7 ms·
From the Christian, anyone who wasn't part of the Christian or Jewish faiths was considered pagan. In the first century CE, Epicureans were part of the broader
by TrapLord_Rhodo 1y ago
From the Christian, anyone who wasn't part of the Christian or Jewish faiths was considered pagan. In the first century CE, Epicureans were part of the broader category of Hellenistic pagan philosophers—which included Stoics, Platonists, and others—who were polytheistic or at least non-Christian. So since Philodemus makes up most of the library here, it's pretty safe to call it a "pagan" library.
- tokai 1y agoBut there is no reason to situate it in a Christian context. We are in a global multi religious community here. I could call your comment bad, supported by it being a trite semantic argument without relevancy for the subject. But that would do nothing to further the discussion here. Calling the library non-confucianist would be even more correct as Platonists are an important foundation for Christian thought. Though a completely useless labeling just as the pegan label.
- flir 1y ago> Calling the library non-confucianist would be even more correct as Platonists are an important foundation for Christian thought. Epicureans aren't Platonists. We know that the library went heavy on Epicurean texts. The word "pagan" is still used by Classicists today.
- bawolff 1y agoThere is a reason to situate it in a roman context. Rome eventually becomes christianized and it makes sense to talk about before and after that. Obviously the old still influences the new, its not a hard line, but it is a major change in roman society.
- ysavir 1y agoThe relevant context is the context in which it existed--that of a Roman library in pre-Christian Rome, making it a Roman library with no context of paganism. If it were a collection specifically of pagan writings assembled and maintained after Rome's widespread conversion to Christianity, then the pagan aspect would be meaningful, as it describes the relevance of that library to the society in which it existed. To call it a "pagan" library now fails to describe it in the context of what it was at the time as well as what it is today, and instead is needlessly and aimlessly anchoring the perspective to the Christian world. It would be as if I described the library as being a Goy library--sure, I can, and wouldn't be technically wrong, but it's a meaningless distinction, and one that's more concerned about expressing the speaker's context than the subject's context, and the speaker is not relevant.
- tourmalinetaco 1y agoIt’s not a meaningless distinction, as it cements it rather firmly in a broad era within a specific context of thought, unlike referring to it as a Goy library. If you refer to it as a Goy library, that both brings it within a Judeo-Christian context and completely loses all meaning. However referring to it as Pagan you now are more informed of the era and schools of thought employed at the time.
- inquirerGeneral 1y ago[dead]
- _bin_ 1y agoWrong. This is essentially the context in which we still live today though we’ve secularized substantially over the past centuries. But Rome was on the path to Christianity at this time and later converted, so this is a very common way to understand things. Generally a work is one of a few things: Christian, Jewish, maybe Muslim depending on whom you ask, as it’s also an Abrahamic faith, or Pagan. To be honest this feels more like you have an axe to grind with Christianity or its dominance, similar to the people pushing for “BCE/CE” over BC/AD. I don’t know why, but don’t expect the rest of the world to carry that cross for you.
- Arainach 1y agoWhen a scientist in India publishes a study, we don't call it a "pagan" study. The word "pagan" adds nothing to the original post. "An entire library from the first century" conveys just as much information.
- _bin_ 1y agoIndian studies were not part of the world of classical antiquity and you know it. Nobody is calling them pagan. And no, stripping that descriptor removes information from the statement.
- Arainach 1y agoIs there evidence of a single significant Christian library from the first century?
- _bin_ 1y agoPagan in this case would also exclude Judaism in its many different forms, which certainly had a long written tradition by that point.
- ab5tract 1y agoGreece had multiple colonies in India and there was significant cultural diffusion in BCE times.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 1y agoYou are right. it's just that the romans themselves had an identity crisis of "pagan" vs. "monothestic". So yes, you are right to call out the fact that situating it in the christian context would be follie. But the original point still stands. Calling it pagan is still a correct classification of the works in the library.
- mattmanser 1y agoChristianity didn't even really exist at that point, if would have been a minor cult. So it doubly makes no sense. It is definitely not correct, it's the equivalent of calling the ruins Italian instead of Roman.
- duskwuff 1y agoI mean, part of what makes this library interesting is that nearly all of the classical Greek and Latin texts we have access to have been passed through the filter of generations of Christian monks copying those texts. Being able to see what these texts looked like without that filter is inherently interesting.
- philosophty 1y agoThese people were non-Christian the same way they were non-Scientologists. They were unaware of Christianity and it had little to no impact on elite Romans by 79 AD. "So since Philodemus makes up most of the library here, it's pretty safe to call it a "pagan" library." You're confusing the tiny number of scrolls which have been preserved with what was likely in the complete library. The complete library was much larger and likely contained the typical mix of philosophy, drama, poetry, and speeches copied over centuries from all over the Roman and Greek world.
- JoBrad 1y agoSo is the “pagan” moniker a way of dating the work to before the rise of Christianity with the Roman Empire?
- colechristensen 1y agoTo put it simply, "pagan" was a Christian insult towards non-Christians. It is not a reasonable description for anything unless you're in a very Christian context, and even then viewing it from a modern context "pagan" is a bit of a slur.
- mkoubaa 1y agoJust because a slur happens to be the same word as a technical term doesn't mean it can't be used as a technical term anymore. Anyone working in the field or had awareness of it knows the appropriate connotation. It causes me physical pain when scientists change their practice to appease pearl clutching amateurs
- colechristensen 1y agoIt's not a technical term, calling things that aren't Christian "pagan" especially from before Christianity was prominent is silly and inaccurate.
- 1y ago
- detourdog 1y agoWould monotheistic be a more appropriate description of non-pagers? I don’t know anything about paganism but it seems like if the grouping excludes Jews and Christians non-Christian describes Jews and pagans.
- wizzwizz4 1y agoAbrahamic (= worshipping the God of Abraham) is the word I've most often seen used.
- detourdog 1y agoThat works for me but I'm still curious what a pagan is.
- wizzwizz4 1y agoAnyone who disobeys Abrahamic "ten" commandments 0, 1 and/or 2 (depending how you count them) – that is, anyone who does not worship the Abrahamic God as the first and foremost deity. I'm not sure whether atheists count as pagans. (Buddhists probably are…? But really, the term was designed for the religious practices of southern and (north-)western Europe that the early-ish Christian church wanted to wipe out.)
- detourdog 1y agoThank you. This is a nice concise answer. The best part is geo-location of the term.
- TrapLord_Rhodo 1y agoyes, it would. Monotheistic would be a much better term as that's how the people at the time viewed the divide.
- lazide 1y agoIn the first century CE, Christianity was barely on anyone’s radar. It’s indeed very odd to frame it this way?
- permo-w 1y agoit isn't. besides this library and a few a few texts that survived via the East, almost every Roman text that has survived to today has survived through being copied by Christians, and stored in a Christian library. the word pagan perhaps has negative connotations, but it's a very relevant distinction
- mensetmanusman 1y agoAlso, Christians were accused and publicly executed for being atheists, since they didn’t believe in the various polytheistic Gods.