Dark ages and christianity

[ViaCrucis]

Perhaps "fad" or "trend" would have been better trems to have used, then. It's certainly not the case that all "serious" historians have gone over the Politically Correct edge, and I think that's important to say. Historians, as a matter of fact, are LESS inclined to engage in such things than are many other academic grouips.

What does any of this have to do with political correctness?

You keep bringing this up, along with the BCE/CE designations. That's an entirely different subject altogether.

We're talking actual history here, the reason why the period was called "the dark ages" and why that term is no longer employed in the field of historiography. It is outdated and antiquated. The dark ages weren't all that dark, turns out people actually were doing things in that period, and we know quite a bit about that period today.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

What does any of this have to do with political correctness?

Sorry. The way you talked, I assumed that you knew.

You keep bringing this up, along with the BCE/CE designations. That's an entirely different subject altogether.

I don't know that they are entirely separate, but I was clear in what I said about it. It was an example of newspeak, and that's how I used it. I did not say that you used it or would.

We're talking actual history here,

Well, that would be refreshing.

It seems to me that this has mainly been about who uses the new terminology that you like or that everyone should. If we were to actually discuss the Dark Ages, I doubt that we'd be in any significant disagreement.

 

[Tzaousios]

Your post #4.

It appears you did not even read that post because nothing was said about chronological designations or "faddish" terminology. Is your quibble here something left over from experiences in General Theology?

 

[Albion]

It appears you did not even read that post because nothing was said about chronological designations or "faddish" terminology.

IMHO, that's a fair representation of the view expressed in post #4. And I used the AD/CE matter as an example of the popularity of such thinking, never saying that you used it yourself.

 

[Tzaousios]

IMHO, that's a fair representation of the view expressed in post #4.

Popularity of what thinking? It is anachronistic and a misnomber to call the early middle ages "Dark Ages." It has nothing to do with trying to be PC or "faddish" in language.

The ones that use the term "Dark Ages" more often than not are those who want to use a pejorative description in relation to the Catholic Church. A prime example is SDA's, who almost always call it that, as well as other particularly anti-Catholic Protestants. I am sure you have seen this on GT, despite whether or not you admit it.

And I used the AD/CE matter as an example of the popularity of such thinking, never saying that you used it yourself.

Now I have said that I purposefully use BC/AD when I teach my classes even though post #4 did not require me to do so and what you got out of it was entirely of your own instigation. Now what?

 

[Albion]

Popularity of what thinking? It is anachronistic and a misnomber to call the early middle ages "Dark Ages." It has nothing to do with trying to be PC or "faddish" in language.

Naturally, the faddists or revisionists are not going to admit to it, are they? .

 

[Tzaousios]

Naturally, the faddists or revisionists are not going to admit to it, are they? .

It depends on what the sources say and how they are interpreted. That is why you see the early middle ages interpreted as a period in which the faith was kept, peoples converted, manuscripts copied and literacy preserved, and order gradually restored without the need of a centralized power like the Roman empire. Of course, that is speaking of the West, with the situation being much different, and no less "dark," in the East.

Now, it is with the intellectual descendents of Gibbon and von Harnack, in whom an Enlightenment-era derision of the role of the Church in history persists, who continue to describe it as "the Dark Ages" where illiteracy, bloodthirsty violence and anarchy, "barbarian supersititon, and finally a "pagan" Catholic Church reign supreme.

Have you retained a bit of the SolomonVII school of history since you have been in General Theology?

 

[back2thebible]

much like all history, the one that writes it, controls what people believe, Its pretty evident that most history is in error one way or another......even the most basic historical records such as Columbus discovering America is quite ridiculas, since the evidence is overwhelming that others came long before Columbus

 

[Albion]

It depends on what the sources say and how they are interpreted. That is why you see the early middle ages interpreted as a period in which the faith was kept, peoples converted, manuscripts copied and literacy preserved, and order gradually restored without the need of a centralized power like the Roman empire. Of course, that is speaking of the West, with the situation being much different, and no less "dark," in the East.

Now, it is with the intellectual descendents of Gibbon and von Harnack, in whom an Enlightenment-era derision of the role of the Church in history persists, who continue to describe it as "the Dark Ages" where illiteracy, bloodthirsty violence and anarchy, "barbarian supersititon, and finally a "pagan" Catholic Church reign supreme.

This is all beside the point. We know that the Dark Ages--in fact the entirety of the Middle Ages--were not as dark as once was supposed. Historians do not, however, feel the need to eviscerate the language in order to correctly understand the past. We also know that the Hundred Years War did not last exactly one hundred years, but no one is clamoring for it to be changed to the "One Hundred and Fifteen Years War" lest we be seen as old-fashioned or bigoted if we do not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

much like all history, the one that writes it, controls what people believe, Its pretty evident that most history is in error one way or another......even the most basic historical records such as Columbus discovering America is quite ridiculas, since the evidence is overwhelming that others came long before Columbus

Though the Columbus Myth is one we can actually trace back to the early 19th century. In the period following the American Revolution, the early Americans needed cultural heroes, and obviously English ones weren't going to cut it. So non-English explorers became prominent, most importantly Christopher Columbus, who became the Discoverer of America. The actual and historic Columbus, a rather greedy, self-serving fellow never admitted that he had done anything other than find India. He never challenged the establishment concerning the shape of the earth (everyone knew the earth was round in Europe), but he did challenge the accepted circumference of the earth, believing it much smaller than it actually is (the accepted circumference, dating back many centuries prior to Columbus, is actually pretty close to the reality). Truth be told, if there hadn't been two massive continents and some islands in the way, Columbus' expedition would have turned into nothing, they would have sailed until mutiny and history would never have remembered the name Columbus.

