Guest Post and Comment on Medieval Bible, Catholicism and Heresy

A guest post by Drew Gasaway. A FB status, but great as a standalone. I'll add my two cents below it.

Drew Gasaway Admin · 18 h There is lots of revisionism in Protestant books about there history. For example their books will claim the Lollard's and Hussite's had the same objections as Luther Zwingli and Calvin. In the case of both the groups purgatory and paid indulgences weren't in existence (they were not sold in Hussite areas) when they began. The Fourth Lantern Council addressed paid indulgences and abuses but didn't go as far as Trent did and allowed lower clergy to grant them which was the problem. There is misunderstanding what "dedication is about in the Fourth Lantern Council and people read basilica and think it is St. Peter's but this was about churches in general and might be talking about then Lateran Basilica. The Lollard's were anti-clerical and their basis was Wycliffite principle that the laity should restrict and restrain the power of the clergy believing each layperson was a leader in the Church of their own. Lollard's remained members of the Catholic Church and Wycliff was a professor who was fired and remained in communion afterwards. The main issue of the Hussite's was communion under both kinds started by Jacob of Mies 1414 which their understanding was a denial of real presence or it as a sacrament both groups embraced the save sacraments. The Church had already rejected the practice of communion under both kinds in in the 13th century because Fathers of the Church taught another kind of communion. The Hussites who put killed over indulgences weren't opposing paid indulgences but were in opposition to certain people with mortal sins being forgiven. It is true that some Catholic clergy testified in Jan Hus's trial but was run by he government not the Church and heresy was considered treason and was put to death by he state in 1415. Most of the people who became Hussite's were Beghards and they were Saxon's not ethnically indigenous people. Just before King Wenceslaus IV died he so these people as a foreign insurrection rebelling against the institutions of his society. His brother the Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund took over for him the same year. The Hussite's then revolted adopting the Wycliffite principle. As Holy Roman Emperor he had the armies of most of Europe at his disposal. The pope didn't have to call for a crusade and that isn't what happened. After the war was underway Pope Martin V issued a Bull stating that Christians should defend a Christian country. One of the Hussite top generals Sigismund Korybut was negotiating with the pope the whole time and was caught and temporarily jailed for it but was later let go. He died almost year after the battle of the Hussite's total defeat in 1434 at the Battle of Lipany. In 1435 the Hussite's signed a treaty with Rome agreeing to enter communion with the Church but were given permission to use communion of both kinds in the country. The Polish Hussite's were defeated by Polish royal forces in the Battle of Grotniki in 1439. The other false claim is that they were trying to translate the Bible in their language and the Church opposed this. The authorities mainly just had rules about translating a Bible to insure it was accurate because of cult bibles in the past you had Saxon bibles and early French Bibles and there were many early German translations that were Catholic like the Mentelin-Bibel (1466) Eggestein-Bibel (1470), Zainer-Bibel (1475), Pflanzmann-Bibel (1475) Sensenschmidt-Bibel 1476–78, Zainer-Bibel (1477), Sorg-Bibel (1477), Kolner Bibeln (1478/79), Sorg-Bibel (1480), Koberger-Bibel (1483), Gruninger-Bibel (1485), Schonsperger-Bibel (1487), Schonsperger-Bibel second version (1490), Lübecker Bibel (1494) and the Otmar-Bibel (1507). You can see thee was no shortage Bibles not in Latin. The issue was until after the Dark Ages most people who could read did it Latin.

And here is my commentary thereon:

First, "purgatory and paid indulgences".

They are not the same. Purgatory implies some kind of indulgences, as it implies some kind of intercession for the dead. We find that in Maccabees (which as historical even to most not accepting it as canonic would imply that the idea would have been sth Jesus would have known and rejected if it was wrong) and in Tobit.

The Greeks to this day use the Tobit book indulgence for hosting poor to agapes, if these poor are just. But hosting implies expense of money, and the other OT example was Maccabees, a sacrifice, also implies some expense of money.

Purgatory definitely was taught very widely even in areas and times when indulgences were not for direct money gifts. Hus would have known it and he did not poor out the main brunt of his objections there.

Second point is last sentence:

"The issue was until after the Dark Ages most people who could read did it Latin."

