Dark ages and christianity

[Tzaousios]

That's a much more accurate view of the matter than Tz was pushing.

How so? It appears that you think I confined it to anti-Catholic sentiments. However, for some reason, you suspiciously left out the fact that I said "Dark Ages" is used pejoratively in a variety of different contexts.

There are those who use it in the anti-Catholic sense, among whom the SDA and other Protestants who must define their Christian existence against "whatever those Catholics do." Then there are the intellectual (and theological) descendents of Gibbon and von Harnack, who, in the Enlightenment positivist tradition, write off the early middle ages as "barbarism" and "superstition."

You don't think "Dark Ages" was and is used in these ways?

The ages were "dark" all right, but in an overall sense, not merely in a religious way.

In a way that was not eventually overcome? What were some of the ways that it was a "dark" period in the religious sense?

Nor is understanding the downturn in social order and culture that followed the fall of the Roman state an inherent exercise in "anti-Catholicism."

What "social downturn" are you talking about? Just because there was a decline and eventual disappearance of an actual Roman emperor in the political sense in the West does not mean Roman social and cultural elements disappeared. If anything, they lived on in and were perpetuated by romanized Goths, Franks, and Britons along with their own elements. There was an entire Gallo-Roman aristocracy that surivived long after emperors ceased to reign at Rome or Ravenna.

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.

Who came up with the term and for what reasons, then? Despite the origin, it is undeniable that anti-Catholic Protestants co-opted the term for their own purposes.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The notion of "dark ages" seems to have been originally put forth in the middle ages to describe that period where there seems to have been an absence of written Latin material. It was adopted later to describe roughly the same, the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the decline of Roman civilization and a centralized power in western Europe, something that came again with Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire.

It was later romanticized in Enlightenment Period writing to describe a period of barbarism in Europe in which, ultimately, the light of reason would triumph over the superstition of the middle ages (i.e. the Enlightenment). Adopted by some Protestants to bolster an anti-Catholic sentiment, especially those sects that promulgate the notion of a Great Apostasy requiring a restoration of an authentic Christianity. As such it's a rather foundational concept in various heretical sects such as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc in which true Christianity is seen as lost, and its restoration found in the sect making the claims. The "Dark Ages" are then transformed into a period where Constantine and the Pope joined forces (in some forms of the narrative, Constantine is the first Pope) in order to paganize the Church and eliminate true, authentic, biblical Christianity (which, naturally, looks like what the person making the statement happens to believe). And so on and so forth.

Of course the latter myth is pure bunk, and the earlier notions of the dark ages have since become considered antiquated, as a greater level of knowledge exists about the period (thus the period isn't exactly all that dark) and we've been moving away from European Enlightenment philosophical snobbery--or at the very least it really has little business being part of the Christian Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

The notion of "dark ages" seems to have been originally put forth in the middle ages to describe that period where there seems to have been an absence of written Latin material. It was adopted later to describe roughly the same, the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, the decline of Roman civilization and a centralized power in western Europe, something that came again with Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire.

It was later romanticized in Enlightenment Period writing to describe a period of barbarism in Europe in which, ultimately, the light of reason would triumph over the superstition of the middle ages (i.e. the Enlightenment).

Yes, right. However, it really is ridiculous to go make a big to-do over this term when half the terms we routinely use in the study of history are equally inexact. IT DOES NOT MATTER.

The Greek Dark Ages must also be changed, according to what I'm hearing, and neither Protestants nor the Enlightenment had anything to do with them, you know. The Enlightenment itself could be said to be not all that ennlightened itself, so let's call it the "Sorta Smarter" era; and of course the Civil War wasn't really a Civil War by the usual definition of that term, so always be sure to call it the War Between the States as Southerners prefer. Gotta offend someone, it seems.

World War I didn't actually involve the whole world, so let's correct that to the "Bigger than Usual War," and, while we're at it, let's be sure to be fair and accurate when it comes to calling the Western Hemisphere "Western" since that depends on which way you are facing! It's East, if you are in Japan, you know.

Let everyone call these things whatever he wants to; but no one has any business pretending that those who don't care to go along with somebody's terminology du jour know any less about the facts of history. That should be the lesson of this debate.

 

[Tzaousios]

Yes, right. However, it really is ridiculous to go make a big to-do over this term when half the terms we routinely use in the study of history are equally inexact. IT DOES NOT MATTER.

It is a clever rhetorical exercise that you are undertaking in order to try to shift the focus from the pejorative manner in which "Dark Ages" has been used.

