More Non-History
Gene Ward Smith
Plot synopsis: Brian "Easter Bunny" McNeill takes on Stuart "2001"
Gathman. Kismet, probably. In any case, Brian seems to be a recent graduate
of the Oleg Kiselev School of Historical Analysis. We find:
In article <35...@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za...@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes:
>The reason why one of the few
>documents from the 1st millenium is the Bible is because the church
>took over and instituted a "purge" wherein all non-Xian documents
>were destroyed, as well as most non-Xian's (hear about the
>Crusades?) Guess why the Church was all-powerful during the middle
>ages? Because of the above purge. Why? Because the people had no
>exposure to anything non-Xian (fortunately, this changed). Note
>that the middle ages were one of the most stagnant in all ways
>non-Xian (no technology, little non-Xian artwork, slavery rampant,
>power concentrated COMPLETELY in the hands of the Church and nobles,
>etc)
While there were book burning incidents, on the whole the Church is
credited much more for *saving* the literature of the ancient world than
destroying it. It is false that all non-Christian documents were destroyed,
many remain. It is false that the Crusades destroyed most non-Christians
(that is not even what they attempted to do). The Albigensian campaign
and the Spanish Inquisition were the main attacks on non-Christians I
can recall. It is false that the Middle Ages were stagnant. In particular,
there was a considerable development of technology then. It is false that
the art of the Middle Ages was almost all religious. Read the poetry,
listen to the music, then judge if the secular art was so insignificant.
And the Middle Ages were not one of the worst times for slavery by any means.
In article <35...@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za...@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes:
>Really? The only evidence remaining from that time period [1st cent.] (due to
>the Xian purge in the middle ages, wherein all "heretical" works
>were destroyed (or at least as much as could be found)) we have
>is the Bible, plus a very few other scattered works of no relevence.
Care to document this claim?
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith Institute of Pi Research
Tom Harris
>documents from the 1st millenium is the Bible is because the church
>took over and instituted a "purge" wherein all non-Xian documents
>were destroyed, as well as most non-Xian's (hear about the
>Crusades?) Guess why the Church was all-powerful during the middle
>ages? Because of the above purge. Why? Because the people had no
>exposure to anything non-Xian (fortunately, this changed). Note
>that the middle ages were one of the most stagnant in all ways
>non-Xian (no technology, little non-Xian artwork, slavery rampant,
>power concentrated COMPLETELY in the hands of the Church and nobles,
>etc)
ancient documentation survived the 1st Millenium. The first Millenium was
a violent time with Barbarians wandering all over the place in
Europe and sacking and burning everthing in sight. It's no wonder little
survives almost every city in Europe is sacked during that period.
The Mongols come out of China and decapitate everyone they can get
their hands on. On top of that there is the Moslem expansion that
burns every city in the East. That no archives of the 1 century C.E. exist
intact is hardly surprising. The fact of the matter is we have
few documents from before the C.E. as well. Only a fraction of
the works attributed to Homer exist (the Illiad and the Odessesy
there were many more). Most of the Athenian dramas perished with
the Museum (we have a best of set, but only from three of scores
of authors) etc.. As for being completely non-Xian Gallileo is
condemed for contradicting Aristole who lived three centuries
before whats-his-face.
The first couple of centuries C.E. are in the "calm before the
storm". Much of what is written during this time doesn't have time
to be copied and distributed in a widespread fashion (like more
ancient tomes) and is particularly vulnerable. This does not mean
that there aren't things to condem the church about during the
middle ages. They screened all scientific advancement and chrushed
anything that didn't fit their accepted tenants (most of which were
pagan, but that's beside the point), they limited literacy, they
started the Inquisition, they started the Crusades, they smelled
worse than the Romans, etc..
I am a HASA member too, but butchering history is for X-tains and
their ilk not me.
Tom H.
Kenn Barry
> Plot synopsis: Brian "Easter Bunny" McNeill takes on Stuart "2001"
>Gathman. Kismet, probably. In any case, Brian seems to be a recent graduate
>of the Oleg Kiselev School of Historical Analysis. We find:
...problem's with McNeill's version of history, true. But
I have a few problems with Gene's, as well.
