A C Grayling wrote a book called _The Art of Always Being Right_ a few years ago. It is a book about 'winning' a debate even when you know that the truth is on the other side. I think that tells one a lot about A C Grayling; and it tells us a lot about this discussion with Tom Holland. Holland, as a historian of antiquity, is in a much better position to tell us about ancient history than Grayling.
@logicalempiricist2 No account of the destruction of the Serapeum by the Bishop Theophilus in AD 391 makes any mention of a library or any books, so you needn't worry. The destruction of idols concerns worship, not knowledge, which was preserved and even built on, as with the case of Aristotle.
@logicalempiricist2 I don't think Holland is a Christian, unless he has converted since he wrote his book on Islam's origins. Do you know science -- specifically cosmology -- well enough to discuss the question of God's existence with a fellow layman? That's my lane and I'm definitely a logical empiricist as well. Maybe we can get closer to truth by synthesizing what mankind knows of relevance.
@logicalempiricist2 Its possible that both activities were going on. Christian mobs running amok destroying anything pagan and more enlightened Christians, Jews, Muslims, closet pagans, trying to save as much as possible.
@@jgmrichter Strange that the last director of the library was Theon if the library continued after 391. You'd think that the post would still be needed.
Is it possible that *some* Christians actively destroy pagan works, while others actively copied and preserved them? It's a question of to what extent their actions influenced the loss/preservation of literature overall.
Exactly. One cannot lump everyone together under the label "Christians". There were some Christians who respected history and knowledge and culture, and there were some Christians who were zealots that wished to use the new regime to destroy and tear down everything of the old culture. Both of these esteemed individuals can't seem to find common ground that they both can be right. The argument really seems to be in their definition of "Christians". For each of them, whoever was doing what they describe are the true "Christians" and the others are something else. Distinction without a difference.
@@DavidEdelsohn I don't think its distinction without a difference, it has to do with the amount of people involved in either action. You wouldn't say there were some nazi's who saved jews from camps and 'some' others who actively killed them. Most of the Christian monks were transcribing these texts and almost certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the destruction of classical works. That being said, clearly institutions of the pagan and stoic were shifting and losing power. But, Holland is right about one thing: This is Protestant propaganda (I'm 'Protestant' and I'll be the first to say it). Protestant vs. Catholic was a huge thing back in the day until the Treaty of Westphalia.
I don't know why it's necessary to think that any works were actively destroyed. Books tend to rot or fall apart after a few decades, requiring them to be periodically recopied. Both the materials and copying were very expensive. Besides that, there was no way to know which books had many copies, and which had only one or two remaining in the world. Generally, the more popular (and hopefully better) ones would have had the most copies. Naturally, there are some books (The True Word by Celsus springs to mind) which may have been popular among pagans, but that Christians certainly wouldn't have liked. This adds up to an environment where most books are lost over time just through carelessness. On top of that, most works from antiquity were written in Greek, which wasn't widely spoken in the west after the fall of the Western Empire, and the vast majority of Greek books were never translated into Latin (many were translated much later, after the Crusades). This is why, for example, the only parts of Aristotle known in medieval Europe were the works translated by Boethius, and Plato was mostly known through Calcidius' translation of the Timaeus. It's worth noting that Boethius had access to much more of Aristotle than he managed to translate, even though he lived a generation after the fall of Rome, and thus way into Christianization. Even if some Christians did actively try to destroy pagan works, it would have been completely random whether any copies survived, unless the weight of the Empire was behind it. There was certainly a strain of classical Christianity that was opposed to pagan philosophy and culture, exemplified by Tertullian, but I haven't seen any evidence they made any attempt to erase that culture (except pagan worship, of course). Just to encourage other Christians not to indulge in it. The two examples I could find of pagan books being actively destroyed were (1) the burning of a library in Antioch by Emperor Jovian. Not the main Library of Antioch, but a pagan temple converted into a library by the previous emperor. As far as I know, the reason for the burning isn't known, but the fact that Jovian was a Christian, and the previous emperor was Julian the Apostate makes a religious motivation likely. And (2) the burning of books on astrology under Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, which while certainly a loss, I don't know if someone like Grayling would go out of his way to defend astrology. Maybe some books on astronomy or math were caught in the crossfire. To be fair, I just looked at Wikipedia's list of book burnings, there may be more.
Grayling has no idea who SPECIFICALLY translated the classic works into Arabic he chauvinistically assumes it was Arab Muslims because a Caliph decreed it be done, where it was eastern Christians predominantly. BUT I’m not sure why Holland doesn’t simply SAY it was Eastern Christian monks and missionaries (who were more linguistically educated exactly for their scriptorium and mission work), IN THE EAST; grayling seems to only have a vision of “monks” as being western and “thus later, copying from Muslims”.
We know, Arab people are not well educated in Classical Greco-Roman literature than the Christian. Thats why Islamic Caliph always hire Christian scholars to translate Greco-Roman literature Abbasid Caliph al-Mamun for example, placed Hunayn ibn Ishaq, an Arab Christian, to be in charge or head of the House of Wisdom (Bayt al Hikmah) of the Abbasid Chalipate. He translated numerous Greco-Roman literatures into Arabic.
If you are talking about Aristotle, than the commentator Thomas Aquinas refers to, is Averroes (his image can be found in Raphael’s school of Athens mural in the Vatican). It’s true that Nestorian Christians did play role in the copying and translating, however they were regarded as heretics by the Byzantines. Zoroastrians, Atheists and yes, Muslims contributed to the translation movement which later advanced into breakthroughs and technological innovations in multiple fields. Also, the political and financial efforts of the Abbasid rulers cannot be overstated.
@@mithrandirthegrey7644Holland says it but to me not in a way Grayling can understand; the region the Farsi and Arabic speaking monks were in was the Christian East. Grayling after passingly mentioning Nestorians then again digresses to monks in the later Latin West.
@@NGAOPC At some point you just have to concede. You can show somebody the door - you can't make them walk through it. The man hates Christianity and won't give Christians an inch. It's useless to debate such a person.
@ why is it always like that? Anything a person says for christianity is always biased and for atheism it's not biased. Why is it like that. I don't understand you people. You guys are bizzare.
Some times this doesn't work, bias can make you judge differently and modify your argument and point of view to better your belief, like I had a school teacher who was constantly making wrongs statements and completely misunderstanding some past events just to make her belief more appealing and I who's a lot younger and a student still caught her mistakes on the subject dispite her being a teacher and having decades of experience and knowledge.
@@hablemosdelfuturo6832 why do you use pseudo historical myths? Say that to Atheist Stalin who couldn't accept genetics and killed biologists. And i don't know how that is somehow supposed to prove your idiocy. Many famous Christian philosophers and theologians had studied under Hyaptia.
AC Grayling to Tom Holland: "you will know way better than I (...)" [as an historian], some seconds later: "No! With great respect no!" [I know better than you]
@logicalempiricist2 Phillip Jenkins, author of, among other works, The Lost History of Christianity - which focuses on the syriac/nestorian church largely ignored and now forgotten by the European counterpart - aptly demonstrates that many of the scholars used by Caliphs to preserve the classics where monks. In fact, monks became an critical part of political dialogue because of their historical impulse to proclaim the Gospel in every tongue, they're linguistic ability made them useful for political mission as ambassadors - even having a hand in establishing one of the first Muslim universities! I am now enjoying Grayling's History of Philosophy, and he makes quite the contribution there, but even the erudite can betray some ignorance, here he is ill informed in the manner that the classics were preserved in the East. It would be unfair to dismiss him or his work because of this mistake, but his academic credentials do not make him impervious to error that is beyond the scope of his expertise, clearly.
For many centuries Christians were also falsely accused of burning Rome. The fires were started by Nero's orders so that he could rebuild the city according to his desires and plans.
I'd read "the myth of persecution" by Candida Moss before commenting such things. And also as a challenge to Mr Holland - what about Catherine nIxey's "The Darkening Age"? The destruction of the ancient world by Christianity, both in the short and the long term, is very clearly documented and well laid out. Mr Holland is an apologist. It is well known that Christianity completely destroyed the ancient world and it's ability to grow and expand into a civilization not unlike the one we are in today.
"Much Later on, several Centuries" paper didn't last several centuries back then, at least if not cared for very delicately, works needed to be regularly re-scribed to preserve their contents. In other words who was taking care of the works in the meantime? How did they survive several centuries under Christian rule?
@Jonathan Archer We have never tried to live as if all are innocent? I mean if you think the murderer, the Thief, and the Rapist are all innocent? What of the Lier? Or the Bully? What of the man who takes other men for chattel? How can one even begin to condem the despot unless he first acknowledges the existance of sin? For the word means only error. If you call virtue and morality despotism, then I think you will find you are of the same mind with many of histories most infamous tyrants. All fo the freedoms of the modern world where won by men who belived in objective truths, in a kind of cosmically ordained moral law, and this is the foundation upon which these freedoms now stand. If you think you can make a better world without such restrictions, why don't you and a group of like minded individuals prove this theory? Start sme kind of country or commune without any rules or laws, where all men are considered "innocent". Resaon demands proofs not platitudes, perhaps you can provide a few more of the former than the latter?
@@jalend9974 That was the point I was making, Christian Monks persurved many of these works but the man in the video insisted that they didn't do so for hundreads of years, whene in reality if they hadn't those texts would have been gone.
AC Grayling is either so uneducated on the byzantine empire or willfully misinforming his readers. The texts were preserved by the Greek speaking Christian byzantine empire for centuries before the muslims translated them into Arabic. Also Thomism is only there philosophy of Catholics, not the early orthodox and current orthodox Christians. This further shows his ignorance on the separation between the Latin west and Greek east.
Right, the religion that hijacked pagan holidays to help convert people into believing in their zombie savior thats the son of an invisible sky god, did not destroy literature even though Catholic records themselves show how they used the Roman Army to hunt down and destroy all books listed under their lists of heresies... I mean, just fucking mentioning the Bonfire of the Vanities would have been enough to shut this idiocy down for anyone with an IQ over 80...then in turn asking why the Inquisitions were burning people at the stake for having materials "not of God"...men like Giordano Bruno, burned by this barbaric desert sky god religion...for being a man of science and reason. Just these few things alone will make anyone that has a clue laugh at these Christian morons too dumb to hold the wrongs of the past up into the light even when their own damn religion demands sinners repent.
@@r13hd22 your response has nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox Christians who maintained the classical texts mentioned in this video. And further, it ignores the technological and humanitarian advancements of the eastern Roman empire under Orthodox Christianity, advancements such as: the first civilian hospitals as extensions of churches serving the poor, medical text books on surgery and medicine that brought western European medicine out of the "dark" ages, and contributions to engineering.
@@jessekaasa674 Your response has nothing to do with the question if "Christians destroyed classical works"...the question is NOT "Did ALL Christians destroy classical works". You know, not ALL Muslims took part in the 600 years of Islam being the light of the world, guess that means there was no advancements in Islam...and not ALL Muslims started destroying advancements after 1200, guess Islam never destroyed anything! Confirmation bias is a bitch.
Sounds like AC Grayling is leaning a lot of out-dated scholarship, much of it based on the prejudiced rantings of Enlightenment philosophers keen to slander the Catholic church.
Grayling much better here, Holland ignoring the facts, everyone knows Christianity had a wave of destruction in establishing itself over the classical Roman culture. Look at Nixey's book.
