|
Nenonen posted:Can you explain how taxation worked in Rome? Bible uses it as some kind of McGuffin, but in the end doesn't tell if Joseph and Mary actually paid any tax. Did people back then understand taxes in the same way as we do now? Although some people have already given some in depth answers on taxation, I do want to point out that Luke's description of the census is wrong. Tax collectors didn't care where your hometown was, they wanted to know where you were now (that's their taxes and they'll be damned if they let someone else get them!) Grand Fromage posted:Yeah that was the guy I was thinking of, I got the century wrong. It's amazing that a guy used a couple of obelisk shadows and some math to calculate the size of the planet. This is a little off topic, but, how it was taught to me in primary school was that there was someone (Ptolemy?) who did a different calculation and got a much smaller Earth--about 2/3rds the size it really is. Columbus's innovation wasn't that the world was round, but that he believed the wrong calculation, where most people believed the right. Luckily for him, the Americans were there or else he would've starved on the way. Did you hear anything to this effect? I never really gave it much thought so I have no idea the accuracy of this statement. Frosted Flake posted:Are there any references to the beginnings of the Jewish Revolt in the Bible? I don't know that there are any references to the beginning of the rebellion, however, the Bible mentions of destruction of the temple. "Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down." As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?" (Matthew 24:1-3) Believers obviously view that passage as prophecy; critical scholarship takes a different view. wrt Josephus: There's basically three mentions in Antiquities that have to do with Jesus (also, there are no references to Jesus in Josephus's other works*). In book 20, Josephus says something about James and mentions that he was the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ. This is generally regarded to be authentic. In book 18, he give a brief mention of John the Baptist being imprisoned. This is also regarded to be authentic. The real outlier is the "Testimonium Flavianum"--I'll quote it here: Josephus may have posted:Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. Obviously this doesn't sound like something a non-Christian Jew (Origen categorically states that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah) would write about Jesus, which is our first red flag. The earliest reference to this passage is by Eusebius in the early 300s; this is problematic because several Christian apologists refer to Josephus's work before Eusebius, but none of them mention the quote, which one would think they would like to use. Josephus doesn't mention this at all in The Jewish War even though he provides a fairly in depth discussion on Pilate. Because of this, pretty much every scholar accepts that it is either entirely false, or has significant interpolations from later Christian writers. karl fungus posted:Question on Catholic/Orthodox split Jazerus offered some good info, but if nobody minds I would like to offer a little more. The question of papal supremacy was contentious because in the 1st Council of Constantinople the Bishop of Constantinople is prime just behind the Bishop of Rome since "Constantinople is New Rome". On top of that, as time goes on, the East is so much richer and more powerful than Rome that it becomes very easy for Constantinople to view itself as the new capital of Christianity (as it were). Other issues include clerical celibacy, and the "iconoclastic controversy"--the eastern church viewed pictures and idols as unChristian and destroyed or defaced many of them. Later, they changed their mind, obviously. However, I don't know that reconciliation is impossible. Since Vatican II, the anathemas against each other were rescinded, the filioque isn't really a huge issue--it's still recited in Latin mass, but not in Greek--and Orthodox Christians can receive sacraments from Catholic churches. A lot of cultural differences that exist can be compromised--for instance, not all Catholic priests are unmarried/required to be celibate. The Eastern Rite Catholic Church, which is in full communion with Rome does have non-celibate priests. hotgreenpeas posted:Regarding all the talk of the Catholic/Orthodox split above, is one closer to the "original" church as it was practiced in the late Roman/early Christian era--the actual rituals and traditions? This is kind of a trick question, because there was no "original church". There were a lot of different churches who believed a lot of different things and followed a lot of different practices, even used different books as canon (many of them were deemed heretical, later). Both Churches have changed considerably over the years is probably the best answer anyone can give. Although, I find the rest of your post describing the Orthodox Church as somewhat more pagan in appearance ironic, because the Orthodox Church has traditionally always charged the Catholics with being more pagan due to the Catholic penchant for "pagan" scholasticism. Grand Prize Winner posted:How does the Coptic Church fit into all this? It doesn't really fit into Rome. The Coptic Church is and was largely centered on Egypt, with some followers in the rest of the middle east, and, as someone said, doesn't really exist as a separate institution until Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). The split takes place over a doctrinal issue; at Chalcedon it was decided that Jesus was in two natures (human and divine). The Copts do not accept that wording as it implies that Jesus is essentially two figures and insisted on the idea that Jesus is of or from two natures. The early Catholic Church felt this was over-focusing on Jesus's divine nature at the expence of his human nature. Early Byzantine emperors did persecute them, including massacres of Egyptians they deemed part of the Coptic heresy. The Muslim conquest changed their situation as the Muslims considered them 'people of the book' and didn't concern themselves with Christian doctrinal disputes, so they got the same protection that any other Christian got, although gradual conversion to Islam changed the makeup of the country. *Technically, it appears in the "Slavonic Josephus", but that is a 10th century forgery used by Russians in an ideological battle with the Khazars. Sorry about all the Church chat, hope nobody minds.