Until 813 and even further, a Romance speaker in Francia would if reading and writing been doing that in Latin, since Latin was the one accepted spelling of his Romance vernacular. Early probable exceptions, priests from 813 putting together the vernacular version or paraphrase or explanation of the Gospel, since the new Alcuinian pronunciation was not understood. However, some people would have spoken Germanic or Celtic languages, and would have been able to occasionally at least read or write those. King Alfred specifically ordered or himself made an Anglo-Saxon translation of 50 psalms, and the audience were nobles who would arguably not all be good at Latin, but who definitely would have read Anglo-Saxon.

When it comes to the limit 1500, we are not speaking of "Dark Ages" in any historically acceptable meaning of the phrase, it would just be a faulty nickname of the Middle Ages, and the statement would be untrue. Shadiversity made an estimate about Late Medieval England according to which at least one in every household could read.

It's rather that, if you didn't read Latin, you could read five other languages and still be considered illiteratus. Apart from that, excellent résumé. I am very happy that you confirm the statement I had from Konvertiten-Katechismus on 14 High German Bible translations authorised by the "Roman" Catholic Church prior to Luther. If challenged before reading you, I could of course have stated that Luther himself referred to them in a polemic way in his "Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen". But still, I highly value seeing a list like "the Mentelin-Bibel (1466) Eggestein-Bibel (1470), Zainer-Bibel (1475), Pflanzmann-Bibel (1475) Sensenschmidt-Bibel 1476–78, Zainer-Bibel (1477), Sorg-Bibel (1477), Kolner Bibeln (1478/79), Sorg-Bibel (1480), Koberger-Bibel (1483), Gruninger-Bibel (1485), Schonsperger-Bibel (1487), Schonsperger-Bibel second version (1490), Lübecker Bibel (1494) and the Otmar-Bibel (1507)"

"There is lots of revisionism in Protestant books about there history."

You can say that again.

Debate ensued:

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl there was no heaven for us anyway at the time of the Maccabees that was talking about purification while awaiting judgment in Sheol.

Making restitution is different then indulgences and there is a difference between indulgences and paid ones. Luther in the 95 Theses even supported normative indulgences. The Dark Ages which were 476 AD to 1453 AD according to most history books. This time period is right around the time things began to change. People read Latin more than their spoken language until after the Dark Ages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Purgatory is purgatory, it's a portion of Sheol between Abraham's bosom and Hell of the damned.

Meaning, someone who got out of Purgatory in the OT period got to Abraham's bosom.

"The Dark Ages which were 476 AD to 1453 AD according to most history books."

No, that is what most history books called the MIDDLE AGES.

In normal history books the Dark Ages is a rare term, but if used, it is more like Early Middle Ages. Like from 476 to 1066 or sth.

That was a military darkness of attacks from Goth here, Huns there, Hungarians here and Vikings there. As 1066 is the end of the Viking Age, it is the end of what could with remote possibility be called Dark Ages.

By 1453 reading abilities were very well spread even among people not reading Latin, but 1453 is half a millennium past any "Dark Ages" anyway, while it is one caindidate for when Middle Ages ended (1492, 1517, 1520 being other ones).

"Luther in the 95 Theses even supported normative indulgences."

Luther in the 95 Theses was more a Jansenist than a Lutheran.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl in Hebrews christ permanently ended Sheol. My history books show a different timeline for the Dark Ages there were the later Dark Ages. You had other groups after the date you mentioned. Literacy was 5% in Roman antiquity and even got lower in the Dark Ages. They didn't just magically all learn how to read overnight after the Dark Ages that occurred in about a 200 year period to get to 30% literacy after 1440 when the printing press was invented.

Hans-Georg Lundahl Luther supported normative indulgences but the reason Luther differed on Purgatory was Trent and Florence developed different concepts. It was developing in his lifetime.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Drew Gasaway "My history books"

Sure they actually used the word "Dark Ages"?

"in Hebrews christ permanently ended Sheol."

Christ ended the abiding in the part of Sheol called Abraham's bosom. Meaning, those who were there are now in Heaven.

"You had other groups after the date you mentioned."

Groups of what? I mentioned where? There is a reason that I cite what I reply to, even if it's not as nice paragraphs.

"Literacy was 5% in Roman antiquity and even got lower in the Dark Ages."

I don't know what that is based on. It is certainly not based on let's say archaeology.

"They didn't just magically all learn how to read overnight after the Dark Ages that occurred in about a 200 year period to get to 30% literacy after 1440 when the printing press was invented."

