Posted on 07/24/2014 5:02:31 AM PDT by NYer
Day by day, we hear new horrors about the persecution of Christians in the Middle East. Now, believers living under ISIS control in northern Iraq must choose between conversion to Islam, payment of protection money, or death. Ancient churches and shrines are already in flames.
I want to concentrate on a unexamined aspect of this problem, one that has done much to shape what we know about the history and nature of early Christianity. In one particular historical era, anti-Christian violence did irreparable damage to our historical sources.
The story goes back to the dual origins of monasticism, which began more or less simultaneously in Egypt and Syria. From the fourth century, very large monastic settlements were beginning in both regions, and those houses became the homes of rich libraries. St. Catherine’s in Sinai is the best-known Egyptian example, while the Syriac world had one concentration of houses around Mosul, in Iraq, and another to the northwest, near the present Turkish-Syrian border. Here we find the Tur Abdin plateau, the Mountain of the Servants of God. Near the cities of Nisibis and Mardin, there stood a group of perhaps a hundred monasteries that have been described as the Mount Athos of the East.
Nineteenth century scholars made dazzling finds of ancient books and manuscripts in both regions. At St. Catherine’s in 1844, Constantin Tischendorf found the fourth century Bible that we call Codex Sinaiticus. Around the same time, a Syriac monastery produced the Bazaar of Heracleides, a contemporary history of the fifth century Christological controversies written by none other than the arch-heretic Nestorius himself.
Spectacular finds were however far more common in Egypt than in the Syriac world, which is startling when we consider the massive outpouring of writing and scholarship in that culture from the fourth century onwards. One great textual find in the 1840s was the Curetonian gospels, the most ancient testimony to the Old Syriac Bible text, probably written down in the fifth century -- but these came from a Syriac monastery in Egypt itself.
The more you look at the Syriac world in this era the easier it is to understand the lack of manuscript finds. Through the centuries, both Egypt and Syria/Mesopotamia were subject to various wars and raids, which had devastated particular monasteries. The earlier these occurred, though, the more likely it was that losses could be made up by copying items found in other collections. By the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, moreover, such random violence was rare in Egypt, which had an active state mechanism.
Utterly different was the position of the Syriac houses. Ottoman authority was weak in the eastern regions of the empire, which was a contested borderland between the Turkish and Persian realms. Public order was very weak, with local warlords regularly rebelling against central authority. Christian communities found themselves the targets of raids by neighboring peoples, especially the Kurds. Although these neighbors were Muslim, the attacks were usually not religiously directed. They were rather profit-seeking ventures against easy targets, like the Viking raids in medieval Europe. And in both eras, monasteries proved to be low-hanging fruit.
Whatever the causes, the old Syriac monastic world suffered dreadfully from violence. In the 1730s, this region became a battlefront during the invasion by Persian ruler Nader Shah. Nader’s forces directed their fury at the monasteries around Mosul, and slaughtered monks en masse. The monasteries subsequently rebuilt, but repeatedly through the nineteenth century, we hear of Kurdish raids inflicting terrible damage on the houses, and their libraries. Mar Mattai, one of the greatest houses, was hit numerous times in the nineteenth century, and we know of spectacular horrors like the 1828 destruction of the manuscripts at the monastery of Rabban Hormizd.
In 1844, facing an armed raid, the monks of Alqosh hid five hundred precious manuscripts in a cave, but their action proved useless. Immediately afterwards, heavy rains flooded the cave and wiped out the manuscripts. Kurdish raiders, meanwhile, destroyed any documents left in the monastery itself.
Such atrocities were only the tip of a very large iceberg. When intrepid European and American travelers in these years visited the declining monasteries of the upper Tigris, they commented how often Kurds and other Muslim tribes raided the premises, taking papers and parchments that they might use for loading rifles or starting fires. These campaigns culminated in the genocidal warfare that the Ottomans commanded against Syriac Christians in 1915, when irregular forces and Kurdish militias devastated surviving monasteries and great libraries like Kudshanis.
The loss of ancient documents in these years was immense, and catastrophic. In 1840, one American traveler reported seeing at Mardin a full fifty dust-covered volumes that had apparently never been opened; ten years later, another Westerner to the same site found only a few individual manuscripts. We can only speculate what these collections might have contained at their height, and what was in those fifty lost volumes.
