ATTENTION VIEWERS!! Our guest Spencer McDaniel noted two errors and rightfully insisted that we note these errors. Spencer in the video stated "You're never going to encounter Galenos of Pergamon in a classics course," but that's definitely not true. What Spencer had meant to say is that a student is unlikely to read Galenos's work in a classics course. Near the very end, Spencer says that Diocletian sacked Alexandria in 291 CE, but he actually did it in 297 CE. Also Hypatia wasn't mentioned because Spencer intends to make an entire episode dedicated to her and the subject in the upcoming future and I agree that it is an intense and fascinating subject that deserves its own focus. As someone who interviews people from around the world and interacts heavily with the history community I can't help but respect the actions of Spencer McDaniel in ensuring that the errors were noted and corrected for you all here today. I think that speaks bounds towards Spencer's character and desire as a historian to set the record straight and I personally know some doctorate professors who wouldn't be so bold or as humble to admit and correct those mistakes. Truly admirable and I can't wait to have Spencer on again!
Truth...stop destroying your own culture. The PRIME knowledge of the ancient world was STOLEN: Abdullah Al Mamun, chops into the side of the great pyramid RIGHT UNDER THE DOOR...and at an angle that would allow something very large and very heavy to be taken out of the upper chambers. The library of Alexandria was destroyed by Caliph Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭab. Again, the prime knowledge of the ancient world is stolen by ass backwards islam. ...don't hate western culture founded on Christianity. Pagan life really sucked. You would still be knapping arrowheads and selling your daughters and sacrificing to state gods if paganism remained. Time to grow up America.
You shouldn't have had Nixey on in the first place more people will see her before this video. You have contributed to continuing a long debunked myth. Well at leat you made up for it by having Ms McDaniel on.
*Gasp* The Christian Roman empire actually being the reason why the classical works of antiquity survived? Oh no, how ever will my stupid atheist brain handle it!
@@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081 yeah because you probably weren’t raised to antagonise entire groups of people based on the actions of a few but most people are not like that
I watched the entire video and even took notes for my reply to Spencer McDaniel arguments. I've any PhD in history, I'm a humble philosophy student and I will answer just with my reasoning which is not inferior, for an eventual lack of knowledge. 1. As I read and appreciated the book of Catherine Niche, I'd like to underline that its purpose is not to put middle age era in darkness, but to put the Roman culture and society, completely disappeared before and as middle age progressed, into light. And I'm not talking about a bunch of books who Christians theologians or monks preserved, I'm talking about society and culture, which comprehends arts, texts, knowledge, behavior, morals, ethics, philosophy, religion, etc. The book gives Christianity a big part of responsibility for said disappearance. I think we can appreciate, as I do, middle age still, and seeing it as this (sorry if I call it this way) post-apocalyptic period, were this fundamental religion, Christianity, ruled. 2. Coming to doc McDaniel. I didn't find his argument really argument, sorry, they didn't proofed nothing apart maybe the Alexandria library destruction. His attempt to put Chirstians on a better, softer, gentler light has fallacy. One is the fact that in the whole video very few dates are mentioned. There's much difference from Christians of the I, II century to Constantine and after Constantine times. So when stating that Christians liked and preserved greek philosophers, for exemple, it's important to be specific about when. 3. First McDaniel argument: Christianity is part of classical culture, is a product of that, it's part of that. That is very simplistic by an historian to say, that because Jesus was born in a Roman province (I mean???) Yeshua was a Jew, Judaism had nothing to share with Roman classic culture, and it was not, not in a single moment, influenced by it. One huge point of diversity is that Jews worshipped one god only, the only god to exist, which is Yweh. But Judaism monotheism has again nothing to do with ancient greek philosopher's research for the origin, and their ideas of some metaphysical essence, being water or fire, being one or none. Judaism became monotheistic after the invasion of Persians, and during that time it absorbed the Zoroastrianism, not the Greeks. There is a strong evidence for a connection of Christianity to some of the mistery cults which were strongly popular 300 years before Christ, and I mean cults of Osiris, Eleusi, Orpheus... all these cults had in common the resurrection. Said cults spread in the Mediterranean during and after Alexander the Great. Then, for Greek literature being present in the gospels, I won't personally go too far with my enthusiasm. I mean considering how much the gospels were edited and rewritten. 4. The key concept of the logos in Christianity derives from Plato and its philosophy. But when this was incorporated? Don't make it look like Christ knew Plato. In some moment of the history, and you have to say when, Christians erudites found in Plato a philosopher that matched the cause. Ancient philosophy was taken by Christians and modelled on the faith of one God. But there is no one God mentioned in one single opus of these philosophers, research and love for σοφία was all. And I'd like to quote Aristotle "(on the question of the ύβρις) if there's a god who doesn't like us questioning and researching about the knowledge of all that is we philosphers would have by time extincted due to the much lightings got on our head." α book of metaphisisc. 5. The "general consensus" about classical culture doesn't cancel any facts, regarding intolerance, violence, vandalism and any kind of actions and behaviours Christians engaged. 6. "The reason why so many books have been lost is because of gradual loss over time". Doc. McDaniels states that Christians did in fact try to eliminate books, and mentions that they weren't proficient in this, some pagans books have being transcribed. But is this relevant? Because we find a "single page" can we state that the book burning was not proficient? And this is not really an argument. It is like to say that if someone put explosive inside a building but fails in blowing it completely off because a wall is saved, then it is not ok to accuse them for taking the building down. 7. The whole thing with Plato's book is like Christmas. Yes, Christmas. The festive pagan day who was put the name of Christ and became the birth date of Jesus. Plato's books, and many other philosophers texts, did appeal to Christians. A form of cultural sincretism took place during the first 5 hundred years of Christianity. When it finally became the official religion, a part of the classical culture was absorbed and morphed into it. So, yes, we can agree that this doesn't mean "destruction"... as much as we agree that confining native Americans, preserving their culture, making them icons etc. doesn't cancel their horrendous persecution. 8. Doc says "it is not completely true that the Roman and Greek statues were destroyed infact EMPEROR CONSTANTINE kept a collection of them, and the Romans used to destroy them themselves", this made me chuckle a bit. Constantine was an empeor, his love for statues is not really relevant. As an emperor he could do pretty much what he wanted. Iconoclasty had a base on hatred and fear which was common among the communities of Christians before constantine. The gods represented by the statues were demons, they are actually demons even today. Pan is the fallen angel Satan. But this is longly explained in Niche's book. "Roman took off their effiges", but what is the point?? None. They weren't the Romans to cut off genitals and nipples from the statues. And who was the genius decapitating Nike of Samothrax statue? Let's not forget that the Church covered all the exposed genitals on Michelangelo's sistine with a ficus leaf. 9. Converting a temple in a church IS ABSOLUTELY DISRESPECTFUL. Doesn't mean preserving the place, their history, their meaning and their tradition as a form of cultural sincretism. No matter if the temple was about Athena mother of Athens, then it becomes about Mary mother of Jesus what happened then it is again like Christmas. To convert more and more people and establish its superiority the church took pagans traditions and morphed into its own, as long as it did with temples. But saying this is not "destruction" of said traditions is cruel. YES. Fortunately paganism wasn't cancelled by centuries of persecution. Can we make it this way? Can we agree on it? The thing it is not due to Christianity being "general consensus"... still chuckling about it. Being condescending, or paying homage or respect to Plato. Where is this culture now? Why should we think it was just weak and got easily incorporated by the One and Only Business? Why shouldn't we look at how much the tradition was strong that even with centuries of sunday masses about going to hell, the poor people on the mountains, the farmers, have preserved pagan rites? As you said, Demetra. What is the feeling you, any of you, have when thinking about how the crosses religion did spread, first with mind manipulation, the promise of an afterlife, judgment, fear of the goats, then with swords and gun?
1) its not then why does she say things like This law’s consequences were described more simply by later historians. It was from this moment, they said, that a Dark Age began to descend upon Europe." no iam sorry she clearly portrays late antiquty as the dark ages which is bs " which comprehends arts, texts, knowledge, behavior, morals, ethics, philosophy, religion, etc. The book gives Christianity a big part of responsibility for said disappearance. I think we can appreciate, as I do, middle age still, and seeing it as this (sorry if I call it this way) post-apocalyptic period, were this fundamental religion, Christianity, ruled. " and that is the problem she puts wya to much emphasis on cristianity rather than the political and economical reality of late antiquty this is why aside from an overexageration of the closing of the school of athens (more to it later) and a quote of arab chornicler out of its historical conext she ignores the byzantines because the byzantine empire debunks this notion , the truth was a lot of science and center of learning had been in decline long before Constantine due to the crisis of the third century and she blames chirstianity for said disapearence when the fact that the empire who payed for center of learnings and funded copies just vanished . Because as mentioned the byzantines kept many old greco roman costums , philoshopies and science but if chirstianity is to blame should the east been more similar to the west? hence as mentioned she puts way to much emphasis on religion and not the reality of the times. 2) Coming to doc McDaniel. I didn't find his argument really argument, sorry, they didn't proofed nothing apart maybe the Alexandria library destruction. His attempt to put Chirstians on a better, softer, gentler light has fallacy. One is the fact that in the whole video very few dates are mentioned. There's much difference from Christians of the I, II century to Constantine and after Constantine times. So when stating that Christians liked and preserved greek philosophers, for exemple, it's important to be specific about when." i guess i will the burning of the library was not and i repeat was not the the sudding burning but a slow decline , even by the time of the late ptolomies we find administrators, court favourites and even a former commander of the palace guard taking up the r Lionel Casson puts it, “a political plum” to be awarded to flunkies rather than scholars. the library was sacked many times the first and probably biggest was cesar in 47 bc cesars onw words says that they burned the docks and nothing more (Civil Wars, III.11). and goes out of his way to says alexandria was fire proof (Alexandrine War, I.1) which are most likely defence against accusations given of damage as florus citing livy mentions how cesar burning the docks to deprive their archers spread to the libary (Florus, II.13) and Plutarch who says it was destroyed In this war, to begin with, Caesar encountered the peril of being shut off from water, since the canals were dammed up by the enemy; in the second place, when the enemy tried to cut off his fleet, he was forced to repel the danger by using fire, and this spread from the dockyards and destroyed the Great Library, and thirdly, when a battle arose at Pharos, he sprang from the mole into a small boat and tried to go to the aid of his men in their struggle, but the Egyptians sailed up against him from every side, so that he threw himself into the sea and with great difficulty escaped by swimming. (Plutarch, Caesar, 49) Aulus Gellius’ mention of the Great Library says that the collection numbered “nearly seven hundred thousand volumes” and then adds “but these were all burned during the sack of the city in our first war with Alexandria”(Gellius, Attic Nights, VII.17). Cassius dio gives a bigger account. so later Claudius built a new wing or annex to the Mouseion, which was to house his works of history and see the public reading of them twice a year. but the third century would see calmity return In 215 Caracalla for mockery decided to punish the alexandrias comming a massacre we dont know if it sacked or burned but John Malas does mention how carracalla stopped its funding , also Aurelian circa 272 when he defeated the palymrine empire entered alexandria Ammianus, History, XII.15 says [Alexandria’s] walls were destroyed and she lost the greater part of the district called Bruchion.” as this video mentioned Diocletan also sacked the city in the late third century and then an eartquake came in 365 so in reality the chirstians did not destroy the great libary of alexandria they destroyed a smaller daughter library in the Serapeum.
