Historical Question

[Ranp]

A co-worker was expressing a number of things about the Catholic Chruch which were plain wrong and I called him on most of it. However there was one issues that I was unsure of, the burning of libraries. I read a lot of history but I’m far from being a Bible or Church history scholar. I know priest burned the Aztec books, a great lost of history but I can understand it as the Aztec were the Nazi tribe of the Americas. After watching the Aztec kill hundres upon hundreds for their religion I can understand a priest not valuing their history and viewing them as evil. But what about other libraries around the world? I have never read anything about them burning libraries in Europe. In any thing what I have read is that the Catholic Church save most of what they came across.

I am very thankful for any insight to the truth that any of you might provide.

Your brother in the family of Christ,

Ran

 

[erikd]

Hi Ran, to the best of my knowledge the Church only burned Bibles which had errors in them in order that they may not be read with the errors on the pages. However, the burning of libraries is a new one to me. As a matter of fact, the Catholic Church pioneered higher education, which included the study of non-Catholic sometimes even pagan writings if they were relevant to higher education.

If I were you, I would ask for specifics which probably do not exist. This will help in narrowing down what where and how, or more precisely whether those questions can even be answered by the accuser. My money says no.

Good luck and God Bless.

 

[puzzleannie]

challenge the accuser to provide proof of his allegations.

what does the conquest of Aztec Mexico have to do with burning books?

what is the issue of sacred scripture your opponent has brought up in this context?

 

[JRKH]

I googled “Catholics burning libraries” and the only real example that came up was the burning of the library if Alexandria in the 400’s. And even that was somewhat murky.
There were other hits about burning bibles and such…So like annie says above, challenge him for specifics…

Peace
James

 

[pablope]

A co-worker was expressing a number of things about the Catholic Chruch which were plain wrong and I called him on most of it. However there was one issues that I was unsure of, the burning of libraries. I read a lot of history but I’m far from being a Bible or Church history scholar. I know priest burned the Aztec books, a great lost of history but I can understand it as the Aztec were the Nazi tribe of the Americas. After watching the Aztec kill hundres upon hundreds for their religion I can understand a priest not valuing their history and viewing them as evil. But what about other libraries around the world? I have never read anything about them burning libraries in Europe. In any thing what I have read is that the Catholic Church save most of what they came across.

I am very thankful for any insight to the truth that any of you might provide.

Your brother in the family of Christ,

Ran

I think you should have asked: How do you know the Aztecs had books? Where they that far advanced in their civilization to have books, much less, libraries?

 

[Big_Ro]

challenge the accuser to provide proof of his allegations.

what does the conquest of Aztec Mexico have to do with burning books?

what is the issue of sacred scripture your opponent has brought up in this context?

He’s referring to the burning of the library at Chapultapec, I believe. These weren’t books in the sense that we might think about them today. They were Codex. A type of heiragliphic writing for lack of a better term. It is said they contained 10,000 years of history regarding the Native people of the Americas. I think it is a great loss. My understanding is that the monks burned them when they discovered that the natives they had converted were still carrying on with the traditions and ostensibly beliefs. My understanding of Pre-columbian spirituality amongst these people is that there were many paralleles to Christianity. This at once made it easier for them to accept but also may have lead to their thinking that the two traditions could be melded together. Many of the traditions and rituals are still alive in Catholic ceremonies in Catholic Churches throughout South, Central America and parts of the southern USA.

 

[Big_Ro]

I think you should have asked: How do you know the Aztecs had books? Where they that far advanced in their civilization to have books, much less, libraries?

Yes. They had cities far larger than those in Europe. What is now Mexico city had as many as 1mm inhabitants. Indoor plumbing. They charted the stars and developed an understanding of the number zero long before Europeans had made such advances. I know it’s popular to view natives as simple savages but their history is far richer and more complex.

 

[Ranp]

How do you know the Aztecs had books? Where they that far advanced in their civilization to have books, much less, libraries?

I use to be an archaeologist. Yes, the Aztecs did have some books and a couple still exist. I used them as the only example that I knew of. And of course that was by a priest, not the actual Church.

Ran

 

[Epistemes]

At various times and in various places, priests and bishops burned the “libraries” of Protestant Reformers during the Reformation itself (and for many, many years afterward). Often these books provided the fuel for which the heretics themselves were burned. Ironic, really. Of course, the Protestants also burned their fair share of books and bishops. Heat was apparently highly sought after back then.

 

[erikd]

He’s referring to the burning of the library at Chapultapec, I believe. These weren’t books in the sense that we might think about them today. They were Codex. A type of heiragliphic writing for lack of a better term. It is said they contained 10,000 years of history regarding the Native people of the Americas. I think it is a great loss. My understanding is that the monks burned them when they discovered that the natives they had converted were still carrying on with the traditions and ostensibly beliefs. My understanding of Pre-columbian spirituality amongst these people is that there were many paralleles to Christianity. This at once made it easier for them to accept but also may have lead to their thinking that the two traditions could be melded together. Many of the traditions and rituals are still alive in Catholic ceremonies in Catholic Churches throughout South, Central America and parts of the southern USA.

