The Darker Ages?

[rpp]

Pretty much.

In general, Catholic interpretation distinguishes between “prophesy” and “prediction.” Prophesy relates to the prophet’s own time and situation, not to the far-distant future. In regard to Revelation, the Church simply says we must go through a time of trial.

Now, given that Revelation was written during Domitian’s Persecution, and since then we have had other persecutions, wars, plagues, the Muslim conquest of the East and of North Africa, and so on, that seems fairly obvious – when are not going through a time of trial?

If we are going to claim Revelation has predictions, then they must meet two tests:

1. They must be knowable ahead of time – back-predictions don’t applied after the fact count.
2. The event must correspond closely to the prediction.

I do not want to get too far off topic…

From my own study, it has been postulated that Revelation holds two separate predictions within the same text. The first being the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The second being the events surrounding the actual return of our Lord. For this theory, which seems to make sense to me, to be correct, it would mean the Revelation was authored in to 60s AD, not 90 AD as other scholars have dated it.

There have been many Dark Ages in history, some short (1914 - 1947 for Europe and much of Eastern Asia) and some long (454 AD to 900 AD for Europe.)

Personally, I believe the herald of the our modern Dark Age happened 9 years ago, on August 7, 1988 The the American Embassies in Nairobi Kenya and Dar es Salaam Tanzania were bombed by al Queada terrorists. And unlike previous Dark Ages, this one is world-wide.

Why is this a new Dark Age? Because of the dehumanizing war terrorists are waging against the entire civilized world with the goal of doing nothing less than turn back the clock on social advancement back to the 7th century. The bottomless abyss of immorality promoted as “normal” or “lifestyle choice” by the USA which then exports it to the entire world due to it’s dominance of all forms of media. And the race the rest world has with the USA to see who can be more outrageously Godless.

Okay, lots of topics for one post. Time to go.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Huh? What historical evidence do we have of that? If the Gospels represent a more accurate portrayal of history then why are they so inconsistant about even the most important events? For example, what were Christ’s last words on the cross? Even in the same Gospel, we have inconsistancies between texts, like the ending of Mark (now, seemingly, the oldest Gospel).

I gather you mean something with this, but I can’t figure it out.

It appears the Gospel of Matthew is the oldest – the Oxford Papyrus dates it to the mid-60s. Some scholars therefore want to push back the Gospel of Mark even eariler. Which would put both Gospels well within the lives of their authors. The Gospel of Luke was clearly written by Luke – who personally knew many of the Apostles. The Gospel of John may or may not be from the hand of John the Apostle, but if not was written by those who heard the story from him.

As for “inconsistencies” – try taking statements from different eye witnesses to the same event sometime.

This is understandable if you consider an underground oral tradition starting in Hebrew or Aramaic which is then spread to a Greek speaking world far away, and then finally recorded 70 AD. or so. But if we limit our history to civic records, we can find only scant evidence of Jesus’ existance, and no real evidence of the significance of his ministry.

The significance of His ministry is all around you.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I do not want to get too far off topic…

From my own study, it has been postulated that Revelation holds two separate predictions within the same text. The first being the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The second being the events surrounding the actual return of our Lord. For this theory, which seems to make sense to me, to be correct, it would mean the Revelation was authored in to 60s AD, not 90 AD as other scholars have dated it.

Assuming Relation was writtn in the 60s creates more problems that it solves.

For example, the description of the Beast with the healed wound, the number 666 and the second beast all nicely jibe with Nero as the first beast and Domitian as the second. If Revelation was written while Nero was still alive, where does that leave us?

There have been many Dark Ages in history, some short (1914 - 1947 for Europe and much of Eastern Asia) and some long (454 AD to 900 AD for Europe.)

I suppose you can apply the term “Dark Ages” to any period you like – it isn’t copyright. But to historians, it refers to the period following the Roman Empire when written records are scarce to non-existant.

 

[rpp]

Assuming Revelation was writtn in the 60s creates more problems that it solves.

For example, the description of the Beast with the healed wound, the number 666 and the second beast all nicely jibe with Nero as the first beast and Domitian as the second. If Revelation was written while Nero was still alive, where does that leave us?

Well, since Nero murdered Claudius when he ascended in 54 that might work as well. Personally, I have no real explanation and do not hold the opinion strongly. It is not a Church teaching and I am no Biblical scholar. Also, I think that is getting a bit off topic.