2.1) i fully agree liking for classical time varried but in general they always liked it especially after Constantine the darkening age only goes as so far to the early byzantine era and yes its correct that persecution again pagans did happen but the whole nosense of dark ages is wrong and that chirstians hated all things pagan the author in the book cites saint agustine as ‘That all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!’ the same saint agustine who said If those who are called philosophers, especially the Platonists, have said things which are indeed true and are well accommodated to our faith, they should not be feared; rather, what they have said should be taken from them as from unjust possessors and converted to our use. Just as the Egyptians had not only idols and grave burdens which the people of Israel detested and avoided, so also they had vases and ornaments of gold and silver and clothing which the Israelites took with them secretly when they fled, as if to put them to a better use Augustine, On Christian Teaching 2:40:60 she even admitts this “And so, in part from self-interest, in part from actual interest, Christianity started to absorb the literature of the ‘heathens’ into itself. Cicero soon sat alongside the psalters after all. Many of those who felt most awkward about their classical learning made best use of it. …. Everywhere, Christian intellectuals struggled to fuse together the classical and the Christian. Bishop Ambrose dressed Cicero’s Stoic principles in Christian clothes; while Augustine adapted Roman oratory for Christian ends. The philosophical terms of the Greeks - the ‘logos’ of the Stoics - started to make their way into Christian philosophy.” (pp. 150) this a distortion the truth was that by this point in the 4th century chirstians had not problem with it Edward J Watts’ excellent book The Final Pagan Generation goes in to detial about how there times were pagans and chirstian intellectual had no problem with each other Nixel also makes the accertation that neo platonisim was hard for to intigrate when actually it became the norm for much of the middle ages “[Augustine] might easily have decided that all pagan Platonism was itself inextricably tied to polytheism, but he seems, rather, to have concluded that there was strictly monotheistic, proto-Christian gold to be found in the pagan writings, hidden but not essentially corrupted.” (Pagans and Philosophers: The Problem of Paganism from Augustine to Leibniz, Princeton, 2015, p. 27). this is why the author states that only some ideas survived ie the ones chirstianity liked to quote [a]ny theories that stated the world was eternal - for that contradicted the idea of Creation - were …. also suppressed” this is contradicted by aristotle been the go to guy for physics and he work taught that the universe was eternal. to answer the idea the chirstian did preserve and liked classics especially the byzantine empire who used them for their education the book Byzantine Readings of Ancient Historians by anthony kaledllis so in the medieval period both the west and the bzyantines liked it with some cases of localized sporadical bannings like the condomations of 1277
3) "Jew, Judaism had nothing to share with Roman classic culture, and it was not, not in a single moment, influenced by it." you mean roman classical culture was not affected by judaisim? or viceversa because greek philoshply by the time of jesus had influnced the jews the most famous example been philo and his works "One huge point of diversity is that Jews worshipped one god only, the only god to exist, which is Yweh. But Judaism monotheism has again nothing to do with ancient greek philosopher's research for the origin, and their ideas of some metaphysical essence, being water or fire, being one or none. Judaism became monotheistic after the invasion of Persians, and during that time it absorbed the Zoroastrianism" aside from some similarities no shcolar that i know of said judaisim absored zorastranims , also as mentioend yes they were influenced again Philo is a great example of a man using jewish theology combined with platonic ideals , " There is a strong evidence for a connection of Christianity to some of the mistery cults which were strongly popular 300 years before Christ, and I mean cults of Osiris, Eleusi, Orpheus... all these cults had in common the resurrection. Said cults spread in the Mediterranean during and after Alexander the Great." Except there is not no shcolar said ( if you are making this argument) tha chirstianity took or was heavily influenced by paganisim the supposed connections like december 25 , virgin births , 12 followers etc are modern fabrications also none of the examples you citied have common resurection Osiris was murdered and his body dismembered and scattered. The pieces of his body were recovered and rejoined, and the God was rejuvenated. However, he did not return to his former mode of existence but rather journeyed to the underworld, where he became the powerful lord of the dead. [Jonathan Z. Smith, "Dying and Rising Gods," in Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, Volume 4, page 524] ie dying been put back and still been dead and governing the underworld "Then, for Greek literature being present in the gospels, I won't personally go too far with my enthusiasm. I mean considering how much the gospels were edited and rewritten. " true but the earlist mansucripts still show greek ideals jesus been the logos is a similar view that philo had but used by the author of g jonh
4 The key concept of the logos in Christianity derives from Plato and its philosophy. But when this was incorporated? Don't make it look like Christ knew Plato. In some moment of the history, and you have to say when, Christians erudites found in Plato a philosopher that matched the cause. Ancient philosophy was taken by Christians and modelled on the faith of one God. But there is no one God mentioned in one single opus of these philosophers, research and love for σοφία was all. And I'd like to quote Aristotle "(on the question of the ύβρις) if there's a god who doesn't like us questioning and researching about the knowledge of all that is we philosphers would have by time extincted due to the much lightings got on our head." α book of metaphisisc." when g Jonh was written circa 90 ad and again it was because like Philo they incporotated platonic works in to their own viewpoint 5) " The "general consensus" about classical culture doesn't cancel any facts, regarding intolerance, violence, vandalism and any kind of actions and behaviours Christians engaged. " it doesnt and you rigth but it does cancell out the author notion of the scale been so large that it caused a dark ages in knowlege in the medieval world or gibbon esque arguments that chirstianity caused the fall of rome. 6) "The reason why so many books have been lost is because of gradual loss over time". Doc. McDaniels states that Christians did in fact try to eliminate books, and mentions that they weren't proficient in this, some pagans books have being transcribed. But is this relevant? Because we find a "single page" can we state that the book burning was not proficient? And this is not really an argument. It is like to say that if someone put explosive inside a building but fails in blowing it completely off because a wall is saved, then it is not ok to accuse them for taking the building down." historyforatheists.com/2020/03/the-great-myths-8-the-loss-of-ancient-learning/ does a better job at this but to add rarly these events were backed up by the states or hard edicts rather a group of fanatics acting out in fact what matter more was more of a deciding factor tim does quote this ]here can be little doubt that one of the major reasons for the loss of classical texts is that most Christians were not interested in reading them, and hence not enough new copies of the texts were made to ensure their survival in an age of war and destruction .but this had always been the case. The lyric poet Sappho was highly praised by the Greeks and often referred to simply as “the Poetess” or even “the Tenth Muse”. But she was also depicted as both licentious and bisexual not long after her death and while many Roman poets imitated her style (e.g. Ovid) other Romans disapproved of her supposed “immorality” and especially her homoeroticism - Horace dismissed her as “mascula Sappho”. Prim Roman disapproval aside, she became a poet who was more praised than read, largely because she wrote in the Aeolic dialect of her native Lesbos, which Attic Greeks regarded as “barbaric”. By Roman times Attic literature was the norm and Aeolic poetry was less read and so less copied. Like many of her contemporaries, Sappho probably just fell victim to a general narrowing of interest in the literature of the past, which resulted eventually in a drastic reduction in the number of texts in circulation. (Margaret Williamson, Sappho’s Immortal Daughters, Harvard, 1995, 41-2.) Late Roman Christian and Byzantine scholars inherited both the Roman view of Sappho as licentious and their preference for Attic literature, so this combination meant more of the earlier praise of Sappho survives than her actual poetry. There were also trends and preferences in pre-Christian philosophy that affected the transmission of certain texts, so again this not a chirstian issue its an issue on what sources were copied and why.
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a freshwater system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
There are 3000 religions and gods in the world... The difference between me and you is I don't believe in 3000 of them, you dont believe in 2999 of them. Ricky Gervais to a Catholic.
I'm a history student hoping to specialise in Late Antiquity in the western Mediterranean. This interview is fantastic. I've long tried to explain to a number of people that no, Christianity didn't suddenly appear and destroy the roman empire, and no, the 5th century in western Europe wasn't all a "dark age" of destruction, but rather a period of flux and change, some of it bad but also some of it good. And that the empire didn't disappear--the center of power simply shifted to the East. Late Antiquity and the early middle ages get a v bad rap, but its one of the most fascinating periods of western history, and well worth studying.
Right just like I try to explain no the crusades didn’t come from “defending” yes they burned all books and humans that didn’t convert or agree and yes they destroyed ancient art work that pointed against their religion but to say it’s single handedly their fault is a stretch but did they play a major role absolutely
Didn't the organised, political christianity under the Christian Emperors enact laws to forbid pagan worship and force conversion upon the populace? Early christianity was diverse. But in the 4th century once it won the power of the state that's when the destruction began. Slowly at first, but greatly accelerated under the edicts of Theodosius.
@@DSAK55 I know. The point was that classical civilization was not wiped out by the Christian Dark ages and book burning as some historians imply. In their curriculum until the 15th century. My statement was not intended as a great revelation.
@@ericknight5014 We have less than 2% of greek literature ( according to oxford university) left. I wonder who burned the rest ? Could it be the same that wrote hymns over archimedes treatise ( like the palimpsest of archimedes) ? Maybe it is the same that close the academy of plato, the lyceum of aristotle, the olympic games, the eleusinian mysteries, destroyed every temple including the serap and the temple of artemis in ephesus ( wonder of the world ).
@@LalakisThey copied the texts that were valued by them as copying texts is very laborious and expensive. It's a bit silly to think Christians went around the entire Roman empire burning every book they could find.
@@LalakisThey didn't necessarily burn them, they probably just didn't and probably couldn't recopy the majority of Greek texts, most written texts will not survive for very long without human input
Wonderful; on a slightly relevant note I think it's healthy to appreciate the Middle Ages of Europe without always contrasting them with the Roman golden age.
The middle ages built on much of what the classical age created! The architecture improved to build incredibly beautiful spaces(cathedrals for example), the shift to more symbolic art was an attempt to tell more grand stories in one piece (think of the tapestry of the battle of Hastings) medicine continued in the same vein as before, and metallurgy continued to improve. It isn't seamless or organized, but I don't think it was the apocalyptic end of knowledge some portray it as
Yes. The middle ages weren't nearly as "dark" and bad as many people think it was. In fact there apparently was more technological development during the middle ages then during the classical age (mainly due to changes in demographics).
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 you shouldn't have had Nixey on in the first place more people will see her before this video. You have contributed to continuing a long debunked myth. Well at least you made up for it by having Ms McDaniel on.
I enjoyed the respectful way in which Spencer McDaniel framed her discourse. She IS so very intelligent and well versed in her subject areas! Thank you for having her presenting, and I hope to see her again here.
@shockebuffalo6719 Spencer publicly identified as cisgender man when the video was made (and when I made my comment) but came out as transgender woman since then.
1. Was there a bias in the preservation of Christian texts/apologetics, vs non christian? Yes. 2. Was there destruction of pagan temples, sanctioned by the state? Yes. 3. Where pagan practices persecuted? Yes. Yes, medieval Christians copied works they though of important... So did the Muslims. Of course. They weren't stupid! Who would've?
I would only add to the second one that only a few temples were destroyed on state order. The vast majority were abandoned. On Muslims, actually the people that copied those works were largely Eastern Christians. There weren't much Muslim copiests and literates in the early days.
I don't disagree at all, I enjoyed the book but I will admit there are problems that historians like McDaniel have noted and I really admire and respect the fact that Spencer was courteous and respectful in this rebuttal.
It's an intellectually disgusting book, namely because it uses pure propaganda for ideological purposes. Tim O'Neill (an atheist) demonstrated that at immense length in his review.
"Foreign, inherently different and antagonistic to so called 'Classical Civilisation'." - Pliny, when communicating with Trajan literally was confused and described it as an "excessive and contagious superstition," or something to that effect. 🤔 I don't think the fact of Christianity being syncretistic equates to it being par-for-the-course either; that said, whatever it's character, it was an outgrowth of its time and place.
I think that judging how many works were destroyed by citing how many works remain colors the rest of this rebuttal. We have no idea what percentage of works have been destroyed.
Take a visit to Greece, see the ruins of the temples, see how many churches are built upon the ruins themselves ( often using the same stones). How the academy of plato and the lyceum were destroyed, how the olympics were banned, how the eleusinian mysteries ( with a history of 2 millenia) got banned, how papyri with greek theorems/poems/plays were overwritten with christian hymns ( e.g archimedes palimsest), how the name "hellene" was villified to mean ethnic thus pagan. Christian apologists cannot change history. Even people like Spencer who I admire, is too much of a coward to go in a head on collision with christianity and its dark history.
σάς ευχαριστώ! Thank you. I don't have too much admiration for this historian though. Building a church over a temple, or transforming one in a church, is not an act of consideration. But of destruction. His view is probably fueled by Christian propaganda. Especially when he quotes the one persone saying that after the conversion the Parthenon was more visited as a Christian church as it was as a Pagan temple..
@@ipercalisse579 I heard that what is said about the Parthenon being more visited while being a church has some ground because Parthenon as a temple was only important for Athenians, not for everyone else like Delos was.
Very interesting! When the main narrative fails to acknowledge so many counterexamples, it makes one question the completeness of that main narrative. Not saying there weren't Christian efforts to eliminate classical paganism, but it was much more complex than popularly described.
We can say that about any historical event whatsoever. We also have to draw a distinction between Christianity as a revolutionary movement against the established religious order early on, and later on when Christian institutions were the system and drew on the classical legacy to emphasize continuity with it and inherit its prestige. Everywhere Christianity advanced over the rubble of the classical world, but then turned around to preserve what was left.
I always found it funny how some people harp on about Christian destruction of the past, and ignore Alexander at Persepolis, or all of Caesar’s campaigns. Or anytime the Romans found something that slightly offended them. It’s almost as if the new order try’s to erase the old order throughout human history.
Christianity wiped out paganism, and burned entire libraries. Not very tolerant, Jesus... They even spent the last 1000 years burning, torturing and killing each other.
@@waterloo32594nonsense, the Romans tried to assimilate cultures... As long as you pledged allegiance you were fine. Christianity destroyed, look at the crusades... When they got bored of that they started burning each other.
I love this kind of argumentation: "Well, indeed it was all destruction and demolition, but, you know, it was not so simple." This is what a person willing to object but unable to refute says ;)
The lack of value of human life is good to destroyed. Leaving babies out to die, only have hospitals for soldiers, slavery, women being oppressed, people being oppressed to not be able to get education. Early Christians saved those abandoned babies, elevated the status of women to be leaders, had bought thousands of people out of slavery to be free, spoke on education for the masses. Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English so people can read it for themselves and not go on what they are told. before dying he asked God to open the eyes of the king of England. Two years later the king had the Tyndale Bible in every church. St. Patrick was enslaved and treated terribly in Ireland, managed to escape and felt bad for his former oppressors. He studied and went back to Ireland as a missionary. If that’s not love what is. It’s good that the Nonchristian Writings were copied by the Early Christians was mentioned in this interview. I didn’t know all the times they were quoted in the New Testament, except Paul telling the Greeks their unknown God is Jesus. Sadly, that wasn’t always done like how the Mesoamerican texts were mostly destroyed. I’ve seen that there definitely are cycles in many aspects of history around the world. Also, commonalities between different cultures around the world, even with their religious texts having similar archetypes. I finished the book Under the Influence How Christianity Transformed Civilization, a few days ago and highly suggest it, to delve deeper into this topic. There are many, many references to delve even deeper into this topic.
There are a few good books by Rodney Stark dealing with this. There are always disappointments in human behavior and conceptions, but we benefit from acquired knowledge and should continue to sift and reconsider what we understand.
@@jacksonfurlong3757 never heard anyone say copium before, but looked it up. You are mistaken, my friend. Read books and watch things you disagree with. I’ve been doing it for years. Don’t just look from one viewpoint but multiple ones on the same issue. It’s enlightening. Take care.
@@MTB214 I have and often do engage in entertaining and exploring opposing thoughts and ideas. Are you assuming that's not the case with me because I don't agree with you? "Early Christians saved those abandoned babies, elevated the status of women to be leaders, had bought thousands of people out of slavery to be free, spoke on education for the masses." The christian bible endorses both slavery and misogyny. Stemming as it does from the Jewish texts that are huge proponents of both. If anything, women were treated much more poorly by Christians than their Pagan counterparts, hell a core piece of christian theology is hat women are not only lesser than men but are consistently depicted as downright wicked. There is so much condensed codswallop in that statement you made I'm frankly amazed you can fit it into such a small space.
