MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Edwin Johnson (History)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Please don't put the kybosh on the Kaiser, he's just brought out a book featuring this passage

Officially, Christianity began during the Roman Empire. It might even be said they began coterminously since Augustus declared himself emperor in 27 BC and the angel of the Lord impregnated the Queen of Heaven with our Saviour only a smidgeon after that. Not that either side would have recognised the concordance given their respective agendas but, since the world owes its modern form to western Europe and western Europe owes its modern form to a combination of the Roman Empire and Papal Christianity, the coincidence is worth noting even if it is happenstance.
Send private message
Hatty
Site Admin

In: Berkshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The date (A.D.) of an epoch-ending event, the withdrawal of the Romans from Britain in 410, is another Bedian contribution to English history. Some archaeologists, and perhaps historians, are not entirely persuaded that 410 is valid, though it's useful and much used for marking the end of Constantine III's rule, barbarian invasions, et al.

The dissenters feel there are cases of Roman archaeology being mislabelled Early Medieval and came up with 'Late Antiquity' to explain one period leaching into another but there is no evidence of Roman Christianity in the archaeological record; at most there are references to Mithraism, otherwise buildings are described generically as temples. The importance of breaking with Rome in a religious sense seems to be a mainly Tudor preoccupation.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, Roman Christianity has become a bit of a focus. They can make excuses for having no evidence for the Dark Ages but when it comes to the state religion of the world's most powerful empire (o.n.o.) they're going to have a bit of explaining (away) to do.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Hatty wrote:
The date (A.D.) of an epoch-ending event, the withdrawal of the Romans from Britain in 410, is another Bedian contribution to English history. Some archaeologists, and perhaps historians, are not entirely persuaded that 410 is valid, though it's useful and much used for marking the end of Constantine III's rule, barbarian invasions, et al.

The dissenters feel there are cases of Roman archaeology being mislabelled Early Medieval and came up with 'Late Antiquity' to explain one period leaching into another but there is no evidence of Roman Christianity in the archaeological record; at most there are references to Mithraism, otherwise buildings are described generically as temples. The importance of breaking with Rome in a religious sense seems to be a mainly Tudor preoccupation.


The legions have to go, so Augustine (sic) can arrive.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini, usually referred to simply as Poggio Bracciolini, was an an early Renaissance humanist, he died 1459. According to Wiki he "rediscovered" many classical Latin manuscripts, mostly decaying and often by chance, in German, Swiss, and French monastic libraries, it is thought for a pope.

Whereas the humanist John Leland toured England and Wales in the 1530s, recording the holdings of monastic libraries just before the Dissolution. It is thought for a king.

Both were humanists. I doubt these forgeries were done by the (mainly, according to Edwin) Benedictine) monks, it is the Humanists that have done this, they had invented the novel idea of medieval scriptoria with monks copying classical texts, as well as religious, who did not understand the significance of the classical texts they were copying. This allows Poggio and Leland the opportunity of making dramatic finds, which then prove (or were intended to prove) useful to their benefactors.

The classical forgeries were surely the invention of humanist scholars, close to positions of power, not the monks. It is probably within the universities that these documents were manufactured.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The way it is put in RevHist is

------------------

Did you know, for instance, the entire history of Greece and Rome suddenly appeared in a plethora of manuscripts during the Renaissance? The clue is in the name. These manuscripts, bearing news from antiquity, are reported as having arrived from a variety of places and for a variety of reasons, but chiefly via fleeing Greeks arriving in the west after Constantinople fell to the Ottomans in 1453.

“Run for your lives and take Europe’s heritage with you.”
“I thought maybe some gold coins sewn in the lining...”
“No, manuscripts.”

It gets worse. Renaissance writers had a tricky decision to make. They could write under their own name and be ignored, maybe get put to death for heresy, or they could publish under a Classical name, reach a Europe-wide audience and live out their lives as esteemed scholars keeping the flame of civilisation burning.

Did you think Homer, Thucydides, Vitruvius, Euclid, Galen, Plutarch, Ptolemy (the names they choose!) and the rest wrote it all, suffered the indignity of silence for a thousand, two thousand, three thousand years and then burst onto the world stage all over again just when the world was ready to take up their mantle? Well, please don’t.
Send private message
Nick Weech



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Good to see this topic is still alive here.
It's not confined to Rome: What confirms the Myth of the Flood?
Two points making a straight line ...

Gilgamesh: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh

"About 15,000 fragments of Assyrian cuneiform tablets were discovered in the Library of Ashurbanipal in Nineveh by Austen Henry Layard, his assistant Hormuzd Rassam, and W. K. Loftus in the early 1850s.[16] Late in the following decade, the British Museum hired George Smith to study these; in 1872, Smith read translated fragments before the Society of Biblical Archaeology,[17] and in 1875 and 1876 he published fuller translations,[18] the latter of which was published as The Chaldaean Account of Genesis.[16] "

"Noah's flood:
Andrew George submits that the Genesis flood narrative matches that in Gilgamesh so closely that "few doubt" that it derives from a Mesopotamian account.[68] What is particularly noticeable is the way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the story permits other alternatives.[69] In a 2001 Torah commentary released on behalf of the Conservative Movement of Judaism, rabbinic scholar Robert Wexler stated: "The most likely assumption we can make is that both Genesis and Gilgamesh drew their material from a common tradition about the flood that existed in Mesopotamia. These stories then diverged in the retelling."[70] Ziusudra, Utnapishtim and Noah are the respective heroes of the Sumerian, Akkadian and biblical flood legends of the ancient Near East."
Cheers all!
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Jump to:  
Page 5 of 5

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group