So, oneway, in an act of great friendship and kindness, gifted to me two incredible books before I journeyed out here to the Golden State. I have said nary a word about these two books, which is indeed a shame. It is highly likely that your head would explode if I hit you with the full awesomeness of both of these two books in one post, so I will just give you a taste of something referenced in one of the books. This will greatly reduce the probability that anyone's head might explode. The book is called simply A History of Christianity and the author is Paul Johnson. This guy set himself the task of giving a fairly complete history of the Church from the 1st century AD to about 1975. From what I can tell and what other people wrote about this thing, he pretty much hit a home run. It's gonna hit you up at 513 pages (before the bibliography and index) so Paul didn't come to mess around (much like his namesake, but that's another story for another time). Anyway, at one point in the book, Paul is going about making his case for why it is that Christianity went from being alternately semi-ignored/viciously persecuted, to eventually becoming the official state religion of the Roman empire. He makes a rather scholarly argument about how the institution of the Church changed to where it became mutually advantageous for the Roman state and the Church to align themselves, but this is only part of the answer. The historian cannot get away from the fact that while, at first, the persecution of Christians by the Roman empire was essentially bowing to the will of the mob (due to the fact that people were told Christians engaged in cannibalism and other despicable acts), eventually, the general populace did *not* support the persecution of Christians, and the final bouts of torture and execution were not endorsed at all by the masses. To understand why, I highly recommend peeping the Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, but first probably this to explain it all. It was written about 200 A.D. and the author is explaining to the tutor of the Roman emperor how Christians live among the people. Since you are all busy people, I will just give you this snippet, which I found very inspiring. There's a lot more good stuff in there besides this, but this can be a little food for thought until you have time to look at the whole thing:
(slightly different translation from the link)
"They live in their own countries, but simply as visitors... to them every foreign land is a fatherland, and every fatherland foreign... They have a common table, but not common. They exist in the flesh, but they do not live for the flesh. They spend their existence on earth, but their citizenship is in heaven. They obey the established laws and in their own lives they try to surpass the laws. They love all men, and are persecuted by all... They are poor, and make many rich. They lack everything, and in everything they abound. They are humiliated, and their humiliation becomes their glory. They are abused - and they bless. They are reviled and are justified. They are insulted, and they repay insults with honor."
Let it be so, let it be so.
Monday, August 29, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I'm really glad you are enjoying those two books I gave you, and I hope someday soon you will comment on the second.
Paul Johnson is a first-rate historian, unlike Howard Zinn and his ilk.
I printed out that epistle you linked to. It is an amazing document, man, very humbling and also invigorating to see the strength the Holy Spirit imparted on our spiritual ancestors. The epistle speaks volumes about how the Church is to act in a fallen world. I gotta read that book soon.
Paul Johnson has another book that needs to get copped, "A History of the American People".
>>first-rate historian, unlike Howard Zinn<<
why do you think this? what books are you comparing?
Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is a delusional Marxist fulmination masquerading as a historical survey. There are legitimate historians on the left, but Zinn doesn't make the cut.
The fact that this book contains not one source citation speaks volumes. There is a bibliography, but not a single footnote. This reveals that Zinn's source is his own "Marxist, socialist, anarchist, radical, liberal" agenda, to quote Zinn describing himself.
What does this say about the numerous high school and college instructors that peddle Zinn's manifesto? Home school your kids as long as possible.
>>not a single footnote. This reveals. . . <<
are you serious? you believe that if a book does not have footnotes then it is not reliable?
i don't think paul johnson's book has footnotes either.
>>"Marxist, socialist, anarchist, radical, liberal"<<
what is your source for this quote? you never give it.
Sorry, my friend, Johnson's history, like all good historical books, contains footnotes. This is not a petty point, as footnotes allow the reader to trace purported facts, giving the author credibility.
If you are writing a ideological manifesto, of course, footnotes, corroborating texts, evidence, facts, truth, all are unnecessary, and this is what Zinn understood.
The quote is from Davis D. Joyce's biography, "Howard Zinn, A Radical American Vision". Does it surprise you?
>>like all good historical books, contains footnotes.<<
i was confused to why i could not remember footnotes in johnson's book. well i now know why. there are none. i just looked.
there are endnotes, no footnotes.
your point is probably still the same since zinn's book does not contain endnotes, but simply a bibliography (which contains sources), but i think your implication that his history is illigitimate is misleading. repeatedly throughout the text zinn points out his sources. and when he does not point out sources it is because it is his own analysis of the information/facts (same thing johnson does).
it is clear that you disagree with zinn's opinions (that is fine), but i am not sure why this means he is a bad historian. i disagree with many of johnson's opinions, but my opinion is not the litmus test for a good historian.
if you want to convince me, show me where in his text he gives false information or where a quote is not attributed, etc. don't just tell me he is bad, tell me why.
Whoops, my mistake. Sorry for the error.
You're right, my point still stands. Zinn's own characterization of his worldview reveals the overt agenda he tried to indoctrinate in readers, which stands distinct from the natural bias everyone has.
Zinn is a horrible historian, not because I disagree with his delusions, but because he wrote a bloated editorial and called it history. He'd be a great editorialist for The Nation.
I haven't the time to wade through Zinn's mess right now, but I would read your answer to this article's analysis (sorry for no link):
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8145
Post a Comment