The followers of the one did not indentify themselves as Christians or use the symbol of the cross.their is exotric & esoteric knowledge,'I'myself have been on the path of enlightenment 4over 30 years & like Newton said,if I have seen further than overs,it was because 'I' stood on the shoulders of giants. 'I' love the passion spencer has 4the history of all humanity,it's infectious 🌞
Just because a history is complex doesn’t mean that it’s false. The Christians after they took power persecuted Pagans and destroyed their books. It’s not complicated. In modern times Pope Pius 12 didn’t speak out against the persecution of the Jews. There may be a complicated history there too, but either the Pope did or he didn’t. In antiquity till the 13th C in most of Europe pagan books were not favored except for a few exceptions like Aristotle or Virgil who were seen as pre Christians. These are the exceptions that prove the rule.
This was a good reality check to a certain degree. Thanks. It made me want to hear an episode about Arian Christianity, in the spirit of this episode. It would be interesting to hear how Arianism and the refusal of Gothic refugees into either East/West Empire were related. Such an investigation would be well to address the dogmatic variations that made Catholics so negative against his paradigm.
Keep up on this topic. Read this book and maybe get the author on. Niketas Siniossoglou Plato and Theodoret: The Christian Appropriation of Platonic Philosophy and the Hellenic Intellectual Resistance
I appreciate you balancing out the issue with this video. The last guest who spoke on this subject was bizarre and ridiculously biased (freakishly so in fact).
I think the argument that if something is a product of classical culture, it cannot be opposed to classical culture is not sound. It is like saying that the reformation wasn't opposed to medieval church practises because it was lead by a catholic monk.
the reformation actually wasn't exactly against the church until it failed to overtake the church and become its own thing. Also, that example u are using are between one institution and several opposing institutions, it is not the entirely cultural going on here, as neither christianity nor classiical culture was completely under one institution.
This is awesome- so much info and I’m only 11mins in!! I can imagine Christians 1000 or so years from today forgetting how the US culture from the first settlements to today has impacted and interwoven tightly with the religion. I listened to the audiobook, Guaranteed Pure about dispensationalism and it gives insight into how that has shaped politics in a way that seems to be the opposite of what Christ taught. For example, atheists/agnostics/liberal Christians are so confused about why conservative fundamentalist Christians feel the need to have the government never offer welfare services. And this is related to not only the rewriting of US history to say the founders were conservative Christians just like they are today, but also goes back to the story of the Roman Empire and how that is interpreted. You can’t acknowledge wanting a theocracy unless you completely ignore the doctrine of church/state separation! If they said it this plainly, everyone would see that’s incorrect.
I demand more Spencer McDaniel !!! I have to laugh when you say “ for those viewers that stay for the whole video…” . Personally ,I can’t tear myself away. ( boiled over another cup of tea) The reference to the New Testament “goads” was a revelation to me. Great vid.👍 Spencer, your awesome ! 🕊🌹🕊
I consider the Medieval Period to be four periods to be honest. (1) The Early Middle Ages. (2) The High Middle Ages (3) The Late Middle Ages And controversially number (4) the Renaissance. I consider it to be the triumph of the European Middle Ages as we enter the next period in history.
@@lysimachosdiadochos7203 Was it though? From what I understand there was just as much science happening in the middle ages as in the classical age. Also there were actually more technological innovations happening in the middle ages then in classical age (due to demographic/economic reasons).
@@henrimourant9855 Things like science were very much in decline during the early middle ages. Centers of power shifted to the east and the north (frankish Kingdom and later Holy Roman Empire). Much of ancient literature was lost due to war, neglect or during migration. Population density was low and literate people were extremely scarce (mostly only monks and clerics) so the record keeping was sparse and conservation/copy of old texts was difficult. That's why it's called 'Dark Ages', because we have so little written sources to light the scene up, not because the times were particularly dark for it's contemporarys. But every bit of antique scripture, even the 'heretic' was kept, fostered and apreciated by laborious monks in their monastrys scattered and separated all over Europe. When they later got hold of "new" antique texts through transfer from the Byzantine and Arabic sphere, they collected every snippet, copied and commented and extensively corresponded amongst themselves. Many socio-economic transitions later in the late middle ages we begin to see an explosion of scholarship, reinvention of antique ideas and genuine innovation. But I find it difficult to compare science and scholarship of the classical age with that of the middle ages because the mind sets of it's people were significantly different and the church still had a huge say when it came to explaining the world. In the end it was the invention of the printing press which set free a huge potential built up in the centuries before and pushed the middle ages into modernity, a feat that antiqity never acomplished.
@@Kane-cw1zh Yeah the "Dark ages" is mostly a myth. Although I think in Britain in the immediate aftermath of the end of Roman rule there it's fair to call that period a "Dark age" since we have very few surviving sources from the time there. But that is only limited to Britain though.
This was a awesome video and great, I liked Spencer's informative approach, great!!it's good to hear see people that you can tell did a real extensive research on this important subject
Next time, please put a warning in the title about mentioning the library of Alexandria.. one is never ready for sudden sadness unless one braces for it in advance.
Christianity was a foreign influence on the helenistic world. Its very philosophical core is at odds with both helenistic and more northern european religious practices. It was a colonizing force that wheedled its way into the empire by emulating more familiar mythological allusions and tales. They adapted it slightly to fi in. Then, when they had all the power, they had themselves a series of pograms against the 'heathens' who did not accept Christ. The argument isnt that Christianity didnt take from the helenized world, its that once it had power and control it led to the dark ages. The church ran Europe into the ground
What ran Europe down wasnt Christianity. It was the germanic migrations. Western Europe had its dark Ages right after the sack of Rome. While the Eastern part of Roman empire prospered. Its notable that in the 6th century until the Black death came, Byzantine empire had its golden age under Justinian. The same time, the Western part was trying to recover. The dark Ages of Byzantine empire came after the slavic migrations. It was the period about 600 to 850 ad. We see that the Dark Ages came in different time in each part of the empire. And with a big time difference. So, Christianity played a small role in It. Until the migrations of the Huns, the Romans hadnt any serious threat about their existence. That migration caused a chain migration of other nations which in turn caused the same again and again.
@@ilias8972 The Germanic peoples were part of Europe, them migrating within Europe didn't bring an end to classical antiquity. It could be argued they mopped up the twisted remains of Rome and classical antiquity but, they were not the cause of its fall The Christian Church promoted a system of ignorance that limited the access to learniing to a limited number of the elite classes rather than making it more widely available to the people thus leading to a decrease in education and a correlative decrease in ingenuity of thought or technical designs. aspects of antiquity were supressed by the new church changing it to the point that it no longer mirrored its helenistic origins. This happened long before any germanic raids or invasions. If you want to talk Byzantium, then we're taling more middle-eastern history than we are talking broader European history. Rome, themselves merely adopters of the hellenistic traditions, being the clear and strongest influence on Europe overall, it is worth noting that it is after the adoption of Christisanity as the official state religion that we see the start of a precipitous decline in the veneration of the helenistic culture in favor of the chimeric philosophies and social norms of the early formaliuzed christianity of the catholic church. Between that and burning or banishing any pagans who kept to the old ways, christianity destroyed classical antiquity.
@@jacksonfurlong3757 What are you talking about? Anglo-Saxon pagans, who invaded Britain, were illiterate until they converted to Christianity and were taught how to read and write by the church. It was the church that set up universities across their lands like Cambridge and Oxford. Read some medieval history and stop coping.
@@richardbillingsley9553 Pagan religions were generally accepting of other 'Gods', not so with Christianity and its one God concept. For Christians you either believe in the one God or your a heretic.
@@SuhaibZafar Arguments don't have to be new in order to be sound. What is "Holland's argument"? It may not be new to you but it's new to me, which why I suggested to have him on the channel. Also, Nick doesn't have being a "historian per se" as a requirement for guests, Catherine Nixey isn't one and was still invited.
Re some of the comments about this video in comparison to Cathrine Nixey's episode on this channel: I really like Spencer McDaneil's work, I've read several articles on his blog, and I feel I'm always referring people to his blog on the awful 300 movie. I also appreciated Nixey's episode on this channel. I think these two episodes are both informative on their subject. I don't think they should directly compared. I don't think Cathrine Nixey's argument in the episode was that Christianity destroyed Classical World or even Rome, but that Christianity attacked 'paganism'. Her argument was that the pagan and Christian practice and concepts of the universe were incompatible. And although, Christians show continued interest in literature prior to their establishment, that doesn't mean that demonstrated the same kind of appreciation or even applied with the same meaning. One of the things religion is able to do is change the meaning of words, images, and symbolism due to the fundamental exchange of values that lie at the foundation of their world views. It's useful to retain ancient sources so as to change their impression of them. Although Homer was still read in the Byzantine era, the way it was read had greatly changed, what was valued and extracted from it when reading was different from the pre-Christian pagan mind. The continuation of veneration is rather a way of adjusting or even converting to a new religion. You take something that's familiar and give it a new meaning. This is something Christianity does very very well. Famously the Mary icongraphy borrows from Isis iconography. The Byzantine image of Jesus like a Zeus. The use of familiarity helps to promote their own. In a more obvious instance, of Judaism, Augustine of Hippo was opposed to forced conversion of Jews partly because he felt the ancestry of Judaism helped to promote the legitimacy of Christianity by showing how the Old Testament is prophetic of what is in the New Testament. Nixey also said that Christians were still reading the pagan texts such as grammarians but writing criticisms about them and advising others shouldn't read them. McDaneil said in this episode about Christians thought it was okay to read Greek and Roman literature so long as it didn't get in the way of reading their Christian scripture. That doesn't imply that the pagan culture was tolerated or sustained a thriving practice. For instance, the Italian Renaissance was enamoured with classical antiquity and tried to unite it into Christian history but more than 80%+ of Renaissance art was Christian art, and it was more a Socratic Renaissance. I thought it was very interesting that statues of Greco-Roman deities remained on display in puilc in the heart of Constantinople. The presence of statues and the reading of Greek and Roman literature and the philosophy is not the same thing as the religion. Although a lot of literary sources were quotes, Nixey did mention that ancient pagan religion was a religion you practice, it wasn't something you read or was in your thoughts or beliefs even, it was something you did. And did outside the temple in public. Nixey didn't make the point that "Christians were totally [disinterested] in reading ancient Greek and Roman literature." Nixey also didn't say that ALL the temples were destroyed, but that some, and that only some was important. Nixey called it a kind of terrorism (which sounds strong but if another religion came to the United States and destroyed a church I don't think it would). Turning a pagan temple into a church is still getting rid of it. We even today complain about turning old local institutions into an apartment block, and we don't think of it as an act of conservation. The debate over Haghia Sophia being turned into a mosque again for instance. The entire meaning of the building changes and it's symbolic relationship with both the public community and universe. A pagan temple you worship outside, a Christian inside. A pagan is obliged to perform sacrifices, a Christian in some cases merely belonging to a church. We also have to simply recognise that paganism is called so because the country folk stll retained their old traditions, and eventually it wasn't practised. This is evidence of its wiltering and out-dated existence, a kind of backwards living. That people continued to read works from pre-Christian antiquity is not the same thing as the survival of its culture. I agree that the diversity of early Christian thought is undermiend (although Nixey does highlight the persecution of Christians by Christians). But we shouldn't generalise and call Socrates and Plato "Greek philosophy" because the undermines the diversity of thought that is represented by Greek philosophy. Perhaps we mean moral philosophy more specifically, and those philosophers were not so much representative as challenging to Greek civilization, often what philosophers aspire to. We can't directly apply Christian thought onto the Greek philosophy retrogressively. It's accepted that Plato was a proto-Christian, but we can't retrogressively apply the Christianity onto Platonic thought. Rather the transcendental aspects of Platonic, Pythagorean, suited Christianity’s metaphysical view. Aesop's fables were influential to the development of the Christian parable, they are speaking truth to power and favourable of the little one. Lucretius which doesn't seem to fit with Christian thought actually is more ready for Christian thought than pagan religion. It was loved by a young Leonardo da Vinci, but since Lucretius is a valuable source of Epicurianism, it's embraceable by a Christian mind without going out of bounds. We still have Christian sources but we're not more pagan because just being interested in the literature isn't paganism. Regarding the library of Alexandria, well I suppose it's okay if the Christian arsonists intended to burn down a different building... I don't think these two episodes should be so directly compared they both made really important points but ecause they're informing us of two differnt things not challenging each other's propositions.
The Serapeum at that time was literally housing a pagan terrorist gang that was kidnapping and torturing Christians, which is why it was destroyed. Maybe you should read more about the events.
8:15 Arguing that Xnity could not destroy the ancient world because it was part of that world is like arguing that an American political party cannot destroy American democracy because it is part of that democracy. Lame argument. Bad premise, bad conclusion, and NO connection between them.
I aggree with the premise part but would claim, that the point Spencer made was, when we consider the outcome, that christianity, christianisation and late antique politics in the long run didn't aim to destroy the ancient world, but very much built on ancient antiquity's ideas and culture and continued so through all the middle ages from the first christian apologetics over the 'Carolingean Renaissance' to the "actual" Renaissance. They overprinted and discarded many traditions on one side while they embraced and appropriated at least as much on the other (look for instance at the architecture of the early middle ages i.e Carolinean and so on). But you wil find plenty examples for both cases. I don't think, the discourse ends with this presentation but Spencer generously gave us a counterbalance to the narrative of the "Dark Ages" - something worthwhile to contemplate about. Also your example is faulty, sorry, no offense! One American political party slowly undermines the democratic system and makes a carricature out of it while it very much leaves the democratic institutions, as hollowed out they may end up, in tact, just to put their pathetic excuse of a corrupt state in line with a glorious and "golden" past. No big bangs and flashes (disregarding the despicable incident in January), only history as it enrolls as a slow decline into dictatorship... ;) Or just like the christians did it with the roman institutions (i.e. Pontificat) or Mary and the Saints: replacing all the local deitys, sometimes to the point of a mockery of the old pantheon and building churches and crosses in or on every temple and pagan holy site. If you want a conclusion for this topic I think half an hour is by no means enough. Rather prepare for a days long lecture. Nevertheless, thank you for your patience. Have a good day!
Seems to me that Spencer's first point about how Christianity is part of classical civilization, rather than something antithetical and different, is partly really just an argument over a definition. She is admittedly very learned, but I mostly disagree with her interpretation on this.
