better critiques of mythicism than by Tim O'Neill

[Leucius Charinus]

Fair enough. Does Freeman give a reason for why the Eastern Roman empire continued on?

I imagine he would present the reasons that are most often provided:

* It was the focus of money, power, trade and (taxable) population.
* It was far more defensible and had walls
* It had a much smaller common frontier with Europe

When they fled to Sassanid Persia, didn't they flee to Christian churches that were already there

I don't think so. Eusebius asserts there were Christian bishops in the capital city but that's about all the evidence that I am aware of. There was a revival of Sassanid Persian Zoroastrianism following the military victory of Ardashir in a civil war c.224 CE one hundred years before Constantine's victory in a civil war. Both warlords implemented monotheistic state religions that were based on a cannonised holy writ.

A comparison between Ardashir and Constantine is here:
http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/article_009.htm

The period of Sasanian rule is considered to be a high point in Iranian history[15] and in many ways was the peak of ancient Iranian culture before the conquest by Arab Muslims under the Rashidun Caliphate and subsequent Islamization of Iran. The Sasanians tolerated the varied faiths and cultures of their subjects, developed a complex and centralized government bureaucracy, and revitalized Zoroastrianism as a legitimizing and unifying force of their rule. They also built grand monuments, public works, and patronized cultural and educational institutions. The empire's cultural influence extended far beyond its territorial borders—including Western Europe,[16] Africa,[17] China, and India[18]—and helped shape European and Asian medieval art.[19] Persian culture became the basis for much of Islamic culture, influencing art, architecture, music, literature, and philosophy throughout the Muslim world.[20]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sasanian_Empire

[Leucius Charinus]

As a side note on the influence of Plato over the years, Carl Sagan claims in his epic series "Cosmos" that it was Plato and Pythagoras that impeded the growth of science which had been started by the Ionian scientists 2500 years ago. It wasn't until the Medieval World overcome their influence that science was finally able to bloom. As he expressed in the seventh episode:

https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.u ... ode=s01e07

Plato expressed hostility to observation and experiment. He taught contempt for the real world and disdain for the practical application of scientific knowledge. Plato's followers succeeded in extinguishing the light of science and experiment that had been kindled by Democritus and the other Ionians.

Plato's unease with the world as revealed by our senses was to dominate and stifle Western philosophy. Even as late as 1600 Johannes Kepler was still struggling to interpret the structure of the cosmos in terms of the Pythagorean solids and Platonic perfection...

In the recognization by Pythagoras and Plato that the cosmos is knowable, that there is a mathematical underpinning to nature, they greatly advanced the cause of science. But in the suppression of disquieting facts, the sense that science should be kept for a small elite, the distaste for experiment, the embrace of mysticism, the easy acceptance of slave societies; their influence has significantly set back the human endeavour. The books of the Ionian scientists are entirely lost. Their views were suppressed, ridiculed and forgotten by the Platonists, and by the Christians who adopted much of the philosophy of Plato.

In the eighth episode, Sagan ponders what might have happened if the Ionians' scientific traditions 2500 years ago had continued

There is little doubt that Plato's view of the ideal government was some form of theocracy. However if one wanted to study geometry rather than philosophy then one studied the works of Euclid rather than Plato. It's was never an either or situation. For example Porphyry made the effort of preserving Platonic literature (especially that of Plotinus) but he also preserved the writings of Euclid. Mathematics and geometry were some of the disciplines studied by Hypatia in the 5th century

Sagan may not mention this but as Freeman points out, the Western tradition of astronomy is often said to go back to the correct prediction of an eclipse by the Greek scientist Thales in 585 BCE. The last recorded astronomical observation of antiquity was by the pagan philosopher Proclus in 475 CE. It was not until the 16th century that "these studies began to move forward again".

Freeman reports:

“Faith and obedience to the institutional authority of the church were more highly rated than the use of reasoned thought. The inevitable result was intellectual stagnation . . . The last recorded astronom­ical observation in the ancient Greek world was one by the Athenian philosopher Proclus in A.D. 475, nearly 1,100 years after the prediction of an eclipse by Thales in 585 B.C., which traditionally marks the begin­ning of Greek science. It would be over 1,000 years—with the publica­tion of Copernicus’ De revolutionibus in 1543—before these studies began to move forward again.” [p322]

https://regarp.com/2015/05/13/review-of ... s-freeman/

[GakuseiDon]

When they fled to Sassanid Persia, didn't they flee to Christian churches that were already there

I don't think so. Eusebius asserts there were Christian bishops in the capital city but that's about all the evidence that I am aware of. There was a revival of Sassanid Persian Zoroastrianism following the military victory of Ardashir in a civil war c.224 CE one hundred years before Constantine's victory in a civil war. Both warlords implemented monotheistic state religions that were based on a cannonised holy writ.