It so happens, literacy rates were definitely far higher in 1300 than in 1100 - BOTH dates before the printing press. And unfortunately, you made the blooper of calling 1100, 1300 Dark Ages while claiming - it seems on your wording now - these had a literacy rate of 5 %.

Shadiversity who is much better than you at Middle Ages (and remember these were a very important part of my university studies, unlike yours, so I can tell) actually estimates at least 15th C. England (which was mostly before William Caxton) to 50 %. Unless he swallows final n of 15% at 13:27 or just before in this video:

Medieval Misconceptions: EDUCATION and LITERACY
13.II.2020 | Shadiversity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-abyQLl8mPI

"Luther supported normative indulgences"

For a short while, in 95 Sentences.

"but the reason Luther differed on Purgatory was Trent and Florence developed different concepts."

Luther rejected Purgatory way before Trent.

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl it depends on when the history book was written in what term they might use. Older books used the other term. Your YouTube video is revisionist. There is a reason that there was no Greek New Testament in the west before the council of Florence. The Barbarians from the north and later the Muslims and others mostly from the south destroyed documents when they raided places along with most other culturally significant items. They also tied off the more educated class when they took power because it was easier to conquer them and control them when they started doing occupations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Older books used the other term"

Older books use Dark Ages, newer ones use Middle Ages.

"Your YouTube video is revisionist."

Not the least. You are avoiding modern updates on history of Middle Ages.

"There is a reason that there was no Greek New Testament in the west before the council of Florence."

What has that got to do with literacy in Latin, Provençal, French and non-French vernaculars? Greek was indeed a specialist's domaine in the Middle Ages (Moerbeke read and Aquinas didn't read Greek, so Aquinas depended on Moerbeke's translation of Aristotle).

"The Barbarians from the north and later the Muslims and others mostly from the south destroyed documents when they raided places along with most other culturally significant items."

Describes the time period I would call "dark ages" except I don't think Barbarians of the North destroyed much documents. They were too greedy to get Roman culture.

"They also tied off the more educated class when they took power because it was easier to conquer them and control them when they started doing occupations."

Totally idiotic. Do you get this thrash from Romanides and Metallinos?

Drew Gasaway

Hans-Georg Lundahl no their assertions aren't entirely accurate and demonstrably so.

The earlier Latin works disappeared/were destroyed mostly as well. They just were better able to keep Latin than Greek. Monks memorized whole works as copying often had to be done that way.

A handful of works surviving through memorization and hiding them doesn't make them a normative thing.

Your last response lacks understanding of how ancient invaders operated. They wanted a weaker opposing society. An educated and culturally affluent people are more likely to raise an army and do a counteroffensive. If you salt the fields foes can't come back. The Hittites and Assyrians did this. Pope Boniface VIII had this done when he defeated Palestrina saying it was practiced by the Carthaginians. They always tried to cripple a civilization indefinitely.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I will be picking this apart:

"no their assertions aren't entirely accurate and demonstrably so."

Waiting for your "demonstration" ...

"The earlier Latin works disappeared/were destroyed mostly as well."

Dito for most of the Greek works. Even so, not just a digest, but a real ... in Swedish you say "brick" of thick books ... like Macrobius was preserved.

Note well, right now we are talking, not of 476 to 1453, but of 476 or even some decades earlier to 800. Not to 1500, just to 800.

From 800 and taking more speed from 1100, you have a reversal of the process and a production of both written culture and literacy/

"They just were better able to keep Latin than Greek."

Indeed, just as the Greek speaking East was, outside the court, much better at keeping Greek than Latin.

"Monks memorized whole works as copying often had to be done that way."

What exactly are you talking about?

Monks memorised the whole breviary because they sung the breviary once every week. Still do, except the Novus Ordo in the Vatican II sect makes it once in two weeks instead.

There is a joke about a Benedictine, a Dominican, a Carmelite and a Jesuit who were singing the hours together (realistically, this could happen if they all were on a journey, like to a Eucharistic congress, like in a Hotel). The light bulb goes out. The Benedictine goes on chanting, because he knows the breviary by heart. The Dominican takes the rosary from the belt. The Carmelite switches to inner prayer. And the Jesuit changes the light bulb.

Now, what did the Benedictine, the actual monk, do in this joke? Continued praying because he knew the breviary by heart.

"A handful of works surviving through memorization and hiding them doesn't make them a normative thing."