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:The simple version is the Bible says not to make any graven images, and the eastern church decided that icons were graven images. They thought this was the reason god was punishing them. The Muslims, who followed this commandment more strictly (why there's rarely depiction of humans in Muslim art, I believe) had been incredibly successful in their wars against the empire, plus there had been plague. So they began getting rid of religious iconography in an attempt to win back god's favor. This is the basic start, however, there's actually two periods of iconoclasm. The first, as you said starts in the eastern reaches of the Roman empire, which had to deal with Muslim raids. Since the Muslims were fighting very successfully people believed that following the scriptures more closely would help. The emperor at this time Leo III, has the Patriarch of Constantinople Germanus I send a letter to where, supposedly, he wants the Pope to convene a council outlawing images and destroy all the idols. The Pope, Gregory II, sends him a letter explaining that images are all cool and they apparently get into a bit of a dick waving contest about it. A pro-icons rebellion starts up in Greece and is crushed by Leo. Saint John of Damascus writes a treatise on heresies and spends a lot of time railing on this particular one; presumably since it was going on just to the north so it was a little more personal for him. Anyway, in 740ish, Leo dies and his son Constantine V takes the throne. Constantine is even more of a hardass iconoclast and convenes a council which forbids idols. Images are destroyed and supporters of them face retribution--usually not death or torture (though it did occasionally happen), but public humiliation apparently was common. Things begin to stabilise on the borders, due to Constantine's successful defence, and the issue gets pushed into the background. After Constantine's death, the regent, Irene, reverses the council's rulings. Even though there were many people who were loyal to the original council (the army actually interrupted the council), they were able to do so because the first council wasn't really considered official since there was no representation from any of the patriarchs (the second council had papal representatives). The second period also starts with military losses, although on the other side of the Empire at the hands of the Bulgars. Now, iconoclasm had remained fairly popular within the army probably because of Constantine V's military success. They apparently begin to venerate him as a saint and make a pilgrimage to his tomb and offer a prayer saying "Arise and save the perishing empire!" Emperor Mikael I suffers a crushing defeat against the Bulgars in 813 at which point he's overthrown by the army (who also castrate his sons, nice guys). They put one of their generals, Leo the Armenian, on the throne. He continues the persecutions and attempts to kill the Bulgarian king via a false offer of peace negotiations. They succeed in wounding and pissing the guy off, who escapes and wreaks havoc in areas of the Empire they can get. Before starting a major campaign, though, he dies and his son Omurtag takes the throne and immediately signs a 30 year peace treaty with the Empire (largely because he was being invaded by the Franks). With that settled things calm down a bit, though Leo still gets himself murdered by one of his generals, Mikael II, who then takes the throne. Mikael leaves off persecution for a couple of years, until one of his generals, Tomas, raises a rebellion with the help of the Arabs. That rebellion doesn't really have anything to do with icons (it was out of revenge for Leo V), but Mikael decides to persecute iconophiles anyway. He also tries to convince Louis the Pious to hand over any refugees, though the Franks don't go for it. He dies in 829, when his son Theophilus also continues persecution and favours torture as a method. There's not a whole lot to say on this period; Theophilus dies in 842, when his wife Theodora becomes regent, reverses the ruling, retires the Bishop of Constantinople, and the new Bishop, Methodius, excommunicates the iconoclasts, this time for good. This either happens on or is just celebrated on (I'm not sure which) the first Sunday of Lent, which becomes the "Feast of Orthodoxy" for the Orthodox Church. In any event, the whole thing is extremely ironic, because the Orthodox Church becomes and remains famous to this day for its beautiful icons. You can walk into Russian or Greek store and ask if they have any; they probably won't be true icons, but you'll get a sense of what they're like and they're seriously amazing. Also, the Roman Empire wasn't the only place which flirted with iconoclasm. There were other parts of Europe, like in the Carolingian empire that had iconoclastic outbreaks, though they never had the influence that iconoclasts in the east did.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2012 08:07
|
|
|
