5 ms·

But 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 b

• 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 ago
  There 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 ago
    The 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 ago
      It’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 ago
  Wrong. 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 ago
    When 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 ago
      Indian 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 ago
        Is there evidence of a single significant Christian library from the first century?
        • _bin_ 1y ago
          Pagan in this case would also exclude Judaism in its many different forms, which certainly had a long written tradition by that point.
      • ab5tract 1y ago
        Greece had multiple colonies in India and there was significant cultural diffusion in BCE times.
• TrapLord_Rhodo 1y ago
  You 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 ago
    Christianity 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 ago
  I 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.