hatsoff

I vaguely remember reading something about how apocryphal Christian texts were not destroyed on purpose, but rather by time. Texts like the Gospel of Peter do not survive, then, not because copies were burned or outlawed, but because they fell out of favor, and were not copied and recopied, like the canonical texts we have. And since copying is required to save a text from the ravages of time, unfavorable books simply died out naturally.

Question #1: Is this true? Were apocryphal texts not burned, for the most part?

Question #2: What evidence do we have concerning the intentional destruction of books in antiquity? Was it common practice? Does it seem to have been done in the case of non-canonical Christian texts?

As always, thoughts are appreciated.

James Hannam

Hi Hatsoff,

In answer to your questions:

1) The non-canonical documents were banned and burned if they were considered to be heretical. For instance, the Acts of John was consigned to fire by Leo the Great and the Nicine Council of 787AD (later than the famous Nicine Coucil). Despite this, most of the Acts survive.

2) Christian book destruction was focused on heretical works and occasionally magic. Pagan literature was left alone and pagan science carefully preserved. For more: http://jameshannam.com/literature.htm

I hope this helps.

Best wishes

James

God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science is available NOW.

Roger Pearse

It is true. Remember that every book was hand-copied. Copies were not made at centralised presses, but every reader could produce his own, or have his slave do so. There were commercial scriptoria, of course, as well, but there was no copyright. Most of the papyri come from books copied locally in this way.

In such a world, burning books becomes a token gesture unless accompanied by a "search and destroy" programme. Since the Roman empire was not a totalitarian state, whatever the emperors might have wished, this was rarely even conceivable. Diocletian had a go at destroying the Christian bible and failed. Later emperors didn't tend to bother.

The edicts that we find in the Pandects or Theodosian Code can at first sight seem to suggest otherwise, involving extreme penalties of various sorts. But there is little evidence that these were more than words; and indeed the Theodosian code itself contains evidence of the frustration of later emperors who were finding it almost impossible to get the imperial bureaucracy to do *anything*.

After the first council of Nicaea in 325, the emperor ordered that the works of Arius be burned, and also the libel of Porphyry against the Christians. But there is no evidence of either happening. The next quarter century sees the Arians gain supreme power in the state; and as for Porphyry, the order was repeated by Theodosius II in 448, clear evidence that it had NOT been destroyed.

Faced with these practical realities, the main factor has to be that most literature of all kinds is lost. The estimate is that 99% of all ancient literature has perished (so Pietro Bembo, endorsed by N.G.Wilson). This includes works by major Christian writers like Augustine. Few of the church fathers' works have reached us complete; some indeed were lost after 1600! If a work had an audience, it had a chance of reaching us. But works like that of Porphyry, which insulted those who would have to do the copying, had pretty much no chance of survival. Even so, the "New History" of Zosimus, which insulted the Christians, and vilified Constantine the founder of the Eastern Empire, has survived in a copy most likely from the Studion monastery at Constantinople.

Gnostic texts were not of great importance after the 2-3rd century. The edicts list various texts, and are mainly concerned with heresies of the era when Christianity was the state religion and the heresies were as much politics as religion.

There is some. Clarence Forbes, "Books for the burning" is online somewhere (do a google search) and will give you some solid data.

In every age, including our own, material that annoys those with power is demonised and destroyed. (Indeed there is more of this today than when I was young). In Roman times practical issues tended to make this less of a factor, although no doubt the rulers would have liked to do so. Most of the ideas you have heard are a back-projection of the activities of the Spanish Inquisition, and the Index Expurgatorius; and these of course belong to the age of printing.

It is largely futile to seek for Christian book-burning prior to the period when Christianity was an arm of the state. Prior to that, it didn't have the power to do much.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Leo the Great is a 5th century figure; Nicaea II is 787, as you say.