After the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), the books of Arius and his followers were burned for heresy by the Roman emperor Theodosius I who published a decree commanding that, "the doctrine of the Trinity should be embraced by those who would be called catholics; that all others should bear the infamous name of heretics" In 364, the Roman Catholic Emperor Jovian ordered the entire Library of Antioch to be burnt. (It had been filled with non-Christian works, by his predecessor, Julian.) The books of Nestorius, declared to be heresy, were burned under an edict of Theodosius II. Etrusca Disciplina, the Etruscan books of cult and divination, were collected and burned in the 5th century (by Christians, of course). Etruscans were not any form of Christian. That brings us to the first 5 centuries of Christendom. It continued after that - for about 14 centuries. Not just pagan books, any books that didn’t agree with orthodox Christianity, even heterodox Christian writings. Of course Christians have “excuses” why any particular incident wasn’t “Christians destroying books”, but many such incidents clearly were instituted by Christians (for example, the Council of Nicaea was the founding of Catholicism) and did result in book burning. The Library at Alexandria was burned - by Romans, and by accident - in 48 BCE - so it wasn’t Christians. And the destruction in the 3rd century CE was in response to a revolt, not a Christian vs. pagan thing. But Theophilus’ final destruction of the library at the end of the 4th century CE did stem, in part, from his declaration in 391 CE that paganism was illegal, so it was a Christian emperor burning pagan documents. Christendom also protected books on antiquities and other pagan literature which were beneficial for the church and later even made copies of it.
I admire Dr.Holland so much. He is the best example of a Historian that I would like to be. He isn't a christian but has zero issues defending the proper context of History and never lets his personal belief get in the way of his work. I wish more agnostics like him and atheist took a page from his book. Many atheist have made up so many pseudo historical claims that its quite offensive to call myself a non theist in the line of my studies. I mean we still have people that say Jesus never existed and if they do say he existed then they say his divinity was made up in a Flavian Dynasty conspiracy or from other pagan myths. Im pretty sure one read from a college textbook disproves those quite easy. But oh well people will believe anything as long as is anti christian. What a bloody bore this age is.
@@tomasrocha6139his works are very well-regarded by academic historians. He has the same rigor as them while at the same time writing in a style that immerses you in the topic (unlike the boring, uninterested style that many academic historians write in)
For those who believe in Tom Holland, i recommend you read 'The Darkening Age' by Catherine Nixey. That book was suppressed and Nixey was cancelled by the Christian mob
Not at all he is very accurate tom provided nothing but saying well they copied this book. They burned so many and so many were lost so them choosing to copy one does not make his argument accurate
@@daphnelouis7292 Burned books?? PLEASE GIVE A SOURCE. Grayling didn’t, and there isn’t one. Copying manuscripts is hard work, and works perished principally because no one was interested enough to have them copied.
@@daphnelouis7292 There is a world of difference between “many books were lost through neglect” and “Christians hated classical learning so much that they set out to eradicate it.”
Remarkable how AC Grayling has a remarkable level of trust in ancient accounts of Caliphs and their dreams but difficulty with multiple first hand account of the Gospels.
@@onionbelly_read the first line in the book of Luke, this shows that people like you, do not know what they are talking about. It seems to me it is prevalent in village atheism to lie like it is second nature.
@@ungas024 You should read it too. The author makes it clear from the beginning that this isn't a firsthand account. What in the first line in the Gospel of Luke do you think indicates that this gospel is a FIRSTHAND eyewitness account?
@@onionbelly_ So you did not read Luke, Luke's book is literally a letter sent to the Roman governor named Theophilus which he wrote an EYE WITNESS testimony of what have happened (Ref. Luke 1:1-4) "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Stop embarrassing yourself.
@@ungas024 You seem to be not understanding what a firsthand eyewitness account is, so I'll ask a few questions so we don't talk past each other. What were the names of these firsthand eyewitnesses and what did they exactly witness that was record in Luke?
Sadly ACG will continue to spout his half-truths - read any of his books ( wherein he spells 'God' with a small 'g') - he reminds me of a student who, having read one book, is instantly an expert. The New Atheists are, in the words of Carl Sagan, an embarrassment to atheism, let alone religion.
I have read a couple of his books and find them to be excellent books for ideas and perspective. He is a true scholar, but one who I think should stick to his areas of expertise. He has written dozens of books and I find some of his older one to be excellent. His introductory book on Wittgenstein helped me greatly.
Hmm...4:00 or so...a documentary was saying that during the Middle Ages they used to destroy nude sculptures from antiquity, for religious reasons...only during the Renaissance did some, such as Michelangelo (nude David, for example), start making them again...
Mr Grayling forgot to mention the Popes who did not destroy ancient statues but had their offensive attributes covered with tasteful carved fig leaves. Much more intelligent than destroying works of art but drawing the eye and making the desire to peek almost irresistible.
Even if Christians did destroy art and pagan temples, this is no different than any other civilization on Earth. Just as the romans before them did. So I see nothing wrong with.
This isn't about what is right or wrong, haha (though I definitely do think it's wrong)...this is about whether one or the other debater is right...I mean...I could be talking about whether some house was painted blue or red...one of them claims blue, the other red...I mean...I'm just siding with one of them...whether being painted red or blue is better is irrelevant...
Because Theodosius never ordered the destruction of any temple or book ? the story of Theodosius as a great persecutor of the pagans is more myth than anything.
@@user98344 He passed twice as many anti-Arian laws as anti-Pagan laws. The laws in question were much less severe than the anti-Christian laws before Constantine. He also appointed pagans to important positions, which was his biggest mistake in the case of Arbogast.
@@nicolasdemarchenoyr3700 That's only half true though. While it's true at first he was very tolerant of them, in later parts of his reign he became very intolerant by stop sponsoring Pagan celebrations, ban Pagan sacrifice and warship and even destroyed temples.
Grayling is just embarrassing. The Muslims were only interested in texts about philosophy and science. They had zero interest in the historical and literary texts, which only survived in Christian lands. What is surprising is not that so many ancient texts have been lost, but that so many survive, including works that Christians considered scandalous and offensive. There was nothing of the kind in the Islamic world. The Byzantine Empire played an especially important role in preserving the works of antiquity and it''s amazing to see how Byzantine authors continuously quote classic writers such as Homer and Herodotus.
You are totally wrong. There are a ton of Muslim historians. Ibn Abd al-Hakam (d. 871) Futuh Misr wa'l-Maghrib wa akhbaruha. Ibn Qutaybah (d. 889) Uyun al-akhbar, Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa. Al-Dinawari (d. 891) Akbar al-tiwal. Baladhuri (d. 892) Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838-923) History of the Prophets and Kings.
@@davemorgan6013 Sorry I thought you meant history in general. Yeah, they didn't preserve the original texts but they did something more important. They translated them. In fact, far more ancient texts have come to us through the translated versions of the arab world.
The translators of Greek philosophy into Arabic, other than Arab and Persian Muslims who played a role, were Iraqi Christians in Iraq so it is outside the Roman East. And they translated from Syriac into Arabic for the most part so not even the same language of the material that Holland claims was still being taught in Constantinople. They probably had the material before Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire and they were outside it anyhow and didn't necessarily go crazy like the Christians there. Grayling is correct about this.
Doesn't Catherine Nixey quote many written sources describing the damage done by early christian monks. On top of this, much of the classical works, as much as 90% was destroyed and so its simply not possible for Grayling to quote many sources. Christianity seems to be the triumph of ignorance over knowledge.
@ ? He barely is allowed to speak 2 words til the end.. he's not flapping he's extremely controlled with astonishment and not a little bit of anger.. the guy is a sell out lying to sell books.
4 года назад
He's clearly intimidated by Graylings superior intellect. Also while grayling is calm and collected , tom becomes querulous.
@ I think you've seen what you wanted to see, do you possess the same bias? All Tom did was say over and over "where is the evidence they destroyed it" and "who else was copying these books for hundreds of years" and he ignored these 2 questions and just stayed in his rut. I'll tell you what: heres a couple of questions to see of you're biased. What do you think Tom did better here in this discussion?. (Name one thing) also, in general, what good things did the early church achieve?
You only have to look at many ancient Egyptian temples where crosses and even written praise for the damage is chiseled. ANY religion that has to use fear is wrong.
Christians, people like anyone else, had differing responses to the past. Tertullian focused on contrast and rejection of the classical past; Justin Martyr affirmed classical wisdom in the vein of logos spermatikos; and Augustine took a mixed view, take some elements of the classical past and leave other elements. Are we to presume that classical or northern pagan practices are beyond critique? Do all of your parents’ children pass on all that your parents bequeath? Can someone be a Christian, and a Roman or Hellenist, and Germanic or Celtic or Indic or Semite or Coptic?
By the 3rd century, a general disinterest in classical education and "science' had thoroughly taken hold of educated Roman society quite apart from anything Christianity had to do with this. It was just a very general trend of the times among non-Christian and Christian citizens alike. And this was especially the case in the Western Empire. The evidence suggests that even if Christianity had never become prominent, classical education and "science" would have experienced much the same fate. But while I generally agree with Holland on his instincts and thesis, there is a great deal of detail he has yet to master on this subject in order to do his thesis justice. AC Grayling made some very valid points in this video clip and I don't think Holland did all that good of a job getting around them.
I love how Holland's replies always point to the hierarchical structure of knowledge under christian rule as if that wasn't evidence that even when classical works were preserved theywere only to be studied under strict church guidelines.
AC Grayling infers that the Christianization of Rome is what led to the loss of ancient literature - e.g. the plays of Aeschylus, of Euripides etc. - on the sound premise that all of their plays we had complete right up through Diogenes Laertius in the 3rd century - that is, right before the Christianization of Rome in the 4th century and the burning of the library by Theodosius on Christian grounds - Tom Holland offers no alternative explanation, he just doubts what is in fact the only explanation
There is no evidence that Christians burned those texts. There was always a Christians presence in Rome, so no reason to think they started to burn texts after the 3rd century. Given how many wars, how many sackings, fires, etc. the ancient world suffered there is no surprise that some ancient texts were lost.
Two things happening at the same time in history does not mean that one caused the other. The western Roman Empire fell and was consumed in repeated waves of warfare and plague. That seems like the likelier explanation for why so many writings were lost. Especially when you consider the huge percentage of Christian works that were also lost. For reference you could look at how few of the writings Eusebius quotes are still extant. On top of that, we DO have examples of Christians working really hard to preserve ancient literature through this time. For example The Chapter Library at Verona (which is the oldest library in the world) and the work of Cassiodorus and the Vivarium. Hope that helps.
@@jesselopes5196 Oh I see what you're saying! Tom Holland's response is that there's not actually any evidence that the Christians burned any library with classical works. The example that is often cited is the Serapeum, which was a temple burned by Christians. I am certainly not condoning the burning of a temple, (Theodosius is a whole separate conversation) but there's no evidence that I'm aware of that the Serapeum was also a library---my understanding is that that was something Gibbon said without citing a source and that is where the whole idea began. What I hear Tom Holland saying here is "please cite a source for why you think that Christians burned libraries", and Grayling doesn't. Interestingly, more than 90% of the works of ancient Rome that have survived, only survived because they were preserved and copied in Christian monasteries (that stat is from Brian Tierney of Cornell), so these kinds of arguments about Christians actively destroying classical writings is not only a myth---it's the opposite of what actually happened.
