Christainity and pagans religious sites
BernardZ
Muslims have put mosques right on top of some of their sacred sites.
My question is that as medieval Christians used to do something similar,
I was wondering if there any recorded reaction to the local pagans over
this policy.
Martin Reboul
BernardZ wrote...
Well, I find it disgraceful!
Going back a little further, you tend to find that the pagans 'went
underground' though ofcourse many of their traditions were incorporated into
the church, i.e....
Yule log
Easter eggs
Holly and Ivy
Snogging under mistletoe
Corn dollies
Matpoles
Beating the bounds
Church carvings
Harvest Festival....
(to name a few) and (most importantly) the worship of the BVM as a
replacement for the Mother Goddess (Aradia, Hecate, Isis, as you fancy) -
something sadly lacking in Christianity.
As you can see, they didn't only take over sites, but dates as well, trying
to mask ancient festivals with made up new ones.
The only thing (very sadly IMHO) they didn't manage to destroy and
eliminate, was bloody Morris Dancing! So hideous, bland and dull, it
obviously appealed to Xtians! Disgraceful.....
Cheers
Martin
Paul J Gans
One of the most egregious examples of this is the cathedral
place *INSIDE* the mosque in Cordoba. It partially destroyed
what is one of the architectural wonders of the world.
The story is that King Charles (father of Philip II) was
so appalled at the sight of it he ordered that no further
desecrations be done.
Jerusalem is the sight of some similar overbuildings, this
time Islamic on top of Christian sites which are on top
of Hebrew sites.
It was common in the classical and medieval period for
Christians to "co-opt" religious sites for churches. Since
it was the site itself and not a particular structure that
was considered sacred, this was a clever policy from the
Christian point of view.
---- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
I'd bet that in some cases it was the Church that incorporated
older practices that it did not find enormously objectionable.
Besides, I'm unreliably informed that Morris Dancing *used* to
have a rather more profane conclusion. Perhaps you should try
to bring that old custom back?
---- Paul J. Gans
David C Pugh
> Besides, I'm unreliably informed that Morris Dancing *used* to
> have a rather more profane conclusion. Perhaps you should try
> to bring that old custom back?
>
Not when American tourists are looking. You're not supposed to know
about things like that. Might lead to statues of Justice baring a tit or
something. :-)
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
William Black
"BernardZ" <Bern...@LargeMailBox.com to reply delete Large and Box> wrote
in message news:MPG.18b216ae93f70abb98a907@news...
> One of the issues that absolutely infuriates Hindus in India is that
> Muslims have put mosques right on top of some of their sacred sites.
Well seeing as the idea of a coherent Hindu religion was an invention of the
British Empire I imagine such infuriation is relatively modern, and so
politically inspired.
--
William Black
------------------
On time, on budget, or works;
Pick any two from three
William Black
> Martin Reboul <mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >The only thing (very sadly IMHO) they didn't manage to destroy and
> >eliminate, was bloody Morris Dancing! So hideous, bland and dull, it
> >obviously appealed to Xtians! Disgraceful.....
>
> I'd bet that in some cases it was the Church that incorporated
> older practices that it did not find enormously objectionable.
>
> Besides, I'm unreliably informed that Morris Dancing *used* to
> have a rather more profane conclusion. Perhaps you should try
> to bring that old custom back?
Look, we haven't killed a sacred king round here for over a decade now.
When we change traditions we change them for good, and then we claim it was
always like that...
By the way, have you seen our wicker man?
We can't seem to find it...
Bryn Fraser
>
>"BernardZ" <Bern...@LargeMailBox.com to reply delete Large and Box> wrote
>in message news:MPG.18b216ae93f70abb98a907@news...
>> One of the issues that absolutely infuriates Hindus in India is that
>> Muslims have put mosques right on top of some of their sacred sites.
>
>Well seeing as the idea of a coherent Hindu religion was an invention of the
>British Empire I imagine such infuriation is relatively modern, and so
>politically inspired.
A bit like the Taliban, then?
Didn't that one backfire, Geesh!
>
--
Bryn Fraser ?
~~~~~~~~~~~ + +
="=
~
The human lot. - He who considers more deeply knows that, whatever his acts and
judgements may be, he will always be wrong.
Nietzsche [HA 518]
________________________________________
XX XX
XX http://www.finhall.demon.co.uk XX
XX http://www.thefrasers.com XX
XX____________________________________XX
Thorsten Ruffle-Brandt
>
> By the way, have you seen our wicker man?
>
> We can't seem to find it...
Keep your eyes to the right when coming down the M5. He stands half a mile
or so before you get to the camel.
T.
--
123456789|123456789|123456789|123456789|123456789|123456789|123456789|12345
ClueRuler nicked from <j...@gruk.algonet.se> Pan lines are 75 characters long.
Hit "reply" to reply. Spam-munged addresses are A Bad Thing [tm], read why:
Message-ID: <7ffog6$glc$1...@dagda.tuatha.org> Don't give in, fight Spammers!
Martin Reboul
William Black wrote...
> By the way, have you seen our wicker man?
>
> We can't seem to find it...
? Wasn't it burned, with Edward woodward inside?
Best thing that can happen to anyone singing hymns!
Blessed Be
Martin
William Black
"Bryn Fraser" <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eEJk3FAj...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
> William Black <black_...@hotmail.com> writes
> >
> >"BernardZ" <Bern...@LargeMailBox.com to reply delete Large and Box>
wrote
> >in message news:MPG.18b216ae93f70abb98a907@news...
> >> One of the issues that absolutely infuriates Hindus in India is that
> >> Muslims have put mosques right on top of some of their sacred sites.
> >
> >Well seeing as the idea of a coherent Hindu religion was an invention of
the
> >British Empire I imagine such infuriation is relatively modern, and so
> >politically inspired.
>
> A bit like the Taliban, then?
>
> Didn't that one backfire, Geesh!
Exactly.
Don't mess with the local religion, it always ends in tears...
Michael W Cook
Bern...@LargeMailBox.com to reply delete Large and Box wrote on 10/2/03
9:06 am:
There are several examples of surviving Neolithic Stone Circles with
Churches built inside - the most famous being Avebury in Wiltshire.
In fact, most of the early Christian Churches in Britain were built on
former pagan sites.
There is also an excellent example at Knowlton in Dorset, which has three
Neolithic henge monuments with an early Norman Church built within the
middle ring.
Each of the Henge monuments, which lie in a NW/SE direction, are believed to
have had a Stone Circle within them. Situated outside the old medieval
graveyard is also an enormous round barrow with several other bowl-barrows
positioned nearby.
Knowlton is a little known and interesting spot, which in it's day
(2500-1700BC) would have likely rivalled Stonehenge.
Regards
Michael
Michael W Cook
mwc...@crusader-productions.com
Castles Abbeys and Medieval Buildings
http://www.castles-abbeys.co.uk
-
Michael Kuettner
"Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:BA6DDF20.18F10%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
> in article MPG.18b216ae93f70abb98a907@news, BernardZ at
> There is also an excellent example at Knowlton in Dorset, which has three
> Neolithic henge monuments with an early Norman Church built within the
> middle ring.
>
> Each of the Henge monuments, which lie in a NW/SE direction, are believed
to
> have had a Stone Circle within them. Situated outside the old medieval
> graveyard is also an enormous round barrow with several other
bowl-barrows
> positioned nearby.
>
> Knowlton is a little known and interesting spot, which in it's day
> (2500-1700BC) would have likely rivalled Stonehenge.
Sounds fascinating !
Would you know of any references (re. examination of this site) ?
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
Abhijit Bhattacharya
> "BernardZ" <Bern...@LargeMailBox.com to reply delete Large and Box> wrote
> in message news:MPG.18b216ae93f70abb98a907@news...
> > One of the issues that absolutely infuriates Hindus in India is that
> > Muslims have put mosques right on top of some of their sacred sites.
>
> Well seeing as the idea of a coherent Hindu religion was an invention of the
> British Empire I imagine such infuriation is relatively modern, and so
> politically inspired.
No.
Regards,
Abhijit
BernardZ
> I was wondering if there any recorded reaction to the local pagans over
> this policy.
Thanks for all your replies but it was not quite my question. My
question is how did the locals react to these sites going up.
Another issue is that I read somewhere that often the local pagan
priests in the region became Christian priest. Is this true?
Michael W Cook
wrote on 11/2/03 12:03 am:
Hi Michael
I've got some pictures of it myself somewhere......
Anyway, here's a picture of the inner henge Norman Church.
Click to enlarge pic
http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=91
Here's an aerial shot of the complex.
http://www.britac.ac.uk/news/reports/archaeology/knowlton.html
Here's a link to some research on Knowlton.
http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/text_kn/knhome.htm
Good stuff.
Cheers
Paul J Gans
>> I was wondering if there any recorded reaction to the local pagans over
>> this policy.
>Thanks for all your replies but it was not quite my question. My
>question is how did the locals react to these sites going up.
In the case of the church in the mosque in Cordoba, not well.
But then, the Catholics had the weapons.
Beyond that little is recorded. After all, it was often
the monks who wrote the histories. As far as they were
often concerned, the common people welcomed the sacrifice
of Christ with tears in their eyes and from then on showed
remarkable faith.
>Another issue is that I read somewhere that often the local pagan
>priests in the region became Christian priest. Is this true?
I have no information on that.
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael W Cook
Bern...@LargeMailBox.com to reply delete Large and Box wrote on 11/2/03
8:56 am:
>> My question is that as medieval Christians used to do something similar,
>> I was wondering if there any recorded reaction to the local pagans over
>> this policy.
>
> Thanks for all your replies but it was not quite my question. My
> question is how did the locals react to these sites going up.
I'd imagine they probably took a lot of persuasion before they were
completely convinced. Other than that, we know nothing, as these things were
not written down.
Try looking at some of the early writings of the Dukes of Normandy, they
converted to Christianity, although it took a while before it was fully
accepted. I'm sure someone could recommend you something here concerning
this.
> Another issue is that I read somewhere that often the local pagan
> priests in the region became Christian priest. Is this true?
I would say this is merely an assertion, although if someone wants to point
me to any evidence where this is shown, I'd be more than happy to read it.
Michael Kuettner
> in article b29ev7$2gr$2...@rex.ip-plus.net, Michael Kuettner at
mik...@eunet.at
> wrote on 11/2/03 12:03 am:
> I've got some pictures of it myself somewhere......
>
When will they be up on your website ?
</innocent question>
> Anyway, here's a picture of the inner henge Norman Church.
>
> Click to enlarge pic
>
> http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=91
>
> Here's an aerial shot of the complex.
>
> http://www.britac.ac.uk/news/reports/archaeology/knowlton.html
>
> Here's a link to some research on Knowlton.
>
> http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/text_kn/knhome.htm
>
> Good stuff.
>
Thank you !
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner
William Black
"Abhijit Bhattacharya" <bhattachar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9996210f.03021...@posting.google.com...
In the tradition of Usenet...
Cite please.
Dick Wisan
>
>> My question is that as medieval Christians used to do something similar,
>> I was wondering if there any recorded reaction to the local pagans over
>> this policy.
planting your holy site right on the holy site of the people you've
conquered. That's an interesting practice and pretty widely followed
by pagans, Christians, Moslems, and who-all else. It manages do do
several things:
1. It demonstrates clearly that your old god is beaten. Our
much stronger god has squashed your holy site by putting his
on top of it.
2. It encourages people or at least makes it easier for them to
worship the new god, because the site is already holy in the
eyes of the locals.
3. Possibly not intended, but it makes it possible for your new
religion to absorb whatever elements it likes from the old
one (things that were always practiced here). It may be
necessary to allow certain old and deeply rooted ideas and
practices in order to reconcile the locals. Like Christmas
trees and easter eggs.
4. It greatly strenthens the defense of your new religion against
any attempt to bring back the old one, because that act involves
polluting what is now (still? again?) the local holy site. The
best example of how this works I suppose, is the Dome of the Rock
on the site of the ancient Jewish temple.