Most ended up converting fairly quickly, although fake conversions were fairly common (ie they continued to practise pagan religious rites in secret). Passive resistance like not enforcing the laws against paganism was also fairly common. Constantine forbade building new pagan temples, and later emperors, including his son, ramped up the persecution dramatically. In 350ish, a guy by the name of Magnentius led a rebellion based on official toleration of pagans and Christians. He was defeated a couple years later, though, and Constantius decreed the death penalty for taking part in pagan rituals. In 360, you have the last pagan emperor, Julian the Apostate (because he was raised Christian and converted to the traditional Roman religion). He re-instated the pagan religion and rites and began persecution of Christians. This might've continued, but he was killed while fighting in Persia in 363. In the late 300s, St. Ambrose of Milan was a big influence on the emperors and pushed hard for killing and otherwise persecuting pagans. In the early 400s, there was a bit of a resurgence. When "barbarians" sacked Rome and terrorised some of the countryside, a lot of people believed that it was a punishment for abandoning the old gods. This prompted St. Augustine to write "City of God" which religiously justified their losses. There were some later movements, but with the power of the state against them, they didn't really meet any long term success. I don't know if it's the last, but Plato's Akademia was closed in 529 and the scholars fled to Persia. There may have been other pagan areas open, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:There were pagans kicking around Europe well into the Middle Ages. Whether they were following Roman gods, corrupted versions of them, or other traditional gods I don't know. Depends where they were I guess. Yeah, it continued outside the empire for a very long time. The last European country to convert away from their polytheistic religion was Lithuania which was fully Christianised in 1413. Hellenistic religions did continue, but Germans, Slavs, Celts, etc. had their own pantheons they followed.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2012 03:43
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:That only applied to the first few lines. Again this is one where we don't know exactly, but usually it's thought maybe the first three or four soldiers had their pikes leveled for fighting, and after that they were all held up at an angle to provide some deflection against arrows. When the guy at the front dies everyone moves up and gets into fighting position. IIRC most pike formations were more of a combined arms situation. You had pikemen, but there were also swordsmen, crossbowmen, halberdiers, etc., interspersed in order to provide the unit with some ranged capability and soldiers who could quickly engage with anyone who got too close. fake edit--this applies to later, middle ages era, I don't know about antiquity.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2012 02:56
|
|
|
sullat posted:I read somewhere that the Athenians had like 3 different calendars they used at the same time. Religious, "official", and the actual one. That's really not that different from modern-day people; most of us have experience using more than one calender. You have your regular Jan. 1st to Dec. 31st calender, when you went to school you used a different calender for that, at work you might have a fiscal calendar, your religion might use a different calendar, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
two fish posted:That's a fair point, I had intended what would be popularly called Ancient Egypt, but that itself is a very long timespan. I suppose the New Kingdom would be what I was thinking of. Old Kingdom rather than New, but Imhotep is generally thought of as such, at least until Brendan Fraser killed him. I didn't focus on Ancient Egypt in undergrad so I could be wrong, but it seemed like most of the information we have on major discoveries/innovations of the time usually get described as "happened under Thutmose III" or whatever, rather than pointing to non-pharoahs who actually developed it.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2023 16:33
|
|
|
BrainDance posted:I got a question, I don't know if it has an answer but I'm still curious. Walking by a cave and 3 dragons pop out? Totally believable, gotta roll a 99 on the random encounter table sometime. The finest cartographers have clearly marked out where the dragons are at, have you just never seen a map before? Really telling on yourself about your ignorance here bro. On a more serious note, in Revelation 20, Satan is explicitly described as a dragon. I'm not sure what conclusions you might draw from that, but surely the author would be familiar with that usage. Dopilsya fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Oct 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2023 01:36
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:All Roads lead to Rome ergo all road trips are Rome trips and all road movies are Rome movies. Getting hype for Mad Maximus: Fury Rome
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
Schvi-tzu
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2023 20:45
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I can sometimes kinda sorta puzzle the meaning out of Old English texts as an Icelandic speaker. According to Gunnlaugur Serpenttongue's saga (written in the 1200s, set right around year 1000) Gunnlaugur is an itinerant poet from Iceland, goes to England, and is able to have his poetry understood because the language was the same. I probably wouldn't take "the same" literally, but just to mean that it's mutually intelligible. Note that this takes place well post-Danelaw, so I don't know if a Viking at Lindisfarne in 793 could make himself understood to people at that time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2024 10:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 11:52 |
|
|
Groda posted:Thanks for reminding myself of a shower thought I had: Most recent controversy was in 2008.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 10:28
|
|