If your source for this statement is a history text book, I can tell you it's about as accurate as A Connecticut Yankee and Washington Irving's novel about Christopher Columbus.

I will now quote your so far stated credentials:

"RB I have an MDiv from Yale and a bachelor's in Biblical Studies from Wheaton and I also have a degree in biology. I also took courses at Hebrew University in Hebrew and courses in the near east at UCLA and other places. I have seen lectures on Genesis and Enuma Elish from scholars at Oxford, Harvard, and Yale when we covered Genesis."

NONE of this has any bearing on literacy in the Middle Ages. MY STUDIES most definitely have. It's ME, not YOU who is relatively the academic expert on this field. And you are NOT content to point out faults in reasoning, you pretend to give lectures on things where the facts depend on documentation, where your point depends on having access to actual documentation.

"Your last response lacks understanding of how ancient invaders operated."

I am sorry, but were you taught in a madhouse?

"They wanted a weaker opposing society."

Who says Romans were opposing them?

"An educated and culturally affluent people are more likely to raise an army and do a counteroffensive."

Why would the Romans even have been suspected of doing this? You are reading into them a patriotism like in the days when they opposed Brennus - the only real example would be Arthur's opposition to Saxons, unless that was simply an opposition to Pagans. But it could be Celtic patriotism. In the case of Syagrius and St. Genevieve and St. Remigius temporarily opposing the onbursts of Huns and then Franks, it was basically only in defense of the faith. As soon as Clovis was baptised and confirmed by St. Remigius, he was also anointed king by him.

And as opposed to Huns, the Germanic invaders (except perhaps Anglo-Saxons) all started out as auxiliarii. They were not like "we have an Empire that the gods should favour more than Roman Empire" they were more like "we know the Roman Empire is fine, but we would be even finer with it if we ruled it, if not as Caesars, at least nearly so".

If Rome had held them in their troops for 100 years at least before the conflict, how could you even imagine them as parallels to Anitta invading Hattusha or Cyrus invading Babylon? Or the Khans invading China?

By the way, by the time of Kublai Khan, the Mongol Khans were as fine with being Chinese (as long as they were the top dogs in China) and with China preserving its culture (which they, as top dogs could enjoy) as the Germanic invaders were with being, basically, Romans.

"If you salt the fields foes can't come back."

Anitta from Nesha had a definite rivalry with an Empire speaking Hattic.

"The Hittites and Assyrians did this."

Yeah, I just stated Anitta, I think you can provide the Assyrian for me.

HOWEVER the Germanic invaders didn't come from a rival Empire in the North, they came via infiltration of Roman troops. BIG difference in type of invasion.

"Pope Boniface VIII had this done when he defeated Palestrina saying it was practiced by the Carthaginians."

According to some chronicler who arguably was his foe, and who was favoured by some of the guys who let him die in prison. If YOU try to tell ME I should take your word for Boniface VIII doing this, you ilustrate a point made by Dunning and Kruger.

"They always tried to cripple a civilization indefinitely."

That's the point Romanides and Metallinos were making about the Germanic invaders. They have even theorised that French Revolution was the Romans getting on top of the Franks, again.

I am sorry, but as historians of the Middle Ages in the West, these two semi-modernist theologians of the Eastern Schismatics are totally worthless. Their point is political : a) they do welcome the Latin West as more or less nearly become as of very late some kind of heirs of Rome, b) they insist, in order to be fully Roman, we have to take lessons from Byzantines. As to their statements on facts, they are worthless. Romanides is definitely more accurate when he states that Aeneas and Latinus spoke, but in that respect he is not original, he is trying to make the point they must have spoken Greek, but in that respect he is forgetting that they could have spoken Hittite or Carthaginian or Etruscan as well as Mycenaean Greek, and also that Mycenaean Greek in Rome's beginnings would not have resulted in good Attic-Ionic Koiné in Caesar's time.

But when it comes to the Germanic invasions, he is frankly (!) worthless. And so is whoever else you have got this from.

You said "demonstrably so" - where was your demonstration, again?

By the way, your statement about Pope Boniface VIII, whether from real quote or from calumny, clearly means in his time - he died 11 October 1303, I just checked - Medievals (himself or his calumniator) were educated enough to have read Livy.

So, part of your supporting evidence, as parallel on invader behaviour, turns out to contradict your main point.

You WILL concede 1303 is before 1453, right?