But, pointing to the reaction of the locals, you suggest a broader a
question I've wondered about. One reads of the conversions of large
numbers of people by a very small number of missionaries. Sometimes,
it seems clear enough that converting the King was all they had to do.
The _he_ took care of the rest. But was it always so? No doubt the
monks writing about it exaggerate, but what _does_ draw people so
apparently easily to the new religion?
I've heard it said that certain religions, Buddhism, Christianity, and
Islam, in particular, seem to spread quickly and permanently through
a pagan people --that is, a people who do not practice one of the
above three religions. But, they do not make much headway against
each other. Mostly, once the people are Buddhists, Christians, or
Moslems, they're hard to convert. Missionaries will usually make a
small number of converts, but it won't spread.
If that's true, it must shed light on what happens when one of the
big three comes to town?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@catskill.net
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am; no fax
Michael W Cook
wrote on 11/2/03 8:02 pm:
>
> "Michael W Cook" <mwc...@crusader-productions.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:BA6EE96E.1904B%mwc...@crusader-productions.com...
>> in article b29ev7$2gr$2...@rex.ip-plus.net, Michael Kuettner at
> mik...@eunet.at
>> wrote on 11/2/03 12:03 am:
> <snip>
>> I've got some pictures of it myself somewhere......
>>
> <innocent question>
> When will they be up on your website ?
> </innocent question>
One day, when I have some time.
I have loads of really nice pics from when I studied Archaeology. In fact,
my tutor borrowed some and I never got them back :-(
I'll see if I can find them next time I have a dig around.
>> Anyway, here's a picture of the inner henge Norman Church.
>>
>> Click to enlarge pic
>>
>> http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=91
>>
>> Here's an aerial shot of the complex.
>>
>> http://www.britac.ac.uk/news/reports/archaeology/knowlton.html
>>
>> Here's a link to some research on Knowlton.
>>
>> http://csweb.bournemouth.ac.uk/consci/text_kn/knhome.htm
>>
>> Good stuff.
>>
> Thank you !
Welcome, it's a nice place, I've been there a couple of times.
BernardZ
> Bern...@LargeMailBox.comtoreplydeleteLargeandBox says...
> >
> >> My question is that as medieval Christians used to do something similar,
> >> I was wondering if there any recorded reaction to the local pagans over
> >> this policy.
>
> You've asked the question specifically in terms of the practice of
> planting your holy site right on the holy site of the people you've
> conquered. That's an interesting practice and pretty widely followed
> by pagans, Christians, Moslems, and who-all else. It manages do do
> several things:
>
> 1. It demonstrates clearly that your old god is beaten. Our
> much stronger god has squashed your holy site by putting his
> on top of it.
>
> 2. It encourages people or at least makes it easier for them to
> worship the new god, because the site is already holy in the
> eyes of the locals.
Interesting observation that a site may retain its holiness even if the
religion has changed.
>
> 3. Possibly not intended, but it makes it possible for your new
> religion to absorb whatever elements it likes from the old
> one (things that were always practiced here). It may be
> necessary to allow certain old and deeply rooted ideas and
> practices in order to reconcile the locals. Like Christmas
> trees and easter eggs.
>
> 4. It greatly strenthens the defense of your new religion against
> any attempt to bring back the old one, because that act involves
> polluting what is now (still? again?) the local holy site. The
> best example of how this works I suppose, is the Dome of the Rock
> on the site of the ancient Jewish temple.
Particular if you use (3) to create a false or dubious history.
What about
(5) Cheaper as the existing infrastructure is already in place. A
church with slight modifications can be turned into a mosque.
>
> But, pointing to the reaction of the locals, you suggest a broader a
> question I've wondered about. One reads of the conversions of large
> numbers of people by a very small number of missionaries. Sometimes,
> it seems clear enough that converting the King was all they had to do.
> The _he_ took care of the rest. But was it always so? No doubt the
> monks writing about it exaggerate, but what _does_ draw people so
> apparently easily to the new religion?
The problem is that in most of Europe the pagans left little in the way
of writing. What is apparent is that it was pagan and then towards the
end of the Roman era, the area was basically Christian when Christianity
became the state religion. Then it became pagan when the pagans took
over and then slowly became Christian as the Christians control
reestablished itself. This suggests to me that the average person saw
religion in state terms rather then personally.
>
> I've heard it said that certain religions, Buddhism, Christianity, and
> Islam, in particular, seem to spread quickly and permanently through
> a pagan people --that is, a people who do not practice one of the
> above three religions. But, they do not make much headway against
> each other. Mostly, once the people are Buddhists, Christians, or
> Moslems, they're hard to convert. Missionaries will usually make a
> small number of converts, but it won't spread.
Yep you can beat them, enslave them and little helps. This is what
missionaries mean when they say that if people have a religion that it
is hard to reach them. It also explains why the ex-communist countries
are so popular with the missionaries.
Paul J Gans
>> Bern...@LargeMailBox.comtoreplydeleteLargeandBox says...
>> >
>> >> My question is that as medieval Christians used to do something similar,
>> >> I was wondering if there any recorded reaction to the local pagans over
>> >> this policy.
>>
>> You've asked the question specifically in terms of the practice of
>> planting your holy site right on the holy site of the people you've
>> conquered. That's an interesting practice and pretty widely followed
>> by pagans, Christians, Moslems, and who-all else. It manages do do
>> several things:
>>
>> 1. It demonstrates clearly that your old god is beaten. Our
>> much stronger god has squashed your holy site by putting his
>> on top of it.
>>
>> 2. It encourages people or at least makes it easier for them to
>> worship the new god, because the site is already holy in the
>> eyes of the locals.
>Interesting observation that a site may retain its holiness even if the
>religion has changed.
That is, in fact, the most common event. Sites have, for one
reason or another, holy connotations. Sacred Celtic groves
become sites of Roman temples which, in turn, become sites
for Churches. Ancient half-forgotten events are often moved
to one of those sites. For instance I've visited the very
spot in Crete where Zeus had Europa. There's a Greek Orthodox
church there now.
>>
>> 3. Possibly not intended, but it makes it possible for your new
>> religion to absorb whatever elements it likes from the old
>> one (things that were always practiced here). It may be
>> necessary to allow certain old and deeply rooted ideas and
>> practices in order to reconcile the locals. Like Christmas
>> trees and easter eggs.
>>
>> 4. It greatly strenthens the defense of your new religion against
>> any attempt to bring back the old one, because that act involves
>> polluting what is now (still? again?) the local holy site. The
>> best example of how this works I suppose, is the Dome of the Rock
>> on the site of the ancient Jewish temple.
>Particular if you use (3) to create a false or dubious history.
Say not so!!! :-)
Almost all western medieval history written up
through 1300 or 1350 by churchmen is dedicated to finding
God's hand in the march of events. And guess what! They DO!!!
And they were serious about it too.
>What about
>(5) Cheaper as the existing infrastructure is already in place. A
>church with slight modifications can be turned into a mosque.
Sure that was done, but saving money was not the reason. Holy
places have power as do holy symbols, even if you are of another
religion.
There are political ideologies that are, in fact, religions.
They, like ordinary religions, are characterized by a belief
that their "priests" can know absolute truth and have
absolute certainty. Their followers KNOW they are on the
right path. Stalinism was certainly one of those.
You can see the same tendency in individuals. Some folks
who enjoyed the certainties of Stalinism became, after the
fall, very religious. Extreme leftists and extreme rightists
sometimes switch sides, but remain extreme.
The hard thing is to be middle of the road, skeptical, and
not too quick to judgement. One is hounded on all sides
by various true believers and one's way is often confounded
by those who would recruit you. Which, I guess, is why
societies tend to become polarized, especially in times of
crisis.
>>
>> If that's true, it must shed light on what happens when one of the
>> big three comes to town?
---- Paul J. Gans
Alex
> > 3. Possibly not intended, but it makes it possible for your new
> > religion to absorb whatever elements it likes from the old
> > one (things that were always practiced here). It may be
> > necessary to allow certain old and deeply rooted ideas and
> > practices in order to reconcile the locals. Like Christmas
> > trees and easter eggs.
> >
> > 4. It greatly strenthens the defense of your new religion against
> > any attempt to bring back the old one, because that act involves
> > polluting what is now (still? again?) the local holy site. The
> > best example of how this works I suppose, is the Dome of the Rock
> > on the site of the ancient Jewish temple.
>
>
> Particular if you use (3) to create a false or dubious history.
>
>
> What about
> (5) Cheaper as the existing infrastructure is already in place. A
> church with slight modifications can be turned into a mosque.
Some post-pagan examples of (5):
As Saint/Aya-Sophia in Constantinople.
One of the synagogues in Toledo later had been converted into a Church.
The Great Mosque in Cordoba has Catholic Cathedral built into it (1st
Mosque, then Cathedral). A bell tower in Seville Cathedral was a minaret
of a mosque, etc.
> > I've heard it said that certain religions, Buddhism, Christianity, and
> > Islam, in particular, seem to spread quickly and permanently through
> > a pagan people --that is, a people who do not practice one of the
> > above three religions. But, they do not make much headway against
> > each other. Mostly, once the people are Buddhists, Christians, or
> > Moslems, they're hard to convert. Missionaries will usually make a
> > small number of converts, but it won't spread.
>
> Yep you can beat them, enslave them and little helps.
Not exactly true. Muslims had been quite successful in converting the
big areas populated by Christians (and Zaraostrians) into Islam: Middle
East, Northern Africa, big chunk of the Balkans. Some of these conversions
are reasonably recent and can be traced: Ottomans created considerable
"incentives" for the converts and you got Bosnians.
Another mass conversion can be traced in Rzech Pospolita (christian to
Christian). Big chunk of the population in what is now Ukraine and
Belorussia (and Lithuania itself) had been Orthodox but by mid-XVII most
of the local upper classes had been converted into Catholicism: this was
a religion of the ruling class. Big chunk of the peasantry became "uniats"
(recognized Papa's supremacy) because Orthodox Church practically did not'have
any rights (this issue was one of the excuses for Russian approval of the
1st Partition).
>This is what
> missionaries mean when they say that if people have a religion that it
> is hard to reach them.
There is a big difference between missionary-induced conversions and
the state "promoted" ones. State usually has extra instruments to do
the job.
>It also explains why the ex-communist countries
> are so popular with the missionaries.
You can look at it under the different angle. People had a surrogat "religion"
(communist ideology) and suddenly they had been depraved of it. Those who
need a substitute will start looking for a new religion to fill the gap.
AFAIK, now Russia promotes Orhodox Church to get some "ideological" leverage:
it has a long history of serving the <whatever> state.
Alex
> BernardZ <Bern...@largemailbox.com to reply delete large and box> wrote:
> >> My question is that as medieval Christians used to do something similar,
> >> I was wondering if there any recorded reaction to the local pagans over
> >> this policy.
>
> >Thanks for all your replies but it was not quite my question. My
> >question is how did the locals react to these sites going up.
>
> In the case of the church in the mosque in Cordoba, not well.
I suspect that there was not too many Muslims in Cordoba at the time of
Charles V/Carlos I.
It was/is an unique building and the locals had
been proud of it. While being rather primitive in its construction,
it is huge (a whole city quarter) and beautiful inside. This was the
case similar to the initial opposition of the French intellectuals to
the construction of the Eiffel Tower: a beautiful view to be spoiled
by a completely "alien" construction.
Emperor/King did not have a clue at the time he gave permission to
build Cathedral inside the Mosque. When he 1st time visited Cordoba,
he commented: "we destroyed something that nobody had to build something
that everbody has". Hopefully, you don't suspect him in being a closet
Muslim. :-)
Knut KlavenessHeidelberg
<mwc...@crusader-productions.com> wrote:
>In fact, most of the early Christian Churches in Britain were built on
>former pagan sites.