I'd assumed an early Christian church in the area given the proximity to Israel and the work by early apostles. Looking at Wiki for the first known bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of Sassanid Persia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_bar_Aggai

Papa bar Aggai[1] (died c. 327/328) was Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of Sassanid Persia, in the late 3rd and early 4th century. An important figure in the early history of the Church of the East, he was first in the generally recognized line of Bishops of Seleucia-Ctesiphon...

According to the scholar Mschikha-Zca, two visiting bishops, Akha d'abuh' of Arbil and the Bishop of Susa, appointed Papa so that the Persian capital might have its own bishop and diocese.[4] This probably occurred around 280...

During his tenure Papa made a substantial and controversial reorganization of the Persian church, setting himself up as head of a hierarchy of other bishops. For these efforts he was recognized as Catholicos of the Church in 315.[7] Since he was the leader of the Christian minority (melet) in the Sassanid Empire (which was primarily Zoroastrian), Papa was also in touch with the King and the King's ministers, as the melet-bashi, the leader of the minority...

His changes, especially his attempt to establish the bishopric at Seleucia as the authority over the rest of the Persian Church had strong opposition.

That sounds like there were churches there from the late 200s CE. It would make sense for Christians fleeing oppression -- especially those accused of Nestorianism -- to go to Christian churches there. And then passing on their knowledge of Greek texts to the Zoroastrian (and later Muslim) rulers, as described by modern scholarship.

I think that we can all agree that Tim O'Neill's position on this matter is in line with modern scholarship?

[GakuseiDon]

The role of Neoplatonism has already been mentioned, and although neoplatonists and Christian authors opposed each other vehemently, neoplatonism had much influence on Christian thought and doctrine, and I don't think we would see concepts like the dogma of trinity without it. The aspect of neoplatonism that appealed to many Christians was the rejection of the physical world as unimportant, with only the spiritual world being real and of any significance. This, in turn, led to large swathes of practical scientific literature seen as dealing with idle thoughts.

Yes, that's what seems to have been the case. The Neoplatonism that developed in the 3rd C CE seems to have encouraged mysticism and a retreat away from of any kind of natural philosophy, causing a decline of science in the Roman Empire from that time. Christians picked this decline of scientific thought up from the Greeks and, as Sagan noted, it took a thousand years before those ideas were thrown off. I've read that one reason science developed under Christianity was the idea that, since God had created an orderly world that could be described in terms of natural laws, then part of showing devotion to God was discovering those natural laws.

If only Christianity had become the state religion in the 2nd C CE, before Neoplatonism took hold! We could have developed atomic weapons and blown ourselves up a 1000 years ago!

[Leucius Charinus]

When they fled to Sassanid Persia, didn't they flee to Christian churches that were already there

I don't think so. Eusebius asserts there were Christian bishops in the capital city but that's about all the evidence that I am aware of. There was a revival of Sassanid Persian Zoroastrianism following the military victory of Ardashir in a civil war c.224 CE one hundred years before Constantine's victory in a civil war. Both warlords implemented monotheistic state religions that were based on a cannonised holy writ.

I'd assumed an early Christian church in the area given the proximity to Israel and the work by early apostles. Looking at Wiki for the first known bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of Sassanid Persia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papa_bar_Aggai

Papa bar Aggai[1] (died c. 327/328) was Bishop of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the capital of Sassanid Persia, in the late 3rd and early 4th century. An important figure in the early history of the Church of the East, he was first in the generally recognized line of Bishops of Seleucia-Ctesiphon...

According to the scholar Mschikha-Zca, two visiting bishops, Akha d'abuh' of Arbil and the Bishop of Susa, appointed Papa so that the Persian capital might have its own bishop and diocese.[4] This probably occurred around 280...

During his tenure Papa made a substantial and controversial reorganization of the Persian church, setting himself up as head of a hierarchy of other bishops. For these efforts he was recognized as Catholicos of the Church in 315.[7] Since he was the leader of the Christian minority (melet) in the Sassanid Empire (which was primarily Zoroastrian), Papa was also in touch with the King and the King's ministers, as the melet-bashi, the leader of the minority...

His changes, especially his attempt to establish the bishopric at Seleucia as the authority over the rest of the Persian Church had strong opposition.

That sounds like there were churches there from the late 200s CE. It would make sense for Christians fleeing oppression -- especially those accused of Nestorianism -- to go to Christian churches there.

It would make sense to cite the evidence and the date of that evidence that underpin these claims. The Christian church industry fabricated all sorts of bogus hagiographies for all sorts of bogus saints who never existed. The Holy Relic trade fueled all this forgery and fraud for over a thousand years. The WIKI page goes on to say:

Papa refused to submit to the council's authority, "exalting himself above the bishops who were assembled to judge him."[8] An angry exchange followed, as Miles demanded that Papa be judged, if not by man, then by the Gospel, and produced a copy of the Gospel from his own satchel and placed it on a cushion. Papa, furious, struck the book with his hand, exclaiming, "Then speak, Gospel, speak!"[8] The sacrilege stunned the council's attendees, but then Papa fell senseless, struck with paralysis or apoplexy, or possibly a stroke.