Christians killed many of the Pagans who wrote, read, knew, and transcribed those Pagan texts. It defies a moral-minded common sense to claim that Christians didn't destroy Pagan texts. Heck, we know Christians were destroying Christian texts deemed heretical.
Grayling is a great teacher of philosophy, but subjects like this and his stance towards Brexit (regardless of which view you sit on) are mad. He's the epitome of a clever person making the best fool, typifying the smug, sanctimonious, out-of-touch western academic.
so Grayling says Christians systematically destroyed the classical works. Then when pushed, he admits that they did copy them (later on, but they still copied them)… so why even say the first statement then??
We have what,1-2% of antiquities writings of literature? We got the christian approved versions that survived. We lost SO much. We dont even know all we have lost.
I comfess I am becoming fascinated by how someone as intelligent and clearly well read as Holland has bought into the christian appropriation of culture. The agenda he's selling, does not seem substantially different from the one promoted to me, in my childhood indoctrination into christianity. At root it was an impulse to try and resolve the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible that led me to research christian history. Now I began from a position of faith, but that is pretty hard to sustain when confronted by a history that shows that once christian elites attained systemic power that they continued the long established Roman tradition of appropriating culture they approved of and attacking or marginalising culture they disaproved of. Athanasius of Alexandria in particular springs to mind...
No, that doesn't follow logically. Christians have a basis for knowledge, scientific inquiry, and morality. Atheists that believe we all came from fish have no basis for anything in life except evolutionary success (direct and indirect fitness).
This is honestly rather frustrating. Tom Holland paints the picture like AC Grayling is purporting some conspiracy theory but literally anyone can go and look into this themselves and see that the accepted opinion is that Christians did destroy works of classical antiquity in mass. If he wants to push an opinion contrary to this, that is fine. Indeed, he may be right, but he needs to provide evidence to prove his case and should not state such silly claims as “this is an obvious fact we can all check”…
It is quite a very well known fact. Every historian on the Byzantine empire will tell you that. The Byzantines decided what to keep i.e what texts to copy. Look up Anthony Kaldellis, a byzantine scholar.
Dr Holland come to India where mythification and deep disrrust of antiquity is still engendered through westernisation esp in xian schools, colleges etc.
Tom Holland is not a real historian- he has not one real degree to show for it. Ancient historian Richard Carrier rightly pointed this out and tackled all of Tom’s arguments.
Well, and how did the texts of the ancients remained preserved until the Seventh century where Islam appeared (until much later in fact, given that the Arabic translations began in the following centuries after its appearance). If there was such a menace from the side of the Christians against the culture of the ancient civilizations , as all those so ''clever'' atheists insist, there would be not surviving even the slightest trace of it until the arrival of the Arabs. Let alone that as Holland says most of the translations into Arabic had been made by Christians of the conquered areas. Also, as some other commentators too mentioned, Grayling seems to be almost totally ignorant about the history of the Byzantine era. It seems that he knows almost nothing about the Eastern Orthodox tradition and its cultural heritage. If he knew something from the Greek fathers of the Church (which them themselves were philosophers of a very high caliber, enormously well versed in ancient Greek thought ) he would never utter the words he utters for sure.
Also there's a forgotten part of history after st Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland and that is when the barbarian hordes and eventually the Islamic raiders were burning down the cities and destroying the archives of history of the Roman Empire including the literature the Irish were copying them and storing them in the libraries to be preserved. We are able to read the Iliad, the ancient Greek mythologies as well as the other classical literature, philosophical and historical archives as they were almost destroyed by the fall of Rome. It's down to the luck of the Irish that we have them today.
@@user98344 The answer is very simple: Because after Christianity's unprecedentedly peaceful endurance and victory (under extremely difficult conditions) and its rapid populational increase the pagan society's institutions were remained with a very tiny, almost non existent audience. The pagans were the heartless persecutors of Christians, for nearly three whole cunturies, and they had remained without any moral right. And, of course, it is a very big fault to approach such historical events through the glasses of today's moral values of the so called 'Western' civilization (which valuse are a clear consequence of Christianity's wordview also). In the times of Justinian such things as 'archeological sensibility' and the concept of 'museum' were totally non existent perceptions. The Christian era was a radically new civilizational era and the governors who embraced and endorsed it could not but establish it by excluding of other worldviews state laws. Such a stance was seen as a substantial means of having a common cultural language and, so, the necessary social coherence.
@@dimitrilalushi4693 Great fairytale but let's talk about history instead. First of all, Christianity didn't have the peaceful victory you said. There were enormous persecutions such as destruction of temples, banning sacrifices and a preference of giving jobs to Christians rather than Pagans. Then you talked about Pagan persecutions. While it is true that Pagans did persecuted Christians, those persecutions are overstretched. For example, Nero only persecuted Christians inside the city of Rome not the whole empire and Christians weren't his only targets. Another example of that can be the ordering of sacrifices. A lot of people say that those demands for sacrifice were seen as persecution to Christians but that is false. A lot of Christians had no problem making a sacrifice as they saw it more of a cultural thing rather than a religious one. Lastly, let's talk about the academy. You are totally wrong saying that the academy was empty or abandoned. Do you really believe that only Pagans were there? The academy also had a lot of Christian students and teachers. So no, it didn't close because it was empty( you can see that when those people fled to Persia after the closer of the academy), it closed because Justinian didn't want something except from Nicaean Christianity to be taught.
@@user98344 I leave aside what you say about the persecutions of Christians. The history is there, anyone who wants to investigate the matter in a serious way can do it. The Christians were persecuted severely by pagans for nearly three whole centuries (even if with some relaxation regarding the severity of the persecutions during some periods of those centuries). Now, as to Justinian and the academy... even if it is so as you say (which is not, but anyway), what is that changes about Christianity's message? There is no passage in the New Testament texts that orders enmity or any aggressive stance against pagans. The closing of the academy is not ordered by Christ himself or his apostles. It was the decision of an emperor. Many things have been done that are not befitting the life stance of Christ in the name of Christianity. This is the condition of our fallen world, even the most benign teachings can be put to the service of ungodly aims. It is something that we are warned, most clearly, in the third of the Ten commandments. And a much needed note: When we want to go through a sincere discussion we never begin with aphorisms as 'fairy tales'. Such a stance is indicatory of ill will and never helps having a genuine, constructive discussion. : - )
Christianity was also a product of the classical world. New Testament is filled with greek philosophy. Some books were actually wrote originally ij koine greek. And there were christian copying and preserving classical works in the 4th, 5th and 6th century. But also there were christian groups destroying statues and burning books. The truth is: Christian world was as diverse as you can imagine in that time. And the Pope was just an influential bishop with no real authority beyond city of Rome and the close area. We should stay away from generalizations. History is always more complex than it is told
It is anachronistic to think that in antiquity there were official languages. Latin and Greek were the only standardized European languages, and as such it did not make much sense to make translations. Furthermore, the cost of copying a book back then was several years of wages, so imagine the cost of the added time needed for a translation.
The classical Greek texts had no influence whatsoever on muslims or Islam. They took nothing from them! They did not even speak the language! Why would they have translated book they did not use or learn from? Sylvain Gougenheim wrote a book in which he tells who translated the works. The book has not been translated into English. It name in English is " The Aristotle at Mont St Michel".
Tom Holland seems to be an intellectual zealot. Ask him to read about the Goa Inquisition in India where they would destroy the texts of other religions in bonfires and even those of earlier versions of Christianity such as Coptic and Syriac which existed in India before Catholicism.
@@billykotsos4642 Regarding the Academy of Athens, Alan Cameron writes "It is not clear that Justinian [Jutprada] “closed” anything, or that the “Academy” as it existed in the sixth century was actually continuous with Plato’s garden, or that the expedition to Persia was other than a kind of sabbatical. What remained of the school of Athens drew to a close later, and for different reasons." Cameron, A. (2016-01-01). The Last Days of the Academy at Athens. In Wandering Poets and Other Essays on Late Greek Literature and Philosophy. : Oxford University Press.
@@topologyrobRegarding the academy of Athens, Edward Watts writes"The prohibition of teaching was an institutional deathblow; it seems that the philosophers responded to this initial set of restrictions by keeping a low profile and waiting for circumstances to change. As the Athenian archeological evidence suggests, these laws would not have permitted the philosophers to survive simply by keeping a low profile. Perhaps sensing the inevitability of this fate, they left Athens for Persia. This was, for all practical purposes, the end of Athenian philosophy." Edward Watts. City and school in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria.
What? There is no such thing as proof unless you are talking mathematics. You only can ask for evidence. What is wrong with a person asking for evidence? Also Tom Holland is an atheist not a Christian lol
@@Tzimiskes3506 My opinion was formed after hearing Federal Judge Esther Salas tell her story of a crazy person stalking her and killing her son. Protest their work, harass them at dinner but their personal addresses should not be known. If there weren't crazy people out there I would feel differently.
It's written in stone. In Avebury, they smashed many stones and built a hideous church in the middle with that stone. This wasn't just early Christian maniacs but the insanity continued into the modern era. If Christianity was truly interested in the propagation of the full diversity of knowledge the Vatican archives would be open and accessible to study by the scholars of the world. It wouldn't have taken till 1966 for the pope to admit the earth revolves around the sun. That a few examples of monks copying documents surely pales against what has been burnt or actively withheld. That we have to rely on Christians at all to tell a pagan story says it all anyway. So were pagan scholars welcome in this festival of knowledge? Ask the average European about their pagan ancestry. In Britain, most can't tell you anything before Boudicca. They've done a proper job on original cultures globally.
@@jasoncox7257 Again. I suggest you read the works of St. Boethius, St Augustine, St origen, St Anselm of Canterbury, St Jerome, St Tertullian, pseudo Dionysus, diogenes lartium, basil of ceasera and many more neo platonists preserved the works of early and late antiquity.
@@m.crasto1249 Again, I try to get you to understand it isn't the point. That this pales almost into insignificance against what has been lost. And they are still at it, not translating or making literature of pagan origin available. There are books of Irish history they say they haven't the funds to translate. Then make them publicly available and they would be.
AC Grayling, what a waffler! Not so much as a conversation as verbal diarrhoea. I’m sure he wants to make his point stick but when asked repeatedly for evidence of his assertions, he just ploughs on... maybe he missed his calling as a politician?
Christians destroyed libraries that were unrivaled in size for a millenia. Read "The Darkening Age" By Nixey and "Christianity's Criminal History". There is an abridged english version online of the latter.
Nixey is a journalist, an art critic, with an axe to grind against Christianity. In my previous life, I have also been taken in by popular history books and articles written by journalists and non-historians, or if they were written by historians, they're not specialists on the period they are writing about. After being shown the error of my ways, I've learned to read and listen to professional historians or those who studied historiography and are specialists on the period being discussed. For a comprehensive critique of "The Darkening Age," google "Review - Catherine Nixey The Darkening Age” and "Tim O'Neill" and also the review of Dame Averil Cameron, professor of Late Antiquity and Byzantine history at the University of Oxford.
the historical evidence pointing to the role of early Christians in the destruction of classical pagan knowledge is overwhelming!....The same is true of other religions of course....but it seems that Christians would like to think that their religion was/is different and that it could not have done these awful things...because, of course, it is the RIGHT religion... @@siennamargeaux8413
@@tomasrocha6139 To be clear, I was responding to the above post about Nixey. I agree, Holland is not a professional historian but his corrections to Grayling’s assertions about Christians destroying Classical works are in consonance with current medieval scholarship.