In Norway too but dating back to A.D. 1000 (+/- a couple of hundred
years).
Saluton, Knut
---
TTT norvegia: http://www.nffo.no/generator.asp
Retposxto: heide...@operamail.com (legota cxiumonata)
Nifonov no longer possessed a left leg, but he only
discovered it on the following day. (V. Panova: The Train.)
Paul J Gans
[snip]
>You can look at it under the different angle. People had a surrogat "religion"
>(communist ideology) and suddenly they had been depraved of it. Those who
>need a substitute will start looking for a new religion to fill the gap.
>AFAIK, now Russia promotes Orhodox Church to get some "ideological" leverage:
>it has a long history of serving the <whatever> state.
When the Roman Emperors were still in Italy, the Church there
was exactly the same. It recognized the supremacy of the
state on Earth.
The Christian church everywhere believed this.
When no new Emperors appeared in the west, the church began
to think of itself in the Emperor's role. And there began
the interesting history of the fights between the religious
and secular powers in the west.
Some people have concluded that this was a tragedy leading
in the end to the Reformation and the loss of power of the
Church in the west. Others think that it was the spur that
pushed the west ahead in the end economically, technologically
and militarily.
In the US people historically distrusted Catholic politicians
feeling that they would be directed by Rome. It took until
the Kennedy election to dispell that notion.
---- Paul J. Gans
Abhijit Bhattacharya
> "Abhijit Bhattacharya" <bhattachar...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9996210f.03021...@posting.google.com...
> > "William Black" <black_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<b28o2j$110$2...@knossos.btinternet.com>...
> > > "BernardZ" <Bern...@LargeMailBox.com to reply delete Large and Box>
> wrote
> > > in message news:MPG.18b216ae93f70abb98a907@news...
> > > > One of the issues that absolutely infuriates Hindus in India is that
> > > > Muslims have put mosques right on top of some of their sacred sites.
> > >
> > > Well seeing as the idea of a coherent Hindu religion was an invention of
> the
> > > British Empire I imagine such infuriation is relatively modern, and so
> > > politically inspired.
> >
> > No.
>
> In the tradition of Usenet...
>
> Cite please.
You're the one making the claim.
Regards,
Abhijit
Michael Farthing
<ga...@panix.com> writes
>Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>You can look at it under the different angle. People had a surrogat "religion"
>>(communist ideology) and suddenly they had been depraved of it. Those who
>>need a substitute will start looking for a new religion to fill the gap.
>>AFAIK, now Russia promotes Orhodox Church to get some "ideological" leverage:
>>it has a long history of serving the <whatever> state.
>
>When the Roman Emperors were still in Italy, the Church there
>was exactly the same. It recognized the supremacy of the
>state on Earth.
I don't think this is a sustainable point of view at all (at least not
in any meaningful sense) until at least the time of Constantine. Until
then the Church at best viewed the state as a temporary irrelevance. It
was an organisation that was obeyed, where it was obeyed, out of
necessity and recognition of the requirement for its existence, but only
so far as it was not in conflict with the greater loyalty. Thus, it was
flatly not obeyed in terms of swearing fealty to the emperor. The
Church was outside the state and looked to an imminent second coming.
Its entire social structure was set up outside the state mechanisms and
its membership largely eschewed (out of principle) any state office or
appointment and its pacifism made it anti-pathetical to the army.
--
Michael Farthing
cyclades
Software House
BernardZ
@hotmail.com says...
>
> > > I've heard it said that certain religions, Buddhism, Christianity, and
> > > Islam, in particular, seem to spread quickly and permanently through
> > > a pagan people --that is, a people who do not practice one of the
> > > above three religions. But, they do not make much headway against
> > > each other. Mostly, once the people are Buddhists, Christians, or
> > > Moslems, they're hard to convert. Missionaries will usually make a
> > > small number of converts, but it won't spread.
> >
> > Yep you can beat them, enslave them and little helps.
>
>
> Not exactly true. Muslims had been quite successful in converting the
> big areas populated by Christians (and Zaraostrians) into Islam: Middle
> East, Northern Africa, big chunk of the Balkans. Some of these conversions
> are reasonably recent and can be traced: Ottomans created considerable
> "incentives" for the converts and you got Bosnians.
>
> Another mass conversion can be traced in Rzech Pospolita (christian to
> Christian). Big chunk of the population in what is now Ukraine and
> Belorussia (and Lithuania itself) had been Orthodox but by mid-XVII most
> of the local upper classes had been converted into Catholicism: this was
> a religion of the ruling class. Big chunk of the peasantry became "uniats"
> (recognized Papa's supremacy) because Orthodox Church practically did not'have
> any rights (this issue was one of the excuses for Russian approval of the
> 1st Partition).
>
This is true but from the missionary point of view its harder if the
person has a *religion*. Think of it this way the Spanish rapidly
converted almost all pagan South America to Christianity whereas the
Muslims found it much harder to convert Hindu India.
Perhaps the best way of thinking about a missionary like a car salesman.
He is looking for the quickest and easiest person to make sales too. How
many did you sell today?
BernardZ
> >>
> >> 3. Possibly not intended, but it makes it possible for your new
> >> religion to absorb whatever elements it likes from the old
> >> one (things that were always practiced here). It may be
> >> necessary to allow certain old and deeply rooted ideas and
> >> practices in order to reconcile the locals. Like Christmas
> >> trees and easter eggs.
> >>
> >> 4. It greatly strenthens the defense of your new religion against
> >> any attempt to bring back the old one, because that act involves
> >> polluting what is now (still? again?) the local holy site. The
> >> best example of how this works I suppose, is the Dome of the Rock
> >> on the site of the ancient Jewish temple.
>
>
> >Particular if you use (3) to create a false or dubious history.
>
> Say not so!!! :-)
>
> Almost all western medieval history written up
> through 1300 or 1350 by churchmen is dedicated to finding
> God's hand in the march of events. And guess what! They DO!!!
> And they were serious about it too.
Similar perhaps to today where today one of the main uses of historians
is by politicians to justify their particular positions.
ken...@cix.compulink.co.uk
Wisan) wrote:
> If that's true, it must shed light on what happens when one of the
> big three comes to town?
Well in the case of Christianity IIRC it started spreading when the
official Roman cults were declining. A large number of Romans were
joining mystery cults (Mithras, Magna Mater etc). However these cults
and Judaism were exclusive. Mithras for instance was male only.
Christianity was inclusive allowing not only women but slaves to join.
Another point is that most Pagan religions were syncretic either
absorbing other gods (Egyptian) or associating them with existing ones
(Greek, Roman). This not only tends to result in inconsistency in
theology but reduces the resistance to believing in another god. It
also reduces the tendency to persecute unbelievers.
Off course there are other factors. The Jesuits made little progress
in Japan until they adopted Japanese cultural practices.
Ken Young
ken...@cix.co.uk
Maternity is a matter of fact
Paternity is a matter of opinion
Alex
> Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >You can look at it under the different angle. People had a surrogat "religion"
> >(communist ideology) and suddenly they had been depraved of it. Those who
> >need a substitute will start looking for a new religion to fill the gap.
> >AFAIK, now Russia promotes Orhodox Church to get some "ideological" leverage:
> >it has a long history of serving the <whatever> state.
>
> When the Roman Emperors were still in Italy, the Church there
> was exactly the same. It recognized the supremacy of the
> state on Earth.
>
> The Christian church everywhere believed this.
>
> When no new Emperors appeared in the west, the church began
> to think of itself in the Emperor's role. And there began
> the interesting history of the fights between the religious
> and secular powers in the west.
Yes, there is no contradiction to what I'm saying. The point was that,
as far as Russia (under whatever name) is involved, the Orthodox Church
practically always was _servant_ to the state. It was not a matter of
the "recognition" of the state supremacy except in the sense of lackey
"recognizing" supremacy of his master.
Peter I abolished patriarchy with a stroke of his pen and instituted
(in the modern terms) ministry of the religious (Orthodox) affairs headed
by the secular state appointy (Procuror of the Holy Sinod). Catherine II
confiscated most of the Church land holdings and compensated with the
state-allocated pensions. As you understand, Church was not even a "junior
partner" in this arrangement. Interestingly, all this did not impact the
various Protestant and Catholic churches of Baltic, they remained
practically independent from the state.
Under the communists Church was repressed until during WWII Stalin decided
to use it as one of the ideological tools. In its restored state it
completely depended on goverment (the question remains if it was taxed by
state or subsidized by state). The same, more or less goes for the "legitimate"
Protestant and Catholic Churches (one my friend got himself in a considerable
trouble for participation in the "underground Catholic sect").
I suspect that the "new" Orthodox Church of Russia simply serves the new
masters.
>
> In the US people historically distrusted Catholic politicians
> feeling that they would be directed by Rome. It took until
> the Kennedy election to dispell that notion.
I'm still wondering why? This family was/is a living proof of such a notion.
:-)
Paul J Gans
Sure. It is understood that the Church had to be fully
installed as *THE ONLY CHURCH* before anything could
happen. Once that was done though the Emperors had no
difficulty with the Church. It did not interfere with
Imperial policy in any way.
I believe that the popes who operated under the Empire
believed that God gave the Emperor authority over the
secular while their role, such as it was, was to save
souls.
One can see this at work in Merovingian France where
Gregory of Tours was happy to advise the king both on
a temporal level (he was, of course, a man of senatorial
rank), and on a spiritual level. But while he sometimes
condemned their excesses, he also sometimes condoned
them. And certainly there was *no* thought of theological
sanction against any king or noble.
I think it was only much later when the clever lawyers
at Bologna developed the notion that the pope was *superior*
to the kings on earth that the Pope began to seriously
interfere with temporal matters. But by then it was late
11th and early 12th century.
--- Paul J. Gans
Paul J Gans
Make that "history" instead of "historians" and I will
wholeheartedly agree. One of the functions history (not
historians) serves is to allow politicians to create a
usable past. The Soviets were past masters of this.
One can see an example of this at work as one notices that
the famous Victory over Granada rapidly vanishes from the
national consiousness.
----- Paul J. Gans
Ismael
> The Great Mosque in Cordoba has Catholic Cathedral built into it (1st
> Mosque, then Cathedral).
A bit more complicated:
It was, first, a Roman (Pagan) temple. During the Gothic period, it
was rebuilt as a Christian Church (San Vicente). 3rd, Arabs built
their Great Mosque over the church, and finally, Christians built
their Cathedral into it.
Ismael
Alex
Well, I'm not sure that the missionary-related part of it was really rapid:
even in XIX century there was plenty of pagan Indians in Mexico and various
parts of the South America. AFAIK, the better grip Spaniards had on the
area, the faster conversion happened so wouldn't it be reasonable to talk
about the "enforced" conversions vs. voluntary ones, usually related
to the purely missionary activities.
OTOH, there is now more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. The ability
and/or willingness of the Muslim rulers of the various areas to enforce
a mass conversion of their subjects into Islam is rather questionable.
Can't tell about "missionary"-style propaganda in India and its efficience.
Looks like they converted considerable number of people.
Paul J Gans
>A bit more complicated:
What remains of the Great Mosque is beautiful. Luckily
a great deal remains. I think the entire thing should
be converted to a synagogue since that's the one
Middle Eastern religious building it has never been.
Or perhaps it ought to house the UN?
---- Paul J. Gans
Michael Farthing
<ga...@panix.com> writes
<extensively snipped>
>Michael Farthing <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>In message <b2eir8$3ph$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
>><ga...@panix.com> writes
>>>When the Roman Emperors were still in Italy, the Church there
>>>was exactly the same. It recognized the supremacy of the
>>>state on Earth.
>
>>I don't think this is a sustainable point of view at all (at least not
>>in any meaningful sense) until at least the time of Constantine. Until
>>then the Church at best viewed the state as a temporary irrelevance. I
>
>Sure. It is understood that the Church had to be fully
>installed as *THE ONLY CHURCH* before anything could
>happen. Once that was done though the Emperors had no
>difficulty with the Church. It did not interfere with
>Imperial policy in any way.
