mountainman

The way I tell it is available for discussion in an article entitled Knowledge Burning by the 4th Century Christians. It represents an indexed list of the destruction undertaken in the name of the fourth century christian political regime. If you prefer to examine someone elses list in regard to the OP "Books destroyed in antiquity", then I am happy to go through one at a time the citations prepared in Vlasis Rassias' Demolish Them! published in Greek, Athens 1994. You should be aware that Rassias' subject "Demolish Them!" is a direct quote from a "Christian emperor" in respect of the Greek sanctuaries of knowledge, and temples of their civilisation.

Thus you now have direct reference to claims of specific ancient historical citations which according to you "didn't happen in the fourth century". I am happy to discuss any of these. Are you? The evidence seems quite clear cut. The fourth century christians were wearing jackboots, and they were riding roughshod over the ancient and highly revered Greek civilisation, and its books/scrolls and its knowledged, and its architecture. In the fourth century the City of Alexander the Great was recycled to the City of the Thirteenth Christian Apostle.

Doug Shaver

I would be, but I've had discussions with you before.

bacht

Yes, this seems to be the default for hierarchical societies. We're fortunate to live in times and places where freedom of speech, assembly etc are protected by the state (more or less, there are always exceptions like national security). Knowledge is power, as the struggle for women's education highlights in places like central Asia.

semiopen

There is a long history of Jewish book burning and that works both ways.

A Chabad rabbi once told me that he would ask Jews for Jesus missionaries(?) for as many copies of their books as possible so that he could destroy them.

What's remarkable is that he had no idea that this could possibly be interpreted in a negative way.

The history includes The Guide for the Perplexed by Maimonides which freaked out some Medeival religious leaders.

Recently right wing elements in Israel have advocated burning the New Testament.

It's nice to think that those days are behind us but right wing Jews are extremely dangerous.

Roger Pearse

Here in the UK laws to ban "hate speech" -- the term is merely Newspeak for "the establishment do not want this unpopular thing criticised" -- are being passed right now.

In Canada the Orwellian-named Human Rights Commissions consider the concept of Free Spech an "American idea", inapplicable to that country. Fortunately it looks as if they have overreached, and may get abolished.

But this is just legislation and legal obstacles. Much worse is stuff that is not enacted by legislation, but which legislation enables to happen; the process of "chill", of stifling discussion, not by law, not by court judgements, but by other means. Free speech is punished by dragging the victim through a long, expensive and tortuous process, where the process itself is the punishment, unless he submits. It seems to be becoming a very serious risk everywhere. I don't keep up with the US scene, but the same people are at work there. None of this is being done democratically; everywhere it is the establishment who are doing this, usually by subterfuges of one sort of another.

Nor should we be surprised. Who would not be willing to silence others, if the power to do so is there? Few indeed. Of course once one group discover that they can be placed above criticism then every other one scrambles to get the same privilege. After all, such a status gives them the power to do whatever they like to whomever they like; if the victim complains, he's guilty of "hate" for complaining and truth is no defence! - it's a sweet system, so long as you hold the right cards and have no morals.

Free speech has never been under so much threat in the last century as today, and never so much in the last decade as now.

Pardon me if that is a little OT. It's a subject on which I feel real concern, and which I blog about from time to time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

This seems to repeat what you said last time; my reply is the same, tho.

Now I have some difficulty with your replies to my post, because they don't seem to me to really reply to my post at all. They ignore everything apart from a dozen words, in which I make the observation that the establishment find ways to prevent the circulation of material that they do not like, today as ever. Your post responds to this by asserting that in the USA this does not happen because any such law would be illegal (I condense too much, no doubt).

The inference -- you don't state your argument, which is never a good sign -- is that this example disproves my comments. Well, I don't see how.

It's as if someone from Tuvalu, or the old Soviet Union, popped up and stated that this does not happen in the People's Republic (as indeed socialists frequently did assert to me at least, prior to 1989). Of course I do not have a list of examples of how the state is run in Tuvalu, nor in the old USSR. Since I am not an American, you can assert whatever you choose about it, and I shall be unable to respond other than trivially, unless I waste time researching it. Likewise the Tuvaluan or Soviet can do the same. Will that show that I am wrong?

The game works for everyone. It's as if I said "I have examined the governmental systems of every state in the world and I have all the details here and I can tell you that all of them criminalise free speech." But since I didn't say this, to what end are these remarks?

This argument is therefore really a derail; I could expand that dozen words into an essay, but to what point?

Do such arguments really do anything to show my point is true or false? I do not think so.

I decline the derail, in other words. :-)

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Well... if the books belong to them, why shouldn't they? I wouldn't, myself; but there is an issue of right of property here.

We must always distinguish between what we do as individuals and what the power of the state does. If the state started doing it, that would be pretty horrible, I agree.

A brave thing to say. There are some loony and rather hateful Jewish extremists out there, for I have met them (rather to my surprise, I must say). But are any of us really in danger from them? I'm more worried about the people trying to blow up airliners.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

semiopen

This may turn into a new hobby horse for me, but the actual destruction has included invaluable texts. Some like Maccabbees and Ben Sira would probably be gone if Christians hadn't saved them.

There can be little doubt that many texts are completely gone which would shed light on the history of the period. Not only that but consider the people who think that what survived was the truth as opposed to the writings that toed the party line.

More recently consider all the contemporary writing about Shabbatai Zevi destroyed.

Perhaps the destruction of knowledge is responsible for much of the hatred and ignorance we see today.

I agree that if I was going to meet an extremist in a dark alley, I'd prefer him (or her) to be Jewish. But these people are an important influence in Israeli politics and have the unwitting support of many moderates who don't understand how crazy they are.

Sorry for veering off topic, but I can't think of a better person to do it with. My main point is the loss of what is probably an incredible and irreplaceable historical collection.

mountainman

But this is precisely the claim here: that the Roman "christian" state started the burning of Porphyry's and Arius' books after Nicaea.

mountainman

Every day is a fresh beginning.