I suppose you can apply the term “Dark Ages” to any period you like – it isn’t copyright. But to historians, it refers to the period following the Roman Empire when written records are scarce to non-existant.

If that is a criteria for a Dark Age, the loss or lack of records, then there certainly have been several. Yes, I realize there is a period in European history call the Dark Ages, which, interestingly enough, keeps getting shorter and shorter as historians study the period more closely. (It used to run to the rime of the Black Death, the 1350s. Now the consensus is it ended circa 900.)

Anyway, I do believe we are on the edge of such an abyss and have seen the beginning of a new Dark Age. In a very real sense, it feel like we are living in Rome about 449 BC, 6 years before the sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455. There one other in 410 and a siege in 451 by Attila the Hun before Odoacer finally sacked and nearly depopulated the city in 475.

This dark age will be initiated by mad men who “pray” facing some desert city and use nuclear weapons.

 

[vern_humphrey]

If that is a criteria for a Dark Age, the loss or lack of records, then there certainly have been several. Yes, I realize there is a period in European history call the Dark Ages, which, interestingly enough, keeps getting shorter and shorter as historians study the period more closely. (It used to run to the rime of the Black Death, the 1350s. Now the consensus is it ended circa 900.)

I am reminded of a general I once knew who got fruistrated with new terms and wanted us to keep the old terms, but redefine them to match new doctrine.

“Okay, General. I know you ordered an attack. But is that an attack under the current definition, the previous definition, or an earlier edition?”

Anyway, I do believe we are on the edge of such an abyss and have seen the beginning of a new Dark Age. In a very real sense, it feel like we are living in Rome about 449 BC, 6 years before the sack of Rome by the Vandals in 455. There one other in 410 and a siege in 451 by Attila the Hun before Odoacer finally sacked and nearly depopulated the city in 475.

We’re always on the edge of the abyss. Imagine what it would feel like to be living in this country in 1861? Or in Europe in 1914 or 1939? Or in France just before the French Revolution? Or in England in 1349 – just before the plague hit. Or in Jerusalem in 632?

This dark age will be initiated by mad men who “pray” facing some desert city and use nuclear weapons.

It used to be customary for us Christians to pray facing Jerusalem (and many old churches are oriented that way) and we have nuclear weapons.

But I suggest if you fear a nuclear attack by terrorists on this country, the way to forestall it is to beat them in their own backyard.

 

[rpp]

I am reminded of a general I once knew who got fruistrated with new terms and wanted us to keep the old terms, but redefine them to match new doctrine.

“Okay, General. I know you ordered an attack. But is that an attack under the current definition, the previous definition, or an earlier edition?”

When in doubt, dodge.

Or is it punt?

Maybe it is just fumble. (which I do so well!)

We’re always on the edge of the abyss. Imagine what it would feel like to be living in this country in 1861? Or in Europe in 1914 or 1939? Or in France just before the French Revolution? Or in England in 1349 – just before the plague hit. Or in Jerusalem in 632?

It used to be customary for us Christians to pray facing Jerusalem (and many old churches are oriented that way) and we have nuclear weapons.

But I suggest if you fear a nuclear attack by terrorists on this country, the way to forestall it is to beat them in their own backyard.

Our generation which lived through the Cold War may have a slightly skewed look at this “edge of an abyss” thing. I do not think people who lived in the USA in, say 1900, or, for that matter, 1750 (yeah, fine, the Colonies ) felt they were on the edge of an abyss. In fact, with few exceptions, for the vast majority of history, people were not looking at the very real possibility of widespread holocaust.

I did not know about the old custom for Christian to face Jerusalem to pray. Was that associated with a particular rite?

I thought Churches traditionally faced East, not necessarily toward Jerusalem.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Our generation which lived through the Cold War may have a slightly skewed look at this “edge of an abyss” thing. I do not think people who lived in the USA in, say 1900,

Just coming out of the Spanish American war, and up to our hips in the Philippine Insurrection and dealing with the Moro Pirates? And feeling the pressure of German colonization in the Pacific?

or, for that matter, 1750 (yeah, fine, the Colonies ) felt they were on the edge of an abyss.

The looming French and Indian War? AKA “The Great War for Empire?”