Sorry Paul, I misunderstood your original post and rather stupidly
interpreted "When the Roman Emperors were still in Italy" as "Before the
establishment of the Eastern Empire".
Alex
> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message news:<f8e58188.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > The Great Mosque in Cordoba has Catholic Cathedral built into it (1st
> > Mosque, then Cathedral).
>
> A bit more complicated:
>
> It was, first, a Roman (Pagan) temple. During the Gothic period, it
> was rebuilt as a Christian Church (San Vicente). 3rd, Arabs built
> their Great Mosque over the church,
Leaving practically nothing of the old building (IIRC, some columns had
been used).
>and finally, Christians built
> their Cathedral into it.
>
IIRC, 1st it was converted into the Church in XIII (or XIV?) century and
only in XVI the present Cathedral had been built into it.
Katherine Tredwell
> One of the issues that absolutely infuriates Hindus in India is that
> Muslims have put mosques right on top of some of their sacred sites.
>
> I was wondering if there any recorded reaction to the local pagans over
> this policy.
Since you have received precious little in the way of direct response to
your question, I dug up this anecdote. It is from a sidebar to an
article on Vestal Virgins in an issue of _Archaeology Odyssey_, so take
it with a grain of salt, but at least it gives a source you might be
able to check on. Sorry, it is not about the building of a church, but
it does mention pagan reaction to the desecration of a temple.
In 391, Emperor Theodosius ended state support for pagan temples,
effectively shutting them down. However, a few years after this a
Christian woman went into the Roman Temple of Cybele and took a necklace
from a statue. She was cursed by a Vestal Virgin, still looking after
the temples on her own. Later, the woman was executed for suspicion of
conspiring with the Visigoths, and the Sack of Rome was attributed to
her impiety. Augustine began writing _The City of God_ partly in
response to the pagan outcry. Zosimus, a 5th century historian, is
cited as the source of some of this story. It sounds like folklore, but
I suppose it could reflect a real attitude on the part of pagans.
Katherine Tredwell
Paul J Gans
>In message <b2giuq$pg0$2...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
><ga...@panix.com> writes
><extensively snipped>
>>Michael Farthing <m...@cyclades.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>In message <b2eir8$3ph$1...@reader1.panix.com>, Paul J Gans
>>><ga...@panix.com> writes
>>>>When the Roman Emperors were still in Italy, the Church there
>>>>was exactly the same. It recognized the supremacy of the
>>>>state on Earth.
>>
>>>I don't think this is a sustainable point of view at all (at least not
>>>in any meaningful sense) until at least the time of Constantine. Until
>>>then the Church at best viewed the state as a temporary irrelevance. I
>>
>>Sure. It is understood that the Church had to be fully
>>installed as *THE ONLY CHURCH* before anything could
>>happen. Once that was done though the Emperors had no
>>difficulty with the Church. It did not interfere with
>>Imperial policy in any way.
>Sorry Paul, I misunderstood your original post and rather stupidly
>interpreted "When the Roman Emperors were still in Italy" as "Before the
>establishment of the Eastern Empire".
I can see that. My phrasing was "infelicitious"... ;-)
What I was trying to do was deal with the western church
which lost its Emperor somewhere along the way. First
they moved to Ravenna and then vanished...
---- Paul J. Gans
BernardZ
> > person has a *religion*. Think of it this way the Spanish rapidly
> > converted almost all pagan South America to Christianity whereas the
> > Muslims found it much harder to convert Hindu India.
>
> South America that might have influenced the outcome? Besides the fact
> that they both had religions which were not Muslim or Christian, I mean.
Of course they had a religion! Every profession including missionaries
has its own words that off means something slightly different to the
words that the public uses. It was it this sense that I used the word.
>
> > Perhaps the best way of thinking about a missionary like a car salesman.
> > He is looking for the quickest and easiest person to make sales too. How
> > many did you sell today?
>
> Well, hardly. I'd hesitate to generalize about everyone who preaches any
> religion, but I suspect that there was a range of motivations. There seem
> to have been a lot of missionaries who spent their lives in distinctly
> unpromising areas.
Yet you will find that if they do not succeed in a particular market the
church will transfer resources to a different market.
BernardZ
All this helped of course.
>
>
> OTOH, there is now more Muslims in India than in Pakistan. The ability
> and/or willingness of the Muslim rulers of the various areas to enforce
> a mass conversion of their subjects into Islam is rather questionable.
> Can't tell about "missionary"-style propaganda in India and its efficience.
> Looks like they converted considerable number of people.
They did but the fact is today India is a Hindu country and South
America is Catholic.
Yusuf B Gursey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > What about
> > (5) Cheaper as the existing infrastructure is already in place. A
> > church with slight modifications can be turned into a mosque.
>
> Some post-pagan examples of (5):
>
> As Saint/Aya-Sophia in Constantinople.
it's Haghia Sophia (Ayasofya in turkish from modern greek) "Holy
Wisdom", in reality not named after a saint.
>
> One of the synagogues in Toledo later had been converted into a Church.
> The Great Mosque in Cordoba has Catholic Cathedral built into it (1st
> Mosque, then Cathedral). A bell tower in Seville Cathedral was a minaret
> of a mosque, etc.
>
>
> > > I've heard it said that certain religions, Buddhism, Christianity, and
> > > Islam, in particular, seem to spread quickly and permanently through
> > > a pagan people --that is, a people who do not practice one of the
> > > above three religions. But, they do not make much headway against
> > > each other. Mostly, once the people are Buddhists, Christians, or
> > > Moslems, they're hard to convert. Missionaries will usually make a
> > > small number of converts, but it won't spread.
> >
> > Yep you can beat them, enslave them and little helps.
>
>
> Not exactly true. Muslims had been quite successful in converting the
> big areas populated by Christians (and Zaraostrians) into Islam: Middle
also Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan and environs ("Bactria")
> East, Northern Africa, big chunk of the Balkans. Some of these conversions
> are reasonably recent and can be traced: Ottomans created considerable
> "incentives" for the converts and you got Bosnians.
>
also Albanians. don't forget Anatolia itslef, where most of the
converts were absorbed into the turks ethnically and linguistically.
greeks of Crete usually converted for opportunistic reasons (advancing
in ottoman life).
however, it is said that the taxation policies was sometimes a
disincentive for muslim rulers to encourage conversion. don't know how
true.
most asiatic turks, "pagan" ("tengri-ist", shamanist etc. as well as
buddhist, zoroastrian, nestorian etc. or a mixture) converted through
missionary work and a political decision pof their "own" rulers. being
muslim also became a matter of ethnic identity, as in anatolia. most
muslim mongols became turkified, an exception being a small pocket in
afghanistan.
Alex
>
> it's Haghia Sophia (Ayasofya in turkish from modern greek) "Holy
> Wisdom", in reality not named after a saint.
Really? This makes things even more interesting. The Cathedral was dedicated
to Saint Sophia before it was converted into a mosque. It was a reasonable
thing to assume that the changed name was related to the old one (with an
understanding that the Ottomans did not necessarily respected St. Sophia
as a "saint"). Do you think that a new name is just a coincidence?
[btw, thanks for correcting the spelling: I was too lazy to check]
>
> >
> > One of the synagogues in Toledo later had been converted into a Church.
> > The Great Mosque in Cordoba has Catholic Cathedral built into it (1st
> > Mosque, then Cathedral). A bell tower in Seville Cathedral was a minaret
> > of a mosque, etc.
> >
> >
> > > > I've heard it said that certain religions, Buddhism, Christianity, and
> > > > Islam, in particular, seem to spread quickly and permanently through
> > > > a pagan people --that is, a people who do not practice one of the
> > > > above three religions. But, they do not make much headway against
> > > > each other. Mostly, once the people are Buddhists, Christians, or
> > > > Moslems, they're hard to convert. Missionaries will usually make a
> > > > small number of converts, but it won't spread.
> > >
> > > Yep you can beat them, enslave them and little helps.
> >
> >
> > Not exactly true. Muslims had been quite successful in converting the
> > big areas populated by Christians (and Zaraostrians) into Islam: Middle
>
> also Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan and environs ("Bactria")
Also Buddhists in Indonesia, Tatar Christians, etc.
>
> > East, Northern Africa, big chunk of the Balkans. Some of these conversions
> > are reasonably recent and can be traced: Ottomans created considerable
> > "incentives" for the converts and you got Bosnians.
> >
>
> also Albanians.
Indeed, I was not trying to make a complete list. You can probably add
"Turks" in Bulgaria.
>don't forget Anatolia itslef, where most of the
> converts were absorbed into the turks ethnically and linguistically.
> greeks of Crete usually converted for opportunistic reasons (advancing
> in ottoman life).
>
> however, it is said that the taxation policies was sometimes a
> disincentive for muslim rulers to encourage conversion. don't know how
> true.
Almost definitely they did not discourage it and, by the reasons mentioned
above, people would convert on their own as long as they are not actively
prevented from conversion.
>
> most asiatic turks, "pagan" ("tengri-ist", shamanist etc. as well as
> buddhist, zoroastrian, nestorian etc. or a mixture) converted through
> missionary work and a political decision pof their "own" rulers. being
> muslim also became a matter of ethnic identity, as in anatolia. most
> muslim mongols became turkified, an exception being a small pocket in
> afghanistan.
Speaking about the Mongols, conversion of the Golden Horde into Islam
had been more or less accomplished by a royal decree. I don't know how
popular at this time was Islam among the ordinary Tatars but there were
definitely considerable groups of the shamanists and nestorians at the
time of conversion.
Interestingly (and wisely), the Khans of the Golden Horde never tried
conversion of their Russian subjects. In this sense they had been
continuing Ghengis' policy of a religious tolerance. Of course, an attempt of
such a conversion would definitely lead to a huge rebellion and, perhaps,
there could be "ideological" problems with taking the fellow-muslims into
a slavery.
David
"> Interestingly (and wisely), the Khans of the Golden Horde never tried
> conversion of their Russian subjects. In this sense they had been
> continuing Ghengis' policy of a religious tolerance. Of course, an attempt of
> such a conversion would definitely lead to a huge rebellion and, perhaps,
> there could be "ideological" problems with taking the fellow-muslims into
> a slavery.
Under Islamic law Muslims could be born into slavery, however, free born Muslims could not
be enslaved. Infidels, i.e. non Muslims, could be enslaved. One of the largest commodities
acquired by trade with Infidels was Slaves.
ref "The Muslim Discovery of Europe" by Bernard Lewis chap. VII The Economy: Perceptions
and Contacts
Alex
> "> Interestingly (and wisely), the Khans of the Golden Horde never tried
> > conversion of their Russian subjects. In this sense they had been
> > continuing Ghengis' policy of a religious tolerance. Of course, an attempt of
> > such a conversion would definitely lead to a huge rebellion and, perhaps,
> > there could be "ideological" problems with taking the fellow-muslims into
> > a slavery.
>
> Under Islamic law Muslims could be born into slavery, however, free born Muslims could not
> be enslaved. Infidels, i.e. non Muslims, could be enslaved. One of the largest commodities
> acquired by trade with Infidels was Slaves.
>
The case I'm referencing to was not exactly a "trade". It was, initially,
part of a tribute and then a part of the booty captured during the Tatar
raids.
Dick Wisan
>> >
>> > As Saint/Aya-Sophia in Constantinople.
>>
>> it's Haghia Sophia (Ayasofya in turkish from modern greek) "Holy
>> Wisdom", in reality not named after a saint.
>
>Really? This makes things even more interesting. The Cathedral was dedicated
>to Saint Sophia before it was converted into a mosque. It was a reasonable
>thing to assume that the changed name was related to the old one (with an
>understanding that the Ottomans did not necessarily respected St. Sophia
>as a "saint"). Do you think that a new name is just a coincidence?