I wonder whether you have some references for this that I could look at?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Doug Shaver

Just a for-what-it's-worth . . . . What little research I have done agrees with Roger, who seems to have a lot more real knowledge in this area than I do. Notwithstanding numerous skeptics' allegations, I am aware of no substantial evidence for the intentional wholesale destruction of any ancient documents. Combine that with what we know about how documents got copied for long enough and in sufficient quantity to survive into modern times, and you've got all the explanation you need for why we don't have much of what we wish we had.

DCHindley

Anyone who might have access to a rare copy of Robert Eisler's Messiah Jesus & John the Baptist (1933 I think) will find a rather long section dealing with censorship of Jewish writings (mainly the Talmud and other midrash) by Christians in the middle ages. He has several examples, but most if not all of them involve printed editions that were censored by this or that Inquisition by inking over the offensive parts. He may discuss the tradition of censorship in Roman times, I do not remember. I doubt this is online anywhere.

On the other hand, G R S Mead also deals with censorship of the Talmud and other Jewish literature considered offensive to Christian sensibilities, which is discussed in connection with the censorship of passages that dealt with Jesus Christ or sometimes Christians in general. See Did Jesus Live 100 B. C.? (1903, but this one is online). Yet even the best censors can't find every manuscript or printed volume everywhere they may be distributed, or find every instance of banned passages. As a result, many of these passages have been recovered in modern times after the discovery of copies that were missed by the censors. There are many odd phrases still there, like "by Zeus' belly button," suggesting the wording has been altered, and we may never know for sure whether all references have been detected or recovered.

I seem to remember that Romans routinely banned magical books and burned them on occasion when a large cache was found. They were afraid that magicians might divine the date of death of an emperor and take action to make it a self-fulfilling prophesy. Physicians and country shaman types often were walking a fine line between legitimate demon thwarting and manipulation for the purpose of health and weather control, and with "bad" magic of the type above. If the emperor is feeling insecure, you could easily get caught up in a pogrom.

DCH (I made up the thing about Zeus' belly button, but the odd phrases are very much like that)

Roger Pearse

Do you have a reference for this, by any chance? It's very interesting, and looking at the sources would be interesting too.

The attitude of the Romans to sorcery was indeed negative, as far as I know. I'd like to know more (with references to primary sources).

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

I find that Augustus as Pontifex Maximus ordered (Suetonius, Augustus 31) that all books of magic should be burned, and some 2,000 were.

"31. After he finally had assumed the office of pontifex maximus on the death of Lepidus (for he could not make up his mind to deprive him of the honour while he lived) he collected whatever prophetic writings of Greek or Latin origin were in circulation anonymously or under the names of authors of little repute, and burned more than two thousand of them, retaining only the Sibylline books and making a choice even among those; and he deposited them in two gilded cases under the pedestal of the Palatine Apollo."

There were repeated expulsions of magicians and astrologers from Italy during the 1st century BC and AD.

hatsoff

Wow, that's some great information. Thanks guys!

I will be watching this thread closely in case any more information is added.

avi

Could not disagree more.

We don't know much about book destruction until the 17th century, when society begins to overwhelm the censors with the printing press, but we sure know that the Christians destroyed the Greek Aristarchus' writings on heliocentrism, because of the obvious conflict with the Christian "bible", which promotes the false notion of Plato: geocentrism.

To learn more about the intolerance of the Christians of all flavors, to any but the "authorized" version of the Bible, one should visit the web site devoted to Sir William Tyndale.

Yeah, maybe Tyndale was not a Sir, as was his executioner, the infamous rogue much beloved by many British, most attorneys in USA, and all Catholics, "Sir" thomas more.
To me, however, Tyndale was much more than a mere "Sir". He was a scholar, and a hero, and he had the courage to stand up against the tyranny of the Christian church and its various stooges, monarchs, and dictators.

Of importance to this thread, is the fact that in 15th and 16th century Britain, at least, Christians did not simply burn books which presented opinions different from those held by the majority, they also burned flesh.
LIVE flesh.