's what i meant by "ban to destroy". Maybe my english usage was wrong? In such case sorry, english is not my primary language. If emperor had to ban this, that is indication such things did happen.

Again correct, looks like i was too hasty in reading this, sorry.

It implies that old religions were already destroyed. I suppose that if laws were uneffective, they'd say something like "As we have already commanded to destroy", not "as we have already destroyed"?

Such law suggest to me, that there was something to protect them from, otherwise law wouldn't be formulated. To me, this appears that terror on practicing pagans was extended to nonpracticing ones, and that was condemned by this law. If there was no terror on nonpracticing pagans, what was purpose of this law?

I don't object. I simply listed it as another law favoring banishing of paganism.

Sorry, I apparently didn't make it clear enough:
- There were bloody conflicts among various churches, pagan and christian, in these times. One example that comes to my mind is Hypatia lynching, I believe you can remember much more.
- Now in such situation, laws suddenly sanctioned one conflicting side, and gave it powerful weapon. I would be surprised, if christians wouldn't use this in their conflicts with paganism.
- In years following these edicts, those pagan religions disappeared rather quickly.

I see all this as evidence, that disappearing of various pagan religions was more than just peaceful change of mindset of roman population. I see strong indices of forceful banishing of pagan religions, mithraism included.

There were people who had motivation to carry out this law. Why do you think that christians who were "fighting" with pagans for several centuries would NOT carry out these laws, if they had such a chance?

Please list some sources. I admit my knowledge in this area isn't really very good one, and I'd like to extend it.

Well, it was one of pagan religions, wasn't it?

I hope I explained my argument properly now. Looking forward to your reply.

Roger Pearse

This seems to be starting to range over a vast number of issues and assertions. Pardon me, but I don't have the time to engage with all those.

The point at issue is the evidence for a "wave" of book burnings as a reason why we have limited evidence about Mithras. This I think we have established is not in fact true.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

lycanthrope

hi RP,

i came across this webpage concerning book burning and would like ur opinion on this subject

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/bookburn.html#1

"The moment Christianity came into power in the fourth century, books that do not conform to its teaching were ferociously destroyed. Around 363-364, the Christian emperor Jovian, ordered the pagan library in Antioch to be burnt, leaving the helpless citizens watching the books go up in flames. [1]

Continuing this trend, around the year 372, the Christian emperor Valens (d.378), as part of his persecution of pagans, ordered the burning of non-Christian books in Antioch. (The main target were pagan books on divination and magic but most of the books burned were mainly on liberal arts and law). Fearful of the emperor, many provinces of the eastern empire burned their own libraries to avoid his wrath.[2]"

Roger Pearse

References offered:

1. Forbes, C. "Books for the Burning"Transactions of the American Philological Society 67 (1936): p114-25

2. Beckmann, History of Pi (or via: amazon.co.uk): p80
Forbes: p114-125

Forbes is online at my site here.

Note how Tobin offers 10 pages as his reference, rather than specific ancient sources, and spins what Forbes actually says. Have a read.

We're left unclear when this precisely is supposed to be. I was wondering what "ferocious destruction", as opposed to destruction, was? How do you burn a book "ferociously"?

The idea that "Christianity came into power"... what does this mean?

This article is hate-rhetoric, I think. The facts seem rather few on the ground. I wonder just what evidence we have that the Antiochenes were angry that Jovian burned books; rather than angry at Julian, who collected them? Or that they were angry at all?

I'm on the run, so just a few thoughts.

All the best,

Roger Pearse