The ancient Hebrews and Early Christians went to great lengths to differentiate themselves from the pagan Greek/Hellenistic culture around them. Especially in their sexual practices. And their religious ones. So to frame them as merely a continuation of classical culture is naive. The switch from a robust polytheism and a culture focused on fertility and sex to an ascetic monotheism that hoped for the imminent destruction of this world constitutes a major departure from classical antiquity. Of course Christianity mined and exploited aspects of pagan culture that it found compatible. But it brutally suppressed those it found inimical.
@Joseph Percy There was no robust pagan monotheism . What you allude to characterized a tiny fraction of the population. T he tendency to exaggerate it is an artifact of the overepresentation of philosophers in the extant literature. The same faulty perspective that leads some to fatuously claim the Greeks didn't really believe in their gods
@Joseph Percy lol. Tiny fraction and robust are contradictory. From a population perspective it was very weak. The pagan emperor's continued to practice the state polytheistic rituals regardless of what esoteric philosopher they might have heard of.
@Joseph Percy lol. Pagan monotheism had no discernable effect on pagan religious practices. You're living in a fantasy world . Come up with specif examples of significant actions taken as a direct result of this robust pagan monotheism you fantasize about. Actions that affected the religious practices of the masses. I'll wait. While I laugh at you. ence
@Joseph Percy lol. Julian restored the ancient polytheistic practices at the expense of Christian monotheistic ones. Not much robust pagan monotheism going on there. So you continue to elicit risus. Christianity became a robust religion. Pagan monotheism not so much.
Nice, It s not black or white, Christianity had from the begining some classical infuencies, in the process christians addopted or retained many graeco-roman traditions - inevitably,, but bottom line they hated the old Graeco-Roman world (not as much as they hated fellow heretics, but ok) , and to some good extrend they demolished it, the old Graeco-Roman word. So i give my 7 votes to Catherine Nixey and 3 votes to Spencer McDaniel.
@@publiusovidius7386 Sorry, I could be wrong, but I don't see here pro-christian-revisionism at play, only the guest-lecturer giving us some counterbalancing arguments in an ongoing academic debate. It more seems to me, that you have an axe to grind with modern Christianity and quite like the topic to politicise. I'm an Atheist myself by birth and upbringing (former GDR), and I very much condemn what many church organisations did or still do or didn't prevent or covered up, but I look for incidents we can hold them accountable for today. I look into contemporary history and the news and I find enough. But I don't condemn christian belief or people longing for spiritual aid. Don't be such a dogmatic Anti-Theist and focus on the real problems and crimes! Otherwise you end up sounding like the spanish inquisition.
The naivety on this woman to believe that the majority of pagan literature, culture, and religion wasn't lost due to oppression and censorship, is truly quite hilarious.
I think what gets mixed up in Spencers critique is for one motives and the spiritual paradigm shift that was happening. Why would romans replace their own gods and traditions with an Eastern hebrew foundation? Why is the new testament so different than the torrah or old testament? In my opinion the jews that wrote the new testament were purposely targeting romans with this new religion evidenced by the writing style. Plus you can see alot of qualities in the Jesus story that the hellenized world was familiar with. Jesus is very similar to Romulus mithra everyone knows the list. The spiritual aspects he misses is the most important tho. You had a complete shift from the way people viewed the world. Instead of valuing strength and nature the focus shifted to miracles and overcoming nature to have the weak rule over the strong. You either see the patterns or you dont really. Sure you can find so many classic works slowly intergrate into christianity but theres a bigger picture Spencer is missing.
East Roman Empire have existed still one thousand years of years after the christian religion apeared in the Roman Empire. West Roman Empire has fallen, because as it had grown , got matured, expanded - it also got older and died by the natural reasons: the ownership relations have changed, the roman society, who supplied the legions with the soldiers-lost their earth and vanished, national unity vanished, religious unity vanished after the North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Greece with the Balkans, the Gaul and Britannia have been conquerred- each country with their own religion. So to Rome come all this religions, the syncretic cults ( Serapis for example) came there also, in Rome Isis was worshiped, Mitra ( imported by the legions from Asia), manicheans, zoroastrians, Jews came also - and christianity was developed slowly. During reign of Marcus Aurelius, during the wars with Marcomanni/Quadi there was described the situation, that roman army was forced by Germans to the unfavorable place without water, and legions were thirsty , tired and close to be defeated. Than the armenian legion knelt down and they started praying for the rain. Dio Cassius is telling, that the rain than came, the people saturated their thirst and have routed the Germans. From this time army was not prosecuted the christians, because they all have seen the facts and the popularity of christianity was growing. In lack of the soldiers the army hired the peoples from abroad also Germans ( like Arminius was), Batavians( Constancius Civilis was the officer in Roman's legion) in structure of the state appeared the persons not being of roman origin, the internal conflicts between the pretenders to the throne destroyed the legions . Army have lost the ability to defend all length of Roman Empire and finally the primitive tribes prevailed on the West . No political structure is able to be master of the world forever. World is constanty changing. And christian religion gave the peoples more humanistic relations , common rules for minimalize the conflicts, strengthen national unity and the hierarchy of values which is important also today. Wherever the peoples are implementing their " modern" ideas- it results in worsening the quality of life. And this process we can observe today. Stary
Turks: We won them,we destroyed them,yes,we have defeat all the greeks on 1453! yeeeeah! Greeks: You destroyed the greeks on 1453? Turks:Yes,we destroyed you,we won you!Yeeeeaahh! Greeks: You know what happened on Hippodrome when the Vizantine Emperor gave the command on Vizantine Army to make the massacre? Turks:Massacre on Hippodrome?What is Hippodrome?What massacre? Greeks:You told you won greeks on 1453 and you defeated them,right? Turks: Yes,but what is Hippodrome,what massacre the king Theodosios gave command to be? Greeks: You talk about your victory on 1453 but you don't know what happened on the past.. Turks:So,what happened on the past? Greeks: On Hippodrome,6000 greeks,women and children found death from the Vizantine army. Turks:Vizantines were massacring the greeks?Are you kidding me?Vizantines are greeks. Greeks: Are you sure? Turks:😮😮 what you mean? Greeks: Istanbul was greek? Turks: Was greek yes. Greeks: And why on Istanbul there is not nobody ancient greek statue or ancient temple there? Turks: There is not? Greeks: You live there 570 years,you must know this that there is not nobody greek ancient temple. Turks: 😮😮 ooh,yes,there is not nothing.Why? Greeks: Maybe Vizantines were not greeks? Turks: Vizantines were not greeks?To my turk books on our history we celebrate 1453 we won the greeks. Greeks: and i ask you a question again..on Istanbul,you have see something Ancient greek from the ancient greek culture? Turks:No,i have not see. Greeks: So,you see my friend?Vizantines were not greeks. And now i want ask a big question my friend Turk..On 1453,what ethnicity was your enemy Vizantine? Turks: 😮😮😮 I Don't know. Greeks: You don't know what enemy you were fighting? Turks: I dont know what i must answer now..i don't know what ememies my ancestors what were fighting😢😢.
The fact that the literature is fueled with hatred for idoltry and deeming it as devil worship and what not is enough to know what really could have happened. It wasn’t any different than what islam did. This debate is pointless
This was something that happened for more than a millenia, well into the Early half of the 20tg century. The latin church was still issuing edicts in southern Europe against books or doctrines it considered heretical teachings. It snuffed out the Renaissance from southern Europe from the 18th to 19th centuries. The Catholic church has been instrumental in destroying classical civilization outside it's monasteries. We have to accept what they did as fact
23:00 awww it's cute how God was this much jealous of Zeus. He probably was jealous of his popularity among the ladies (if u know what I mean); God couldn't get more than one afterall.. and he was still too shy to get laid.
Help people separate from political central government and empire to live directly under God, found sufficient to live for God instead of human leadership of political central government and empire.
Mr. Spencer you have a lot more to read about this part of History. Try read Livanius the Antiochian and the anti-pagan laws from Theodosius and Justinian. Also read the Christianity's Criminal History by Karlheinz Deschner. Then you will demand this video to be deleted if you are a serious historian and not a christian supporter.
He talks about those anti-pagan laws in his article about this topic: talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/04/11/what-was-the-conversion-of-the-roman-empire-to-christianity-really-like/
Henri Mourant debunked your points on the anti-pagan laws, I'll deal with the rest - "Christianity's Criminal History" is pure factual propaganda, nothing more, and so a red herring. By the way, Spencer isn't a Christian. He just isn't brainwashed as you are.
@@everyzan-m2q I suggest to go hide in a monastery and start praying for your sins. You have no power to deny historical truths unless you are brainwashed :)
@@Nemesios777 You've got no history behind the gibberish you're spewing dude. Name me the last academic monograph you've read about Christianity in late antiquity, please. Or just admit it how it is - if you're reading something like "Christianity Criminal History", you couldn't recognize a "historical truth" if it slapped you in the face. You might as well begin reading Harry Potter for your history.
Just popped into answer the title. No! The classic world absorbed Christianity when the rulers of the time realized the immense power it had as a propoganda and control tool. Cheers.
OMG! Spencer is adorable! No offence Spencer, I also appreciate your intelligence .My right arm tattoo is about Medusa taking revenge on Athena. Anyway. all the best.
You shouldn't have had Nixey on in the first place more people will see her before this video. You have contributed to continuing a long debunked myth. Well at least you made up for it by having Ms McDaniel on.
Spoken like a true taliban. Not giving a platform to someone you don't like because acording to you the "myth is debunked"....LOL. Tell that to archimedes palimpsest. McDaniel is a man btw. You are not that sharp
@@thelastmanleftbehind1142 I agree. IMHO It's mainly how science and art (and inventing) were thought of as demonic and the church would not allow any deviations. Cruel.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 86 | คู่เอก "คมเพชร vs ชาติพยัคฆ์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/m3q_dRYDuU8/mqdefault.jpg)
ATTENTION VIEWERS!! Our guest Spencer McDaniel noted two errors and rightfully insisted that we note these errors. Spencer in the video stated "You're never going to encounter Galenos of Pergamon in a classics course," but that's definitely not true. What Spencer had meant to say is that a student is unlikely to read Galenos's work in a classics course. Near the very end, Spencer says that Diocletian sacked Alexandria in 291 CE, but he actually did it in 297 CE. Also Hypatia wasn't mentioned because Spencer intends to make an entire episode dedicated to her and the subject in the upcoming future and I agree that it is an intense and fascinating subject that deserves its own focus. As someone who interviews people from around the world and interacts heavily with the history community I can't help but respect the actions of Spencer McDaniel in ensuring that the errors were noted and corrected for you all here today. I think that speaks bounds towards Spencer's character and desire as a historian to set the record straight and I personally know some doctorate professors who wouldn't be so bold or as humble to admit and correct those mistakes. Truly admirable and I can't wait to have Spencer on again!
An episode about Hypatia sounds exciting
Yeah I've followed his blog for a while now. He's great.
Spencer is not only fascinating and knowledgeable, they are admirably committed to truth.
Truth...stop destroying your own culture.
The PRIME knowledge of the ancient world was STOLEN:
Abdullah Al Mamun, chops into the side of the great pyramid RIGHT UNDER THE DOOR...and at an angle that would allow something very large and very heavy to be taken out of the upper chambers.
The library of Alexandria was destroyed by Caliph Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭab.
Again, the prime knowledge of the ancient world is stolen by ass backwards islam.
...don't hate western culture founded on Christianity. Pagan life really sucked.
You would still be knapping arrowheads and selling your daughters and sacrificing to state gods if paganism remained.
Time to grow up America.
You shouldn't have had Nixey on in the first place more people will see her before this video. You have contributed to continuing a long debunked myth. Well at leat you made up for it by having Ms McDaniel on.
The Eastern Roman empire is the type which the more you learn about it the more you love it.
*Gasp* The Christian Roman empire actually being the reason why the classical works of antiquity survived? Oh no, how ever will my stupid atheist brain handle it!
@@dewd9327 I'm atheist and I can handle it just fine :) don"t know what ur talking about.
@@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081 yeah because you probably weren’t raised to antagonise entire groups of people based on the actions of a few but most people are not like that
@@dewd9327 Well I WAS raised to antagonise atheists.. but anyway, I think we better chill.
How wonderful that cuckstians in the byzantine preserved less than 1% of the ancient works. Go pray to your rabbi
I watched the entire video and even took notes for my reply to Spencer McDaniel arguments. I've any PhD in history, I'm a humble philosophy student and I will answer just with my reasoning which is not inferior, for an eventual lack of knowledge.
1. As I read and appreciated the book of Catherine Niche, I'd like to underline that its purpose is not to put middle age era in darkness, but to put the Roman culture and society, completely disappeared before and as middle age progressed, into light. And I'm not talking about a bunch of books who Christians theologians or monks preserved, I'm talking about society and culture, which comprehends arts, texts, knowledge, behavior, morals, ethics, philosophy, religion, etc. The book gives Christianity a big part of responsibility for said disappearance. I think we can appreciate, as I do, middle age still, and seeing it as this (sorry if I call it this way) post-apocalyptic period, were this fundamental religion, Christianity, ruled.
2. Coming to doc McDaniel. I didn't find his argument really argument, sorry, they didn't proofed nothing apart maybe the Alexandria library destruction. His attempt to put Chirstians on a better, softer, gentler light has fallacy. One is the fact that in the whole video very few dates are mentioned. There's much difference from Christians of the I, II century to Constantine and after Constantine times. So when stating that Christians liked and preserved greek philosophers, for exemple, it's important to be specific about when.