Thanks Big Ro for the clarification, it’s something I was not aware of, though the actions of one group of religious is not necessarily representative of the Church as a whole.

 

[steve53]

I don’t know much about the Aztecs, but they were just as bloody as the Maya.

And, yes, the great Bishop (?) Landa burned many of the codices of the Maya, but he also preserved what we have left of them, and a part of their language.

The problem he saw with the Maya is that many of their “sacred” writings were actually religious ritual that was based on human sacrifice, torture, and a level of cannibalism. Seeing no redeeming value in that, he burned them.

The same probably held true Aztec. Everyone knows about the sacrificing of the victims on the temple tops, where the still-beating heart would be cut out of the body, but it is also true that after they threw the bodies down to the base of the pyramid, they would be cut up and eaten. Cannibalism!

These were not sweet, peaceful, and evolved people!

The myth of harmonious and peaceful primitive societies is a creation of the modern intellectual, and supported only by bad anthropological research and wishful thinking.

Over in Europe, certainly it is true that Christian Monks “cannibalized” ancient books and scrolls to get parchment and papyrus in order to copy over Christian tests. But that is another topic.

 

[Big_Ro]

Thanks Big Ro for the clarification, it’s something I was not aware of, though the actions of one group of religious is not necessarily representative of the Church as a whole.

Sure, no problem. Please remember I am no expert on this particular part of history. I have traveled to Mexico City and been to the pyramids. I did some resarch but my knowledge is no where near expert nor complete.

 

[Big_Ro]

I don’t know much about the Aztecs, but they were just as bloody as the Maya.

And, yes, the great Bishop (?) Landa burned many of the codices of the Maya, but he also preserved what we have left of them, and a part of their language.

The problem he saw with the Maya is that many of their “sacred” writings were actually religious ritual that was based on human sacrifice, torture, and a level of cannibalism. Seeing no redeeming value in that, he burned them.

The same probably held true Aztec. Everyone knows about the sacrificing of the victims on the temple tops, where the still-beating heart would be cut out of the body, but it is also true that after they threw the bodies down to the base of the pyramid, they would be cut up and eaten. Cannibalism!

These were not sweet, peaceful, and evolved people!

The myth of harmonious and peaceful primitive societies is a creation of the modern intellectual, and supported only by bad anthropological research and wishful thinking.

Over in Europe, certainly it is true that Christian Monks “cannibalized” ancient books and scrolls to get parchment and papyrus in order to copy over Christian tests. But that is another topic.

Well, I don’t think I or anyone on this thread anyway has attempted to protray the Maya, Aztec or any other pre-columbian society as perfect or eden-like. And, it’s pretty well accepted fact that this view of pre-columbian society in the Americas has been fully rejected for now many decades. I don’t know anybody that takes this viewpoint seriously. But, it sounds like you might have inadvertantly posed that the burning of their “books” and the deplorable treatment they received at the hands of the early exploreres is somehow justiifed. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but it could be easily interpreted that way. Even a cursory reading of Pizarro’s activities in the so called new world paint a not too pretty picture of their relative savagery and morality. And, hate to say it, but there;'s plenty of historical evidence that monks and soldiers participated in actions against women and children as well as the men that any moral person would consider depraved. It’s easy to visit all manner of cruelty on a people as long as you can convince yourself their less than human. Remember, the mexican people arose from the offspring of Spanish monks and conquistadors and the native people. They referred to them as mestizos. Thus the word mexican. I doubt all the relations that resulted in these new people were the result of consensual relations. There is also written accounts, written by the monks and soldiers themselves recounting these barbaric acts. Svagery, cruelty, and immorality is not the sole purview of any one people. It’s the human condition.

 

[patrick457]

Remember, the mexican people arose from the offspring of Spanish monks and conquistadors and the native people. They referred to them as mestizos. Thus the word mexican.

Actually Mexico comes from Nahuatl Mēxihco, the term for the heartland of the Aztec Empire, namely, the Valley of Mexico, and its people, the Mexica (i.e. the Aztecs), and surrounding territories which became the future State of Mexico as a division of New Spain prior to independence. Mexico was Mexico well before the Spaniards came: in fact, the name of one of two Mexican altepetl was Mēxihco-Tenōchtitlān (modern Mexico City!)

Besides, Mexico is pronounced as Mehico in Spanish. The Nahuatl word Mēxihco, pronounced [meːˈʃiʔko], was transliterated as Mexico using Medieval Spanish orthography, in which x represented the voiceless postalveolar fricative (ʃ], the equivalent of English sh in shop). At the time, Spanish j represented the voiced postalveolar fricative (ʒ], like the English s in vision, or French j today). However, by the end of the 15th century j had evolved into a voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant as well, and thus both x and j represented the same sound (ʃ]). During the 16th century this sound evolved into a voiceless velar fricative ([x], like the ch in Scottish loch), and México began to be pronounced as it is today. It is really only in English that Mexico is pronounced as Meksiko (/ˈmɛksɨkoʊ/), just as Texas is pronounced, not as Tehas (Tejas) as it would be in Spanish, but Teksas.