>In article <35...@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za...@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes:
>>The reason why one of the few
>>documents from the 1st millenium is the Bible is because the church
>>took over and instituted a "purge" wherein all non-Xian documents
>>were destroyed, as well as most non-Xian's (hear about the
>>Crusades?) Guess why the Church was all-powerful during the middle
>>ages? Because of the above purge. Why? Because the people had no
>>exposure to anything non-Xian (fortunately, this changed). Note
>>that the middle ages were one of the most stagnant in all ways
>>non-Xian (no technology, little non-Xian artwork, slavery rampant,
>>power concentrated COMPLETELY in the hands of the Church and nobles,
>>etc)
>
> While there were book burning incidents, on the whole the Church is
>credited much more for *saving* the literature of the ancient world than
>destroying it.
It is true that one of the monastic orders preserved
ancient writings. One might wonder if anti-Xian and heretical
tracts numbered among the documents they preserved :-). But books
were also ordered destroyed by the church. An edict of Theodosius
II in 448 ordered the works of Porphyry (a leading pagan)
destroyed, and no more than fragments of his works survive, in
fact. Seems he wrote a treatise called "Against The Christians"
which Theodosius didn't like.
But most book-burning was reserved for heretical Xian
beliefs, not the pagans, and sources on many of these heresies
are quite fragmentary as a result. Pagans were won over more
gently: they were usually allowed their beliefs, and most of
their books, but were not allowed to *practice* their religion;
and at the same time, Xianity adopted more and more pagan
practices, making the conversion of pagans more genial to them.
> It is false that all non-Christian documents were destroyed,
>many remain.
True. Perhaps what Mr. McNeill meant to say was that
*anti*-Xian works were destroyed, as they frequently were.
>It is false that the Crusades destroyed most non-Christians
>(that is not even what they attempted to do). The Albigensian campaign
>and the Spanish Inquisition were the main attacks on non-Christians I
>can recall.
The Medieval church was distinctly discriminatory towards
Jews from at least the 5th century on. Even leaving aside the
Inquisition, I think it's fair to say that the Church's attitude
toward pogroms was a bit like a 1920's Southern sheriff's
attitude toward the Klan; just look the other way (and maybe wink).
>It is false that the Middle Ages were stagnant. In particular,
>there was a considerable development of technology then.
Agreed.
>It is false that
>the art of the Middle Ages was almost all religious. Read the poetry,
>listen to the music, then judge if the secular art was so insignificant.
True. But "art" is sometimes used as a synonym for
"painting", and the paintings were mostly religious until the
late Middle Ages.
>And the Middle Ages were not one of the worst times for slavery by any means.
Matter of definition. Slavery, per se, went into a
decline in the Middle Ages, but serfdom rose to take its place.
And the difference bewtween serf and slave (serfs can only be
bought/sold/traded along with the land they work, not seperately)
can seem slight to modern eyes.
>In article <35...@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za...@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes:
>
>>Really? The only evidence remaining from that time period [1st cent.] (due to
>>the Xian purge in the middle ages, wherein all "heretical" works
>>were destroyed (or at least as much as could be found)) we have
>>is the Bible, plus a very few other scattered works of no relevence.
>
> Care to document this claim?
I've mentioned one instance; here's another. Here's a
quote from J.B. Bury's HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE, vol. 1,
p. 380: "Marcian's law of A.D. 455 against the Eutychians was
severe enough. They were excluded from the service of the State;
they were forbidden to publish books criticising the Council of
Chalcedon; and their literature, like that of the Nestorians, was
condemned to be burned." Marcian was Emperor, Eutychians and
Nestorians are sects deemed heretical. Ironically, in some cases
our best source of information on a heretical work is a Xian
refutation, because the work being refuted no longer exists.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,hao,menlo70,hplabs}!ames!barry
Gene Ward Smith
>From: gsm...@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith):
>> Plot synopsis: Brian "Easter Bunny" McNeill takes on Stuart "2001"
>>Gathman. Kismet, probably. In any case, Brian seems to be a recent graduate
>>of the Oleg Kiselev School of Historical Analysis. We find:
> ...problem's with McNeill's version of history, true. But
>I have a few problems with Gene's, as well.
And I have a problem with Kenn's: his method of disagreeing with me
is to agree with me. This makes it harder to argue, but I found a way.