3. First McDaniel argument: Christianity is part of classical culture, is a product of that, it's part of that. That is very simplistic by an historian to say, that because Jesus was born in a Roman province (I mean???) Yeshua was a Jew, Judaism had nothing to share with Roman classic culture, and it was not, not in a single moment, influenced by it. One huge point of diversity is that Jews worshipped one god only, the only god to exist, which is Yweh. But Judaism monotheism has again nothing to do with ancient greek philosopher's research for the origin, and their ideas of some metaphysical essence, being water or fire, being one or none. Judaism became monotheistic after the invasion of Persians, and during that time it absorbed the Zoroastrianism, not the Greeks. There is a strong evidence for a connection of Christianity to some of the mistery cults which were strongly popular 300 years before Christ, and I mean cults of Osiris, Eleusi, Orpheus... all these cults had in common the resurrection. Said cults spread in the Mediterranean during and after Alexander the Great.
Then, for Greek literature being present in the gospels, I won't personally go too far with my enthusiasm. I mean considering how much the gospels were edited and rewritten.
4. The key concept of the logos in Christianity derives from Plato and its philosophy. But when this was incorporated? Don't make it look like Christ knew Plato. In some moment of the history, and you have to say when, Christians erudites found in Plato a philosopher that matched the cause. Ancient philosophy was taken by Christians and modelled on the faith of one God. But there is no one God mentioned in one single opus of these philosophers, research and love for σοφία was all. And I'd like to quote Aristotle "(on the question of the ύβρις) if there's a god who doesn't like us questioning and researching about the knowledge of all that is we philosphers would have by time extincted due to the much lightings got on our head." α book of metaphisisc.
5. The "general consensus" about classical culture doesn't cancel any facts, regarding intolerance, violence, vandalism and any kind of actions and behaviours Christians engaged.
6. "The reason why so many books have been lost is because of gradual loss over time". Doc. McDaniels states that Christians did in fact try to eliminate books, and mentions that they weren't proficient in this, some pagans books have being transcribed. But is this relevant? Because we find a "single page" can we state that the book burning was not proficient? And this is not really an argument. It is like to say that if someone put explosive inside a building but fails in blowing it completely off because a wall is saved, then it is not ok to accuse them for taking the building down.
7. The whole thing with Plato's book is like Christmas. Yes, Christmas. The festive pagan day who was put the name of Christ and became the birth date of Jesus. Plato's books, and many other philosophers texts, did appeal to Christians. A form of cultural sincretism took place during the first 5 hundred years of Christianity. When it finally became the official religion, a part of the classical culture was absorbed and morphed into it. So, yes, we can agree that this doesn't mean "destruction"... as much as we agree that confining native Americans, preserving their culture, making them icons etc. doesn't cancel their horrendous persecution.
8. Doc says "it is not completely true that the Roman and Greek statues were destroyed infact EMPEROR CONSTANTINE kept a collection of them, and the Romans used to destroy them themselves", this made me chuckle a bit. Constantine was an empeor, his love for statues is not really relevant. As an emperor he could do pretty much what he wanted. Iconoclasty had a base on hatred and fear which was common among the communities of Christians before constantine. The gods represented by the statues were demons, they are actually demons even today. Pan is the fallen angel Satan. But this is longly explained in Niche's book. "Roman took off their effiges", but what is the point?? None. They weren't the Romans to cut off genitals and nipples from the statues. And who was the genius decapitating Nike of Samothrax statue? Let's not forget that the Church covered all the exposed genitals on Michelangelo's sistine with a ficus leaf.
9. Converting a temple in a church IS ABSOLUTELY DISRESPECTFUL. Doesn't mean preserving the place, their history, their meaning and their tradition as a form of cultural sincretism. No matter if the temple was about Athena mother of Athens, then it becomes about Mary mother of Jesus what happened then it is again like Christmas. To convert more and more people and establish its superiority the church took pagans traditions and morphed into its own, as long as it did with temples. But saying this is not "destruction" of said traditions is cruel.
YES. Fortunately paganism wasn't cancelled by centuries of persecution. Can we make it this way? Can we agree on it? The thing it is not due to Christianity being "general consensus"... still chuckling about it. Being condescending, or paying homage or respect to Plato. Where is this culture now? Why should we think it was just weak and got easily incorporated by the One and Only Business? Why shouldn't we look at how much the tradition was strong that even with centuries of sunday masses about going to hell, the poor people on the mountains, the farmers, have preserved pagan rites? As you said, Demetra. What is the feeling you, any of you, have when thinking about how the crosses religion did spread, first with mind manipulation, the promise of an afterlife, judgment, fear of the goats, then with swords and gun?
1) its not then why does she say things like This law’s
consequences were described more simply by later historians. It was from this moment, they said, that a Dark Age began to descend upon Europe." no iam sorry she clearly portrays late antiquty as the dark ages which is bs
" which comprehends arts, texts, knowledge, behavior, morals, ethics, philosophy, religion, etc. The book gives Christianity a big part of responsibility for said disappearance. I think we can appreciate, as I do, middle age still, and seeing it as this (sorry if I call it this way) post-apocalyptic period, were this fundamental religion, Christianity, ruled. "
and that is the problem she puts wya to much emphasis on cristianity rather than the political and economical reality of late antiquty this is why aside from an overexageration of the closing of the school of athens (more to it later) and a quote of arab chornicler out of its historical conext she ignores the byzantines because the byzantine empire debunks this notion , the truth was a lot of science and center of learning had been in decline long before Constantine due to the crisis of the third century and she blames chirstianity for said disapearence when the fact that the empire who payed for center of learnings and funded copies just vanished .
Because as mentioned the byzantines kept many old greco roman costums , philoshopies and science but if chirstianity is to blame should the east been more similar to the west? hence as mentioned she puts way to much emphasis on religion and not the reality of the times.
2) Coming to doc McDaniel. I didn't find his argument really argument, sorry, they didn't proofed nothing apart maybe the Alexandria library destruction. His attempt to put Chirstians on a better, softer, gentler light has fallacy. One is the fact that in the whole video very few dates are mentioned. There's much difference from Christians of the I, II century to Constantine and after Constantine times. So when stating that Christians liked and preserved greek philosophers, for exemple, it's important to be specific about when."
i guess i will the burning of the library was not and i repeat was not the the sudding burning but a slow decline ,
even by the time of the late ptolomies we find administrators, court favourites and even a former commander of the palace guard taking up the r Lionel Casson puts it, “a political plum” to be awarded to flunkies rather than scholars. the library was sacked many times the first and probably biggest was cesar in 47 bc cesars onw words says that they burned the docks and nothing more (Civil Wars, III.11). and goes out of his way to says alexandria was fire proof (Alexandrine War, I.1) which are most likely defence against accusations given of damage as florus citing livy mentions how cesar burning the docks to deprive their archers spread to the libary
(Florus, II.13) and Plutarch who says it was destroyed In this war, to begin with, Caesar encountered the peril of being shut off from water, since the canals were dammed up by the enemy; in the second place, when the enemy tried to cut off his fleet, he was forced to repel the danger by using fire, and this spread from the dockyards and destroyed the Great Library, and thirdly, when a battle arose at Pharos, he sprang from the mole into a small boat and tried to go to the aid of his men in their struggle, but the Egyptians sailed up against him from every side, so that he threw himself into the sea and with great difficulty escaped by swimming. (Plutarch, Caesar, 49)
Aulus Gellius’ mention of the Great Library says that the collection numbered “nearly seven hundred thousand volumes” and then adds “but these were all burned during the sack of the city in our first war with Alexandria”(Gellius, Attic Nights, VII.17). Cassius dio gives a bigger account.
so later Claudius built a new wing or annex to the Mouseion, which was to house his works of history and see the public reading of them twice a year. but the third century would see calmity return In 215 Caracalla for mockery decided to punish the alexandrias comming a massacre we dont know if it sacked or burned but John Malas does mention how carracalla stopped its funding , also Aurelian circa 272 when he defeated the palymrine empire entered alexandria Ammianus, History, XII.15 says [Alexandria’s] walls were destroyed and she lost the greater part of the district called Bruchion.” as this video mentioned Diocletan also sacked the city in the late third century and then an eartquake came in 365
so in reality the chirstians did not destroy the great libary of alexandria they destroyed a smaller daughter library in the Serapeum.
2.1) i fully agree liking for classical time varried but in general they always liked it especially after Constantine the darkening age only goes as so far to the early byzantine era and yes its correct that persecution again pagans did happen but the whole nosense of dark ages is wrong and that chirstians hated all things pagan the author in the book cites saint agustine as ‘That all superstition of pagans and heathens should be annihilated is what God wants, God commands, God proclaims!’
the same saint agustine who said
If those who are called philosophers, especially the Platonists, have said things which are indeed true and are well accommodated to our faith, they should not be feared; rather, what they have said should be taken from them as from unjust possessors and converted to our use. Just as the Egyptians had not only idols and grave burdens which the people of Israel detested and avoided, so also they had vases and ornaments of gold and silver and clothing which the Israelites took with them secretly when they fled, as if to put them to a better use Augustine, On Christian Teaching 2:40:60
she even admitts this “And so, in part from self-interest, in part from actual interest, Christianity started to absorb the literature of the ‘heathens’ into itself. Cicero soon sat alongside the psalters after all. Many of those who felt most awkward about their classical learning made best use of it. …. Everywhere, Christian intellectuals struggled to fuse together the classical and the Christian. Bishop Ambrose dressed Cicero’s Stoic principles in Christian clothes; while Augustine adapted Roman oratory for Christian ends. The philosophical terms of the Greeks - the ‘logos’ of the Stoics - started to make their way into Christian philosophy.” (pp. 150)
this a distortion the truth was that by this point in the 4th century chirstians had not problem with it Edward J Watts’ excellent book The Final Pagan Generation goes in to detial about how there times were pagans and chirstian intellectual had no problem with each other Nixel also makes the accertation that neo platonisim was hard for to intigrate when actually it became the norm for much of the middle ages “[Augustine] might easily have decided that all pagan Platonism was itself inextricably tied to polytheism, but he seems, rather, to have concluded that there was strictly monotheistic, proto-Christian gold to be found in the pagan writings, hidden but not essentially corrupted.” (Pagans and Philosophers: The Problem of Paganism from Augustine to Leibniz, Princeton, 2015, p. 27).
this is why the author states that only some ideas survived ie the ones chirstianity liked to quote [a]ny theories that stated the world was eternal - for that contradicted the idea of Creation - were …. also suppressed” this is contradicted by aristotle been the go to guy for physics and he work taught that the universe was eternal.
to answer the idea the chirstian did preserve and liked classics especially the byzantine empire who used them for their education the book Byzantine Readings of Ancient Historians by anthony kaledllis so in the medieval period both the west and the bzyantines liked it with some cases of localized sporadical bannings like the condomations of 1277
3) "Jew, Judaism had nothing to share with Roman classic culture, and it was not, not in a single moment, influenced by it."
you mean roman classical culture was not affected by judaisim? or viceversa because greek philoshply by the time of jesus had influnced the jews the most famous example been philo and his works
"One huge point of diversity is that Jews worshipped one god only, the only god to exist, which is Yweh. But Judaism monotheism has again nothing to do with ancient greek philosopher's research for the origin, and their ideas of some metaphysical essence, being water or fire, being one or none. Judaism became monotheistic after the invasion of Persians, and during that time it absorbed the Zoroastrianism"
aside from some similarities no shcolar that i know of said judaisim absored zorastranims , also as mentioend yes they were influenced again Philo is a great example of a man using jewish theology combined with platonic ideals ,
" There is a strong evidence for a connection of Christianity to some of the mistery cults which were strongly popular 300 years before Christ, and I mean cults of Osiris, Eleusi, Orpheus... all these cults had in common the resurrection. Said cults spread in the Mediterranean during and after Alexander the Great."
Except there is not no shcolar said ( if you are making this argument) tha chirstianity took or was heavily influenced by paganisim the supposed connections like december 25 , virgin births , 12 followers etc are modern fabrications also none of the examples you citied have common resurection
Osiris was murdered and his body dismembered and scattered. The pieces of his body were recovered and rejoined, and the God was rejuvenated. However, he did not return to his former mode of existence but rather journeyed to the underworld, where he became the powerful lord of the dead.
[Jonathan Z. Smith, "Dying and Rising Gods," in Encyclopedia of Religion, 1987, Volume 4, page 524] ie dying been put back and still been dead and governing the underworld
"Then, for Greek literature being present in the gospels, I won't personally go too far with my enthusiasm. I mean considering how much the gospels were edited and rewritten. "
true but the earlist mansucripts still show greek ideals jesus been the logos is a similar view that philo had but used by the author of g jonh
4 The key concept of the logos in Christianity derives from Plato and its philosophy. But when this was incorporated? Don't make it look like Christ knew Plato. In some moment of the history, and you have to say when, Christians erudites found in Plato a philosopher that matched the cause. Ancient philosophy was taken by Christians and modelled on the faith of one God. But there is no one God mentioned in one single opus of these philosophers, research and love for σοφία was all. And I'd like to quote Aristotle "(on the question of the ύβρις) if there's a god who doesn't like us questioning and researching about the knowledge of all that is we philosphers would have by time extincted due to the much lightings got on our head." α book of metaphisisc."
when g Jonh was written circa 90 ad and again it was because like Philo they incporotated platonic works in to their own viewpoint
5) " The "general consensus" about classical culture doesn't cancel any facts, regarding intolerance, violence, vandalism and any kind of actions and behaviours Christians engaged. " it doesnt and you rigth but it does cancell out the author notion of the scale been so large that it caused a dark ages in knowlege in the medieval world or gibbon esque arguments that chirstianity caused the fall of rome.
6) "The reason why so many books have been lost is because of gradual loss over time". Doc. McDaniels states that Christians did in fact try to eliminate books, and mentions that they weren't proficient in this, some pagans books have being transcribed. But is this relevant? Because we find a "single page" can we state that the book burning was not proficient? And this is not really an argument. It is like to say that if someone put explosive inside a building but fails in blowing it completely off because a wall is saved, then it is not ok to accuse them for taking the building down."
historyforatheists.com/2020/03/the-great-myths-8-the-loss-of-ancient-learning/ does a better job at this but to add rarly these events were backed up by the states or hard edicts rather a group of fanatics acting out in fact what matter more was more of a deciding factor tim does quote this ]here can be little doubt that one of the major reasons for the loss of classical texts is that most Christians were not interested in reading them, and hence not enough new copies of the texts were made to ensure their survival in an age of war and destruction .but this had always been the case. The lyric poet Sappho was highly praised by the Greeks and often referred to simply as “the Poetess” or even “the Tenth Muse”. But she was also depicted as both licentious and bisexual not long after her death and while many Roman poets imitated her style (e.g. Ovid) other Romans disapproved of her supposed “immorality” and especially her homoeroticism - Horace dismissed her as “mascula Sappho”. Prim Roman disapproval aside, she became a poet who was more praised than read, largely because she wrote in the Aeolic dialect of her native Lesbos, which Attic Greeks regarded as “barbaric”. By Roman times Attic literature was the norm and Aeolic poetry was less read and so less copied.