 

[steve53]

Well, I don’t think I or anyone on this thread anyway has attempted to protray the Maya, Aztec or any other pre-columbian society as perfect or eden-like. And, it’s pretty well accepted fact that this view of pre-columbian society in the Americas has been fully rejected for now many decades. I don’t know anybody that takes this viewpoint seriously. But, it sounds like you might have inadvertantly posed that the burning of their “books” and the deplorable treatment they received at the hands of the early exploreres is somehow justiifed. I’m sure you didn’t mean it that way, but it could be easily interpreted that way. Even a cursory reading of Pizarro’s activities in the so called new world paint a not too pretty picture of their relative savagery and morality. And, hate to say it, but there;'s plenty of historical evidence that monks and soldiers participated in actions against women and children as well as the men that any moral person would consider depraved. It’s easy to visit all manner of cruelty on a people as long as you can convince yourself their less than human. Remember, the mexican people arose from the offspring of Spanish monks and conquistadors and the native people. They referred to them as mestizos. Thus the word mexican. I doubt all the relations that resulted in these new people were the result of consensual relations. There is also written accounts, written by the monks and soldiers themselves recounting these barbaric acts. Svagery, cruelty, and immorality is not the sole purview of any one people. It’s the human condition.

Well, you can burn all the books on torture, human sacrifice, and recipes for cooking people from any civilization, even Atlantis, and it is fine by me.

 

[Big_Ro]

Actually Mexico comes from Nahuatl Mēxihco, the term for the heartland of the Aztec Empire, namely, the Valley of Mexico, and its people, the Mexica (i.e. the Aztecs), and surrounding territories which became the future State of Mexico as a division of New Spain prior to independence. Mexico was Mexico well before the Spaniards came: in fact, the name of one of two Mexican altepetl was Mēxihco-Tenōchtitlān (modern Mexico City!)

Besides, Mexico is pronounced as Mehico in Spanish. The Nahuatl word Mēxihco, pronounced [meːˈʃiʔko], was transliterated as Mexico using Medieval Spanish orthography, in which x represented the voiceless postalveolar fricative (ʃ], the equivalent of English sh in shop). At the time, Spanish j represented the voiced postalveolar fricative (ʒ], like the English s in vision, or French j today). However, by the end of the 15th century j had evolved into a voiceless palato-alveolar sibilant as well, and thus both x and j represented the same sound (ʃ]). During the 16th century this sound evolved into a voiceless velar fricative ([x], like the ch in Scottish loch), and México began to be pronounced as it is today. It is really only in English that Mexico is pronounced as Meksiko (/ˈmɛksɨkoʊ/), just as Texas is pronounced, not as Tehas (Tejas) as it would be in Spanish, but Teksas.

Huh. Interesting. I’ve never heard this, but like I said I’m not expert in this subject and have never given it more than a passing interest. I’m probably laboring under a romantic view of how the word came in to being. I am pretty solid though on the interaction of the spanairds and the native peoples. Thanks for the info.

 

[Ranp]

And, hate to say it, but there;'s plenty of historical evidence that monks and soldiers participated in actions against women and children as well as the men that any moral person would consider depraved.
…
Svagery, cruelty, and immorality is not the sole purview of any one people. It’s the human condition.

True. But what sets the Aztec and Maya apart is that their mass killings were an actual part of their religion. Evil is evil, mass killings are evil regardless of who does it. I don’t justify any of it by any person or group. I am not about to somehow justify what the Aztec and Maya did to other Native Americans in order to have a politically correct relativism historical view. The religions of the Aztec and the Maya were a holocaust plain and simple.

 

[steve53]

The Takawa (sp?) indians of central Texas were cannibals, documented in the 1850’s. Lots of the other native American tribes were like this.

amazon.com/Sick-Societies-Challenging-Primitive-Harmony/dp/0029089255/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304735785&sr=1-2

 

[Big_Ro]

The Takawa (sp?) indians of central Texas were cannibals, documented in the 1850’s. Lots of the other native American tribes were like this.

amazon.com/Sick-Societies-Challenging-Primitive-Harmony/dp/0029089255/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1304735785&sr=1-2

Well, I’m from central Texas and it’s been often stated that one of my great gandparents was a native. My Dad always said this was hogwash and I haven’t gotten around to establishing it as fact. Wanna come by for dinner?

 

[steve53]

Well, I’m from central Texas and it’s been often stated that one of my great gandparents was a native. My Dad always said this was hogwash and I haven’t gotten around to establishing it as fact. Wanna come by for dinner?

LOL.

Like the guest who arrived late for the Cannibal dinner party? He knocked on the door, and it was answered by the host, who answered “Sorry. You’re too late. Everyone’s eaten.”