I knew that the Haghia Sophia was the "Church of the Holy Wisdom" and not
"Saint Sophie's", and I supposed the Latin version, "Sancta Sophia" was
merely a rendering into Latin. I did not know that it was actually
turned into "Saint Sophia" (Who, BTW, was she?) That Latin version
certainly does suggest "Saint Sophie" rather than "Holy Wisdom" I
supposed the translation was merely a little faulty (shouldn't it have been
something like "Sancta Sapientia"?) but if you're sure that the building
really was re-dedicated, when and why was it done? When Constantinople
fell, I should think Muslims could take over the building under the Greek
name without difficulty. They wouldn't have cared much for "Saint Anybody's",
of course, and they'd have had to change it back.
But was it ever really meant to belong to Saint Sophie?
--
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@catskill.net
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am; no fax
Yusuf B Gursey
: am...@hotmail.com says...
:>
:>y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote
:>>
:>> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message
:>> >
:>> > As Saint/Aya-Sophia in Constantinople.
:>>
:>> it's Haghia Sophia (Ayasofya in turkish from modern greek) "Holy
:>> Wisdom", in reality not named after a saint.
:>
:>Really? This makes things even more interesting. The Cathedral was dedicated
:>to Saint Sophia before it was converted into a mosque. It was a reasonable
:>thing to assume that the changed name was related to the old one (with an
:>understanding that the Ottomans did not necessarily respected St. Sophia
:>as a "saint"). Do you think that a new name is just a coincidence?
: I knew that the Haghia Sophia was the "Church of the Holy Wisdom" and not
: "Saint Sophie's", and I supposed the Latin version, "Sancta Sophia" was
: merely a rendering into Latin. I did not know that it was actually
: turned into "Saint Sophia" (Who, BTW, was she?) That Latin version
: certainly does suggest "Saint Sophie" rather than "Holy Wisdom" I
: supposed the translation was merely a little faulty (shouldn't it have been
: something like "Sancta Sapientia"?) but if you're sure that the building
: really was re-dedicated, when and why was it done? When Constantinople
: fell, I should think Muslims could take over the building under the Greek
: name without difficulty. They wouldn't have cared much for "Saint
: Anybody's",
: of course, and they'd have had to change it back.
well, actually some christian saints before the advent of Islam are OK
with muslims. the Seven Sleepers are mnetioned in the qur'an.
: But was it ever really meant to belong to Saint Sophie?
AFAIK no.
here is my 2nd response to Alex, which did not appear in Google fo rsoem
reason (teh new server was having difficulties):
From: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com>
Newsgroups: soc.history.medieval
Subject: Re: Christainity and pagans religious sites
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:52:51 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <b2tab3$hho$2...@pcls4.std.com>
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: y...@theworld.com (Yusuf B Gursey) wrote in message news:<222ae656.0302...@posting.google.com>...
:> am...@hotmail.com (Alex) wrote in message
:> > As Saint/Aya-Sophia in Constantinople.
:>
:> it's Haghia Sophia (Ayasofya in turkish from modern greek) "Holy
:> Wisdom", in reality not named after a saint.
: Really? This makes things even more interesting. The Cathedral was dedicated
: to Saint Sophia before it was converted into a mosque. It was a reasonable
: thing to assume that the changed name was related to the old one (with an
: understanding that the Ottomans did not necessarily respected St. Sophia
: as a "saint"). Do you think that a new name is just a coincidence?
AFAIK there was no name change, just a misinterpretation of the greek
name. according to enc. of islam II "Aya Sofya" in 400 it was named just
Sophia, later in the 400's it became << He: Hagia Sophia >> with the
definite article. Does the article make a difference between the title
"Saint" and hte adjective "holy"??. turks just droped the article and used
the modern greek pronounciation. they do know and use modern greek "Aya"
before the names of christian saints. A 19th cent. footnote in turkish
explaiend that the church (then a mosque) was named as "Holy Wisdom"
rather than after a saint.
: [btw, thanks for correcting the spelling: I was too lazy to check]
just that modern Aya and Latin rendering Sophia was strange.
:>
:> >
:> > One of the synagogues in Toledo later had been converted into a Church.
:> > The Great Mosque in Cordoba has Catholic Cathedral built into it (1st
:> > Mosque, then Cathedral). A bell tower in Seville Cathedral was a minaret
:> > of a mosque, etc.
:> >
:> >
:> > > > I've heard it said that certain religions, Buddhism, Christianity, and
:> > > > Islam, in particular, seem to spread quickly and permanently through
:> > > > a pagan people --that is, a people who do not practice one of the
:> > > > above three religions. But, they do not make much headway against
:> > > > each other. Mostly, once the people are Buddhists, Christians, or
:> > > > Moslems, they're hard to convert. Missionaries will usually make a
:> > > > small number of converts, but it won't spread.
:> > >
:> > > Yep you can beat them, enslave them and little helps.
:> >
:> >
:> > Not exactly true. Muslims had been quite successful in converting the
:> > big areas populated by Christians (and Zaraostrians) into Islam: Middle
:>
:> also Buddhists in what is now Afghanistan and environs ("Bactria")
: Also Buddhists in Indonesia, Tatar Christians, etc.
:>
:> > East, Northern Africa, big chunk of the Balkans. Some of these conversions
:> > are reasonably recent and can be traced: Ottomans created considerable
:> > "incentives" for the converts and you got Bosnians.
:> >
:>
:> also Albanians.
: Indeed, I was not trying to make a complete list. You can probably add
: "Turks" in Bulgaria.
Bulgarophone muslims are called Pomaks. particlularly the policies of
Bulgaria in the 1970's confused them with the Balkan Turks (turkophone
muslims), policies of Turkey followed suit.
there are also Turkic (actually just a divergent variety of Anatolian
Turkish) christians called Gagauz. they are mostly from a group of
Anatolian Turks from Saljuk times (13th cent), some possibly mixed with
the remnants of turkic Comans. the muslim turks of Deli Orman (Bulgaria)
are sufi-oriented muslims linguisticaly similar to the Gagauz (from the
same migration). the Gagauz are now found mainlyin Moldavia.
:>don't forget Anatolia itslef, where most of the
:> converts were absorbed into the turks ethnically and linguistically.
:> greeks of Crete usually converted for opportunistic reasons (advancing
:> in ottoman life).
:>
:> however, it is said that the taxation policies was sometimes a
:> disincentive for muslim rulers to encourage conversion. don't know how
:> true.
: Almost definitely they did not discourage it and, by the reasons mentioned
: above, people would convert on their own as long as they are not actively
: prevented from conversion.
:>
:> most asiatic turks, "pagan" ("tengri-ist", shamanist etc. as well as
:> buddhist, zoroastrian, nestorian etc. or a mixture) converted through
:> missionary work and a political decision pof their "own" rulers. being
:> muslim also became a matter of ethnic identity, as in anatolia. most
:> muslim mongols became turkified, an exception being a small pocket in
:> afghanistan.
: Speaking about the Mongols, conversion of the Golden Horde into Islam
: had been more or less accomplished by a royal decree. I don't know how
: popular at this time was Islam among the ordinary Tatars but there were
: definitely considerable groups of the shamanists and nestorians at the
: time of conversion.
there were consderable number of christians among the turkic Comans and
remnants of other turkic migrations (Ghuzz / Oghuz, Pecheneg) that were
there earlier than the turks and mongols of the Golden Horde.
there were Central Asian Turkic muslims, muslim volgabulghars (speaking a
divergent turkic, chuvash-like) that had reached a certain level of
islamic civilization. they had adopted islam because of trade with
Khwarezm and to enlist arab support against the Khazars (hence Ibn
Fadlan's trip). after the mongol conquest tehy became qypchaqized
(mainstream turkic) and hence the develoment of Kazan Tatar (qypchaq with
a bulghar-chuvash substratum). those volga-bulghars pagan or poorly
islamized became the chuvash and retained their language. muslim
influence among the Comans is apparent from the number of perso-arabic
words in Codex Comanicus (the bible in middle-qypchaq turkic).
: Interestingly (and wisely), the Khans of the Golden Horde never tried
: conversion of their Russian subjects. In this sense they had been
: continuing Ghengis' policy of a religious tolerance. Of course, an attempt of
: such a conversion would definitely lead to a huge rebellion and, perhaps,
: there could be "ideological" problems with taking the fellow-muslims into
: a slavery.
in Islamic Law one cannot enslave free-born muslims, though muslims may be
born into slavery. one cannot enslave Scriptuaries (Jews, Christians,
Gnostics and extended to others) living under treaty relationship with
muslims (Dhimmies), i.e. under muslim rule or at peace. nor can one
forcibly convert them. they may be enslaved if captured at war, or when
their territory has been declared "da:r-ul-Harb" (abode of war), when
raids may also take place. this is certainly true under Hanafi law, which
places a high degree of protection for scriptuaries. most turkic people
are Hanafis,a s are anatolain turks. the ottoman levy of boys (devshirme)
is an anomaly and how it was justified is uncertain (Paul Wittek has some
guesses). originally, the levy was taken war prisoners (a fifth), which
was legal.
what happened in anatolia, the qypchaq / russian steppe and central asia
is that ethnic polarization accompanied the adoption of christianity,
buddhism or islam. muslims became turkic (originally turks, mongols,
slavs), christians slavic (orig. slavs, turks, mongols), buddhists
mongols (orig. mongols, turks). a few pockets remained. turkic people
tended to think of islam as a requiremnt for turkic identity. a few
pockets remianed. south siberia (lesser west china) has buddhist -
shamanist turks. muslim mongols only in pockets in afghanistan, now
assimilated at leats linguistically to tajiks.
Yusuf B Gursey
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: The case I'm referencing to was not exactly a "trade". It was,
initially,
: part of a tribute and then a part of the booty captured during the Tatar
: raids.
captured from raiding in territory designated "da:r-ul-Harb" is different
and permissible.
David C Pugh
news:b3chqh$eh$1...@pcls4.std.com...
(...)
> : I knew that the Haghia Sophia was the "Church of the Holy Wisdom" and
not
> : "Saint Sophie's", and I supposed the Latin version, "Sancta Sophia" was
> : merely a rendering into Latin. I did not know that it was actually
> : turned into "Saint Sophia" (Who, BTW, was she?) That Latin version
> : certainly does suggest "Saint Sophie" rather than "Holy Wisdom" I
> : supposed the translation was merely a little faulty (shouldn't it have
been
> : something like "Sancta Sapientia"?) but if you're sure that the building
> : really was re-dedicated, when and why was it done? When Constantinople
> : fell, I should think Muslims could take over the building under the
Greek
> : name without difficulty. They wouldn't have cared much for "Saint
> : Anybody's",
> : of course, and they'd have had to change it back.
>
> well, actually some christian saints before the advent of Islam are OK
> with muslims. the Seven Sleepers are mnetioned in the qur'an.
>
> : But was it ever really meant to belong to Saint Sophie?
>
> AFAIK no.
>
> AFAIK there was no name change, just a misinterpretation of the greek
> name. according to enc. of islam II "Aya Sofya" in 400 it was named just
> Sophia, later in the 400's it became << He: Hagia Sophia >> with the
> definite article. Does the article make a difference between the title
> "Saint" and hte adjective "holy"??. turks just droped the article and used
> the modern greek pronounciation. they do know and use modern greek "Aya"
> before the names of christian saints. A 19th cent. footnote in turkish
> explaiend that the church (then a mosque) was named as "Holy Wisdom"
> rather than after a saint.
I'm a little vague on this, but I believe that Sophia was not a saint in
the sense of once having been a human person who was canonised and
venerated -- nor does her title of Hagia or Sancta actually claim such,
since it's merely the adjective "holy", and the problem is the way English
has borrowed "sanctus" to denote a person only -- but what we might call a
Personage. I believe she is a big deal in Christian Neo-Platonism, and
amounts to something close to a female Logos or a female Holy Spirit.