Like many of her contemporaries, Sappho probably just fell victim to a general narrowing of interest in the literature of the past, which resulted eventually in a drastic reduction in the number of texts in circulation.
(Margaret Williamson, Sappho’s Immortal Daughters, Harvard, 1995, 41-2.)
Late Roman Christian and Byzantine scholars inherited both the Roman view of Sappho as licentious and their preference for Attic literature, so this combination meant more of the earlier praise of Sappho survives than her actual poetry.
There were also trends and preferences in pre-Christian philosophy that affected the transmission of certain texts, so again this not a chirstian issue its an issue on what sources were copied and why.
paganism lost, Christianity won, keep coping
"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a freshwater system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"
Cement philosophy
Art,trade,language...a subject all by itself...Mother of a thousand phds
Good one! 🤣
@@26beegeeThank the Monty Python team.
There are 3000 religions and gods in the world... The difference between me and you is I don't believe in 3000 of them, you dont believe in 2999 of them.
Ricky Gervais to a Catholic.
Typical HYPOCRITE answer who is aware of his LIE !!!
Yeah, there’s a pretty big difference between the claims made and the evidence to back it up.
yeah but did atheists build civilizations? culture?
@@anthonypalo8191 yes.
I imagine some zealots had a hand too...
A bit uncouth. No real relevance to the topic of the video.
I'm a history student hoping to specialise in Late Antiquity in the western Mediterranean. This interview is fantastic. I've long tried to explain to a number of people that no, Christianity didn't suddenly appear and destroy the roman empire, and no, the 5th century in western Europe wasn't all a "dark age" of destruction, but rather a period of flux and change, some of it bad but also some of it good. And that the empire didn't disappear--the center of power simply shifted to the East. Late Antiquity and the early middle ages get a v bad rap, but its one of the most fascinating periods of western history, and well worth studying.
It’s sad how miss understood this period is
Right just like I try to explain no the crusades didn’t come from “defending” yes they burned all books and humans that didn’t convert or agree and yes they destroyed ancient art work that pointed against their religion but to say it’s single handedly their fault is a stretch but did they play a major role absolutely
Didn't the organised, political christianity under the Christian Emperors enact laws to forbid pagan worship and force conversion upon the populace? Early christianity was diverse. But in the 4th century once it won the power of the state that's when the destruction began. Slowly at first, but greatly accelerated under the edicts of Theodosius.
If you study it without calling it genocide there really is no hope for you
@@DIBBY40 Wtf early christianity was not diverse, you have that completely backwards
Aurelian, Diocletian, Caracalla and Caesar before them.. Alexandria did indeed go through some trauma.
My brother in christ, caesar died in 44 B.C.E 😐
@@dronvirs And? Oh you mean the order of words? It's no big deal.
Great. It was well known that the Byzantine Empire used Homer etc. as part of elite education until the end.
the Byzantine Empire was Rome 2.0 of course they used Homer
@@DSAK55 I know. The point was that classical civilization was not wiped out by the Christian Dark ages and book burning as some historians imply. In their curriculum until the 15th century. My statement was not intended as a great revelation.
@@ericknight5014 We have less than 2% of greek literature ( according to oxford university) left. I wonder who burned the rest ? Could it be the same that wrote hymns over archimedes treatise ( like the palimpsest of archimedes) ? Maybe it is the same that close the academy of plato, the lyceum of aristotle, the olympic games, the eleusinian mysteries, destroyed every temple including the serap and the temple of artemis in ephesus ( wonder of the world ).
@@LalakisThey copied the texts that were valued by them as copying texts is very laborious and expensive. It's a bit silly to think Christians went around the entire Roman empire burning every book they could find.
@@LalakisThey didn't necessarily burn them, they probably just didn't and probably couldn't recopy the majority of Greek texts, most written texts will not survive for very long without human input
Wonderful; on a slightly relevant note I think it's healthy to appreciate the Middle Ages of Europe without always contrasting them with the Roman golden age.
The middle ages built on much of what the classical age created! The architecture improved to build incredibly beautiful spaces(cathedrals for example), the shift to more symbolic art was an attempt to tell more grand stories in one piece (think of the tapestry of the battle of Hastings) medicine continued in the same vein as before, and metallurgy continued to improve. It isn't seamless or organized, but I don't think it was the apocalyptic end of knowledge some portray it as
@@kylewilliams8114 Agreed.
Yes. The middle ages weren't nearly as "dark" and bad as many people think it was. In fact there apparently was more technological development during the middle ages then during the classical age (mainly due to changes in demographics).
"I think the devil doesn't exist, but man has created him, he has created him in his own image and likeness"
- Fydor Dostoevsky
Dostoyevsky didn't say that, one of his characters did. And was proven wrong in the end; it was the whole point of the book.
@@wcgcapone same thing....
@@wcgcapone 🤔🤔🤔 BUT YOU NEVER READ IT, RIGHT !!! 😠😡🤬
@@virgiljjacas1229 Crime and Punishment is one of my favorite novels. I think everyone should read it at least once.
A lovely interview. Very informative and will now set me off for days of new research. Thank you for having Spencer on and thank her for being on.
Thanks for watching!
@@studyofantiquityandthemidd4449 you shouldn't have had Nixey on in the first place more people will see her before this video. You have contributed to continuing a long debunked myth. Well at least you made up for it by having Ms McDaniel on.
I enjoyed the respectful way in which Spencer McDaniel framed her discourse. She IS so very intelligent and well versed in her subject areas! Thank you for having her presenting, and I hope to see her again here.
It's a 'he', btw.
@shockebuffalo6719 Spencer publicly identified as cisgender man when the video was made (and when I made my comment) but came out as transgender woman since then.
1. Was there a bias in the preservation of Christian texts/apologetics, vs non christian? Yes.
2. Was there destruction of pagan temples, sanctioned by the state? Yes.
3. Where pagan practices persecuted? Yes.
Yes, medieval Christians copied works they though of important... So did the Muslims. Of course. They weren't stupid! Who would've?
Did you Liked Christianity?
@@sanjeevdas8369yes we like Christianity ☦️✝️
I would only add to the second one that only a few temples were destroyed on state order. The vast majority were abandoned.
On Muslims, actually the people that copied those works were largely Eastern Christians. There weren't much Muslim copiests and literates in the early days.
I had hoped to hear something about where this Christian destruction of the Library of Alexander story originated ...
It originated with Edward Gibbon's book "The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire".
@@henrimourant9855 He wasn't particularly fond of Christians was he.
@@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081 That is correct.
Gibbon
@@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081 Nope
The Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey is a fabulously detailed book, and highly recommend it!
I don't disagree at all, I enjoyed the book but I will admit there are problems that historians like McDaniel have noted and I really admire and respect the fact that Spencer was courteous and respectful in this rebuttal.
Sigh. Maybe listen to this video again?
It's an intellectually disgusting book, namely because it uses pure propaganda for ideological purposes. Tim O'Neill (an atheist) demonstrated that at immense length in his review.
yes
@@weemama Well this video didn't debunk the book.
"Foreign, inherently different and antagonistic to so called 'Classical Civilisation'." - Pliny, when communicating with Trajan literally was confused and described it as an "excessive and contagious superstition," or something to that effect. 🤔
I don't think the fact of Christianity being syncretistic equates to it being par-for-the-course either; that said, whatever it's character, it was an outgrowth of its time and place.
i miss you Nick, I'm forever thankful for what you did.
I think that judging how many works were destroyed by citing how many works remain colors the rest of this rebuttal. We have no idea what percentage of works have been destroyed.
Take a visit to Greece, see the ruins of the temples, see how many churches are built upon the ruins themselves ( often using the same stones). How the academy of plato and the lyceum were destroyed, how the olympics were banned, how the eleusinian mysteries ( with a history of 2 millenia) got banned, how papyri with greek theorems/poems/plays were overwritten with christian hymns ( e.g archimedes palimsest), how the name "hellene" was villified to mean ethnic thus pagan.
Christian apologists cannot change history. Even people like Spencer who I admire, is too much of a coward to go in a head on collision with christianity and its dark history.
σάς ευχαριστώ! Thank you. I don't have too much admiration for this historian though. Building a church over a temple, or transforming one in a church, is not an act of consideration. But of destruction. His view is probably fueled by Christian propaganda. Especially when he quotes the one persone saying that after the conversion the Parthenon was more visited as a Christian church as it was as a Pagan temple..
Chad Christians ☦️
@@Provocative-K Chad Liberals 🏳️🌈
@@ipercalisse579 I heard that what is said about the Parthenon being more visited while being a church has some ground because Parthenon as a temple was only important for Athenians, not for everyone else like Delos was.
Very interesting! When the main narrative fails to acknowledge so many counterexamples, it makes one question the completeness of that main narrative. Not saying there weren't Christian efforts to eliminate classical paganism, but it was much more complex than popularly described.
We can say that about any historical event whatsoever. We also have to draw a distinction between Christianity as a revolutionary movement against the established religious order early on, and later on when Christian institutions were the system and drew on the classical legacy to emphasize continuity with it and inherit its prestige. Everywhere Christianity advanced over the rubble of the classical world, but then turned around to preserve what was left.
I always found it funny how some people harp on about Christian destruction of the past, and ignore Alexander at Persepolis, or all of Caesar’s campaigns. Or anytime the Romans found something that slightly offended them. It’s almost as if the new order try’s to erase the old order throughout human history.
Christianity wiped out paganism, and burned entire libraries. Not very tolerant, Jesus... They even spent the last 1000 years burning, torturing and killing each other.
@@waterloo32594nonsense, the Romans tried to assimilate cultures... As long as you pledged allegiance you were fine. Christianity destroyed, look at the crusades... When they got bored of that they started burning each other.
I love this kind of argumentation: "Well, indeed it was all destruction and demolition, but, you know, it was not so simple." This is what a person willing to object but unable to refute says ;)
Cos the byzantine empire existed but nobody cares about them
The lack of value of human life is good to destroyed. Leaving babies out to die, only have hospitals for soldiers, slavery, women being oppressed, people being oppressed to not be able to get education. Early Christians saved those abandoned babies, elevated the status of women to be leaders, had bought thousands of people out of slavery to be free, spoke on education for the masses. Tyndale was burned at the stake for translating the Bible into English so people can read it for themselves and not go on what they are told. before dying he asked God to open the eyes of the king of England. Two years later the king had the Tyndale Bible in every church. St. Patrick was enslaved and treated terribly in Ireland, managed to escape and felt bad for his former oppressors. He studied and went back to Ireland as a missionary. If that’s not love what is.
It’s good that the Nonchristian Writings were copied by the Early Christians was mentioned in this interview. I didn’t know all the times they were quoted in the New Testament, except Paul telling the Greeks their unknown God is Jesus. Sadly, that wasn’t always done like how the Mesoamerican texts were mostly destroyed.
I’ve seen that there definitely are cycles in many aspects of history around the world. Also, commonalities between different cultures around the world, even with their religious texts having similar archetypes.
I finished the book Under the Influence How Christianity Transformed Civilization, a few days ago and highly suggest it, to delve deeper into this topic. There are many, many references to delve even deeper into this topic.
There are a few good books by Rodney Stark dealing with this. There are always disappointments in human behavior and conceptions, but we benefit from acquired knowledge and should continue to sift and reconsider what we understand.
@@thumbstruck thanks for the book suggestion!
Someone took an extra large serving of COPIUM today...
@@jacksonfurlong3757 never heard anyone say copium before, but looked it up. You are mistaken, my friend. Read books and watch things you disagree with. I’ve been doing it for years. Don’t just look from one viewpoint but multiple ones on the same issue. It’s enlightening. Take care.
@@MTB214 I have and often do engage in entertaining and exploring opposing thoughts and ideas.
Are you assuming that's not the case with me because I don't agree with you?
"Early Christians saved those abandoned babies, elevated the status of women to be leaders, had bought thousands of people out of slavery to be free, spoke on education for the masses."
The christian bible endorses both slavery and misogyny. Stemming as it does from the Jewish texts that are huge proponents of both. If anything, women were treated much more poorly by Christians than their Pagan counterparts, hell a core piece of christian theology is hat women are not only lesser than men but are consistently depicted as downright wicked.
There is so much condensed codswallop in that statement you made I'm frankly amazed you can fit it into such a small space.
The followers of the one did not indentify themselves as Christians or use the symbol of the cross.their is exotric & esoteric knowledge,'I'myself have been on the path of enlightenment 4over 30 years & like Newton said,if I have seen further than overs,it was because 'I' stood on the shoulders of giants. 'I' love the passion spencer has 4the history of all humanity,it's infectious 🌞
You should work on your literary skills if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
Just because a history is complex doesn’t mean that it’s false. The Christians after they took power persecuted Pagans and destroyed their books. It’s not complicated. In modern times Pope Pius 12 didn’t speak out against the persecution of the Jews. There may be a complicated history there too, but either the Pope did or he didn’t.
In antiquity till the 13th C in most of Europe pagan books were not favored except for a few exceptions like Aristotle or Virgil who were seen as pre Christians. These are the exceptions that prove the rule.
As always, thanks for hosting thoughtful speakers 🌼!!!
Thanks for watching Olina!
This was a good reality check to a certain degree. Thanks. It made me want to hear an episode about Arian Christianity, in the spirit of this episode. It would be interesting to hear how Arianism and the refusal of Gothic refugees into either East/West Empire were related. Such an investigation would be well to address the dogmatic variations that made Catholics so negative against his paradigm.