This stuff is hardly historical evidence so to take it further we need a source. That's why I mentioned Eusebius above. Because Eusebius does make some statements about bishops in Ctesiphon. Obviously Christianity spread pretty quickly as soon as Constantine got involved. So there could have been churches there in the 5th century. The entire country of Ethiopia converted to Christianity during the rule of Constantine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian ... Frumentius

And then passing on their knowledge of Greek texts to the Zoroastrian (and later Muslim) rulers, as described by modern scholarship.

That's true enough. I don't think anyone is arguing against this proposition.

[andrewcriddle]

c/ Greek thought in the 2nd and 3rd century was moving away from empirical science and towards mysticism and authoritative religious traditions such as the pseudo-Chaldaean oracles.

Andrew, in your view, was the movement in the 2nd and 3rd C CE due to the influence of Neoplatonism ideas becoming widespread? Or did Neoplatonism become widespread because of the movement away from empirical science and towards mysticism?

IMHO there is a prior move away from empiricism which leads to the rise of Neoplatonism.
Developments in Eastern Neoplatonism, (The Neoplatonism of Iamblichus and Proclus rather than Plotinus and Porphyry) exacerbate this turn away from empiricism.

AndrewCriddle

[andrewcriddle]

I hadn't heard that they were smuggled out. Did the Eastern Roman empire consider their ancient pagan Greek writings so important that they wanted to keep them from outsiders? That sounds interesting if true. Do you have any resources discussing this?

By the euphemism "smuggled out" I mean that various academic groups from within the Roman Empire found it necessary to flee from the oppression of the Christian state. They took their literature with them. Others earlier, like the physician Oribasius, were (temporarily) ejected. People like Nestorius who was actively "anathemetised" by the thug bishop Cyril of Alexandria in the 5th century, fled the empire to Sassanid Persia, and took with them many writings related to various Greek intellectual traditions.

Nestorius died in internal exile/house arrest in Egypt. Persian Christians sympathized with his ideas (they came to be known wrongly as Nestorians) and preserved his writings.

Andrew Criddle

[Leucius Charinus]

I hadn't heard that they were smuggled out. Did the Eastern Roman empire consider their ancient pagan Greek writings so important that they wanted to keep them from outsiders? That sounds interesting if true. Do you have any resources discussing this?

By the euphemism "smuggled out" I mean that various academic groups from within the Roman Empire found it necessary to flee from the oppression of the Christian state. They took their literature with them. Others earlier, like the physician Oribasius, were (temporarily) ejected. People like Nestorius who was actively "anathemetised" by the thug bishop Cyril of Alexandria in the 5th century, fled the empire to Sassanid Persia, and took with them many writings related to various Greek intellectual traditions.

Nestorius died in internal exile/house arrest in Egypt. Persian Christians sympathized with his ideas (they came to be known wrongly as Nestorians) and preserved his writings.

Andrew Criddle

Good catch Andrew. It was the followers of Nestorius who decided to leave the persecution and intolerance of the 5th century Nicene church [industry]. Some of them took the Silk Road west as far as China.

[John T]

Rome conquered Greece in 146 B.C. Although the Greeks lost the war their culture was considered superior and incorporated into Roman culture not the other-way around. The Byzantine Empire lasted from 330-1453 A.D. Greek language and literacy was encouraged. They had a stable monetary system, i.e. Solidus, which was a gold coin (72 pieces to the pound). They avoided wars with the barbarians and preferred to buy them off, i.e. Attila the Hun, or allowed them to join the Empire if they converted to Christianity, i.e. the Goths. But most of all, they more or less adopted Christian ethics in governance. They were eventually brought down by the Ottoman Turks.

"The most flourishing province in the last years [Byzantine Empire] was the Despotate of Morea. Its prosperity had been built up first by the sons of John Cantacuzenus (who died there in 1383) and then by the son and grandson of John V—Theodore I and Theodore II Palaeologus. Its capital city of Mistra became a haven for Byzantine scholars and artists and a centre of the last revival of Byzantine culture, packed with churches, monasteries, and palaces. Among its scholars was George Gemistus Plethon, a Platonist who dreamed of a rebirth of Hellenism on Hellenic soil."...https://www.britannica.com/place/Byzant ... -the-Turks

[ABuddhist]

They avoided wars with the barbarians and preferred to buy them off, i.e. Attila the Hun, or allowed them to join the Empire if they converted to Christianity, i.e. the Goths.

That is false; cf., for example, Justinian's conquests or the wars of Basil II.

As for their adopting Christian ethics in government, I doubt that anyone would dispute that. But the key controversy might be about whether Christian ethics as the Byzantines practised them, with routine persecutions of other Christian sects and prohibition of non-Christian thought and learning (cf., the shutting down of the Athenian Academy), were an improvement over other ethical systems in government.