Wouldn't surprise me if the feminist Christians were keen on her.
(Snip very interesting stuff on Gagauz and other Turkics)
--
David
"From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
Michael Farthing
<davi...@online.no> writes
> I'm a little vague on this, but I believe that Sophia was not a saint in
>the sense of once having been a human person who was canonised and
>venerated -- nor does her title of Hagia or Sancta actually claim such,
>since it's merely the adjective "holy", and the problem is the way English
>has borrowed "sanctus" to denote a person only -- but what we might call a
>Personage.
Indeed, the visitor will frequently encounter a number of "saints" not
known outside Greece, including St Friday, St Archangel, St Virgin, St
Freedom, St Forty, St Ten... (I'm still puzzled by this one). It all
makes much more sense with 'Holy'.
Hagia, Aya, Agia, Aghia are all actually the same word, using different
transliterations from the Greek, alpha, gamma, iota, alpha. The gamma is
pronounced more like y than g when followed by iota, thus explaining
some of the variation. (Experts will squirm at this simplicity). The 'H'
in the first form is a survival of the rough breathing on the front of
the word which is no longer written nor pronounced in everyday use. A
similar set could also be listed for masculine forms.
Alex
> well, actually some christian saints before the advent of Islam are OK
> with muslims. the Seven Sleepers are mnetioned in the qur'an.
>
> : But was it ever really meant to belong to Saint Sophie?
>
> AFAIK no.
I think that it was. The main cathedral in Kiev is named "St. Sophie"
and modeled (alledgedly) from St. Sophie in Constantinople. In all Russian
texts that I saw, the cathedral in Constantinople was named "St. Sophie"
and not "Holy Wisdom" (which can be just the same in translation).
OTOH, it's quite possible that S.S was a "personification" of the wisdom:
the usual "combination" is "Vera (Faith), Nadiezda (Hope), Lubov (Love)
and their mother Sophia" so we are probably arguing about the same thing.
++
Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
> : I knew that the Haghia Sophia was the "Church of the Holy Wisdom" and not
> : "Saint Sophie's", and I supposed the Latin version, "Sancta Sophia" was
> : merely a rendering into Latin. I did not know that it was actually
> : turned into "Saint Sophia" (Who, BTW, was she?) That Latin version
> : certainly does suggest "Saint Sophie" rather than "Holy Wisdom" I
> : supposed the translation was merely a little faulty (shouldn't it have been
> : something like "Sancta Sapientia"?) but if you're sure that the building
> : really was re-dedicated, when and why was it done? When Constantinople
> : fell, I should think Muslims could take over the building under the Greek
> : name without difficulty. They wouldn't have cared much for "Saint
> : Anybody's",
> : of course, and they'd have had to change it back.
The cathedral was always dedicated to Holy Wisdom, as a concept. Although there are Saint Sophia's just as there
are saints Faith, Hope and Charity, conceptual names for churches persist in Orthodoxy. There are many Holy
Savior churches, especially in the Balkans (Sveti Spas), just as there are many named for feast days/concepts,
such as Holy Resurrection (cf. Uspenski cathedrals worldwide)
>
>
> well, actually some christian saints before the advent of Islam are OK
> with muslims. the Seven Sleepers are mnetioned in the qur'an.
>
> : But was it ever really meant to belong to Saint Sophie?
No, ot HOLY WIsdom. In both Greek and the slavic languages, the adjective translated as holy and saint is the
same.
>
>
> AFAIK no.
>
> here is my 2nd response to Alex, which did not appear in Google fo rsoem
> reason (teh new server was having difficulties):
>
>
> :>
> :> it's Haghia Sophia (Ayasofya in turkish from modern greek) "Holy
> :> Wisdom", in reality not named after a saint.
correct
>
> AFAIK there was no name change, just a misinterpretation of the greek
> name. according to enc. of islam II "Aya Sofya" in 400 it was named just
> Sophia, later in the 400's it became << He: Hagia Sophia >> with the
> definite article. Does the article make a difference between the title
> "Saint" and hte adjective "holy"??. turks just droped the article and used
> the modern greek pronounciation. they do know and use modern greek "Aya"
> before the names of christian saints. A 19th cent. footnote in turkish
> explaiend that the church (then a mosque) was named as "Holy Wisdom"
> rather than after a saint.
The article is unnecessary, when you confer translation into other languages.
>
>
> : [btw, thanks for correcting the spelling: I was too lazy to check]
>
> just that modern Aya and Latin rendering Sophia was strange.
not at all strange
>
>
> :: Also Buddhists in Indonesia, Tatar Christians, etc.
Tatars are Volga Bulgars, i.e. Bulgars. Tatar is a western designation
> Bulgarophone muslims are called Pomaks. particlularly the policies of Bulgaria in the 1970's confused them with
> the Balkan Turks (turkophone
> muslims),
They were not usually Turkish speaking
> policies of Turkey followed suit.
Using ...."phone" to describe peoples in the Balkans is a non starter. Not all Muslim Bulgarians are Pomaks.
Using Muslim as a designator doesn't clarify anything beyond a grandparent or great grandparent's religion,
either. The Sanjakis, for example, are mostly Serbian but partly Turkish and were using Muslim as a designator
for a period, then Bosnjaki sometimes, but none of these definitions works.
>
>
> there are also Turkic (actually just a divergent variety of Anatolian
> Turkish) christians called Gagauz.
Who were differentiated from the greater mass of Bulgarian "Turks" some of whom were Muslim Bulgarians simply
becuase they werew CHristian and therefore more connected conceptually as "one of us" Bulgarians
> they are mostly from a group of
> Anatolian Turks from Saljuk times
Selcuk
> (13th cent), some possibly mixed with
> the remnants of turkic Comans.
Kumans
> the muslim turks of Deli Orman (Bulgaria)
> are sufi-oriented muslims linguisticaly similar to the Gagauz (from the
> same migration). the Gagauz are now found mainlyin Moldavia.
There are Gaguaz in a number of countries. And some Gaguaz are Muslim
> there were consderable number of christians among the turkic Comans and
> remnants of other turkic migrations (Ghuzz / Oghuz, Pecheneg) that were
> there earlier than the turks and mongols of the Golden Horde.
Nestorians, like Ghenghiz Khan's mama
>
>
> there were Central Asian Turkic muslims, muslim volgabulghars (speaking a
> divergent turkic, chuvash-like)
Volga Bulgars. Chuvash are a separate people. ALL these peoples were mixed Tuk and Mongol
> that had reached a certain level of
> islamic civilization. they had adopted islam because of trade with
> Khwarezm and to enlist arab support against the Khazars (hence Ibn
> Fadlan's trip).
I doubt they chos Islam in order to trade with Kwarazm Shahs.
> after the mongol conquest tehy became qypchaqized
> (mainstream turkic) and hence the develoment of Kazan Tatar (qypchaq with
> a bulghar-chuvash substratum). those volga-bulghars pagan or poorly
> islamized became the chuvash and retained their language. muslim
> influence among the Comans is apparent from the number of perso-arabic
> words in Codex Comanicus (the bible in middle-qypchaq turkic).
You might wish to read a few studies on the connection of Indo-Iranian with certain Slavic languages.
> : Interestingly (and wisely), the Khans of the Golden Horde never tried
> : conversion of their Russian subjects. In this sense they had been
> : continuing Ghengis' policy of a religious tolerance.
see above
> Of course, an attempt of
> : such a conversion would definitely lead to a huge rebellion and, perhaps,
> : there could be "ideological" problems with taking the fellow-muslims into
> : a slavery.
The Islam of Ghenghiz Khan was tenuous. And, like that of Timur, oriented toward self legitimization
>
>
> in Islamic Law one cannot enslave free-born muslims, though muslims may be
> born into slavery. one cannot enslave Scriptuaries (Jews, Christians,
> Gnostics and extended to others) living under treaty relationship with
> muslims (Dhimmies), i.e. under muslim rule or at peace. nor can one
> forcibly convert them. they may be enslaved if captured at war, or when
> their territory has been declared "da:r-ul-Harb" (abode of war), when
> raids may also take place. this is certainly true under Hanafi law, which
> places a high degree of protection for scriptuaries. most turkic people
> are Hanafis,a s are anatolain turks. the ottoman levy of boys (devshirme)
> is an anomaly and how it was justified is uncertain (Paul Wittek has some
> guesses). originally, the levy was taken war prisoners (a fifth), which
> was legal.
>
> what happened in anatolia, the qypchaq / russian steppe and central asia
> is that ethnic polarization accompanied the adoption of christianity,
> buddhism or islam. muslims became turkic (originally turks, mongols,
> slavs), christians slavic (orig. slavs, turks, mongols), buddhists
> mongols (orig. mongols, turks). a few pockets remained. turkic people
> tended to think of islam as a requiremnt for turkic identity.
I don't see how you support that
> a few
> pockets remianed. south siberia (lesser west china) has buddhist -
> shamanist turks. muslim mongols only in pockets in afghanistan, now
> assimilated at leats linguistically to tajiks.
There are still shamanist practices among a wide variety of groups - take a gander at Uzbeki and other nearby
heritage.
++
David C Pugh wrote:
>
>
> I'm a little vague on this, but I believe that Sophia was not a saint in
> the sense of once having been a human person who was canonised and
> venerated -- nor does her title of Hagia or Sancta actually claim such,
> since it's merely the adjective "holy", and the problem is the way English
> has borrowed "sanctus" to denote a person only -- but what we might call a
> Personage.
Sophia is Wisdom as a concept. But there ARE several Saint Sophia
> I believe she is a big deal in Christian Neo-Platonism, and
> amounts to something close to a female Logos or a female Holy Spirit.
uh, no
>
> Wouldn't surprise me if the feminist Christians were keen on her.
except you are wrong
++
Michael Farthing wrote:
> In message <hym6a.26031$CG6.4...@news4.e.nsc.no>, David C Pugh
> <davi...@online.no> writes
> > I'm a little vague on this, but I believe that Sophia was not a saint in
> >the sense of once having been a human person who was canonised and
> >venerated -- nor does her title of Hagia or Sancta actually claim such,
> >since it's merely the adjective "holy", and the problem is the way English
> >has borrowed "sanctus" to denote a person only -- but what we might call a
> >Personage.
>
> Indeed, the visitor will frequently encounter a number of "saints" not
> known outside Greece, including St Friday,
There are FOUR St. Paraskeva/Petka , none of which is Greek
> St Archangel,
Holy Archangel is usually followed by Michael or Gabriel. THere are a couple
dedicated, in the plural to both
> St Virgin, St
> Freedom, St Forty,
40 Martyrs of Sebaste, the Apostles of the Seventy (the original apostles minus
Judas and their first converts)
> St Ten... (I'm still puzzled by this one).
I don't recall a Ten
> It all
> makes much more sense with 'Holy'.
>
> Hagia, Aya, Agia, Aghia are all actually the same word, using different
> transliterations from the Greek, alpha, gamma, iota, alpha. The gamma is
> pronounced more like y than g when followed by iota, thus explaining
> some of the variation. (Experts will squirm at this simplicity). The 'H'
> in the first form is a survival of the rough breathing on the front of
> the word which is no longer written nor pronounced in everyday use. A
> similar set could also be listed for masculine forms.
>
> --
> Michael Farthing
> cyclades
> Software House
Some of this is very easy to understand if you happen ot be Orthodox
David C Pugh
news:3E5A416E...@erols.com...
>
>
> David C Pugh wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm a little vague on this, but I believe that Sophia was not a
saint in
> > the sense of once having been a human person who was canonised and
> > venerated -- nor does her title of Hagia or Sancta actually claim such,
> > since it's merely the adjective "holy", and the problem is the way
English
> > has borrowed "sanctus" to denote a person only -- but what we might call
a
> > Personage.
>
> Sophia is Wisdom as a concept. But there ARE several Saint Sophia
You mean individuals called Sophia who became saints, in addition to the
Holy Wisdom for whom the Great Church was named? Sure.