>>In article <35...@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za...@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes:
>>>The reason why one of the few
>>>documents from the 1st millenium is the Bible is because the church
>>>took over and instituted a "purge" wherein all non-Xian documents
>>>were destroyed, as well as most non-Xian's
>> While there were book burning incidents, on the whole the Church is
>>credited much more for *saving* the literature of the ancient world than
>>destroying it.
> It is true that one of the monastic orders preserved
>ancient writings. One might wonder if anti-Xian and heretical
>tracts numbered among the documents they preserved :-). But books
>were also ordered destroyed by the church. An edict of Theodosius
>II in 448 ordered the works of Porphyry (a leading pagan)
>destroyed, and no more than fragments of his works survive, in
>fact. Seems he wrote a treatise called "Against The Christians"
>which Theodosius didn't like.
This is what I mean by a "book burning incident". Porphyry (if memory
serves) was a neo-Platonist philosopher, so this in any case is not a
destruction a non-Christian version of events of the 1st century.
As you suggest, I think a lot of the reason we don't have anti-Christian
literature is due to passive rather than active reasons. A medieval copyist
will copy Origen's 'Contra Celsus', but not Celsus. Why fault him for that?
It's a lot of work just to copy some naughty old pagan author you know is
being stir-fried in Hell somewhere anyway. And as you mention later, the
result is that we *do* end up knowing a lot about people like Celsus, anyway.
> But most book-burning was reserved for heretical Xian
>beliefs, not the pagans, and sources on many of these heresies
>are quite fragmentary as a result.
And so we find that even very salacious stuff like 'The Greek Anthology'
was carefully preserved; the book-burning was not nearly as bad as it could
have been.
>>It is false that the Crusades destroyed most non-Christians
>>(that is not even what they attempted to do). The Albigensian campaign
>>and the Spanish Inquisition were the main attacks on non-Christians I
>>can recall.
> The Medieval church was distinctly discriminatory towards
>Jews from at least the 5th century on. Even leaving aside the
>Inquisition, I think it's fair to say that the Church's attitude
>toward pogroms was a bit like a 1920's Southern sheriff's
>attitude toward the Klan; just look the other way (and maybe wink).
Antisemitism in the Middle Ages became gradually worse -- just
as it became worse after the Middle Ages ended. It became really bad
only after the Crusades, partly because of the mass hysteria of the
times and rumors that the Jews were on the side of the Moslems. Church
and secular authorities were very often the ones who protected the Jews
against the mob. In any case, we all live in the most antisemitic century
in history, so it seems a little silly to point the finger of scorn at
the Middle Ages.
>>And the Middle Ages were not one of the worst times for slavery by any means.
> Matter of definition. Slavery, per se, went into a
>decline in the Middle Ages, but serfdom rose to take its place.
>And the difference between serf and slave (serfs can only be
>bought/sold/traded along with the land they work, not seperately)
>can seem slight to modern eyes.
As you say, slavery declined. Later, it grew again. So why pick on
the Middle Ages? I think serfdom, with all its problems, was a different
institution than slavery and preferable to it.
>>In article <35...@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za...@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes:
>>
>>>Really? The only evidence remaining from that time period [1st cent.] (due to
>>>the Xian purge in the middle ages, wherein all "heretical" works
>>>were destroyed (or at least as much as could be found)) we have
>>>is the Bible, plus a very few other scattered works of no relevence.
>> Care to document this claim?
> I've mentioned one instance; here's another. Here's a
>quote from J.B. Bury's HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE, vol. 1,
>p. 380: "Marcian's law of A.D. 455 against the Eutychians was
>severe enough. They were excluded from the service of the State;
>they were forbidden to publish books criticising the Council of
>Chalcedon; and their literature, like that of the Nestorians, was
>condemned to be burned."
This IS NOT documentation of Brian's claim, but of some other claim.
Read what he wrote.
I still maintain that Brian's stuff is typical of the sporadic nonsense
that appears about the Middle Ages. Brian is worried about how completely
oppressive the times were. One of the more oppressive periods of the Middle
Ages was the beginning of the 14th century. And what do we find? We find
things like 'Le Roman de Fauvel', a violent and brilliant attack on both
Church and State, set to very daring and 'advanced' music -- and a popular
hit. Dante would place Popes in Hell, and a little later, Chaucer seems to
write pretty freely as far as I can see. Compared to modern oppression, this
just doesn't rate. People keep attributing things to the Middle Ages
which are more true of other time periods. We went through slavery and
antisemitism and political oppression -- another one that keeps turning up
is the witchcraft hysteria, which was a Renaissance phenomena. I think people
should quit talking nonsense about the Middle Ages. And Kenn -- as a person
who cares about history, I would like to think you agree.