@@siennamargeaux8413 Why did Nixey's book receive positive reviews from Emily Wilson, Professor of Classical Studies at University of Pennsylvania as well as by Peter Frankopan, professor of Global History at the University of Oxford?
The problem with this whole debate is that neither of these men are real historians. AC Grayling is a philosopher and has no degrees in history- and Tom is a fiction writer who dabbles in history. Anyone who tells you that Christianity is responsible for western morals and values has absolutely no CLUE what they are talking about. Both men may know a lot of history, but that’s different than being a historian.
"Anyone who tells you that Christianity is responsible for western morals and values has absolutely no CLUE what they are talking about." Lmao, try to argue against it then.
@@dangin8811 That’s simple. All you have to do is look into the history of other civilizations such as the Greeks who had democracy way before Christianity- and there were other ancient cultures that had hospitals- such as in Sri Lanka and India- around the same time as Christianity- and other civilizations who had rights for women. A quick google search will tell you that that Tom Holland does not have any advanced degrees in history or any degrees of any kind. Not that it’s a bad thing to not have a degree - but he hasn’t even come close to digging deeper on the issues of Christianity. I have not known one advanced scholar in the field of history who agrees with Holland’s stance, or any credible historian who claims that western values come from Christianity. This is a distorted claim that gets thrown around by pastors, and political pundits, and fake historians like Holland. Not historians that actually take the time to understand how western values actually evolved. A good place to start is Richard Carrier’s book: The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire- it debunks many of these types of claims. Carrier - despite his flaws, is a real certified historian.
@@patrickwoods2213 Our concept of democracy does actually come from Christianity more than it does from the Ancient Athenians. The direct democracy of the Greeks is separate from the 'representative commonwealth' model which derives from the English Civil War and its Protestant spirit. Moreover, the only reason you think Christianity hasn't innovated western morality is because its influence is so profound. You look at the way we measure years, the English language and the KJV's influence on it, our holidays, and a million other things and we can clearly see Christianity's two thousand year influence on western civilisation. But because morality is so subconscious and profound, you don't see it. Also Richard Carrier, lmao.
@@dangin8811 Just because our system isn’t “direct democracy” doesn’t mean the underlying main skeletal structure isn’t there. The idea of the 13 colonies originated from the Greek city states, the idea of natural law and a constitution comes from Aristotle and the Athenians, and the whole idea of citizens participating in the leadership of the government comes from the original Greek structure. As time went on, the whole idea of democracy evolved- but that doesn’t mean it was completely separate from the original model. I’m not saying Christianity didn’t play a role in western values- every religion has contributed at least one or two things to society- but Christianity is far from having influenced all science, art, values in general. Our holidays? Give me a break. Almost anyone above average intelligence knows that Christmas and Easter are simply borrowed from the pagan winter solstice and the spring equinox. “But because morality is so subconscious and so profound you don’t see it.” A question: Was there morality before Christianity? The answer is a definite yes. So I have no idea what the hell you’re trying to say with that argument. “Also Richard Carrier, lmao.” LMAO isn’t an argument. People like to crap on Carrier solely for his reason of being a mythicist. But I couldn’t care less about his mythicist position- I care about his position on the ancient sciences, and for that he has scads of evidence for his arguments that Christianity is not completely responsible for modern science. If you have an actual argument for why he’s wrong on that subject- then it’s up to you to demonstrate it. Otherwise, taking cheap shots at an actual historian isn’t going to cut it.
@@patrickwoods2213 I didn't say it influenced "all art, science and values" but it did play an extremely profound, explicit and extensive role in forming much of them. Regarding the development of western democracy, it is not sufficient to point to Ancient Greek influence to disprove its Christian influence, two things can influence something simultaneously. The first Liberal revolution in history was the English Civil War where Parliament opposed the absolutist tendencies of the King. The justification for this was not based on the Greek example, but was theological, kingship derived from God, therefore kings who disobeyed God were no longer legitimate. Then people lower in the social order wanted a stake in the commonwealth, so the franchise was extended, and that's how democratic institutions developed. AFTER they had done so, people looked back to the Greco-Roman tradition, but that was largely in hindsight. So, I would argue, Christian and particularly Protestant theology, played a decisive role in the formation of what we know as representative democracy. And the thing about the holidays being pagan which you so confidently assert is stupid. The Christian holidays were not pagan in origin, thats a myth thats been comprehensively debunked. And I didn't say that there were no moral norms before Christianity, I said that Western morality is essentially Christian, and it is so profoundly so that it is difficult for people who are not theologically Christian to see that.
(Monks)😂 in medieval Europe or the dark ages whoever want to astronomy they confuse it with astrology and they cut his head I am not saying it’s because of Christians but some of them did very bad things
It's all beside the point. There's no good evidence for any gods.....much less the Christian God. It's really time for humanity to grow up and face reality like we're capable of doing.
Absolutely correct! There is no 'scientific method' empirical evidence for GOD. But that does not prevent an intelligent human being from finding evidence of other kinds!
There are plenty of good evidences for the existence of God, in my experience what atheists do is ask for evidence and once given they then demand. emperical proof.
biggregg5 Prove to me the man that is within you. Just as difficult under the ”naive empericist” paradigm most atheists hold to. You cannot account for human conciousness and other emergent phenomena. It is beyond what we see in software etc which is just an illusion of the emergent. Admitted to by atheists like Arthur C Clark etc. Humans experience the transcendent. Your person is not only your body. Atheism is superstition. Matter cannot come from nothing or cause itself as it is contingent. Even pre Christian pagans such as Aristotle etc which Grayling mentions argued this. Not proof for Christianity but enough to seriously doubt one’s atheism. At the end of the day orthodox Christianity with its triune God is the best explination for everything. The three hypostasis can account for all of reality and upholds the possibility of identity. All other world views collaps spooner or later into some kind of monad which is meaningless. In which case it is meangless that you posted your comment in the first place. That is, you may be right but your actions (posting your comment) is a sign that you are wrong.
Greg: Are you still a "psychiatrist", you lying sack of shit? You can't explain reality without a Creator God, and I know you're a liar and I'm going to keep reminding others of that.
A C Grayling wrote a book called _The Art of Always Being Right_ a few years ago. It is a book about 'winning' a debate even when you know that the truth is on the other side. I think that tells one a lot about A C Grayling; and it tells us a lot about this discussion with Tom Holland. Holland, as a historian of antiquity, is in a much better position to tell us about ancient history than Grayling.
@logicalempiricist2 Are you an atheist, or just an expert historian?
@logicalempiricist2 No account of the destruction of the Serapeum by the Bishop Theophilus in AD 391 makes any mention of a library or any books, so you needn't worry. The destruction of idols concerns worship, not knowledge, which was preserved and even built on, as with the case of Aristotle.
@logicalempiricist2 I don't think Holland is a Christian, unless he has converted since he wrote his book on Islam's origins.
Do you know science -- specifically cosmology -- well enough to discuss the question of God's existence with a fellow layman?
That's my lane and I'm definitely a logical empiricist as well.
Maybe we can get closer to truth by synthesizing what mankind knows of relevance.
@logicalempiricist2 Its possible that both activities were going on. Christian mobs running amok destroying anything pagan and more enlightened Christians, Jews, Muslims, closet pagans, trying to save as much as possible.
@@jgmrichter Strange that the last director of the library was Theon if the library continued after 391. You'd think that the post would still be needed.
Is it possible that *some* Christians actively destroy pagan works, while others actively copied and preserved them? It's a question of to what extent their actions influenced the loss/preservation of literature overall.
Exactly. One cannot lump everyone together under the label "Christians". There were some Christians who respected history and knowledge and culture, and there were some Christians who were zealots that wished to use the new regime to destroy and tear down everything of the old culture. Both of these esteemed individuals can't seem to find common ground that they both can be right.
The argument really seems to be in their definition of "Christians". For each of them, whoever was doing what they describe are the true "Christians" and the others are something else. Distinction without a difference.
@@DavidEdelsohn I don't think its distinction without a difference, it has to do with the amount of people involved in either action. You wouldn't say there were some nazi's who saved jews from camps and 'some' others who actively killed them. Most of the Christian monks were transcribing these texts and almost certainly wouldn't have anything to do with the destruction of classical works. That being said, clearly institutions of the pagan and stoic were shifting and losing power. But, Holland is right about one thing: This is Protestant propaganda (I'm 'Protestant' and I'll be the first to say it). Protestant vs. Catholic was a huge thing back in the day until the Treaty of Westphalia.
I don't know why it's necessary to think that any works were actively destroyed. Books tend to rot or fall apart after a few decades, requiring them to be periodically recopied. Both the materials and copying were very expensive. Besides that, there was no way to know which books had many copies, and which had only one or two remaining in the world. Generally, the more popular (and hopefully better) ones would have had the most copies. Naturally, there are some books (The True Word by Celsus springs to mind) which may have been popular among pagans, but that Christians certainly wouldn't have liked. This adds up to an environment where most books are lost over time just through carelessness.
On top of that, most works from antiquity were written in Greek, which wasn't widely spoken in the west after the fall of the Western Empire, and the vast majority of Greek books were never translated into Latin (many were translated much later, after the Crusades). This is why, for example, the only parts of Aristotle known in medieval Europe were the works translated by Boethius, and Plato was mostly known through Calcidius' translation of the Timaeus. It's worth noting that Boethius had access to much more of Aristotle than he managed to translate, even though he lived a generation after the fall of Rome, and thus way into Christianization.
Even if some Christians did actively try to destroy pagan works, it would have been completely random whether any copies survived, unless the weight of the Empire was behind it. There was certainly a strain of classical Christianity that was opposed to pagan philosophy and culture, exemplified by Tertullian, but I haven't seen any evidence they made any attempt to erase that culture (except pagan worship, of course). Just to encourage other Christians not to indulge in it.
The two examples I could find of pagan books being actively destroyed were (1) the burning of a library in Antioch by Emperor Jovian. Not the main Library of Antioch, but a pagan temple converted into a library by the previous emperor. As far as I know, the reason for the burning isn't known, but the fact that Jovian was a Christian, and the previous emperor was Julian the Apostate makes a religious motivation likely. And (2) the burning of books on astrology under Emperors Honorius and Theodosius II, which while certainly a loss, I don't know if someone like Grayling would go out of his way to defend astrology. Maybe some books on astronomy or math were caught in the crossfire. To be fair, I just looked at Wikipedia's list of book burnings, there may be more.
Some lmao.....sure bud
It's more of a question of Grayling being historically illiterate and well out of his depth here.
Grayling has no idea who SPECIFICALLY translated the classic works into Arabic he chauvinistically assumes it was Arab Muslims because a Caliph decreed it be done, where it was eastern Christians predominantly. BUT I’m not sure why Holland doesn’t simply SAY it was Eastern Christian monks and missionaries (who were more linguistically educated exactly for their scriptorium and mission work), IN THE EAST; grayling seems to only have a vision of “monks” as being western and “thus later, copying from Muslims”.