Rather than using historical terminology as a deflector, why don't you just come out and reject anti-Catholicism in general? Is the way in which SDA's use the term correct and do you agree with it?

The Greek Dark Ages must also be changed, according to what I'm hearing, and neither Protestants nor the Enlightenment had anything to do with them, you know.

No, the Greek Dark Ages are dark to modern observers because there are nearly no written sources for the period. There is no comparison with the situation of the early middle ages. On the level of religion, well, there is no real comparison either. One does not see pejorative references equal to those made by anti-Catholics -- that is just silly.

If there is any connection, it would be with the Enlightenment's disdain for the period because it is "barbarous" and rather unenlightened compared to their favorite pet period of classical, fifth-century Athens. The same goes for most the Roman empire as compared to the Republic.

The Enlightenment itself could be said to be not all that ennlightened itself, so let's call it the "Sorta Smarter" era; and of course the Civil War wasn't really a Civil War by the usual definition of that term, so always be sure to call it the War Between the States as Southerners prefer. Gotta offend someone, it seems.

Huh? You are not doing yourself any favors by riffing on this and attempting to politicize it into something like those "liberals" just whine and cry about the lack of PC-ness and the offensiveness of those who insist on using "Dark Ages" to describe the early middle ages. I say this, also, as one who can be considered quite conservative in both politics and historiography.

Why can't a person who sees this kind of conflict realize that there are better ways to describe the period without resorting to terminology that has been co-opted for nefarious purposes?

World War I didn't actually involve the whole world, so let's correct that to the "Bigger than Usual War," and, while we're at it, let's be sure to be fair and accurate when it comes to calling the Western Hemisphere "Western" since that depends on which way you are facing! It's East, if you are in Japan, you know.

No you are just flogging a dead horse. The metaphor has long since run out.

Let everyone call these things whatever he wants to; but no one has any business pretending that those who don't care to go along with somebody's terminology du jour know any less about the facts of history. That should be the lesson of this debate.

It isn't the "terminology du jour" of those darned liberals. I arrived at my position by carefully considering and reasoning through the historiographical alternatives. The better lesson from the debate might by why you have to cling doggedly to "Dark Ages" despite having been advised against it by more than one person.

 

[Albion]

It is a clever rhetorical exercise that you are undertaking in order to try to shift the focus from the pejorative manner in which "Dark Ages" has been used.

Not at all, but it is ridiculous to condemn the use of a term that in itself is innocent, historic, and standard...and do that because you find fault with some other, unrelated, group that allegedly has used it wrongly or for their own purposes. If your perverse standard were to be followed rigorously, hardly any term we use around here would be permitted by the word police. What's more, no "shift" has occurred, in that this has been my POV beginning with the post in which this issue was raised.

 

[Tzaousios]

Not at all, but it is ridiculous to condemn the use of a term that in itself is innocent, historic, and standard...and do that because you find fault with some other, unrelated, group that allegedly has used it wrongly or for their own purposes. If your perverse standard were to be followed rigorously, hardly any term we use around here would be permitted by the word police. What's more, no "shift" has occurred, in that this has been my POV beginning with the post in which this issue was raised.

I thought you indicated that you conduct research in history on the professional level? If we followed your perverse methodology, no advancements in relating the past and shaking off the shackles of antiquated historiography would occur.

Also, the "group" is hardly "unrelated." Gibbon and von Harnack were also anti-clerical, anti-Catholic Protestants who found a way to incorporate those sentiments into the description of the "barbarism" and "supersition" they thought was inherent in late Roman and early medieval cultural landscape.

 

[Albion]

I thought you indicated that you conduct research in history on the professional level? If we followed your perverse

Oh oh. I just used that word. You have to find your own.

 

[Tzaousios]

Oh oh. I just used that word. You have to find your own.

I take it you are giving up this fight now. You know exactly why I used the same word that you did.

 

[Albion]

You know exactly why I used the same word that you did.

Mockery?

Anyway, I'll probably post again when there's something on topic to respond to.

 

[Tzaousios]

Mockery?

Nope. It was to show that the same phrase could be turned on you to demonstrate the fault of the methodology that you employ. I am sure you knew that.

Anyway, I'll probably post again when there's something on topic to respond to.

Nice deflection. Perhaps you can invite some comrades from GT to give you a hand in this?

 

[everready]

Found this.. Foxes Book of Martyrs

 

[Albion]

Yep. Very famous book.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Yep. Very famous book.

Also regarded as rather biased. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but it shouldn't be read in isolation.

It's my understanding that one of the better classical treatments of the long history of Chrsitianity is the histories written by Philip Schaff. Though I'm not personally acquainted with his work.