In fact, with few exceptions, for the vast majority of history, people were not looking at the very real possibility of widespread holocaust.

Holocaust is a relative term. When the Shawnee raided the New River Valley and carrried off Mary Ingles Draper and left other settlers lying dead in their cabins, all the survivors personally knew the victims – indeed, helped wash and bury them – which brings it home in a very personal way.

I did not know about the old custom for Christian to face Jerusalem to pray. Was that associated with a particular rite?

Almost all Christian churches. Look at world maps of that era – map experts refer to them as “T-O Maps” because of their layout (like a T inside an O). To orient such a map, remember Jerusalem is at the top. Jerusalem was the focus of the Christian world in those days.

I thought Churches traditionally faced East, not necessarily toward Jerusalem.

That’s why they face East. We’re not sun worshippers, you know.

 

[rpp]

Well, Vern, we seem to have this thread to ourselves for the moment.

There have always been periods where disaster loomed. That is not what I am suggesting.

When I used the term “holocaust” earlier, I should have amplified it.

The classic “Dark Ages” was marked not merely by a loss of records, but a retreat in intellectual activites, technology and “civilization”. Literacy, common in Roman times, plummeted to a small minority. Economic development, trade, and commerce became quite primitive because of the loss of transportation as the Roman roads were no longer maintained. Even agricultural techniques retreated as large smaller plots were farmed for local subsistence rather than efficiently for trade and commerce. The standard of living for the normal person declined precipitously.

That is different than surviving an Indian raid, or seeing a war to “expand the empire”.

The events that lead to the Dark Ages in Europe took 65 years to unfold after more than 150 years of decline. That decline was not just caused by outside invaders, but bad leaders, poor decisions and rampant public immorality.

It is such a catastrophe that I believe we are on the edge of. The modern decline began with the catastrophe that was World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Turks. The heraldic event was the emergence of al Queada as a household name beginning with the African embassy bombings in 1998.

The “sack of Rome” event will a nuclear conflagration and general war that will erupt between the Islamic world and Europe/USA. It will not be terrorists who will bring this about, but Islamic nations “protecting” Muslims in Europe from the oppression of non-Muslims.

This will create the very conditions that lead the the Dark Ages in 5th century Europe. Only this time it will be world wide.

On a happier note, I do not think I will have to worry about my social security benefits!

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, Vern, we seem to have this thread to ourselves for the moment.

There have always been periods where disaster loomed. That is not what I am suggesting.

When I used the term “holocaust” earlier, I should have amplified it.

The classic “Dark Ages” was marked not merely by a loss of records, but a retreat in intellectual activites, technology and “civilization”. Literacy, common in Roman times, plummeted to a small minority. Economic development, trade, and commerce became quite primitive because of the loss of transportation as the Roman roads were no longer maintained. Even agricultural techniques retreated as large smaller plots were farmed for local subsistence rather than efficiently for trade and commerce. The standard of living for the normal person declined precipitously.

That is different than surviving an Indian raid, or seeing a war to “expand the empire”.

Only from the vantage point of the modern world. To Colonel Preston, fighting the Shawnee in his doorway with his claymore, it was all the “holocaust” he could handle.

The events that lead to the Dark Ages in Europe took 65 years to unfold after more than 150 years of decline. That decline was not just caused by outside invaders, but bad leaders, poor decisions and rampant public immorality.

Yes – but history hasn’t stopped. Our present continually becomes our past, and our future was laid in our past.

It is such a catastrophe that I believe we are on the edge of. The modern decline began with the catastrophe that was World War I and the fall of the Ottoman Turks. The heraldic event was the emergence of al Queada as a household name beginning with the African embassy bombings in 1998.

And it’s war to the knife with them – we defeat them, or they defeat us.

The “sack of Rome” event will a nuclear conflagration and general war that will erupt between the Islamic world and Europe/USA. It will not be terrorists who will bring this about, but Islamic nations “protecting” Muslims in Europe from the oppression of non-Muslims.

I think – if we have the stomach for it – it will be a prolonged struggle. If we don’t, it will be much shorter, and our civilization will not survive it.

This will create the very conditions that lead the the Dark Ages in 5th century Europe. Only this time it will be world wide.

On a happier note, I do not think I will have to worry about my social security benefits!