We know, Arab people are not well educated in Classical Greco-Roman literature than the Christian. Thats why Islamic Caliph always hire Christian scholars to translate Greco-Roman literature Abbasid Caliph al-Mamun for example, placed Hunayn ibn Ishaq, an Arab Christian, to be in charge or head of the House of Wisdom (Bayt al Hikmah) of the Abbasid Chalipate. He translated numerous Greco-Roman literatures into Arabic.
If you are talking about Aristotle, than the commentator Thomas Aquinas refers to, is Averroes (his image can be found in Raphael’s school of Athens mural in the Vatican). It’s true that Nestorian Christians did play role in the copying and translating, however they were regarded as heretics by the Byzantines. Zoroastrians, Atheists and yes, Muslims contributed to the translation movement which later advanced into breakthroughs and technological innovations in multiple fields. Also, the political and financial efforts of the Abbasid rulers cannot be overstated.
But he DID say that... He said "Greek speaking and Syriac monks".
@@mithrandirthegrey7644Holland says it but to me not in a way Grayling can understand; the region the Farsi and Arabic speaking monks were in was the Christian East. Grayling after passingly mentioning Nestorians then again digresses to monks in the later Latin West.
@@NGAOPC At some point you just have to concede. You can show somebody the door - you can't make them walk through it. The man hates Christianity and won't give Christians an inch. It's useless to debate such a person.
Grayling is a philosopher, Holland is a historian
They debate history
I’m pretty sure who has better preparation than the other
@ Holland is an atheist.
@ why is it always like that? Anything a person says for christianity is always biased and for atheism it's not biased. Why is it like that. I don't understand you people. You guys are bizzare.
Some times this doesn't work, bias can make you judge differently and modify your argument and point of view to better your belief, like I had a school teacher who was constantly making wrongs statements and completely misunderstanding some past events just to make her belief more appealing and I who's a lot younger and a student still caught her mistakes on the subject dispite her being a teacher and having decades of experience and knowledge.
@@hablemosdelfuturo6832 why do you use pseudo historical myths? Say that to Atheist Stalin who couldn't accept genetics and killed biologists.
And i don't know how that is somehow supposed to prove your idiocy. Many famous Christian philosophers and theologians had studied under Hyaptia.
Neither one has a degree in history. Tom may be a great writer but is a hack historian.
AC Grayling to Tom Holland: "you will know way better than I (...)" [as an historian], some seconds later: "No! With great respect no!" [I know better than you]
@logicalempiricist2 Phillip Jenkins, author of, among other works, The Lost History of Christianity - which focuses on the syriac/nestorian church largely ignored and now forgotten by the European counterpart - aptly demonstrates that many of the scholars used by Caliphs to preserve the classics where monks. In fact, monks became an critical part of political dialogue because of their historical impulse to proclaim the Gospel in every tongue, they're linguistic ability made them useful for political mission as ambassadors - even having a hand in establishing one of the first Muslim universities! I am now enjoying Grayling's History of Philosophy, and he makes quite the contribution there, but even the erudite can betray some ignorance, here he is ill informed in the manner that the classics were preserved in the East. It would be unfair to dismiss him or his work because of this mistake, but his academic credentials do not make him impervious to error that is beyond the scope of his expertise, clearly.
@@pngballar24 Thanks for the reference. Just bought it off Amazon. Looks pretty good.
For many centuries Christians were also falsely accused of burning Rome. The fires were started by Nero's orders so that he could rebuild the city according to his desires and plans.
Speculate much...
I'd read "the myth of persecution" by Candida Moss before commenting such things. And also as a challenge to Mr Holland - what about Catherine nIxey's "The Darkening Age"? The destruction of the ancient world by Christianity, both in the short and the long term, is very clearly documented and well laid out.
Mr Holland is an apologist. It is well known that Christianity completely destroyed the ancient world and it's ability to grow and expand into a civilization not unlike the one we are in today.
"Much Later on, several Centuries" paper didn't last several centuries back then, at least if not cared for very delicately, works needed to be regularly re-scribed to preserve their contents. In other words who was taking care of the works in the meantime? How did they survive several centuries under Christian rule?
@Jonathan Archer We have never tried to live as if all are innocent? I mean if you think the murderer, the Thief, and the Rapist are all innocent? What of the Lier? Or the Bully? What of the man who takes other men for chattel? How can one even begin to condem the despot unless he first acknowledges the existance of sin? For the word means only error.
If you call virtue and morality despotism, then I think you will find you are of the same mind with many of histories most infamous tyrants.
All fo the freedoms of the modern world where won by men who belived in objective truths, in a kind of cosmically ordained moral law, and this is the foundation upon which these freedoms now stand.
If you think you can make a better world without such restrictions, why don't you and a group of like minded individuals prove this theory? Start sme kind of country or commune without any rules or laws, where all men are considered "innocent". Resaon demands proofs not platitudes, perhaps you can provide a few more of the former than the latter?
Ever heard of a Monastery? That’s where the scripts were maintained and where they rewrote ancient books. Usually by a bunch of monks and scribes.
@@jalend9974 That was the point I was making, Christian Monks persurved many of these works but the man in the video insisted that they didn't do so for hundreads of years, whene in reality if they hadn't those texts would have been gone.
Patrick Buckley okay, well he is a philosopher, not a historian, so I’d assume a mistake.
@@jalend9974 They also censored and wrote over pagan works. They saved less than 1%.
Tom Holland was dropping truth long before Ricky gervais made it cool
@@danielmcdonagh2889 it's a light hearted joke. I don't endorse everything gervais says!
@@danielmcdonagh2889 I know mate 👍
And by dropping truth you mean dropping it and leaving it behind to spew out utter bullshit.
AC Grayling is either so uneducated on the byzantine empire or willfully misinforming his readers. The texts were preserved by the Greek speaking Christian byzantine empire for centuries before the muslims translated them into Arabic.
Also Thomism is only there philosophy of Catholics, not the early orthodox and current orthodox Christians. This further shows his ignorance on the separation between the Latin west and Greek east.
Right, the religion that hijacked pagan holidays to help convert people into believing in their zombie savior thats the son of an invisible sky god, did not destroy literature even though Catholic records themselves show how they used the Roman Army to hunt down and destroy all books listed under their lists of heresies...
I mean, just fucking mentioning the Bonfire of the Vanities would have been enough to shut this idiocy down for anyone with an IQ over 80...then in turn asking why the Inquisitions were burning people at the stake for having materials "not of God"...men like Giordano Bruno, burned by this barbaric desert sky god religion...for being a man of science and reason. Just these few things alone will make anyone that has a clue laugh at these Christian morons too dumb to hold the wrongs of the past up into the light even when their own damn religion demands sinners repent.
@@r13hd22 your response has nothing to do with the Eastern Orthodox Christians who maintained the classical texts mentioned in this video. And further, it ignores the technological and humanitarian advancements of the eastern Roman empire under Orthodox Christianity, advancements such as: the first civilian hospitals as extensions of churches serving the poor, medical text books on surgery and medicine that brought western European medicine out of the "dark" ages, and contributions to engineering.
@vikedude 123 Who said anything about blaming ALL Christians? Nice try moron.
@@jessekaasa674 Your response has nothing to do with the question if "Christians destroyed classical works"...the question is NOT "Did ALL Christians destroy classical works".
You know, not ALL Muslims took part in the 600 years of Islam being the light of the world, guess that means there was no advancements in Islam...and not ALL Muslims started destroying advancements after 1200, guess Islam never destroyed anything!
Confirmation bias is a bitch.
@@r13hd22 you truly show your ignorance of the spilt between east and west.
Thank you for this upload !
Sounds like AC Grayling is leaning a lot of out-dated scholarship, much of it based on the prejudiced rantings of Enlightenment philosophers keen to slander the Catholic church.
Tom Holland is a brilliant world class historian and his conviction here is admirable.
Yes as a good Christian it is admirable to lie about Theodosius
He is not an actual historian
No one cares what you think @@user98344
Grayling much better here, Holland ignoring the facts, everyone knows Christianity had a wave of destruction in establishing itself over the classical Roman culture. Look at Nixey's book.
@@Mark-pb4dncope
After the Council of Nicaea (325 CE), the books of Arius and his followers were burned for heresy by the Roman emperor Theodosius I who published a decree commanding that, "the doctrine of the Trinity should be embraced by those who would be called catholics; that all others should bear the infamous name of heretics"
In 364, the Roman Catholic Emperor Jovian ordered the entire Library of Antioch to be burnt. (It had been filled with non-Christian works, by his predecessor, Julian.)
The books of Nestorius, declared to be heresy, were burned under an edict of Theodosius II.
Etrusca Disciplina, the Etruscan books of cult and divination, were collected and burned in the 5th century (by Christians, of course). Etruscans were not any form of Christian.
That brings us to the first 5 centuries of Christendom. It continued after that - for about 14 centuries. Not just pagan books, any books that didn’t agree with orthodox Christianity, even heterodox Christian writings.
Of course Christians have “excuses” why any particular incident wasn’t “Christians destroying books”, but many such incidents clearly were instituted by Christians (for example, the Council of Nicaea was the founding of Catholicism) and did result in book burning.
The Library at Alexandria was burned - by Romans, and by accident - in 48 BCE - so it wasn’t Christians. And the destruction in the 3rd century CE was in response to a revolt, not a Christian vs. pagan thing. But Theophilus’ final destruction of the library at the end of the 4th century CE did stem, in part, from his declaration in 391 CE that paganism was illegal, so it was a Christian emperor burning pagan documents.
Christendom also protected books on antiquities and other pagan literature which were beneficial for the church and later even made copies of it.
Does Holland stop interrupting? Grayling is trying to talk and Tom Holland keeps interrupting him!
I admire Dr.Holland so much. He is the best example of a Historian that I would like to be. He isn't a christian but has zero issues defending the proper context of History and never lets his personal belief get in the way of his work. I wish more agnostics like him and atheist took a page from his book. Many atheist have made up so many pseudo historical claims that its quite offensive to call myself a non theist in the line of my studies. I mean we still have people that say Jesus never existed and if they do say he existed then they say his divinity was made up in a Flavian Dynasty conspiracy or from other pagan myths. Im pretty sure one read from a college textbook disproves those quite easy. But oh well people will believe anything as long as is anti christian. What a bloody bore this age is.
He is not a historian
He's a complete amateur, not a doctor
@@tomasrocha6139his works are very well-regarded by academic historians. He has the same rigor as them while at the same time writing in a style that immerses you in the topic (unlike the boring, uninterested style that many academic historians write in)
@@tomasrocha6139I mean, if the great classist Armand D’Angour recommends his works, he must be doing something right
For those who believe in Tom Holland, i recommend you read 'The Darkening Age' by Catherine Nixey. That book was suppressed and Nixey was cancelled by the Christian mob
This was embarrassing for A C Grayling
Yes ,indeed!
Not at all he is very accurate tom provided nothing but saying well they copied this book. They burned so many and so many were lost so them choosing to copy one does not make his argument accurate
@@daphnelouis7292 Burned books?? PLEASE GIVE A SOURCE. Grayling didn’t, and there isn’t one. Copying manuscripts is hard work, and works perished principally because no one was interested enough to have them copied.
@@weemama lots were not kept in safe areas. the fact is a lot were lost.
@@daphnelouis7292 There is a world of difference between “many books were lost through neglect” and “Christians hated classical learning so much that they set out to eradicate it.”
Love seeing Tom Holland get feisty! Not seen that before!
I love this debate!