Keep up on this topic. Read this book and maybe get the author on. Niketas Siniossoglou
Plato and Theodoret: The Christian Appropriation of Platonic Philosophy and the Hellenic Intellectual Resistance
I appreciate you balancing out the issue with this video. The last guest who spoke on this subject was bizarre and ridiculously biased (freakishly so in fact).
I think the argument that if something is a product of classical culture, it cannot be opposed to classical culture is not sound. It is like saying that the reformation wasn't opposed to medieval church practises because it was lead by a catholic monk.
the reformation actually wasn't exactly against the church until it failed to overtake the church and become its own thing. Also, that example u are using are between one institution and several opposing institutions, it is not the entirely cultural going on here, as neither christianity nor classiical culture was completely under one institution.
This is awesome- so much info and I’m only 11mins in!! I can imagine Christians 1000 or so years from today forgetting how the US culture from the first settlements to today has impacted and interwoven tightly with the religion. I listened to the audiobook, Guaranteed Pure about dispensationalism and it gives insight into how that has shaped politics in a way that seems to be the opposite of what Christ taught. For example, atheists/agnostics/liberal Christians are so confused about why conservative fundamentalist Christians feel the need to have the government never offer welfare services. And this is related to not only the rewriting of US history to say the founders were conservative Christians just like they are today, but also goes back to the story of the Roman Empire and how that is interpreted. You can’t acknowledge wanting a theocracy unless you completely ignore the doctrine of church/state separation! If they said it this plainly, everyone would see that’s incorrect.
I demand more Spencer McDaniel !!! I have to laugh when you say “ for those viewers that stay for the whole video…” . Personally ,I can’t tear myself away. ( boiled over another cup of tea) The reference to the New Testament “goads” was a revelation to me. Great vid.👍
Spencer, your awesome ! 🕊🌹🕊
20:48 the naughty Romans* who didn't appreciate the supreme divinity of Caligula and the sublime artistry of Nero.
Do you consider the Medieval period a "dark age" or something else?
I consider the Medieval Period to be four periods to be honest.
(1) The Early Middle Ages.
(2) The High Middle Ages
(3) The Late Middle Ages
And controversially number (4) the Renaissance. I consider it to be the triumph of the European Middle Ages as we enter the next period in history.
It's dark compared to the Hellenistic and Roman golden age that preceded it.
@@lysimachosdiadochos7203 Was it though? From what I understand there was just as much science happening in the middle ages as in the classical age. Also there were actually more technological innovations happening in the middle ages then in classical age (due to demographic/economic reasons).
@@henrimourant9855 Things like science were very much in decline during the early middle ages. Centers of power shifted to the east and the north (frankish Kingdom and later Holy Roman Empire). Much of ancient literature was lost due to war, neglect or during migration. Population density was low and literate people were extremely scarce (mostly only monks and clerics) so the record keeping was sparse and conservation/copy of old texts was difficult.
That's why it's called 'Dark Ages', because we have so little written sources to light the scene up, not because the times were particularly dark for it's contemporarys.
But every bit of antique scripture, even the 'heretic' was kept, fostered and apreciated by laborious monks in their monastrys scattered and separated all over Europe. When they later got hold of "new" antique texts through transfer from the Byzantine and Arabic sphere, they collected every snippet, copied and commented and extensively corresponded amongst themselves. Many socio-economic transitions later in the late middle ages we begin to see an explosion of scholarship, reinvention of antique ideas and genuine innovation.
But I find it difficult to compare science and scholarship of the classical age with that of the middle ages because the mind sets of it's people were significantly different and the church still had a huge say when it came to explaining the world. In the end it was the invention of the printing press which set free a huge potential built up in the centuries before and pushed the middle ages into modernity, a feat that antiqity never acomplished.
@@Kane-cw1zh Yeah the "Dark ages" is mostly a myth. Although I think in Britain in the immediate aftermath of the end of Roman rule there it's fair to call that period a "Dark age" since we have very few surviving sources from the time there. But that is only limited to Britain though.
Love tis channel, love the topics, love the guests. And you're the man!
This was a awesome video and great, I liked Spencer's informative approach, great!!it's good to hear see people that you can tell did a real extensive research on this important subject
Next time, please put a warning in the title about mentioning the library of Alexandria.. one is never ready for sudden sadness unless one braces for it in advance.
I always have a pack of tissues ready when watching SAMA's videos, at latest when I enter the comment section ;)
@@stefanfranke5651 Don't forget popcorn.
Take a shot every time he says " In some cases".
thank you for bringing this to my attention SAMA.
Most welcome Stronk!!! Thanks for watching!
The slippery slope of knowledge again n again we go to the end!
Christianity was a foreign influence on the helenistic world. Its very philosophical core is at odds with both helenistic and more northern european religious practices. It was a colonizing force that wheedled its way into the empire by emulating more familiar mythological allusions and tales. They adapted it slightly to fi in. Then, when they had all the power, they had themselves a series of pograms against the 'heathens' who did not accept Christ.
The argument isnt that Christianity didnt take from the helenized world, its that once it had power and control it led to the dark ages. The church ran Europe into the ground
What ran Europe down wasnt Christianity. It was the germanic migrations. Western Europe had its dark Ages right after the sack of Rome. While the Eastern part of Roman empire prospered. Its notable that in the 6th century until the Black death came, Byzantine empire had its golden age under Justinian. The same time, the Western part was trying to recover. The dark Ages of Byzantine empire came after the slavic migrations. It was the period about 600 to 850 ad. We see that the Dark Ages came in different time in each part of the empire. And with a big time difference. So, Christianity played a small role in It. Until the migrations of the Huns, the Romans hadnt any serious threat about their existence. That migration caused a chain migration of other nations which in turn caused the same again and again.
@@ilias8972 The Germanic peoples were part of Europe, them migrating within Europe didn't bring an end to classical antiquity. It could be argued they mopped up the twisted remains of Rome and classical antiquity but, they were not the cause of its fall
The Christian Church promoted a system of ignorance that limited the access to learniing to a limited number of the elite classes rather than making it more widely available to the people thus leading to a decrease in education and a correlative decrease in ingenuity of thought or technical designs. aspects of antiquity were supressed by the new church changing it to the point that it no longer mirrored its helenistic origins. This happened long before any germanic raids or invasions.
If you want to talk Byzantium, then we're taling more middle-eastern history than we are talking broader European history. Rome, themselves merely adopters of the hellenistic traditions, being the clear and strongest influence on Europe overall, it is worth noting that it is after the adoption of Christisanity as the official state religion that we see the start of a precipitous decline in the veneration of the helenistic culture in favor of the chimeric philosophies and social norms of the early formaliuzed christianity of the catholic church.
Between that and burning or banishing any pagans who kept to the old ways, christianity destroyed classical antiquity.
@@jacksonfurlong3757
What are you talking about? Anglo-Saxon pagans, who invaded Britain, were illiterate until they converted to Christianity and were taught how to read and write by the church. It was the church that set up universities across their lands like Cambridge and Oxford. Read some medieval history and stop coping.
Christianity literally adopted alot of hellenistic philosophy in their own theology
Christianity has a long and dark history with regard to non-Christians.
has caused wars, oppression and genicide
And non-Christians have a long and dark history with regard to Christians. People are violent with each other.
@@carolynsilvers9999 To be fair the Romans did all of that too heh
@@carolynsilvers9999 Literally every major group of people on earth has done that in the past.
@@richardbillingsley9553 Pagan religions were generally accepting of other 'Gods', not so with Christianity and its one God concept. For Christians you either believe in the one God or your a heretic.
A granular assessment of the blame does not change its status as a spiritual infection.
You should try to get Tom Holland (the historian, not the actor lol), he wrote Dominion, the closest I've seen to the antithesis of The Darkening Age.
Holland's argument isn't new. And he's not a historian per se (in terms of training).
@@SuhaibZafar Arguments don't have to be new in order to be sound. What is "Holland's argument"? It may not be new to you but it's new to me, which why I suggested to have him on the channel. Also, Nick doesn't have being a "historian per se" as a requirement for guests, Catherine Nixey isn't one and was still invited.
I'm glad this exists
Re some of the comments about this video in comparison to Cathrine Nixey's episode on this channel:
I really like Spencer McDaneil's work, I've read several articles on his blog, and I feel I'm always referring people to his blog on the awful 300 movie. I also appreciated Nixey's episode on this channel. I think these two episodes are both informative on their subject. I don't think they should directly compared.
I don't think Cathrine Nixey's argument in the episode was that Christianity destroyed Classical World or even Rome, but that Christianity attacked 'paganism'. Her argument was that the pagan and Christian practice and concepts of the universe were incompatible. And although, Christians show continued interest in literature prior to their establishment, that doesn't mean that demonstrated the same kind of appreciation or even applied with the same meaning. One of the things religion is able to do is change the meaning of words, images, and symbolism due to the fundamental exchange of values that lie at the foundation of their world views. It's useful to retain ancient sources so as to change their impression of them. Although Homer was still read in the Byzantine era, the way it was read had greatly changed, what was valued and extracted from it when reading was different from the pre-Christian pagan mind. The continuation of veneration is rather a way of adjusting or even converting to a new religion. You take something that's familiar and give it a new meaning. This is something Christianity does very very well. Famously the Mary icongraphy borrows from Isis iconography. The Byzantine image of Jesus like a Zeus. The use of familiarity helps to promote their own. In a more obvious instance, of Judaism, Augustine of Hippo was opposed to forced conversion of Jews partly because he felt the ancestry of Judaism helped to promote the legitimacy of Christianity by showing how the Old Testament is prophetic of what is in the New Testament.
Nixey also said that Christians were still reading the pagan texts such as grammarians but writing criticisms about them and advising others shouldn't read them. McDaneil said in this episode about Christians thought it was okay to read Greek and Roman literature so long as it didn't get in the way of reading their Christian scripture. That doesn't imply that the pagan culture was tolerated or sustained a thriving practice. For instance, the Italian Renaissance was enamoured with classical antiquity and tried to unite it into Christian history but more than 80%+ of Renaissance art was Christian art, and it was more a Socratic Renaissance.
I thought it was very interesting that statues of Greco-Roman deities remained on display in puilc in the heart of Constantinople. The presence of statues and the reading of Greek and Roman literature and the philosophy is not the same thing as the religion. Although a lot of literary sources were quotes, Nixey did mention that ancient pagan religion was a religion you practice, it wasn't something you read or was in your thoughts or beliefs even, it was something you did. And did outside the temple in public. Nixey didn't make the point that "Christians were totally [disinterested] in reading ancient Greek and Roman literature." Nixey also didn't say that ALL the temples were destroyed, but that some, and that only some was important. Nixey called it a kind of terrorism (which sounds strong but if another religion came to the United States and destroyed a church I don't think it would).
Turning a pagan temple into a church is still getting rid of it. We even today complain about turning old local institutions into an apartment block, and we don't think of it as an act of conservation. The debate over Haghia Sophia being turned into a mosque again for instance. The entire meaning of the building changes and it's symbolic relationship with both the public community and universe. A pagan temple you worship outside, a Christian inside. A pagan is obliged to perform sacrifices, a Christian in some cases merely belonging to a church.
We also have to simply recognise that paganism is called so because the country folk stll retained their old traditions, and eventually it wasn't practised. This is evidence of its wiltering and out-dated existence, a kind of backwards living. That people continued to read works from pre-Christian antiquity is not the same thing as the survival of its culture.
I agree that the diversity of early Christian thought is undermiend (although Nixey does highlight the persecution of Christians by Christians). But we shouldn't generalise and call Socrates and Plato "Greek philosophy" because the undermines the diversity of thought that is represented by Greek philosophy. Perhaps we mean moral philosophy more specifically, and those philosophers were not so much representative as challenging to Greek civilization, often what philosophers aspire to. We can't directly apply Christian thought onto the Greek philosophy retrogressively. It's accepted that Plato was a proto-Christian, but we can't retrogressively apply the Christianity onto Platonic thought. Rather the transcendental aspects of Platonic, Pythagorean, suited Christianity’s metaphysical view. Aesop's fables were influential to the development of the Christian parable, they are speaking truth to power and favourable of the little one. Lucretius which doesn't seem to fit with Christian thought actually is more ready for Christian thought than pagan religion. It was loved by a young Leonardo da Vinci, but since Lucretius is a valuable source of Epicurianism, it's embraceable by a Christian mind without going out of bounds. We still have Christian sources but we're not more pagan because just being interested in the literature isn't paganism.
Regarding the library of Alexandria, well I suppose it's okay if the Christian arsonists intended to burn down a different building...
I don't think these two episodes should be so directly compared they both made really important points but ecause they're informing us of two differnt things not challenging each other's propositions.
Couldn't agree more
The Serapeum at that time was literally housing a pagan terrorist gang that was kidnapping and torturing Christians, which is why it was destroyed. Maybe you should read more about the events.
Your comment is similar to my comment, they are close in perspective.
@@joellaz9836 cite a source for this claim
8:15 Arguing that Xnity could not destroy the ancient world because it was part of that world is like arguing that an American political party cannot destroy American democracy because it is part of that democracy. Lame argument. Bad premise, bad conclusion, and NO connection between them.
I aggree with the premise part but would claim, that the point Spencer made was, when we consider the outcome, that christianity, christianisation and late antique politics in the long run didn't aim to destroy the ancient world, but very much built on ancient antiquity's ideas and culture and continued so through all the middle ages from the first christian apologetics over the 'Carolingean Renaissance' to the "actual" Renaissance. They overprinted and discarded many traditions on one side while they embraced and appropriated at least as much on the other (look for instance at the architecture of the early middle ages i.e Carolinean and so on). But you wil find plenty examples for both cases.
I don't think, the discourse ends with this presentation but Spencer generously gave us a counterbalance to the narrative of the "Dark Ages" - something worthwhile to contemplate about.
Also your example is faulty, sorry, no offense!