However, the myth of Columbus was invented, America got its cultural hero, and it's taken nearly 200 years to undo the historical revisionism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Though the Columbus Myth is one we can actually trace back to the early 19th century. In the period following the American Revolution, the early Americans needed cultural heroes, and obviously English ones weren't going to cut it. So non-English explorers became prominent, most importantly Christopher Columbus, who became the Discoverer of America. The actual and historic Columbus, a rather greedy, self-serving fellow never admitted that he had done anything other than find India. He never challenged the establishment concerning the shape of the earth (everyone knew the earth was round in Europe), but he did challenge the accepted circumference of the earth, believing it much smaller than it actually is (the accepted circumference, dating back many centuries prior to Columbus, is actually pretty close to the reality). Truth be told, if there hadn't been two massive continents and some islands in the way, Columbus' expedition would have turned into nothing, they would have sailed until mutiny and history would never have remembered the name Columbus.

However, the myth of Columbus was invented, America got its cultural hero, and it's taken nearly 200 years to undo the historical revisionism.

-CryptoLutheran

Let's not sell out Columbus that cheaply. While we all know that he didn't literally "discover" America, and that he wasn't the first European to set foot on the Western Hemisphere, he was the one whose voyages, etc. first made a difference.

St. Brendan, Chinese or Phoenecian seafarers, or even the Vikings may have been here before Columbus, but history is a study of consequential developments, not trivia. It was thanks to Columbus that the Old World was dramatically changed because of there being a New World.

 

[Tzaousios]

This is all beside the point. We know that the Dark Ages--in fact the entirety of the Middle Ages--were not as dark as once was supposed. Historians do not, however, feel the need to eviscerate the language in order to correctly understand the past. We also know that the Hundred Years War did not last exactly one hundred years, but no one is clamoring for it to be changed to the "One Hundred and Fifteen Years War" lest we be seen as old-fashioned or bigoted if we do not.

Well, it appears, then, that after all the dancing around is done, you really do not having anything substantive to say about the actual history other than reluctantly to agree with what has already been said. All we are left with is that you do not like it when certain Protestants are called out for their rhetorical abuse of history and terminology.

Just can't shake that SolomonVII school of history, right?

 

[Albion]

Well, it appears, then, that after all the dancing around is done, you really do not having anything substantive to say about the actual history other than reluctantly to agree with what has already been said.

Oh dear, you're crestfallen to learn that what you thought was sooo perceptive and scholarly turned out to be merely common knowledge among people who've studied history.

Oh well.

 

[Tzaousios]

Oh dear, you're cresgtfallen to find that what you thought was sooo perceptive and scholarly turned out to be routine among people who've studied history.

Oh well.

It is a bit disingenuous to leave out portions of my remarks (you have done this before) as well as come back with a playground retort because you are left with nothing but a gripe in this thread.

What exactly is "routine among people who've studied history" and how do you know it? I never made any claims to esoteric knowledge or having been privy to something special. It appears that is just part of your attempt hear to draw a false dichotomy between supposed blue collar, common sense, armchair historians and those who conduct research and teaching at a professional level.

Like I said, your affiliation with the SolomonVII school of history is showing quite glaringly.

 

[Albion]

those who conduct research and teaching at a professional level.

which describes me.

 

[Tzaousios]

which describes me.

At what point have you demonstrated this? There has been nothing which indicates that this was the case. Are you suggesting mind reading?

Boy, can you possibly wind up with MORE egg on your face? I'd recommend that you stop before it gets worse.

Yet another playground retort. Your further editing of my remarks is also noted. Could you possibly trumpet any louder the fact that you just cannot handle when Protestants are called out for their blatant anti-Catholicism, here taking the form of a rhetorical abuse of history, and have unresolved grudges left over from GT?

 

[Albion]

Good night, Gracie. Good night, George.

 

[Tzaousios]

Good night, Gracie. Good night, George.

A fitting end to this, no doubt.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, I am serious. I know the period well and teach it as well as conduct research in the fields of late antiquity and the early middle ages.



That is a rather generalized, monolithic outlook on the subject. It smacks of conspiracy theory.



Again, you generalize very much and reveal some personal presuppositions concerning Catholicism rather than anything historical about the "Dark Ages."



Thank you for saving us the trouble of drawing out your presuppositions into the open. All has been revealed.



All I have to say is conspiracy theories, History Channel, and HBO specials combine for a rather potent concoction.

And ignores the fact that the Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Saracens, Turks,Mongols, Vikings, and others were busy destroying Roman Civilization, and also ignores the fact that the Catholic Church, far from being the ones keeping everyone else out, were simply protecting and developing what was saved. It was the monasteries where scientific breakthroughs were happening, and civilization was preserved.
This is not to say that holding power doesn't corrupt. Certainly, it does in some cases. But when earthly power isn't very much your concern, but attaining heaven is, power is not as likely to overcome.

 

[Albion]

And ignores the fact that the Goths, Visigoths, Huns, Saracens, Turks,Mongols, Vikings, and others were busy destroying Roman Civilization, and also ignores the fact that the Catholic Church, far from being the ones keeping everyone else out, were simply protecting and developing what was saved. It was the monasteries where scientific breakthroughs were happening, and civilization was preserved.
This is not to say that holding power doesn't corrupt. Certainly, it does in some cases.

That's a much more accurate view of the matter than Tz was pushing. The ages were "dark" all right, but in an overall sense, not merely in a religious way. Nor is understanding the downturn in social order and culture that followed the fall of the Roman state an inherent exercise in "anti-Catholicism." In a dark time, the Church, as you said, was arguably one of the leading forces for good. It is also not true that the origin of the term "Dark Ages" was the doing of Protestants, allegedly looking with disfavor upon the era in question.