Remarkable how AC Grayling has a remarkable level of trust in ancient accounts of Caliphs and their dreams but difficulty with multiple first hand account of the Gospels.
The gospels are not firsthand accounts. Come on, even fundamentalist Christians know this.
@@onionbelly_read the first line in the book of Luke, this shows that people like you, do not know what they are talking about. It seems to me it is prevalent in village atheism to lie like it is second nature.
@@ungas024 You should read it too. The author makes it clear from the beginning that this isn't a firsthand account. What in the first line in the Gospel of Luke do you think indicates that this gospel is a FIRSTHAND eyewitness account?
@@onionbelly_ So you did not read Luke, Luke's book is literally a letter sent to the Roman governor named Theophilus which he wrote an EYE WITNESS testimony of what have happened (Ref. Luke 1:1-4)
"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."
Stop embarrassing yourself.
@@ungas024 You seem to be not understanding what a firsthand eyewitness account is, so I'll ask a few questions so we don't talk past each other. What were the names of these firsthand eyewitnesses and what did they exactly witness that was record in Luke?
AC Grayling blames Christians for time.
God bless you Tom
what is Tom Holland's twitter address?
Christopher Engelsma @holland_tom Don’t get him mixed up with Tom Holland the actor who plays Spiderman
Sadly ACG will continue to spout his half-truths - read any of his books ( wherein he spells 'God' with a small 'g') - he reminds me of a student who, having read one book, is instantly an expert. The New Atheists are, in the words of Carl Sagan, an embarrassment to atheism, let alone religion.
I have read a couple of his books and find them to be excellent books for ideas and perspective. He is a true scholar, but one who I think should stick to his areas of expertise. He has written dozens of books and I find some of his older one to be excellent. His introductory book on Wittgenstein helped me greatly.
Hmm...4:00 or so...a documentary was saying that during the Middle Ages they used to destroy nude sculptures from antiquity, for religious reasons...only during the Renaissance did some, such as Michelangelo (nude David, for example), start making them again...
So maybe Christianity did fuel some destruction of art...
Mr Grayling forgot to mention the Popes who did not destroy ancient statues but had their offensive attributes covered with tasteful carved fig leaves. Much more intelligent than destroying works of art but drawing the eye and making the desire to peek almost irresistible.
Ah...I had no idea, haha...
Even if Christians did destroy art and pagan temples, this is no different than any other civilization on Earth. Just as the romans before them did. So I see nothing wrong with.
This isn't about what is right or wrong, haha (though I definitely do think it's wrong)...this is about whether one or the other debater is right...I mean...I could be talking about whether some house was painted blue or red...one of them claims blue, the other red...I mean...I'm just siding with one of them...whether being painted red or blue is better is irrelevant...
So how can someone discuss this subject without discussing Theodosius?
Because Theodosius never ordered the destruction of any temple or book ? the story of Theodosius as a great persecutor of the pagans is more myth than anything.
Jajajajaja
@@nicolasdemarchenoyr3700He actually passed a lot of anti Pagan laws.
@@user98344 He passed twice as many anti-Arian laws as anti-Pagan laws.
The laws in question were much less severe than the anti-Christian laws before Constantine. He also appointed pagans to important positions, which was his biggest mistake in the case of Arbogast.
@@nicolasdemarchenoyr3700 That's only half true though. While it's true at first he was very tolerant of them, in later parts of his reign he became very intolerant by stop sponsoring Pagan celebrations, ban Pagan sacrifice and warship and even destroyed temples.
Grayling is a philosopher, Holland is a Historian. Grayling should know better than to step out of his professional territory into Hollands...
I feel that way about Jordan Peterson.
Holland is not a historian
Tom Holland is a complete amateur
Grayling is just embarrassing. The Muslims were only interested in texts about philosophy and science. They had zero interest in the historical and literary texts, which only survived in Christian lands. What is surprising is not that so many ancient texts have been lost, but that so many survive, including works that Christians considered scandalous and offensive. There was nothing of the kind in the Islamic world. The Byzantine Empire played an especially important role in preserving the works of antiquity and it''s amazing to see how Byzantine authors continuously quote classic writers such as Homer and Herodotus.
You are totally wrong. There are a ton of Muslim historians.
Ibn Abd al-Hakam (d. 871) Futuh Misr wa'l-Maghrib wa akhbaruha.
Ibn Qutaybah (d. 889) Uyun al-akhbar, Al-Imama wa al-Siyasa.
Al-Dinawari (d. 891) Akbar al-tiwal.
Baladhuri (d. 892)
Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari (838-923) History of the Prophets and Kings.
@@user98344 You are wrong. I never said there were no Muslim historians, but they did not preserve any of the original Greek and Roman texts.
@@davemorgan6013 Sorry I thought you meant history in general.
Yeah, they didn't preserve the original texts but they did something more important. They translated them. In fact, far more ancient texts have come to us through the translated versions of the arab world.
The translators of Greek philosophy into Arabic, other than Arab and Persian Muslims who played a role, were Iraqi Christians in Iraq so it is outside the Roman East. And they translated from Syriac into Arabic for the most part so not even the same language of the material that Holland claims was still being taught in Constantinople. They probably had the material before Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire and they were outside it anyhow and didn't necessarily go crazy like the Christians there. Grayling is correct about this.
Yall still burned numerous ancient libraries.
This was pretty brutal for Grayling.
Does anyone know where there is a historical reference for where Origen says ‘all good things are part of our heritage’ see mm4-5.
Jonathan Archer it’s stated in the video at about 4-5 minutes.
Jonathan Archer Jonathan Archer it’s stated by Tom Holland in the video at about 4-5 minutes.
Doesn't Catherine Nixey quote many written sources describing the damage done by early christian monks. On top of this, much of the classical works, as much as 90% was destroyed and so its simply not possible for Grayling to quote many sources. Christianity seems to be the triumph of ignorance over knowledge.
Nixey's work is very unreliable. She writes with a very strong agenda, and cherrypicks and generalises like a champion.
@Robert Edwards so the barbarians did nothing right?
@@Tzimiskes3506 Not in Alexandria
@@robertedwards3551 again no evidence. Wrong meme. Try again and harder.
@@Tzimiskes3506 Nope, her book has some very credible historic sources, unlike some other books such as the bible!
I love it when 2 highly intelligent people disagree and one won't back down but everyone can see who's flapping and carrying a bias
@ ? He barely is allowed
to speak 2 words til the end.. he's not flapping he's extremely controlled with astonishment and not a little bit of anger.. the guy is a sell out lying to sell books.
He's clearly intimidated by Graylings superior intellect. Also while grayling is calm and collected , tom becomes querulous.
@ Ignoramus.
@ Do you know science reasonably well?
I like discussing God's existence on the basis of science.
@ I think you've seen what you wanted to see, do you possess the same bias?
All Tom did was say over and over "where is the evidence they destroyed it" and "who else was copying these books for hundreds of years" and he ignored these 2 questions and just stayed in his rut.
I'll tell you what: heres a couple of questions to see of you're biased. What do you think Tom did better here in this discussion?. (Name one thing) also, in general, what good things did the early church achieve?
You only have to look at many ancient Egyptian temples where crosses and even written praise for the damage is chiseled. ANY religion that has to use fear is wrong.
Christians, people like anyone else, had differing responses to the past. Tertullian focused on contrast and rejection of the classical past; Justin Martyr affirmed classical wisdom in the vein of logos spermatikos; and Augustine took a mixed view, take some elements of the classical past and leave other elements. Are we to presume that classical or northern pagan practices are beyond critique? Do all of your parents’ children pass on all that your parents bequeath? Can someone be a Christian, and a Roman or Hellenist, and Germanic or Celtic or Indic or Semite or Coptic?
By the 3rd century, a general disinterest in classical education and "science' had thoroughly taken hold of educated Roman society quite apart from anything Christianity had to do with this. It was just a very general trend of the times among non-Christian and Christian citizens alike. And this was especially the case in the Western Empire. The evidence suggests that even if Christianity had never become prominent, classical education and "science" would have experienced much the same fate. But while I generally agree with Holland on his instincts and thesis, there is a great deal of detail he has yet to master on this subject in order to do his thesis justice. AC Grayling made some very valid points in this video clip and I don't think Holland did all that good of a job getting around them.
I love how Holland's replies always point to the hierarchical structure of knowledge under christian rule as if that wasn't evidence that even when classical works were preserved theywere only to be studied under strict church guidelines.
AC Grayling infers that the Christianization of Rome is what led to the loss of ancient literature - e.g. the plays of Aeschylus, of Euripides etc. - on the sound premise that all of their plays we had complete right up through Diogenes Laertius in the 3rd century - that is, right before the Christianization of Rome in the 4th century and the burning of the library by Theodosius on Christian grounds - Tom Holland offers no alternative explanation, he just doubts what is in fact the only explanation
There is no evidence that Christians burned those texts. There was always a Christians presence in Rome, so no reason to think they started to burn texts after the 3rd century. Given how many wars, how many sackings, fires, etc. the ancient world suffered there is no surprise that some ancient texts were lost.
Two things happening at the same time in history does not mean that one caused the other.
The western Roman Empire fell and was consumed in repeated waves of warfare and plague. That seems like the likelier explanation for why so many writings were lost. Especially when you consider the huge percentage of Christian works that were also lost. For reference you could look at how few of the writings Eusebius quotes are still extant.
On top of that, we DO have examples of Christians working really hard to preserve ancient literature through this time. For example The Chapter Library at Verona (which is the oldest library in the world) and the work of Cassiodorus and the Vivarium.
Hope that helps.
@@jesselopes5196 Oh I see what you're saying! Tom Holland's response is that there's not actually any evidence that the Christians burned any library with classical works. The example that is often cited is the Serapeum, which was a temple burned by Christians. I am certainly not condoning the burning of a temple, (Theodosius is a whole separate conversation) but there's no evidence that I'm aware of that the Serapeum was also a library---my understanding is that that was something Gibbon said without citing a source and that is where the whole idea began.
What I hear Tom Holland saying here is "please cite a source for why you think that Christians burned libraries", and Grayling doesn't.
Interestingly, more than 90% of the works of ancient Rome that have survived, only survived because they were preserved and copied in Christian monasteries (that stat is from Brian Tierney of Cornell), so these kinds of arguments about Christians actively destroying classical writings is not only a myth---it's the opposite of what actually happened.
Like it or not, the Romans constructed the Christian religion.
There is a very informative book on this subject written by Catherine Nixey - The Darkening Age.
Grayling almost never shuts up and rambles off topic dragging red herrings all over the place. He is intellectually dishonest.
I would say that the opposite happened
The guy on the right is just babbling on I wished he would shut up for a minute and let the other guy speak
Do you believe a consummate philosopher or a consummate antiquity historian about ancient history?
"Catholicism is greek philosophy and roman law"
Miguel de Unamuno
Strangled by ancient hebrew theology.
Well if they burnt women and free thinkers it's fair to assume they destroyed some books and statues !
They didn't
Christians killed many of the Pagans who wrote, read, knew, and transcribed those Pagan texts. It defies a moral-minded common sense to claim that Christians didn't destroy Pagan texts. Heck, we know Christians were destroying Christian texts deemed heretical.