I prefer to both clean my rifle and worry about Social Security – perhaps making it into a personally-managed system and getting the governmenrt’s sticky fingers out of the till.

 

[rpp]

Doom and gloom are such fun!

We can’t take ourselves too seriously.

But perhaps I should learn to shoot…

 

[vern_humphrey]

Doom and gloom are such fun!

We can’t take ourselves too seriously.

But perhaps I should learn to shoot…

There are some skills everyone should have.

 

[SoCalRC]

I gather you mean something with this, but I can’t figure it out.

Yes, I was trying to make the point that if you think that civic records are the foundation of history, you are precluding vast portions of human existance from study and research.

It appears the Gospel of Matthew is the oldest – the Oxford Papyrus dates it to the mid-60s.

What exactly are you talking about? Do you mean the fragment that Carsten Thiede (sp?) ‘found’ at Magdalen College, Oxford? That fragment was originally published by legendary papyrologist C.H. Roberts in 1951. Roberts dated the fragment to the late second century. As far as I know, only Thiede is arguing that it came from the mid first century.

The problem with the Gospels isn’t conflicting testimony, but what is normally called the ‘synoptic problem’. Basically, there is a very high probability that three Gospels share common material. IE, they are not independant works from independant points of view.

It is interesting you brought up Luke. We believe that Luke also wrote Acts, but Acts is also inconsistant with the Gospel of Luke on the telling of identical historical events.

The point again would be that the Gospels give us an idea about history which is incredibly important, but for which there is virtually no ‘civic’ records. But that was pretty self evident from the original example.

 

[anthony022071]

It’s the lack of written records. I have cited Toynbee, who was one of the great historians of his time.

The men of the Enlightenment who spoke of the Dark Ages or the Gothic Age weren’t thinking about the dearth of written records. They weren’t even interested in studying the middle ages in depth and sympathetically. The Dark Ages were originally so called mainly for aesthetic reasons. With the rise of secular humanism and rational skepticism during the Renaissance,people started to express their superior disdain of “Gothic” architecture and literature,scholastic theology and philosophy,medieval science and for what they considered the superstition,ignorance and fanaticism of the Catholic Church.

The Church saved civilization. However, there was a dark period before the Church began to make headway – how many written documents do we have from Britain in the 5th Century?

I wouldn’t know that,but there are historians who specialize on that era and who are able to piece together the history. In the case of Britain in the 400’s, the Romans had pulled out and the Anglo-Saxons had just come in,so obviously there’s not going to be much in the way of written records from that period. members.aol.com/bakken1/angsax/asinv.htm

 

[vern_humphrey]

Yes, I was trying to make the point that if you think that civic records are the foundation of history, you are precluding vast portions of human existance from study and research.

Your opinion – not supported by the historians who coined the term “Dark Ages.”

What exactly are you talking about? Do you mean the fragment that Carsten Thiede (sp?) ‘found’ at Magdalen College, Oxford? That fragment was originally published by legendary papyrologist C.H. Roberts in 1951. Roberts dated the fragment to the late second century. As far as I know, only Thiede is arguing that it came from the mid first century.

I don’t date papyri – **some **scholars have held that some of the fragments are from the mid 60s, and my point was that based on that other scholars have pushed back the date for Mark

The problem with the Gospels isn’t conflicting testimony, but what is normally called the ‘synoptic problem’. Basically, there is a very high probability that three Gospels share common material. IE, they are not independant works from independant points of view.

And hence the “Q” document – which has never been found and is not mentioned by any other ancient writer.

It is interesting you brought up Luke. We believe that Luke also wrote Acts, but Acts is also inconsistant with the Gospel of Luke on the telling of identical historical events.

Not uncommon in ancient texts.

The point again would be that the Gospels give us an idea about history which is incredibly important, but for which there is virtually no ‘civic’ records. But that was pretty self evident from the original example.

Most of us here have read the Gospels.

 

[SoCalRC]

Your opinion – not supported by the historians who coined the term “Dark Ages.”

Well, I’m pretty sure that the aborigines in Australia exist, just as the Mayans existed. Many Native American cultures had/have oral traditions, just as some of the cultures that displaced them (look to Appalachia). If you want to argue that their histories are irrelevent, fine, but some ideas are just too silly to push off to cited authorities.