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
"What is algebra exactly? Is it those three-cornered things?"J.M. Barrie
Kenn Barry
>>I have a few problems with Gene's, as well.
>
> And I have a problem with Kenn's: his method of disagreeing with me
>is to agree with me. This makes it harder to argue, but I found a way.
Guilty as charged; we have a partial disagreement, at most.
>>> While there were book burning incidents, on the whole the Church is
>>>credited much more for *saving* the literature of the ancient world than
>>>destroying it.
>
>> It is true that one of the monastic orders preserved
>>ancient writings. One might wonder if anti-Xian and heretical
>>tracts numbered among the documents they preserved :-). But books
>>were also ordered destroyed by the church. An edict of Theodosius
>>II in 448 ordered the works of Porphyry (a leading pagan)
>>destroyed, and no more than fragments of his works survive, in
>>fact. Seems he wrote a treatise called "Against The Christians"
>>which Theodosius didn't like.
>
> This is what I mean by a "book burning incident". Porphyry (if memory
>serves) was a neo-Platonist philosopher, so this in any case is not a
>destruction a non-Christian version of events of the 1st century.
>
> As you suggest, I think a lot of the reason we don't have anti-Christian
>literature is due to passive rather than active reasons. A medieval copyist
>will copy Origen's 'Contra Celsus', but not Celsus. Why fault him for that?
>It's a lot of work just to copy some naughty old pagan author you know is
>being stir-fried in Hell somewhere anyway. And as you mention later, the
>result is that we *do* end up knowing a lot about people like Celsus, anyway.
I see this discussion as centering on the question of whether
the medieval Church took steps to rewrite the history of early Xianity.
If so, the matter of Porphyry is not incidental. I can dig up additional
references if you like, but there was a definite pattern of the orthodox
church suppressing non-orthodox thought, and destroying non-orthodox writings.
What is important is that Porphyry was writing against the orthodox
Xianity of his time. His writings might have told us much about the 1st
century of Xianity through whatever references he made to heterodox 1st
century writings that still existed in his time. But we will never know.
What we do know is that there were many early writings that portrayed
Jesus and early Xianity in a very different light than the official version,
and that the Church made real efforts to suppress these.
>>>It is false that the Crusades destroyed most non-Christians
>>>(that is not even what they attempted to do). The Albigensian campaign
>>>and the Spanish Inquisition were the main attacks on non-Christians I
>>>can recall.
>
>>And the Middle Ages were not one of the worst times for slavery by any means.
Again, perhaps we see the point of this discussion differently.
I would be the last person to trash the Middle Ages. Wouldn't have wanted
to live then, but it wasn't that bad. But I do agree with Mr McNeill
about the Church having done a middlin-good job of rewriting the history
of early Xianity during the early Middle Ages.
>>>In article <35...@sdcc3.ucsd.EDU> za...@sdcc3.UUCP (Brian McNeill) writes:
>>>
>>>>Really? The only evidence remaining from that time period [1st cent.] (due to
>>>>the Xian purge in the middle ages, wherein all "heretical" works
>>>>were destroyed (or at least as much as could be found)) we have
>>>>is the Bible, plus a very few other scattered works of no relevence.
>
>>> Care to document this claim?
>
>> I've mentioned one instance; here's another. Here's a
>>quote from J.B. Bury's HISTORY OF THE LATER ROMAN EMPIRE, vol. 1,
>>p. 380: "Marcian's law of A.D. 455 against the Eutychians was
>>severe enough. They were excluded from the service of the State;
>>they were forbidden to publish books criticising the Council of
>>Chalcedon; and their literature, like that of the Nestorians, was
>>condemned to be burned."
>
> This IS NOT documentation of Brian's claim, but of some other claim.
>Read what he wrote.
I did. He makes the effort to suppress heresy sound more organized
and consistent than it was, but I think he's basically on the mark. What
do *you* see as the claim you need documented, Gene? I tried to make
clear that McNeill exagerrated the knownothingism of the Middle Ages,
but religious history is the topic, and heresy was suppressed by the
Church. So was paganism, but not quite as completely.