Grayling is a great teacher of philosophy, but subjects like this and his stance towards Brexit (regardless of which view you sit on) are mad. He's the epitome of a clever person making the best fool, typifying the smug, sanctimonious, out-of-touch western academic.
so Grayling says Christians systematically destroyed the classical works. Then when pushed, he admits that they did copy them (later on, but they still copied them)… so why even say the first statement then??
Bland kept asking for evidence and the guy kept presenting his claims as evidence in themselves.
Let him speak for a second. You seem scared.
He was just doing what scholars do - checking on assertions, whether they can be substantiated. Not scared. Or do you mean AC?
We have what,1-2% of antiquities writings of literature? We got the christian approved versions that survived. We lost SO much. We dont even know all we have lost.
@@Tzimiskes3506What is exactly pseudo history?
I comfess I am becoming fascinated by how someone as intelligent and clearly well read as Holland has bought into the christian appropriation of culture.
The agenda he's selling, does not seem substantially different from the one promoted to me, in my childhood indoctrination into christianity. At root it was an impulse to try and resolve the inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible that led me to research christian history.
Now I began from a position of faith, but that is pretty hard to sustain when confronted by a history that shows that once christian elites attained systemic power that they continued the long established Roman tradition of appropriating culture they approved of and attacking or marginalising culture they disaproved of. Athanasius of Alexandria in particular springs to mind...
i love it when Christians ask, well how do you know that... where's the proof... like bro do you hear yourself
No, that doesn't follow logically. Christians have a basis for knowledge, scientific inquiry, and morality. Atheists that believe we all came from fish have no basis for anything in life except evolutionary success (direct and indirect fitness).
Yes because Christianity is the religion of evidence and reason.
@@tan1591 you’re joking i hope?
@@daphnelouis7292 no Im not joking because logic and evidence is not a joke, but your ignorance is a joke.
@@tan1591 Well if you’re being sarcastic that’s one thing. However if you really think Christianity is logical then you’re the ignorant one.
This is honestly rather frustrating. Tom Holland paints the picture like AC Grayling is purporting some conspiracy theory but literally anyone can go and look into this themselves and see that the accepted opinion is that Christians did destroy works of classical antiquity in mass. If he wants to push an opinion contrary to this, that is fine. Indeed, he may be right, but he needs to provide evidence to prove his case and should not state such silly claims as “this is an obvious fact we can all check”…
It is quite a very well known fact. Every historian on the Byzantine empire will tell you that. The Byzantines decided what to keep i.e what texts to copy. Look up Anthony Kaldellis, a byzantine scholar.
The West, and particularly Spain, was very well versed on Aristotle till the Muslims invaded Spain. Good they recovered Aristotle 400-500 years later.
Dr Holland come to India where mythification and deep disrrust of antiquity is still engendered through westernisation esp in xian schools, colleges etc.
Grayling comes out very badly from this exchange, treating Tom Holland (a very competent historian) like some errant schoolboy.
Tom Holland is not a real historian- he has not one real degree to show for it. Ancient historian Richard Carrier rightly pointed this out and tackled all of Tom’s arguments.
Tom Holland is a complete amateur
Well, and how did the texts of the ancients remained preserved until the Seventh century where Islam appeared (until much later in fact, given that the Arabic translations began in the following centuries after its appearance). If there was such a menace from the side of the Christians against the culture of the ancient civilizations , as all those so ''clever'' atheists insist, there would be not surviving even the slightest trace of it until the arrival of the Arabs. Let alone that as Holland says most of the translations into Arabic had been made by Christians of the conquered areas.
Also, as some other commentators too mentioned, Grayling seems to be almost totally ignorant about the history of the Byzantine era. It seems that he knows almost nothing about the Eastern Orthodox tradition and its cultural heritage. If he knew something from the Greek fathers of the Church (which them themselves were philosophers of a very high caliber, enormously well versed in ancient Greek thought ) he would never utter the words he utters for sure.
Also there's a forgotten part of history after st Patrick brought Christianity to Ireland and that is when the barbarian hordes and eventually the Islamic raiders were burning down the cities and destroying the archives of history of the Roman Empire including the literature the Irish were copying them and storing them in the libraries to be preserved. We are able to read the Iliad, the ancient Greek mythologies as well as the other classical literature, philosophical and historical archives as they were almost destroyed by the fall of Rome. It's down to the luck of the Irish that we have them today.
Why did Justinian closed the Platonic school in Athens?
@@user98344 The answer is very simple: Because after Christianity's unprecedentedly peaceful endurance and victory (under extremely difficult conditions) and its rapid populational increase the pagan society's institutions were remained with a very tiny, almost non existent audience. The pagans were the heartless persecutors of Christians, for nearly three whole cunturies, and they had remained without any moral right.
And, of course, it is a very big fault to approach such historical events through the glasses of today's moral values of the so called 'Western' civilization (which valuse are a clear consequence of Christianity's wordview also). In the times of Justinian such things as 'archeological sensibility' and the concept of 'museum' were totally non existent perceptions. The Christian era was a radically new civilizational era and the governors who embraced and endorsed it could not but establish it by excluding of other worldviews state laws. Such a stance was seen as a substantial means of having a common cultural language and, so, the necessary social coherence.
@@dimitrilalushi4693 Great fairytale but let's talk about history instead.
First of all, Christianity didn't have the peaceful victory you said. There were enormous persecutions such as destruction of temples, banning sacrifices and a preference of giving jobs to Christians rather than Pagans.
Then you talked about Pagan persecutions. While it is true that Pagans did persecuted Christians, those persecutions are overstretched. For example, Nero only persecuted Christians inside the city of Rome not the whole empire and Christians weren't his only targets. Another example of that can be the ordering of sacrifices. A lot of people say that those demands for sacrifice were seen as persecution to Christians but that is false. A lot of Christians had no problem making a sacrifice as they saw it more of a cultural thing rather than a religious one.
Lastly, let's talk about the academy. You are totally wrong saying that the academy was empty or abandoned. Do you really believe that only Pagans were there? The academy also had a lot of Christian students and teachers. So no, it didn't close because it was empty( you can see that when those people fled to Persia after the closer of the academy), it closed because Justinian didn't want something except from Nicaean Christianity to be taught.
@@user98344 I leave aside what you say about the persecutions of Christians. The history is there, anyone who wants to investigate the matter in a serious way can do it. The Christians were persecuted severely by pagans for nearly three whole centuries (even if with some relaxation regarding the severity of the persecutions during some periods of those centuries).
Now, as to Justinian and the academy... even if it is so as you say (which is not, but anyway), what is that changes about Christianity's message? There is no passage in the New Testament texts that orders enmity or any aggressive stance against pagans. The closing of the academy is not ordered by Christ himself or his apostles. It was the decision of an emperor. Many things have been done that are not befitting the life stance of Christ in the name of Christianity. This is the condition of our fallen world, even the most benign teachings can be put to the service of ungodly aims. It is something that we are warned, most clearly, in the third of the Ten commandments.
And a much needed note: When we want to go through a sincere discussion we never begin with aphorisms as 'fairy tales'. Such a stance is indicatory of ill will and never helps having a genuine, constructive discussion. : - )
Grayling out of his depth
Not sure 😃 but I'm pretty sure Antiquity trashed Christians !
Literally!
Christianity was also a product of the classical world. New Testament is filled with greek philosophy. Some books were actually wrote originally ij koine greek. And there were christian copying and preserving classical works in the 4th, 5th and 6th century. But also there were christian groups destroying statues and burning books. The truth is: Christian world was as diverse as you can imagine in that time. And the Pope was just an influential bishop with no real authority beyond city of Rome and the close area. We should stay away from generalizations. History is always more complex than it is told
ReLiGoN oF pEaCe
An illustration of how far academic philosophy has fallen, when a historian is doing philosophy better than a philosopher.
AC just got owned.
MrSouthstlouis In what alternate universe?
@@vesper8385 the unfortunate one in which he did get owned...
@@Tzimiskes3506 Which exists in your heads
@@vesper8385True, his questions were barely answered
No he didn't. It's a fact that Christians destroyed pagan works, as the Bible instructs.
What's the evidence? Prejudice against Christianity.
So the christians who wouldnt let other christians translate the bible in their own language would preserve other peoples scriptures
What other peoples' scripture are you referring to?
It is anachronistic to think that in antiquity there were official languages. Latin and Greek were the only standardized European languages, and as such it did not make much sense to make translations. Furthermore, the cost of copying a book back then was several years of wages, so imagine the cost of the added time needed for a translation.
soban1981 ...HA HA
@@764Kareltje The Catholic church didn't allowed the translation of the Bible until the 15th century.
@@20july1944Pagans
The classical Greek texts had no influence whatsoever on muslims or Islam. They took nothing from them! They did not even speak the language! Why would they have translated book they did not use or learn from?
Sylvain Gougenheim wrote a book in which he tells who translated the works. The book has not been translated into English. It name in English is " The Aristotle at Mont St Michel".
Totally wrong
Tom Holland seems to be an intellectual zealot. Ask him to read about the Goa Inquisition in India where they would destroy the texts of other religions in bonfires and even those of earlier versions of Christianity such as Coptic and Syriac which existed in India before Catholicism.
8:49 Tom Holland taking a deep breath to calm himself as Grayling continues to natter on about the evil Christian monks of the "Dark Ages." :-))
@5:23 fking owned! LOL!
They didn't distribute it to the world though.
Care to explain how the Olympic games came to an end ?
Still waiting for an answer.
Also what happened to the academy of Athens ? Didn't Jutprada shut it down?
@@billykotsos4642 Regarding the Academy of Athens, Alan Cameron writes "It is not clear that Justinian [Jutprada] “closed” anything, or that the “Academy” as it existed in the sixth century was actually continuous with Plato’s garden, or that the expedition to Persia was other than a kind of sabbatical. What remained of the school of Athens drew to a close later, and for different reasons." Cameron, A. (2016-01-01). The Last Days of the Academy at Athens. In Wandering Poets and Other Essays on Late Greek Literature and Philosophy. : Oxford University Press.
@@topologyrobRegarding the academy of Athens, Edward Watts writes"The prohibition of teaching was an institutional deathblow; it seems that the philosophers responded to this initial set of restrictions by keeping a low profile and waiting for circumstances to change. As the Athenian archeological evidence suggests, these laws would not have permitted the philosophers to survive simply by keeping a low profile. Perhaps sensing the inevitability of this fate, they left Athens for Persia. This was, for all practical purposes, the end of Athenian philosophy."
Edward Watts. City and school in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria.
@@Tzimiskes3506Because you named someone uneducated without mentioning his mistake doesn't make you seem smart. Quite the opposite in fact.
Philosophers tend to philosophise, they don’t necessarily want the Truth.
And all of a sudden a Christian wants proof. 😂
What? There is no such thing as proof unless you are talking mathematics. You only can ask for evidence. What is wrong with a person asking for evidence? Also Tom Holland is an atheist not a Christian lol
Both aren't Christians 🤣🤣
@@Tzimiskes3506 My opinion was formed after hearing Federal Judge Esther Salas tell her story of a crazy person stalking her and killing her son. Protest their work, harass them at dinner but their personal addresses should not be known. If there weren't crazy people out there I would feel differently.
Both of these people are atheist, are you stupid?
@@Tzimiskes3506 The Dunning-Kruger effect is false though
i would love to compare chrisitians and muslims up until today! when did islam abolish slavery?
Holland exactly proves the point by how he tries to shout Grayling down
There's not much that's worse than a Born Again Christian.