> > I believe she is a big deal in Christian Neo-Platonism, and
> > amounts to something close to a female Logos or a female Holy Spirit.
>
> uh, no
Well I'm sure I've seen this treatment of her, but not necessarily in
Orthodox (or even orthodox) contexts. Are you saying that she has never been
treated like this in heterodox milieus either? Downright heretical?
> > Wouldn't surprise me if the feminist Christians were keen on her.
>
> except you are wrong
How well do you know that strain of thought? If you know it well,
perhaps you would care to tell us how it does view Sophia?
For example, I've met feminist Christians who get all excited about the
fact that St. Julian of Norwich calls Christ "Mother".
++
David C Pugh wrote:
> You mean individuals called Sophia who became saints, in addition to the
> Holy Wisdom for whom the Great Church was named? Sure.
Yes, there are some
> something close to a female Logos or a female Holy Spirit.
> >
> > uh, no
>
> Well I'm sure I've seen this treatment of her, but not necessarily in
> Orthodox (or even orthodox) contexts. Are you saying that she has never been
> treated like this in heterodox milieus either? Downright heretical?
Not Orthodox - although i did read one zhitija that mentioned that Sophia and
her daughters Faith Hope and Charity were Christian Roman martyrs.This is from
the Roman tradition, and is in Migne Pat. Grae. Here is a modern version:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766a.htm
> > > Wouldn't surprise me if the feminist Christians were keen on her.
> >
> > except you are wrong
>
> How well do you know that strain of thought? If you know it well,
> perhaps you would care to tell us how it does view Sophia?
As the All Knowing , i.e. God's Wisdom. Since the noun is feminine ending ....
Here is the Greek Orthodox version of their life:
http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/St_Sofia.htm
Note the icon of Holy Wisdom depicts Christ (the author's information on the
icon is somewhat off. cf. word hesychasm) but this is a westernized icon, made
feminine:
http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/xpxx/xpsophia.html
Here is a modern Orthodox icon of the Holy Wisdom:
http://www.yvonnebell.u-net.com/yvonne/silkwisdom.jpg
But, attributions were popular as names in the early Christian period. cf. my
own saint, Galini/Galina, martyred in the 3d century in Corinth, her name means
calm or peaceful in Greek, sweet, well behaved in Macedonian or Bulgarian, and
there are several early churches and villages called St. Galina, one of the
oldest of which is on Crete.
Also consider, on the same day (of death):
Virgin-Martyrs Sts Agape, Irene and Chione (304 AD) Memory Celebrated April 16
Virgin-Martyrs Sts. Agape, Irene and Chione were young women from Saloniki.
During Maximian's persecution they left their homes and went to live on a nearby
mountain to follow lives of prayer, where they were arrested under Diocletian in
late 303. When they were brought before the magistrate, they refused to eat
sacrificial food and stated that they would prefer to die than do so. Agape and
Chione, the older two, were sentenced to be burnt alive. Irene, because of her
youth, was sentenced to imprisonment. After the death of the other two, Irene
was again cross-examined and admitted that she possessed books of the Scriptures
and refused once again to eat sacrificial food. She was sentenced to be sent
naked into the soldiers' brothel, however , no man dared to approach her. She
too
was eventually burnt alive. This was recorded in her Acts as 1 April, but the
feast of the three Virgin-Martyrs together is 16 April.
>
>
> For example, I've met feminist Christians who get all excited about the
> fact that St. Julian of Norwich calls Christ "Mother".
I've read Julian of Norwich, part of the "fire of love" concept - very western
concept where spiritual warmth is actually viewed as physical warmth and
sometimes approaches sexual . Not Orthodox
> David
> "From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
> bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
yo, pagane
David C Pugh
>
> > something close to a female Logos or a female Holy Spirit.
> > >
> > > uh, no
> >
> > Well I'm sure I've seen this treatment of her, but not necessarily
in Orthodox (or even orthodox) contexts. Are you saying that she has never
been treated like this in heterodox milieus either? Downright heretical?
>
> Not Orthodox - although i did read one zhitija that mentioned that Sophia
and her daughters Faith Hope and Charity were Christian Roman martyrs.This
is
from the Roman tradition, and is in Migne Pat. Grae. Here is a modern
version:
>
> http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05766a.htm
That's back to the real-people issue, I was enquiring about the (I
think) neo-Platonic treatment of Sophia, see above.
> Here is the Greek Orthodox version of their life:
>
> http://home.it.net.au/~jgrapsas/pages/St_Sofia.htm
At the risk of offending that well-known 21st-century martyr St.
Courtesy of Usenet, I don't find this terribly convincing. People do give
that kind of name, even now, but it just smells too allegorical to me.
> Note the icon of Holy Wisdom depicts Christ (the author's information on
the icon is somewhat off. cf. word hesychasm) but this is a westernized
icon,
made feminine:
>
> http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/xpxx/xpsophia.html
Very unusual. Never seen anything like that before. So what's the story
on the *word* hesychasm (I know what the thing is)?
This site says: "The problem was not that it depicts Christ in female
form, but rather that in the last century there was a theological movement
within Orthodoxy which wrongly implied that Divine Wisdom was a fourth
Person of the Godhead."
That's pretty much what I said to begin with, and you said "uh, no".
> Here is a modern Orthodox icon of the Holy Wisdom:
>
> http://www.yvonnebell.u-net.com/yvonne/silkwisdom.jpg
How is this different from other icons of Christ?
> But, attributions were popular as names in the early Christian period.
cf. my> own saint, Galini/Galina, martyred in the 3d century in Corinth, her
name
means calm or peaceful in Greek, sweet, well behaved in Macedonian or
Bulgarian,
Does it fit? :-) Mine doesn't :-(
> > For example, I've met feminist Christians who get all excited about
the fact that St. Julian of Norwich calls Christ "Mother".
>
> I've read Julian of Norwich, part of the "fire of love" concept - very
western concept where spiritual warmth is actually viewed as physical warmth
and
> sometimes approaches sexual .
Too right, c.f. also Teresa of Avila.
Not Orthodox
So how is spiritual warmth viewed in Orthodoxy? As Uncreated Light?
> > David
> > "From ghouls and ghosties, and long-leggety beasties, and things that go
> > bump on the Net, Good Lord, deliver us"
>
> yo, pagane
>
Not me. It's just a joke -- taking an old British folk prayer and
altering four letters to achieve great contemporary relevance :-)
Tilmann Chladek
[...]
> That Latin version
> certainly does suggest "Saint Sophie" rather than "Holy Wisdom" I
> supposed the translation was merely a little faulty (shouldn't it have been
> something like "Sancta Sapientia"?)
Actually there is a parallel, a saint called Sancta Fides / Sainte Foy
(=Saint Faith). In Conques in Southern France one can admire her
Carolingian reliquiary [sp?], one of the so-called (and very rare)
"majestés", and following the legend she was a girl who suffered
martyrdom during late antiquity near Agen.
Anybody who wants to know more about this curious sculpture can look it
up here: <http://www.conques.com/> (the diect address is here:
<http://www.conques.com/visite27.htm> - in English).
--
Tilmann Chladek
300 Jahre Mittelalter bloss erfunden?
Infos dazu ueber <http://home.snafu.de/tilmann.chladek>
Yusuf B Gursey
++ <arch...@erols.com> wrote:
: Let's see if it is possble to wend one's way through the mishmash of
: the posting.
now for yours, :)
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:>
:>
:> AFAIK no.
:>
:> here is my 2nd response to Alex, which did not appear in Google fo rsoem
:> reason (teh new server was having difficulties):
:>
:>
:> :>
:> :> it's Haghia Sophia (Ayasofya in turkish from modern greek) "Holy
:> :> Wisdom", in reality not named after a saint.
: correct
:>
:> AFAIK there was no name change, just a misinterpretation of the greek
:> name. according to enc. of islam II "Aya Sofya" in 400 it was named just
:> Sophia, later in the 400's it became << He: Hagia Sophia >> with the
:> definite article. Does the article make a difference between the title
:> "Saint" and hte adjective "holy"??. turks just droped the article and used
:> the modern greek pronounciation. they do know and use modern greek "Aya"
:> before the names of christian saints. A 19th cent. footnote in turkish
:> explaiend that the church (then a mosque) was named as "Holy Wisdom"
:> rather than after a saint.
: The article is unnecessary, when you confer translation into other languages.
I'm wondering about the *greek*.
:>
:>
:> : [btw, thanks for correcting the spelling: I was too lazy to check]
:>
:> just that modern Aya and Latin rendering Sophia was strange.
: not at all strange
:>
:>
:> :: Also Buddhists in Indonesia, Tatar Christians, etc.
: Tatars are Volga Bulgars, i.e. Bulgars. Tatar is a western designation
no. they were also knwon as "tatars", when this came to mean any turkic
people of the russin / qypchaq steppe under a Jochid Khan.
around Kazan, some of them are descendants of the volghabulghars,
adopting qypchaq turkic. both "bulghar" and "tatar" were used. when thnic
names were standardized in the soviet era, "tatar" came to be official to
avoid conflicting claims with the bulghar legacy, as well as to avoid
confusion with the bulgarians. "bulghar" had the added difficulty of being
used by some islamist groups. however, historical identifictaion with the
bulghar state rather than with the Golden Horde was encouraged because of
the Bulghar's more peacable relations with its neighbors
:> Bulgarophone muslims are called Pomaks. particlularly the policies of
:> Bulgaria in the 1970's confused them with
:> the Balkan Turks (turkophone muslims),
: They were not usually Turkish speaking
there were and still are a quite a number of turkish speaking balkan
muslims that consider themselves turks.
:> policies of Turkey followed suit.
: Using ...."phone" to describe peoples in the Balkans is a non starter.
I happen to be interested in their language and its ethnic consequences.
: Not all Muslim Bulgarians are Pomaks.
as I said.
: Using Muslim as a designator doesn't clarify anything beyond a
: grandparent or great grandparent's religion,
what is topical is an earlier period anyway.
: either. The Sanjakis, for example, are mostly Serbian but partly
: Turkish and were using Muslim as a designator
"designator" is yet another issue. I am not concerned about modern
politics much, for this thread.
: for a period, then Bosnjaki sometimes, but none of these definitions works.
:>
:>
:> there are also Turkic (actually just a divergent variety of Anatolian
:> Turkish) christians called Gagauz.
: Who were differentiated from the greater mass of Bulgarian "Turks" some of whom were Muslim Bulgarians simply
: becuase they werew CHristian and therefore more connected conceptually as "one of us" Bulgarians
:> they are mostly from a group of
:> Anatolian Turks from Saljuk times
: Selcuk
differnet romanization.
:> (13th cent), some possibly mixed with
:> the remnants of turkic Comans.
: Kumans
ditto.
:> the muslim turks of Deli Orman (Bulgaria)
:> are sufi-oriented muslims linguisticaly similar to the Gagauz (from the
:> same migration). the Gagauz are now found mainlyin Moldavia.
: There are Gaguaz in a number of countries. And some Gaguaz are Muslim
as I said.
:> there were consderable number of christians among the turkic Comans and
:> remnants of other turkic migrations (Ghuzz / Oghuz, Pecheneg) that were
:> there earlier than the turks and mongols of the Golden Horde.
: Nestorians, like Ghenghiz Khan's mama
:>
:>
:> there were Central Asian Turkic muslims, muslim volgabulghars (speaking a
:> divergent turkic, chuvash-like)
: Volga Bulgars. Chuvash are a separate people. ALL these peoples were
: mixed Tuk and Mongol
see above. Volghabulghar language is attested, and it is essentially Old
Chuvash (as recontsructed).
volghabulghars are esentially Hunnic in origin (if one accepts the best
theory for Hunnic language). it is from proto-turkic but not from later
turkic (like the rest of turkic). not to mention substrata of finno-ugric
and others.
the Kazantatars inherited the islamic civilization (and central body of
people) of the volghabulghars, the chuvash the peripheral group and
language of the volghabulghars, as well as their original paganism until
relatively recent christianization
:> that had reached a certain level of
:> islamic civilization. they had adopted islam because of trade with
:> Khwarezm and to enlist arab support against the Khazars (hence Ibn
:> Fadlan's trip).