I don’t date papyri – **some **scholars have held that some of the fragments are from the mid 60s…

Then you should learn to qualify your statements. Some scholars think the Gospels were written by aliens, in science we look for a preponderance of evidence and findings, not single assertions.

, and my point was that based on that other scholars have pushed back the date for Mark

Actually, you were trying to argue the primacy of Matthew, presumably because I had mentioned that scientific study is now leaning towards Mark being the oldest of the Gospels.

And hence the “Q” document – which has never been found and is not mentioned by any other ancient writer.

That is just one theory, which originated theologically, not scientificly. The principle problem was seen as the Gospel of John, which even theologians from the 3rd and 4th centuries recognized was written later, yet contains unique material. St. Augustine had similiar concerns, which is why he proposed that Matthew proceeded Mark and Luke.

Most of us here have read the Gospels.

That was the point. I figured that we could start with an example familiar with most the folks here. But, of course, you knew that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, I’m pretty sure that the aborigines in Australia exist, just as the Mayans existed. Many Native American cultures had/have oral traditions, just as some of the cultures that displaced them (look to Appalachia). If you want to argue that their histories are irrelevent, fine, but some ideas are just too silly to push off to cited authorities.

What has that got to do with this thread?

Then you should learn to qualify your statements. Some scholars think the Gospels were written by aliens, in science we look for a preponderance of evidence and findings, not single assertions.

You should learn to qualify your statements – a person who thinks the Gospels were written by aliens can hardly qualify as a “scholar!!”

Actually, you were trying to argue the primacy of Matthew, presumably because I had mentioned that scientific study is now leaning towards Mark being the oldest of the Gospels.

No – I made no argument either way. My position was that of Abelard.

That is just one theory, which originated theologically, not scientificly. The principle problem was seen as the Gospel of John, which even theologians from the 3rd and 4th centuries recognized was written later, yet contains unique material. St. Augustine had similiar concerns, which is why he proposed that Matthew proceeded Mark and Luke.

And your point is?

That was the point. I figured that we could start with an example familiar with most the folks here. But, of course, you knew that.

No, I figured this was just an excursion into la-la land.

 

[Contarini]

I do not purport to be a historian, but long ago I took a graduate course in legal history

This post was very thought-provoking. Thanks!

Edwin

 

[vern_humphrey]

Pardon me for citing Wikipedia, but this isn’t a bad definition of the term.

In European historiography, the term Dark Ages or Dark Age refers to the Early Middle Ages, the period encompassing (roughly) 476 AD to 1000 AD. This concept of a dark age was created by the Italian scholar Francesco Petrarca and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Classical Roman Antiquity and the High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general

Note how this gibes with Toynbee’s definition, “From Boethius to Abelard.”

One who seeks to do histriography in the period 476 to 1000 will br greatly hampered by the lack of written primary sources – especially in contrast to the periods before and after that era.

From the historian’s standpoint, it is truly a Dark Age, only dimly illuminated by reliable sources.

 

[anthony022071]

One who seeks to do histriography in the period 476 to 1000 will br greatly hampered by the lack of written primary sources – especially in contrast to the periods before and after that era.

From the historian’s standpoint, it is truly a Dark Age, only dimly illuminated by reliable sources.

When I read history books dealing with the Dark Ages,it doesn’t seem like the historians are at a loss for information. There aren’t significant gaps in knowledge about what happened and when,or culture and customs. Even where there are scant primary sources,there are historians of later centuries who probably did have primary sources to work with.

Like I said in post 73,the Dark Ages were known as such primarily for aesthetic reasons.

 

[vern_humphrey]

When I read history books dealing with the Dark Ages,it doesn’t seem like the historians are at a loss for information. There aren’t significant gaps in knowledge about what happened and when,or culture and customs. Even where there are scant primary sources,there are historians of later centuries who probably did have primary sources to work with.

’
It is one thing to** read** a history book, another thing entriely to write one.

Researchers and writers in history rely on primary sources – that is, contemporary account. These re few and far between in the Dark Ages.

Like I said in post 73,the Dark Ages were known as such primarily for aesthetic reasons.

The professional historians, like Toynbee, disagree with you.

When modern scholarly study of the Middle Ages arose in the 19th century, the term Dark Ages was at first kept, with all its critical overtones. When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem “dark” to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times

(My emphasis)