> I still maintain that Brian's stuff is typical of the sporadic nonsense
>that appears about the Middle Ages. Brian is worried about how completely
>oppressive the times were.
I know. We're just focusing on different aspects of what he had
to say. I also sometimes get annoyed at naive caricatures of the Middle
Ages. But the religious repression was real. Look either to the beginning
of the Middle Ages, when paganism and heresy were competing with orthodox
Xianity, or to the end, when the first seeds of Protestantism began sprouting,
and one can find plenty of examples of the prosecution of thought-crime.
>I think people
>should quit talking nonsense about the Middle Ages. And Kenn -- as a person
>who cares about history, I would like to think you agree.
It's a fascinating period, and would probably be even more interesting
if our records of the early Middle Ages were more complete. I just think
the Church must take part of the blame for the incompleteness of the
record of the religious thought of the 1st-5th centuries.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTRIC AVENUE: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
Gene Ward Smith
Since Kenn doesn't deal in non-history, I thought I had better change
the subject line.
In article <16...@ames.UUCP> ba...@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
> I see this discussion as centering on the question of whether
>the medieval Church took steps to rewrite the history of early Xianity.
>If so, the matter of Porphyry is not incidental. I can dig up additional
>references if you like, but there was a definite pattern of the orthodox
>church suppressing non-orthodox thought, and destroying non-orthodox writings.
> What is important is that Porphyry was writing against the orthodox
>Xianity of his time. His writings might have told us much about the 1st
>century of Xianity through whatever references he made to heterodox 1st
>century writings that still existed in his time. But we will never know.
>What we do know is that there were many early writings that portrayed
>Jesus and early Xianity in a very different light than the official version,
>and that the Church made real efforts to suppress these.
Judging by the kind of stuff that did survive, I doubt that Porphyry
would have told us much about 1st century Christianity. But as you say,
lacking the documents, we don't know. As I see it, the destruction of
heterodox sources cripples our understanding of such things as Gnosticism
much more than of the history of the first century. Again, just an opinion.
>> This IS NOT documentation of Brian's claim, but of some other claim.
>>Read what he wrote.
> I did. He makes the effort to suppress heresy sound more organized
>and consistent than it was, but I think he's basically on the mark. What
>do *you* see as the claim you need documented, Gene? I tried to make
>clear that McNeill exaggerated the knownothingism of the Middle Ages,
>but religious history is the topic, and heresy was suppressed by the
>Church. So was paganism, but not quite as completely.
I took Brian (putting together what he said in two articles) to be
claiming that the Church destroyed almost *all* documents of any kind
from the first millennium, and that as a consequence our knowledge of
1-1000 AD is very slight. On re-reading, I am not sure what he meant.
I agree we don't know as much about heterodox Christianity as we might.
As I said, I don't see this as something that affects our knowledge of
1-50 AD much. Some heterodox groups (Ebionites) just didn't use a lot
of what later came to be considered canonical, but apparently had no
extra documents of their own. The Gnostics may have preserved some
authentic traditions and "sayings" which latter got suppressed (as
in the Gospel Of Thomas, for instance), but most surviving Gnostic literature
seems to add little to our understanding of the critical 1-50 AD period.
Of course, the more that got suppressed the harder it is to figure
out how important it was, and we may be missing very key information.
But I see little hard evidence this is true.
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
ucbvax!weyl!gsmith Dazed Dupe of the Damager
Brian McNeill
>>>Read what he wrote.
>
>> I did. He makes the effort to suppress heresy sound more organized
>>and consistent than it was, but I think he's basically on the mark. What
>>do *you* see as the claim you need documented, Gene? I tried to make
>>clear that McNeill exaggerated the knownothingism of the Middle Ages,
>>but religious history is the topic, and heresy was suppressed by the
>>Church. So was paganism, but not quite as completely.
>
> I took Brian (putting together what he said in two articles) to be
>claiming that the Church destroyed almost *all* documents of any kind
>from the first millennium, and that as a consequence our knowledge of
>1-1000 AD is very slight. On re-reading, I am not sure what he meant.