: I doubt they chos Islam in order to trade with Kwarazm Shahs.
(I meant the earlier iranian ones). they were Hanafi ("sect"), like
most central asian muslim and anatolian Turks, chuvash still contains many
words (old) of persian and perso-arabic origin, incl. religious ones. and
they did enjoy close trade and political relations with Khwarezm. Ibn
Fadlan took the long route through Khwarezm in order to avoid the Khazars
(who would have stopped his diplomatic mission). Islam came to the
Volgabulghars through Khwarezm.
:> after the mongol conquest tehy became qypchaqized
:> (mainstream turkic) and hence the develoment of Kazan Tatar (qypchaq with
:> a bulghar-chuvash substratum). those volga-bulghars pagan or poorly
:> islamized became the chuvash and retained their language. muslim
:> influence among the Comans is apparent from the number of perso-arabic
:> words in Codex Comanicus (the bible in middle-qypchaq turkic).
: You might wish to read a few studies on the connection of Indo-Iranian
: with certain Slavic languages.
which is interesting but well known and off-topic.
:> : Interestingly (and wisely), the Khans of the Golden Horde never tried
:> : conversion of their Russian subjects. In this sense they had been
:> : continuing Ghengis' policy of a religious tolerance.
: see above
see what?
:> Of course, an attempt of
:> : such a conversion would definitely lead to a huge rebellion and, perhaps,
:> : there could be "ideological" problems with taking the fellow-muslims into
:> : a slavery.
: The Islam of Ghenghiz Khan was tenuous. And, like that of Timur,
: oriented toward self legitimization
Genghiz (*dj*- < *ch*-, mongolian Chinggis - with -s < turkic -z, -ngg >
turkic *ng*) was simply not a muslim. he was a tengri-ist.
:>
:>
:> in Islamic Law one cannot enslave free-born muslims, though muslims may be
:> born into slavery. one cannot enslave Scriptuaries (Jews, Christians,
:> Gnostics and extended to others) living under treaty relationship with
:> muslims (Dhimmies), i.e. under muslim rule or at peace. nor can one
:> forcibly convert them. they may be enslaved if captured at war, or when
:> their territory has been declared "da:r-ul-Harb" (abode of war), when
:> raids may also take place. this is certainly true under Hanafi law, which
:> places a high degree of protection for scriptuaries. most turkic people
:> are Hanafis,a s are anatolain turks. the ottoman levy of boys (devshirme)
:> is an anomaly and how it was justified is uncertain (Paul Wittek has some
:> guesses). originally, the levy was taken war prisoners (a fifth), which
:> was legal.
:>
:> what happened in anatolia, the qypchaq / russian steppe and central asia
:> is that ethnic polarization accompanied the adoption of christianity,
:> buddhism or islam. muslims became turkic (originally turks, mongols,
:> slavs), christians slavic (orig. slavs, turks, mongols), buddhists
:> mongols (orig. mongols, turks). a few pockets remained. turkic people
:> tended to think of islam as a requiremnt for turkic identity.
: I don't see how you support that
because I am familiar with their culture and history very well, also how
non-muslim turkopones are usually not accepted as turks.
:> a few
:> pockets remianed. south siberia (lesser west china) has buddhist -
:> shamanist turks. muslim mongols only in pockets in afghanistan, now
:> assimilated at leats linguistically to tajiks.
: There are still shamanist practices among a wide variety of groups -
: take a gander at Uzbeki and other nearby
: heritage.
"practices" are a seperate but related topic. right now simple
self-identity.
Yusuf B Gursey
References: <MPG.18b216ae93f70abb98a907@news>
<MPG.18b365c3a6a6b47198a913@news> <b2bud...@enews1.newsguy.com>
<MPG.18b4aea0d6f0307698a920@news>
<f8e58188.03021...@posting.google.com>
<222ae656.0302...@posting.google.com>
<f8e58188.03021...@posting.google.com>
<b3bge...@enews4.newsguy.com> <b3chqh$eh$1...@pcls4.std.com>
<f8e58188.0302...@posting.google.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:<b3chqh$eh$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
:> Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> wrote:
:> : am...@hotmail.com says...
:> well, actually some christian saints before the advent of Islam are OK
:> with muslims. the Seven Sleepers are mnetioned in the qur'an.
:>
:> : But was it ever really meant to belong to Saint Sophie?
:>
:> AFAIK no.
: I think that it was. The main cathedral in Kiev is named "St. Sophie"
BTW I had visited it.
: and modeled (alledgedly) from St. Sophie in Constantinople. In all
: Russian
: texts that I saw, the cathedral in Constantinople was named "St. Sophie"
this one I visited many times!
: and not "Holy Wisdom" (which can be just the same in translation).
: OTOH, it's quite possible that S.S was a "personification" of the
: wisdom:
: the usual "combination" is "Vera (Faith), Nadiezda (Hope), Lubov (Love)
: and their mother Sophia" so we are probably arguing about the same
: thing.
there was certainly a *legend* of a "real" St. Sophie (and an
"explanation" as to why there is no body and casket). this I found
in Evliya C,elebi (17th cent. turkish traveler) in the 1st vol. of
his Travel Book (Seyahatname), p. 128 of the version published
during ottoman times (there are more recent romanized versions from
more reliable manuscripts, so some checking might be in order; the
author's purpose was intellectual entertainment, so he freely mixed
in legend and superstition. since this is my topic now, this is OK.
my translation):
"and they say on the middle southern gate in a casket of yellow
brass is buried the remains of Queen (kIralic,e) Sophia in mumified
form. because many a person dared touch their hands on that casket
an earthquake and a great disturbance occured inside the mosque (sic)
and they were apparently forced to give it up. this is another great
magic."
!!!
(as you know, it is in an earthquake zone and was struck several
times). "mumified" since saints are not supposed to decompose,
right?)
Yusuf B Gursey
Alex <am...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: Yusuf B Gursey <y...@shell01.TheWorld.com> wrote in message
news:<b3chqh$eh$1...@pcls4.std.com>...
:> Dick Wisan <wis...@catskill.net> wrote:
:> : am...@hotmail.com says...
:> well, actually some christian saints before the advent of Islam are OK
:> with muslims. the Seven Sleepers are mnetioned in the qur'an.
:>
:> : But was it ever really meant to belong to Saint Sophie?
:>
:> AFAIK no.
: I think that it was. The main cathedral in Kiev is named "St. Sophie"
BTW I had visited it.
: and modeled (alledgedly) from St. Sophie in Constantinople. In all Russian
: texts that I saw, the cathedral in Constantinople was named "St. Sophie"
this one I visited many times!
: and not "Holy Wisdom" (which can be just the same in translation).
: OTOH, it's quite possible that S.S was a "personification" of the wisdom:
: the usual "combination" is "Vera (Faith), Nadiezda (Hope), Lubov (Love)
: and their mother Sophia" so we are probably arguing about the same thing.
yes. OTOH:
there was certainly a *legend* of a "real" St. Sophie (and an
"explanation" as to why there is no body / casket). this I found
in Evliya C,elebi (17th cent. turkish traveler) in the 1st vol. of
his Travel Book (Seyahatname), p. 128 of the version published
during ottoman times (there are more recent romanized versions from
more reliable manuscripts, so some checking might be in order; the
author's purpose was intellectual entertainment, so he freely mixed
in legend and superstition. since this is my topic now, this is OK.
my translation):
"and they say on the middle southern gate in a casket of yellow
brass is buried the remains of Queen (kIralic,e) Sophia in mumified
form. because many a person dared touch their hands on that casket
an earthquake and a great disturbance occured inside the mosque (sic)
and they were apparently it was forced to be emptied / given up.
this is another great magic."
!!!
(as you know, it is in an earthquake zone and was struck several
times). "mumified" since saints are not supposed to decompose,
right?)
It is worth checking some modern refernces, not available to me
at this moment.
Yusuf B Gursey
: Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
:> influence among the Comans is apparent from the number of perso-arabic
:> words in Codex Comanicus (the bible in middle-qypchaq turkic).
: You might wish to read a few studies on the connection of Indo-Iranian
: with certain Slavic languages.
OK, perhasp I can guess what you are driving at.
iranian words in the broadest sense are found in the area from various
sources:
- from the skythian / sarmatian / alan substratum
- from iranian words or possible iranian words in prototurkic or old
turkic.
- new persian words via turkic or trade.
overwhelmingly the last category is easily distinguished from the other
two. those who don't care to make the distinginctions, like Dobrev, can't
be taken seriously because of this.
Yusuf B Gursey
:> Bulgarophone muslims are called Pomaks. particlularly the policies of
:> Bulgaria in the 1970's confused them with
:> the Balkan Turks (turkophone
:> muslims),
: They were not usually Turkish speaking
:> policies of Turkey followed suit.
: Using ...."phone" to describe peoples in the Balkans is a non starter.
: Not all Muslim Bulgarians are Pomaks.
: Using Muslim as a designator doesn't clarify anything beyond a
: grandparent or great grandparent's religion,
: either. The Sanjakis, for example, are mostly Serbian but partly
: Turkish and were using Muslim as a designator
: for a period, then Bosnjaki sometimes, but none of these definitions works.
:>
:>
:> there are also Turkic (actually just a divergent variety of Anatolian
:> Turkish) christians called Gagauz.
: Who were differentiated from the greater mass of Bulgarian "Turks" some
: of whom were Muslim Bulgarians simply
see the distnction already made.
: becuase they werew CHristian and therefore more connected conceptually
not just religion but also language. Gagauz is somewhat divergent from
turkish. there only few muslims (of Deli Orman) that speak it.
ethnicity, ancestry and language ae different, though they may factor into
each other.
by religion I am refering to nominal affilaition, not peity
: as "one of us" Bulgarians
:> they are mostly from a group of
:> Anatolian Turks from Saljuk times
: Selcuk
:> (13th cent), some possibly mixed with
:> the remnants of turkic Comans.
: Kumans
:> the muslim turks of Deli Orman (Bulgaria)
:> are sufi-oriented muslims linguisticaly similar to the Gagauz (from the
:> same migration). the Gagauz are now found mainlyin Moldavia.
: There are Gaguaz in a number of countries. And some Gaguaz are Muslim
again, see above.
:> there were consderable number of christians among the turkic Comans and
Yusuf B Gursey
:> there were consderable number of christians among the turkic Comans and
:> remnants of other turkic migrations (Ghuzz / Oghuz, Pecheneg) that were
:> there earlier than the turks and mongols of the Golden Horde.
: Nestorians, like Ghenghiz Khan's mama
no, these weren't nestorians. they were converts to orthodoxy or
catholicism. there were nestorians among the turks and mongols of the
Golden Horde, from the central asian origin population. and nestroians
among the turks and mongols of central asia.
reference for Chinggis Khan's mother? IIRC qublai's mother was.
Alex
> ++ <arch...@erols.com> wrote:
>
> :> there were consderable number of christians among the turkic Comans and
> :> remnants of other turkic migrations (Ghuzz / Oghuz, Pecheneg) that were
> :> there earlier than the turks and mongols of the Golden Horde.
>
> : Nestorians, like Ghenghiz Khan's mama
>
> no, these weren't nestorians. they were converts to orthodoxy or
> catholicism. there were nestorians among the turks and mongols of the
> Golden Horde,
A number of the Mongols in the Golden Horde was appr. 4,000 ... but
there were nestorians among them (Batu's son, for example).
> from the central asian origin population. and nestroians
> among the turks and mongols of central asia.
Van Khan was, IIRC, one of them.