Given their ties to the most ancient churches, though, the Mesopotamian monasteries must have contained many ancient treasures, which are now irretrievably lost. Just what burned or flooded in the 1830s and 1840s? Which now-lost gospels? Which alternative scriptures? Which Gnostic tracts? What records of now-forgotten apostolic leaders and early Fathers?
What records from the first and second centuries survived in lone copies into the 1840s, and then perished?
What ancient histories were irretrievably lost in these years?
Ping!
ping
All of us believers should be on our knees praying, today, right now,
First for those in harms way, and then for whats coming here if its not held off by prayer,
Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism each established themselves in the 1000s. Much later, Protestantism was established. For twenty years, living in the South, I have lived with something I never experienced in New York and part of it is hearing that Catholics are not Christians and any variation of that.
And the term Christian has been used for Protestantism, and pressured in a politically correct way. If I say protestant I am treated as a trouble maker, yet for twenty years in NY, we used this, I guess correct, term and no one cared. The Presbyterians, Episcopalians, the Methodists, as well as the Catholics and the Jews and the Orthodox all had beautifully built houses of worship. No problem.
In the South, we are agape, to deafened ears, on hearing, “no I’m not Catholic, I’m Christian”.
Yet, when talking about ancient Christian, I guess still active, buildings and people, in Iraq, the term Christianity is used.
Are they not Catholic?
I would imagine ancient means in the single digit centuries.
I imagine a theologian from Baylor has a tough time with this, as do many Baptists studying the ancient texts do, but for these headlines, could they separate Catholic from Christian? My mind is trained by them now to separate the two, as if the Reformation in the Middle Ages, not in Ancient times, was the beginning of Christianity.
Very very annoying
The world has gone mad.
Let's begin with the term "christian". St. Paul writes about his travels to the Church at Antioch, and St. Peter evangelized there. Here, the followers of Jesus were first called "Christians" (Acts 11:26). Antioch also became an influential center of Christianity, where a very famous theological school was established. It eventually became the center of an important Eastern Church Tradition, the Antiochene Tradition, which includes the three West Syriac Churches of which the Maronite Church is one. It also later became the seat of certain Patriarchates, Catholic - such as the Maronite Patriarchate of Antioch - and others. Antioch produced such famous men as Bishop Ignatius and John Chrysostom.
Insofar as the Catholic Church, It is not possible to give an exact year when the Catholic Church began to be called the "Roman Catholic Church," but it is possible to approximate it. The term originates as an insult created by Anglicans who wished to refer to themselves as Catholic. They thus coined the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves and to create a sense in which they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term). ref.
“Let’s begin with the term “christian”. St. Paul writes about his travels to the Church at Antioch, and St. Peter evangelized there. Here, the followers of Jesus were first called “Christians” (Acts 11:26).”
My point exactly. I should then bring this around with me for whenever I hear someone tell me Catholics are not Christian, or ‘I’m not Catholic, I’m Christian’, or, a favorite, ‘oh, yes, SOME Catholics are Christian’.
There are 5 branches or patriarchates, Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem,Alexandria, and Constampnoble or Istanbul.
That is why I call myself first a Christian Roman Catholic, because we must go beyond denominations.
You still get that ‘you’re a trouble maker’ look, though. I know I do.
Wondering why this Baylor Professor/writer doesn’t use the word ‘Catholic’ since the distinction is otherwise very important.
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).
A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.
The writer wants to have it both ways, is my point.
Probably because some of these monasteries are Orthodox and some are Catholic. Keep in mind that before the schism, there was only one "christianity". With the exception of the Maronites, all of the Eastern Churches broke away from Rome. Over the past few centuries, some of them have split with one group returning to the Catholic Church, as seen in the above chart. Does this clarify the professor's position?
That’s fine. I agree. The point is, this is a professor from a baptist institution in an area where Catholics are not allowed to say they’re Christian, so he wants it both ways
Thanks for the ping. I didn’t know this.
Plenty of information in this article, for your RCIA class.
Thank you. Sadly.
Thank you for the link
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.