>
Sorry for the misconceptions....as the line said, I got carried
away. What I meant basically was the Church took active steps to
remove opposing doctrines (if you read my first posting carefully,
this is the basic thread I was talking about), by
destroying/suppressing heretical/pagan works, as well as changing
(by Xianizing) many nonheretical works (see "Beowulf"). Thus,
our knowledge of the religious state (and religious
confirmation/denial of Xianity) in the 1st coupla centuries is
limited, since the Church had supressed all heretical works (which
would include any accounts contrary to the OFFICIAL history of Jesus
given in the Bible)...
>
>ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
>ucbvax!weyl!gsmith Dazed Dupe of the Damager
/-----------------------------------------------------------\
| Brian McNeill ARPA : za...@sdcc3.ucsd.edu |
| HASA "A" Division UUCP : ...!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc3!za56 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|
| Quote of the minute: "I was born a heretic. I always |
| distrust people who know so much about what God wants |
| them to do to their fellows." -- Susan B. Anthony |
\-----------------------------------------------------------/
Gene Ward Smith
Since Kenn doesn't deal in non-history, I thought I had better change
the subject line.
In article <16...@ames.UUCP> ba...@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) writes:
> I see this discussion as centering on the question of whether
>the medieval Church took steps to rewrite the history of early Xianity.
>If so, the matter of Porphyry is not incidental. I can dig up additional
>references if you like, but there was a definite pattern of the orthodox
>church suppressing non-orthodox thought, and destroying non-orthodox writings.
> What is important is that Porphyry was writing against the orthodox
>Xianity of his time. His writings might have told us much about the 1st
>century of Xianity through whatever references he made to heterodox 1st
>century writings that still existed in his time. But we will never know.
>What we do know is that there were many early writings that portrayed
>Jesus and early Xianity in a very different light than the official version,
>and that the Church made real efforts to suppress these.
Judging by the kind of stuff that did survive, I doubt that Porphyry
would have told us much about 1st century Christianity. But as you say,
lacking the documents, we don't know. As I see it, the destruction of
heterodox sources cripples our understanding of such things as Gnosticism
much more than of the history of the first century. Again, just an opinion.
>> This IS NOT documentation of Brian's claim, but of some other claim.
>>Read what he wrote.
> I did. He makes the effort to suppress heresy sound more organized
>and consistent than it was, but I think he's basically on the mark. What
>do *you* see as the claim you need documented, Gene? I tried to make
>clear that McNeill exaggerated the knownothingism of the Middle Ages,
>but religious history is the topic, and heresy was suppressed by the
>Church. So was paganism, but not quite as completely.
I took Brian (putting together what he said in two articles) to be
claiming that the Church destroyed almost *all* documents of any kind
from the first millennium, and that as a consequence our knowledge of
1-1000 AD is very slight. On re-reading, I am not sure what he meant.
I agree we don't know as much about heterodox Christianity as we might.
As I said, I don't see this as something that affects our knowledge of
1-50 AD much. Some heterodox groups (Ebionites) just didn't use a lot
of what later came to be considered canonical, but apparently had no
extra documents of their own. The Gnostics may have preserved some
authentic traditions and "sayings" which latter got suppressed (as
in the Gospel Of Thomas, for instance), but most surviving Gnostic literature
seems to add little to our understanding of the critical 1-50 AD period.
Of course, the more that got suppressed the harder it is to figure
out how important it was, and we may be missing very key information.
But I see little hard evidence this is true.
ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
Whatever I'm calling myself this week
>>>Gathman. Kismet, probably. In any case, Brian seems to be a recent graduate
>> ...problem's with McNeill's version of history, true. But
>>I have a few problems with Gene's, as well. [BARRY]
> And I have a problem with Kenn's: his method of disagreeing with me
> is to agree with me. This makes it harder to argue, but I found a way.
> [GENE WARD SMITH]
Leave it to a member of the Smith-Wiener machine to COMPLAIN about someone
agreeing with him, making it "harder to argue". (Given Gene's wit and
cleverness, this is highly doubtful. It is a tribute to him that he did
find a way to argue anyway. Bravo. :-)
--
"Supernatural, schmupernatural," Simon grimaced. "You're still like the people
in that mathematical parable about Flatland. You can only think in categories
of right and left, and I'm talking about *up* and *down*, so you say 'super-
natural'. There is no 'supernatural'; there are just more dimensions than you
are accustomed to, that's all." Rich Rosen bellcore!pyuxd!rlr