And if one wants a more thorough treatment of the history of the Eastern Church, The Orthodox Church by Timothy Kallistos Ware is generally recommended--and is a work which I would personally vouch for.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Albion]

Also regarded as rather biased. I'm not saying it's necessarily bad, but it shouldn't be read in isolation.

It makes too much of the radical reformation and its descendents? Sure.

And if one wants a more thorough treatment of the history of the Eastern Church, The Orthodox Church by Timothy Kallistos Ware is generally recommended--and is a work which I would personally vouch for.

Would have been titled "Eastern Orthodoxy for Dummies" if that series were in publication at the time Ware wrote it. IOW, a primer, lightweight...but not a bad choice if that's what the reader is looking for, which I can appreciate given that Orthodoxy is a difficult subject to explain to the average person.

 

[SilenceInMotion]

The notion that the early middle ages were "Dark Ages" is an antiquated notion left over from Enlightenment positivism and anti-Catholic Protestantism.

Scholars who work in the period do not refer to it as "Dark Ages" because of this cumbersome baggage. It was not very dark at all in reference to religion or literacy. Christianity was the dominant faith in Western Europe and in most places in the Byzantine East and the Holy Land. Literacy (Latin and Roman letters) was preserved in the monasteries, royal/imperial educational institutions, and in large libraries found in many cities in the Byzantine East.

Thus, anymore, it is usually the historically-misinformed and anti-Catholic bigots who employ the term "Dark Ages" for rhetorical effect. I would advise dispensing with the term and sticking to academic treatments of the early middle ages by specialists.

From what I understand, the term 'Dark Ages', before it's famous misconception, was coined such because there is a lot of missing history of those times. There was a lot of movement going on in the world as the North and East became modernized (relatively speaking), and with everything on the go, there was a lack of abundant records and literature.

If anything 'dark', religiously speaking, came out of that era, it was the superstition caused by the spread of Christianity which many cultures had trouble adapting to. The teachings of demons, Hell, etc. did not land as well as it could have among many people.

But the world was experiencing a bit of culture shock., that was the main issue, really. Christianity is not to blame., a lot of pilgrimages and annexing took place, and with that came a bit of grievance and chaos.
This is what all of history amounts to when you think about it though, so all in all, the Dark Ages are exaggerated.

 

[Albion]

From what I understand, the term 'Dark Ages', before it's famous misconception, was coined such because there is a lot of missing history of those times. There was a lot of movement going on in the world as the North and East became modernized (relatively speaking), and with everything on the go, there was a lack of abundant records and literature.

There is no question but that civilization in the West was in a sorry state for a few centuries following the collapse of Classical civilization and the Roman state in particular. Renewed invasions, commerce receding, political instability, etc. etc. mark this as a dark time.

Lately, we've found that they were not as dark as we thought at one time--partially because of the absence of records, as you were saying--but they certainly were among the years in our history that we'd least like to be transported back to, if that were possible. If some people misuse the term or put a new meaning onto it, we counter their claims, that's all. The idea that we must stop using a term because a small group of sectarians use it for their own purposes is nuts.

If I may make a comparison, many Protestants call themselves "Christians" in contrast to the "Catholic" Church. Should Catholics, who have every right to think of themselves as Christians and have done so for the better part of two millennia, stop using the word to describe their own church merely because someone else has used it in a new way? I would think not, so why can't we be sensible when it comes to the term "Dark Ages" instead of acting like the perfect pseudo-intellectuals?

 

[Tzaousios]

The idea that we must stop using a term because a small group of sectarians use it for their own purposes is nuts.

Who is suggesting that? The term is antiquated and has been surpassed in recent historiography by specialists in the field. It simply does not describe the period of the early middle ages.

I would think not, so why can't we be sensible when it comes to the term "Dark Ages" instead of acting like the perfect pseudo-intellectuals?

Being sensible means taking into account what recent scholarship suggests. A professional historian who conducts research in the field would be advised to take that into account, correct? No one likes being intellectually knived at conference presentations whether it is out of ignorance or stubborness.

Also, I am interested in just exactly who you think has been "acting like perfect pseudo-intellectuals?"

 

[Agnes74]

According the historians....the so called "dark ages" were never so dark as we thought .

 

[Albion]

According the historians....the so called "dark ages" were never so dark as we thought .

That's true, but it still was an unusually bad time and deserving of the title.

 

[Tzaousios]

The Catholic Church is The True Church.

Protestants are obstinate heretics.

The only good thing in their religion is what they took with them when they left.

How about addressing the topic?