Holland is an atheist
'What evidence do we have for that '. Εver heard of the Theodosian decrees ? 'εσ έδαφοσ φέρειν '
Did you watch the video? He mentions them.
@@Pyryp2
Did he make good excuses about them ?
@@billykotsos4642 Justa said that Theodosian decrees do not call for the destruction of the writings of antiquity.
@@Pyryp2 Yh only ethnic temples
@@billykotsos4642 I did a cursory reading of the Theodosian Codex and didn't notice that part. Where was it exactly?
It's written in stone. In Avebury, they smashed many stones and built a hideous church in the middle with that stone. This wasn't just early Christian maniacs but the insanity continued into the modern era.
If Christianity was truly interested in the propagation of the full diversity of knowledge the Vatican archives would be open and accessible to study by the scholars of the world. It wouldn't have taken till 1966 for the pope to admit the earth revolves around the sun.
That a few examples of monks copying documents surely pales against what has been burnt or actively withheld. That we have to rely on Christians at all to tell a pagan story says it all anyway. So were pagan scholars welcome in this festival of knowledge?
Ask the average European about their pagan ancestry. In Britain, most can't tell you anything before Boudicca. They've done a proper job on original cultures globally.
it wasn't just few examples of monks copying books. I suggest you look at the works of Boethius, St Augustine, St origen and many more.
@@m.crasto1249 they are vastly outweighed by what was lost.
@@jasoncox7257 Again. I suggest you read the works of St. Boethius, St Augustine, St origen, St Anselm of Canterbury, St Jerome, St Tertullian, pseudo Dionysus, diogenes lartium, basil of ceasera and many more neo platonists preserved the works of early and late antiquity.
@@m.crasto1249 Again, I try to get you to understand it isn't the point. That this pales almost into insignificance against what has been lost.
And they are still at it, not translating or making literature of pagan origin available. There are books of Irish history they say they haven't the funds to translate. Then make them publicly available and they would be.
@@m.crasto1249 Even if they wrote a million books each they are not subtracting from the loss.
AC Grayling, what a waffler! Not so much as a conversation as verbal diarrhoea. I’m sure he wants to make his point stick but when asked repeatedly for evidence of his assertions, he just ploughs on... maybe he missed his calling as a politician?
i suggest looking under the theodosian Decreed in this you tube utility...
"There's no evidence for this whatsoever." Because you ancestors destroyed it...
Paganism > Early-Christianity
Roman paganism? The religion of slavemasters and oppressors?
The irony of a Christian asking for evidence.......
Yes , And Christians always Wins with Evidence.Unlike Atheist
The willful ignorance of Christian fundies is mind boggling.
Holland is not a Christian, he is an atheist. But he does make a point prove your claim.
What an absolute clown this dude AC Grayling is.
Christians destroyed libraries that were unrivaled in size for a millenia. Read "The Darkening Age" By Nixey and "Christianity's Criminal History". There is an abridged english version online of the latter.
Nixey is a journalist, an art critic, with an axe to grind against Christianity. In my previous life, I have also been taken in by popular history books and articles written by journalists and non-historians, or if they were written by historians, they're not specialists on the period they are writing about. After being shown the error of my ways, I've learned to read and listen to professional historians or those who studied historiography and are specialists on the period being discussed. For a comprehensive critique of "The Darkening Age," google "Review - Catherine Nixey The Darkening Age” and "Tim O'Neill" and also the review of Dame Averil Cameron, professor of Late Antiquity and Byzantine history at the University of Oxford.
the historical evidence pointing to the role of early Christians in the destruction of classical pagan knowledge is overwhelming!....The same is true of other religions of course....but it seems that Christians would like to think that their religion was/is different and that it could not have done these awful things...because, of course, it is the RIGHT religion...
@@siennamargeaux8413
@@siennamargeaux8413 Tom Holland is not a professional historian but rather a complete amateur.
@@tomasrocha6139 To be clear, I was responding to the above post about Nixey.
I agree, Holland is not a professional historian but his corrections to Grayling’s assertions about Christians destroying Classical works are in consonance with current medieval scholarship.
@@siennamargeaux8413 Why did Nixey's book receive positive reviews from Emily Wilson, Professor of Classical Studies at University of Pennsylvania as well as by Peter Frankopan, professor of Global History at the University of Oxford?
The Christian guys are so smarmy and smug.
Yea bc Christians love pagens and are tolerant of them
You’re delusional
@@daphnelouis7292 it was sarcasm
300 till 1900 world was slown down ny christianity
The problem with this whole debate is that neither of these men are real historians. AC Grayling is a philosopher and has no degrees in history- and Tom is a fiction writer who dabbles in history. Anyone who tells you that Christianity is responsible for western morals and values has absolutely no CLUE what they are talking about. Both men may know a lot of history, but that’s different than being a historian.
"Anyone who tells you that Christianity is responsible for western morals and values has absolutely no CLUE what they are talking about." Lmao, try to argue against it then.
@@dangin8811 That’s simple. All you have to do is look into the history of other civilizations such as the Greeks who had democracy way before Christianity- and there were other ancient cultures that had hospitals- such as in Sri Lanka and India- around the same time as Christianity- and other civilizations who had rights for women.
A quick google search will tell you that that Tom Holland does not have any advanced degrees in history or any degrees of any kind. Not that it’s a bad thing to not have a degree - but he hasn’t even come close to digging deeper on the issues of Christianity.
I have not known one advanced scholar in the field of history who agrees with Holland’s stance, or any credible historian who claims that western values come from Christianity.
This is a distorted claim that gets thrown around by pastors, and political pundits, and fake historians like Holland. Not historians that actually take the time to understand how western values actually evolved.
A good place to start is Richard Carrier’s book: The Scientist in the Early Roman Empire- it debunks many of these types of claims.
Carrier - despite his flaws, is a real certified historian.
@@patrickwoods2213 Our concept of democracy does actually come from Christianity more than it does from the Ancient Athenians. The direct democracy of the Greeks is separate from the 'representative commonwealth' model which derives from the English Civil War and its Protestant spirit.
Moreover, the only reason you think Christianity hasn't innovated western morality is because its influence is so profound. You look at the way we measure years, the English language and the KJV's influence on it, our holidays, and a million other things and we can clearly see Christianity's two thousand year influence on western civilisation. But because morality is so subconscious and profound, you don't see it.
Also Richard Carrier, lmao.
@@dangin8811 Just because our system isn’t “direct democracy” doesn’t mean the underlying main skeletal structure isn’t there.
The idea of the 13 colonies originated from the Greek city states, the idea of natural law and a constitution comes from Aristotle and the Athenians, and the whole idea of citizens participating in the leadership of the government comes from the original Greek structure.
As time went on, the whole idea of democracy evolved- but that doesn’t mean it was completely separate from the original model.
I’m not saying Christianity didn’t play a role in western values- every religion has contributed at least one or two things to society- but Christianity is far from having influenced all science, art, values in general.
Our holidays? Give me a break. Almost anyone above average intelligence knows that Christmas and Easter are simply borrowed from the pagan winter solstice and the spring equinox.
“But because morality is so subconscious and so profound you don’t see it.”
A question: Was there morality before Christianity?
The answer is a definite yes. So I have no idea what the hell you’re trying to say with that argument.
“Also Richard Carrier, lmao.”
LMAO isn’t an argument.
People like to crap on Carrier solely for his reason of being a mythicist.
But I couldn’t care less about his mythicist position- I care about his position on the ancient sciences, and for that he has scads of evidence for his arguments that Christianity is not completely responsible for modern science.
If you have an actual argument for why he’s wrong on that subject- then it’s up to you to demonstrate it.
Otherwise, taking cheap shots at an actual historian isn’t going to cut it.
@@patrickwoods2213 I didn't say it influenced "all art, science and values" but it did play an extremely profound, explicit and extensive role in forming much of them.
Regarding the development of western democracy, it is not sufficient to point to Ancient Greek influence to disprove its Christian influence, two things can influence something simultaneously. The first Liberal revolution in history was the English Civil War where Parliament opposed the absolutist tendencies of the King. The justification for this was not based on the Greek example, but was theological, kingship derived from God, therefore kings who disobeyed God were no longer legitimate. Then people lower in the social order wanted a stake in the commonwealth, so the franchise was extended, and that's how democratic institutions developed. AFTER they had done so, people looked back to the Greco-Roman tradition, but that was largely in hindsight. So, I would argue, Christian and particularly Protestant theology, played a decisive role in the formation of what we know as representative democracy.
And the thing about the holidays being pagan which you so confidently assert is stupid. The Christian holidays were not pagan in origin, thats a myth thats been comprehensively debunked.
And I didn't say that there were no moral norms before Christianity, I said that Western morality is essentially Christian, and it is so profoundly so that it is difficult for people who are not theologically Christian to see that.
Everyone knows that christianity and islam destroyed this world ,, 😂😂😂😂😂😂 what to debate
There is to debate how atheism triumphs in destruction, as the result of Christianity and islam combined...
Hindus did the most damage especially in Indian subcontinent 😂
They are responsible for untold damage to this world , Jesus was great but shame about those after him.
(Monks)😂 in medieval Europe or the dark ages whoever want to astronomy they confuse it with astrology and they cut his head I am not saying it’s because of Christians but some of them did very bad things
5:20 Ummmmmmm Lol?.
They weren't only Christian monks. Tom here straight up lies
Grayling is FOS
Tom holland is such a namby pamby twit
Hail Satan
It's all beside the point. There's no good evidence for any gods.....much less the Christian God. It's really time for humanity to grow up and face reality like we're capable of doing.
Absolutely correct! There is no 'scientific method' empirical evidence for GOD. But that does not prevent an intelligent human being from finding evidence of other kinds!
There are plenty of good evidences for the existence of God, in my experience what atheists do is ask for evidence and once given they then demand. emperical proof.
biggregg5
Prove to me the man that is within you. Just as difficult under the ”naive empericist” paradigm most atheists hold to.
You cannot account for human conciousness and other emergent phenomena. It is beyond what we see in software etc which is just an illusion of the emergent. Admitted to by atheists like Arthur C Clark etc.
Humans experience the transcendent. Your person is not only your body.
Atheism is superstition. Matter cannot come from nothing or cause itself as it is contingent.
Even pre Christian pagans such as Aristotle etc which Grayling mentions argued this. Not proof for Christianity but enough to seriously doubt one’s atheism.
At the end of the day orthodox Christianity with its triune God is the best explination for everything. The three hypostasis can account for all of reality and upholds the possibility of identity. All other world views collaps spooner or later into some kind of monad which is meaningless. In which case it is meangless that you posted your comment in the first place. That is, you may be right but your actions (posting your comment) is a sign that you are wrong.
It's all beside the point. PC is better than console for gaming and Apple is worthless.
Greg: Are you still a "psychiatrist", you lying sack of shit?
You can't explain reality without a Creator God, and I know you're a liar and I'm going to keep reminding others of that.
Tom holland is a total twit
And your comment is so erudite and insightful. When people have no good arguments they generally regress to name calling. Well done!
@ Are you educated at all? In what?
@Is Jesus the divine Son of God?
@ You're not in the same league as far as being honest that you're not a Christian.
Do you think Jesus exists?
@ Is Jesus the divine Son of God?
No, I don't apologize to you -- do you apologize for calling Holland a "total twit"?