Christianity and Pagan Literature

[Coconut]

Introduction

One thing that everyone thinks they know about early Christians is that they went around and burnt down libraries and anything else they felt threatened by. For a 'fact' that is so widely believed, there is remarkably little evidence around. When challenged the best that most people can do is mention the Christians who destroyed the Great Library of Alexandria but as I have established in this article, that is itself a myth. That has not stopped authors like Carl Sagan in Cosmos and others who really ought to know better, from recycling it to make anti-Christian points.

After finding the example most commonly given was untrue, I decided to launch an in-depth inquiry into the two related questions of what has happened to the majority of the corpus of ancient writing and whether the Christian contribution to their preservation has been positive or negative. This survey only covers the early church and the period through the Dark Ages so it does not examine the work of medieval inquisitors or later church authorities. I hope to look at these areas at a later date but for the moment my conclusions are as follows:

-Indiscriminate destruction of ancient literature by institutional Christianity never occurred;
-There was no attempt to suppress pagan writing per se;
-On a few occasions, pagan tracts specifically targeted against Christianity were condemned but others have been preserved;
-Suppression of heretical Christian writing was widespread;
-Magical and esoteric works were treated in exactly the same way as they were under the pagan Emperors which was not very sympathetic;
-With some exceptions, respect for pagan learning was widespread among Christians;
-Survival of classical literature is almost entirely due to the efforts of Christian monks laboriously copying out texts by hand.

There are relatively few books about this subject that are not either Christian apologetics or atheist propaganda. Glenn Miller's summary is informative from a Christian point of view while good examples of the later include the works of Joseph McCabe that can be found in the Internet Infidels' Historical Library. While McCabe is worthless as scholarship, he certainly is a rollicking read. For my own article, I have tried to track down the primary sources rather than use secondary works but the following, including some general references, have all been helpful:

The Early Church - Henry Chadwick
The Beginnings of Western Science - David Lindberg
Libraries in the Ancient World - Lionel Casson
Themistius and the Imperial Court - John Vanderspoel
Dictionary of Scientific Biography
Oxford Classical Dictionary
Books for the Burning - Clarence Forbes (link to actual article)

For further reading:
http://www.bede.org.uk/literature.htm#persecution2

 

[Coconut]

Question...
...Did the Christians burn/destroy all the classical literature?

I got an interesting question a while back that took a LOT of research, but which was also very instructive...the questioner wrote:

Interesting page. I was recently researching Josh McDowell's "Evidence That Demands A Verdict", and in Chapter 5, he provides evidence of the Bible's survivability throughout time.

He points out that The Bible has survived longer, and has been copied so many more times than other works.

Isn't that a bit of a half-truth? I understand that the early church used to throw away non-Christian literature, or edit it (as in the Josephus testimony, where a Christian scribe added in the section about Jesus). The Dark ages were caused, in part, by the burning of many non-Christian writings on science, literature, engineering, and Mathematics, because many Christian scribes who copied books for a living, felt that it was the right thing to do.

The Islamic world, on the other hand, did not suffer the kind of dark ages that the Christian world did, and they actually preserved many of the works that Christians destroyed. By the time of the crusades, many Europeans were rediscovering books that they thought were long since destroyed.

Is my history correct? I forget where i got my info from. I am sure I read it in a history book, but I'm not sure where or when, or what title.

My personal opinion of McDowell is that he uses many common logical fallacies to present his case, but provides real facts to back them up, giving a novice the impression of his correctness.


The question-writer is apparently referring to the chart by Geisler and Nix, cited by McDowell, that compares the number of age of manuscripts of the New Testament with those of selected classical authors (e.g. Homer, Tacitus). The chart is used often in Christian writings and illustrates that the number of manuscripts for the NT is an order of magnitude or two(!) greater than that for comparative ancient literature.


The questioner is admitting this to be the case, but wondering whether the numbers are 'distorted'. In other words, if the Church destroyed all the 'competitive' mss, then the comparison isn't really fair.


This is a good and thoughtful question. And, as with many questions (still!), I was at first slightly 'afraid' of what my research might uncover. I am generally concerned about trying to defend the acts of the post-Constantine institutional church, and this sorta fell into that arena. I was frankly surprised to find out that the church--both East and West-- actually was the main preserver of classical literature during these difficult times in world history.


Let me summarize my findings first, before I drag you through the excruciating detail(!):



-The pre-Constantine church did NOT do 'burnings' or destruction of classical works and/or libraries.


-The early church leaders widely and favorably used classical works in their writings, maintained them in their personal libraries, and made attempts to preserve them.


-The pre-Constantine church was the victim of a thorough-going Christian book burning campaign by the Roman Emperors.


-A few post-Constantine Christian Emperors 'traded' censorship initiatives with a few Non-Christian Roman Emperors, but the overall effect on classical texts were minimal.


-The post-Constantine church was NOT responsible for the burning of the famous main library at Alexandria.


-The destruction of the classical works and libraries of the ancient world was the result of accidental fires, neglect, the barbarian invasions, de-urbanization, and the destruction of the educational system/public records systems by those invasions.


-The Western institutional church--although considerably uneven in its estimates of the value of various classical authors--nevertheless had a number of individuals and institutions that almost single-handedly preserved the classical works that we enjoy today.


-The Eastern institutional church preserved the major mass of Greek mss. that waw used to 'fuel' the Renaissance in Western Europe.


-The vast majority of the censorship/book burnings of the later church were insubstantial--either symbolic directed at non-classical works.



To look at each of these in detail ...

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html