One American political party slowly undermines the democratic system and makes a carricature out of it while it very much leaves the democratic institutions, as hollowed out they may end up, in tact, just to put their pathetic excuse of a corrupt state in line with a glorious and "golden" past. No big bangs and flashes (disregarding the despicable incident in January), only history as it enrolls as a slow decline into dictatorship... ;)
Or just like the christians did it with the roman institutions (i.e. Pontificat) or Mary and the Saints: replacing all the local deitys, sometimes to the point of a mockery of the old pantheon and building churches and crosses in or on every temple and pagan holy site.
If you want a conclusion for this topic I think half an hour is by no means enough. Rather prepare for a days long lecture.
Nevertheless, thank you for your patience. Have a good day!
Please, please give us more from Spencer!
Seems to me that Spencer's first point about how Christianity is part of classical civilization, rather than something antithetical and different, is partly really just an argument over a definition. She is admittedly very learned, but I mostly disagree with her interpretation on this.
The ancient Hebrews and Early Christians went to great lengths to differentiate themselves from the pagan Greek/Hellenistic culture around them. Especially in their sexual practices. And their religious ones. So to frame them as merely a continuation of classical culture is naive. The switch from a robust polytheism and a culture focused on fertility and sex to an ascetic monotheism that hoped for the imminent destruction of this world constitutes a major departure from classical antiquity. Of course Christianity mined and exploited aspects of pagan culture that it found compatible. But it brutally suppressed those it found inimical.
Hard to convince most people who grew up in a defanged-religious household that their religion was historically damaging
@Joseph Percy There was no robust pagan monotheism . What you allude to characterized a tiny fraction of the population. T he tendency to exaggerate it is an artifact of the overepresentation of philosophers in the extant literature. The same faulty perspective that leads some to fatuously claim the Greeks didn't really believe in their gods
@Joseph Percy lol. Tiny fraction and robust are contradictory. From a population perspective it was very weak. The pagan emperor's continued to practice the state polytheistic rituals regardless of what esoteric philosopher they might have heard of.
@Joseph Percy lol. Pagan monotheism had no discernable effect on pagan religious practices. You're living in a fantasy world . Come up with specif examples of significant actions taken as a direct result of this robust pagan monotheism you fantasize about. Actions that affected the religious practices of the masses. I'll wait. While I laugh at you.
ence
@Joseph Percy lol. Julian restored the ancient polytheistic practices at the expense of Christian monotheistic ones. Not much robust pagan monotheism going on there. So you continue to elicit risus. Christianity became a robust religion. Pagan monotheism not so much.
Nice, It s not black or white, Christianity had from the begining some classical infuencies, in the process christians addopted or retained many graeco-roman traditions - inevitably,, but bottom line they hated the old Graeco-Roman world (not as much as they hated fellow heretics, but ok) , and to some good extrend they demolished it, the old Graeco-Roman word. So i give my 7 votes to Catherine Nixey and 3 votes to Spencer McDaniel.
Exactly. This pro-Christian revisionism is occurring as Christianity is circling the drain in the industrialized West. The Jesus myth is played out.
@@publiusovidius7386 Sorry, I could be wrong, but I don't see here pro-christian-revisionism at play, only the guest-lecturer giving us some counterbalancing arguments in an ongoing academic debate. It more seems to me, that you have an axe to grind with modern Christianity and quite like the topic to politicise. I'm an Atheist myself by birth and upbringing (former GDR), and I very much condemn what many church organisations did or still do or didn't prevent or covered up, but I look for incidents we can hold them accountable for today. I look into contemporary history and the news and I find enough. But I don't condemn christian belief or people longing for spiritual aid.
Don't be such a dogmatic Anti-Theist and focus on the real problems and crimes! Otherwise you end up sounding like the spanish inquisition.
@@publiusovidius7386 you really need to read tim o'neill's work on this
What system of signing is she using?
The naivety on this woman to believe that the majority of pagan literature, culture, and religion wasn't lost due to oppression and censorship, is truly quite hilarious.
Yeah I get it. But none of that takes away from all that was lost during the rise of Christianity.
Short answer : YES.
Make a video on the origins of the Druze please
Is first century Jewish culture regarded as part of classical culture? I thought that "classical culture" referred to Greek and Roman culture.
I think what gets mixed up in Spencers critique is for one motives and the spiritual paradigm shift that was happening. Why would romans replace their own gods and traditions with an Eastern hebrew foundation? Why is the new testament so different than the torrah or old testament? In my opinion the jews that wrote the new testament were purposely targeting romans with this new religion evidenced by the writing style. Plus you can see alot of qualities in the Jesus story that the hellenized world was familiar with. Jesus is very similar to Romulus mithra everyone knows the list.
The spiritual aspects he misses is the most important tho. You had a complete shift from the way people viewed the world. Instead of valuing strength and nature the focus shifted to miracles and overcoming nature to have the weak rule over the strong. You either see the patterns or you dont really. Sure you can find so many classic works slowly intergrate into christianity but theres a bigger picture Spencer is missing.
East Roman Empire have existed still one thousand years of years after the christian religion apeared in the Roman Empire. West Roman Empire has fallen, because as it had grown , got matured, expanded - it also got older and died by the natural reasons: the ownership relations have changed, the roman society, who supplied the legions with the soldiers-lost their earth and vanished, national unity vanished, religious unity vanished after the North Africa, Egypt, Syria, Greece with the Balkans, the Gaul and Britannia have been conquerred- each country with their own religion. So to Rome come all this religions, the syncretic cults ( Serapis for example) came there also, in Rome Isis was worshiped, Mitra ( imported by the legions from Asia), manicheans, zoroastrians, Jews came also - and christianity was developed slowly. During reign of Marcus Aurelius, during the wars with Marcomanni/Quadi there was described the situation, that roman army was forced by Germans to the unfavorable place without water, and legions were thirsty , tired and close to be defeated. Than the armenian legion knelt down and they started praying for the rain. Dio Cassius is telling, that the rain than came, the people saturated their thirst and have routed the Germans. From this time army was not prosecuted the christians, because they all have seen the facts and the popularity of christianity was growing.
In lack of the soldiers the army hired the peoples from abroad also Germans ( like Arminius was), Batavians( Constancius Civilis was the officer in Roman's legion) in structure of the state appeared the persons not being of roman origin, the internal conflicts between the pretenders to the throne destroyed the legions . Army have lost the ability to defend all length of Roman Empire and finally the primitive tribes prevailed on the West . No political structure is able to be master of the world forever. World is constanty changing. And christian religion gave the peoples more humanistic relations , common rules for minimalize the conflicts, strengthen national unity and the hierarchy of values which is important also today. Wherever the peoples are implementing their " modern" ideas- it results in worsening the quality of life. And this process we can observe today.
Stary
Turks: We won them,we destroyed them,yes,we have defeat all the greeks on 1453! yeeeeah!
Greeks: You destroyed the greeks on 1453?
Turks:Yes,we destroyed you,we won you!Yeeeeaahh!
Greeks: You know what happened on Hippodrome when the Vizantine Emperor gave the command on Vizantine Army to make the massacre?
Turks:Massacre on Hippodrome?What is Hippodrome?What massacre?
Greeks:You told you won greeks on 1453 and you defeated them,right?
Turks: Yes,but what is Hippodrome,what massacre the king Theodosios gave command to be?
Greeks: You talk about your victory on 1453 but you don't know what happened on the past..
Turks:So,what happened on the past?
Greeks: On Hippodrome,6000 greeks,women and children found death from the Vizantine army.
Turks:Vizantines were massacring the greeks?Are you kidding me?Vizantines are greeks.
Greeks: Are you sure?
Turks:😮😮 what you mean?
Greeks: Istanbul was greek?
Turks: Was greek yes.
Greeks: And why on Istanbul there is not nobody ancient greek statue or ancient temple there?
Turks: There is not?
Greeks: You live there 570 years,you must know this that there is not nobody greek ancient temple.
Turks: 😮😮 ooh,yes,there is not nothing.Why?
Greeks: Maybe Vizantines were not greeks?
Turks: Vizantines were not greeks?To my turk books on our history we celebrate 1453 we won the greeks.
Greeks: and i ask you a question again..on Istanbul,you have see something Ancient greek from the ancient greek culture?
Turks:No,i have not see.
Greeks: So,you see my friend?Vizantines were not greeks.
And now i want ask a big question my friend Turk..On 1453,what ethnicity was your enemy Vizantine?
Turks: 😮😮😮 I Don't know.
Greeks: You don't know what enemy you were fighting?
Turks: I dont know what i must answer now..i don't know what ememies my ancestors what were fighting😢😢.
Congratulations !!! Finally someone is willing to tell the truth about " The People of The Book ". Thank you !!! 🤔🤔🤔👌👌👌☝️☝️☝️👍👍👍
Enjoyed it.
Caused rootlessness eventually
The catholics kept the language Latin alive. That's something ;-)
Yeah and now How They Roman Empire gone after Accepting Christianity
medieval and ecclesiastic latin are distinct from classical latin.
Money and Gold makes people Crazy.
The fact that the literature is fueled with hatred for idoltry and deeming it as devil worship and what not is enough to know what really could have happened. It wasn’t any different than what islam did. This debate is pointless
You should do one on the Atheist.
Great job. We constantly teach political propaganda as history STILL TODAY. It's truly repulsive.
This was something that happened for more than a millenia, well into the Early half of the 20tg century. The latin church was still issuing edicts in southern Europe against books or doctrines it considered heretical teachings. It snuffed out the Renaissance from southern Europe from the 18th to 19th centuries. The Catholic church has been instrumental in destroying classical civilization outside it's monasteries. We have to accept what they did as fact
Bring back Nixey.
There is no question about this my friend. Its a fact.
23:00 awww it's cute how God was this much jealous of Zeus. He probably was jealous of his popularity among the ladies (if u know what I mean); God couldn't get more than one afterall.. and he was still too shy to get laid.
Zeus may have been popular with the ladies, but he wasn't omnipotent
@@cv4809 Imagine losing to someone who isn't even omnipotent :p
LOL @ thinking anyone was jealous of a false god
@@theonlygoodlookinghabsburg2081 cope harder
@@henriqueoliveira5123 Imagine thinking Yahweh is the true God ....lol. Why not Baal ? Or Osiris ? chimps
I knew someone who described Jesus as an Israeli cynic philosopher
Indiana Jones is the GOOD GUY. Take that!
Byzantine empire looks in disgust.
I despise apologetics
Help people separate from political central government and empire to live directly under God, found sufficient to live for God instead of human leadership of political central government and empire.
Good presentation here
Nice
Thanks for watching!
Attack on titan?
Wishing a great future and success for this intelligent and powerful lady scientist.
This is not a lady, it says in the description that spencer is a he
@Ario 2 ya agreed haha
yes
23:00 always the English! Taking things
Hey Catherine,what ancient languages do you know ?
I really enjoyed this historian's presentation. Thanks!
Mr. Spencer you have a lot more to read about this part of History. Try read Livanius the Antiochian and the anti-pagan laws from Theodosius and Justinian. Also read the Christianity's Criminal History by Karlheinz Deschner. Then you will demand this video to be deleted if you are a serious historian and not a christian supporter.
He talks about those anti-pagan laws in his article about this topic:
talesoftimesforgotten.com/2020/04/11/what-was-the-conversion-of-the-roman-empire-to-christianity-really-like/
Henri Mourant debunked your points on the anti-pagan laws, I'll deal with the rest - "Christianity's Criminal History" is pure factual propaganda, nothing more, and so a red herring. By the way, Spencer isn't a Christian. He just isn't brainwashed as you are.
@@everyzan-m2q Yeah I'm not a Christian either (I'm an atheist) but I prefer to actually stick to evidence.
@@everyzan-m2q I suggest to go hide in a monastery and start praying for your sins. You have no power to deny historical truths unless you are brainwashed :)
@@Nemesios777 You've got no history behind the gibberish you're spewing dude. Name me the last academic monograph you've read about Christianity in late antiquity, please. Or just admit it how it is - if you're reading something like "Christianity Criminal History", you couldn't recognize a "historical truth" if it slapped you in the face. You might as well begin reading Harry Potter for your history.
Just popped into answer the title. No! The classic world absorbed Christianity when the rulers of the time realized the immense power it had as a propoganda and control tool. Cheers.
Yes. Yes they did.
It doesn't take a genius to figure that out.
Look at the video. Christians were there for the entire existence of the empire, apart for the first few decades.
she so deep./
OMG! Spencer is adorable! No offence Spencer, I also appreciate your intelligence .My right arm tattoo is about Medusa taking revenge on Athena. Anyway. all the best.
Yes they did and then we had the dark ages, cheers for that !
That's pseudo-history you're talking about.
You shouldn't have had Nixey on in the first place more people will see her before this video. You have contributed to continuing a long debunked myth. Well at least you made up for it by having Ms McDaniel on.
Spoken like a true taliban. Not giving a platform to someone you don't like because acording to you the "myth is debunked"....LOL. Tell that to archimedes palimpsest. McDaniel is a man btw. You are not that sharp
@@grolstum211 Well, I guess historians are taliban.
jew-worshipping is a horrible thing
THANK YOU!! The graduate program that gets you will be very, very fortunate indeed. (Speaking as a former medieval studies major)
what da
Yes
Why yes, yes of course. Christianity changed everything.
And not for the better.
'Love thy neighbour'. I can live with that. Its light years away from the heartlessness and xenophobia of Rome and the barbarians.
@@neilog747 yet Christianity time and time again has NOT loved they neighbor. Even to this day they use their religion to preach hate and division.
@@neilog747 lol I see you haven't bothered to read the bible
@@thelastmanleftbehind1142 I agree. IMHO It's mainly how science and art (and inventing) were thought of as demonic and the church would not allow any deviations. Cruel.
Christ Jesus mediate the human person direct connection to God without political central government / empire leadership.
I smell a bunch of BS apologetics coming in our way...
Not apologetics if you’re pointing out actual history, you know.
Basically, yes.
NO !!! 👎
It was imposters that lied & said they were Christian