09 Jan 09
1 edit
They stripped her naked, bound her hands and legs, stuffed a cloth in her mouth, tied her to a log and set her on fire, Kauba said.
"St Cyril... was a man of fanatical zeal. He used his position as patriarch to incite pogroms against the very large Jewish colony in Alexandria. His chief claim to fame is the lynching of Hypatia, a distinguished lady who, in an age of bigotry, adhered to the Neoplatonic philosophy and devoted her talents to mathematics.
She was 'torn from her chariot, stripped naked, dragged to the church, and inhumanly butchered by the hands of Peter the Reader and a troop of savage and merciless fanatics: her flesh was scraped from her bones with sharp oyster-shells and her quivering limbs were delivered to the flames. The just progress of inquiry and punishment was stopped by seasonable gifts.' After this, Alexandria was no longer troubled by philosophers."
History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Can I get an amen?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Green PaladinThis story has been largely discredited -- not surpising since Bertrand Russell is not a historian. There is no evidence that St. Cyril commissioned the lectern, Peter the Reader, to attack her. And St. Cyril himself was a philosopher and has since been recognised as a Doctor of the Church.
[b]They stripped her naked, bound her hands and legs, stuffed a cloth in her mouth, tied her to a log and set her on fire, Kauba said.
"St Cyril... was a man of fanatical zeal. He used his position as patriarch to incite pogroms against the very large Jewish colony in Alexandria. His chief claim to fame is the lynching of Hypatia, a distinguishe phers."
History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell
Can I get an amen?[/b]
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by Conrau KRussell quotes the notable historian Edward Gibbon verbatim!
This story has been largely discredited -- not surpising since Bertrand Russell is not a historian. There is no evidence that St. Cyril commissioned the lectern, Peter the Reader, to attack her. And St. Cyril himself was a philosopher and has since been recognised as a Doctor of the Church.
The fact is a Christian mob, led by Peter the Reader, murdered Hypatia in one of the most barbaric and savage ways possible. Whether the act was commissioned by St Cyril or not is moot.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Green PaladinHAHA. You seriously trust the works of Edward Gibbon? He has just as much an axe to grind as Russell and is just as much discredited.
Russell quotes the notable historian Edward Gibbon verbatim!
The fact is a Christian mob, led by Peter the Reader, murdered Hypatia in one of the most barbaric and savage ways possible. Whether the act was commissioned by St Cyril or not is moot.
And anyway, it is only so much a 'Christian' mob insofar as it was a mob which consisted of Christians. So what? Christians do wrong. They are not perfect. There is no reason to think that this was a religiously motivated attack. Indeed, Socrates Scholasticus, who gives the only contemporary account of the attack, suggests no such thing. Apparently the Jews started it by causing disturbances and massacring Christians.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by Conrau KThis is an online translation of Socrates' account of the tensions between Christians and Jews. According to him, the violence was started when Jews stopped attending synagogues but having dancers parade through the streets. They refused to stop. When ordered to cease by St. Cyril, they took to massacring Christians.
HAHA. You seriously trust the works of Edward Gibbon? He has just as much an axe to grind as Russell and is just as much discredited.
And anyway, it is only so much a 'Christian' mob insofar as it was a mob which consisted of Christians. So what? Christians do wrong. They are not perfect. There is no reason to think that this was a religiously motivated ...[text shortened]... such thing. Apparently the Jews started it by causing disturbances and massacring Christians.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.x.xiii.html
Socrates then narrates the murder of Hypatia. But he does say "And surely nothing can be farther from the spirit of Christianity than the allowance of massacres, fights, and transactions of that sort. "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.x.xv.html
10 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KHAHA. You seriously trust the works of Edward Gibbon?
HAHA. You seriously trust the works of Edward Gibbon? He has just as much an axe to grind as Russell and is just as much discredited.
And anyway, it is only so much a 'Christian' mob insofar as it was a mob which consisted of Christians. So what? Christians do wrong. They are not perfect. There is no reason to think that this was a religiously motivated ...[text shortened]... such thing. Apparently the Jews started it by causing disturbances and massacring Christians.
Yes, I do. And until you present me with evidence that suggests I shouldn't I will continue to do so. Gibbon has been described as an "English giant of the Enlightenment."
Mounting a bandwagon of praise for the later volumes were such contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Robertson, Adam Ferguson, Lord Camden, and Horace Walpole. Smith remarked that Gibbon's triumph had positioned him "at the very head of [Europe's] literary tribe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Gibbon
It seems I'm in good company.
He has just as much an axe to grind as Russell and is just as much discredited.
Discredited by whom? The only axe that they have to grind is that of truth.
And anyway, it is only so much a 'Christian' mob insofar as it was a mob which consisted of Christians. So what? Christians do wrong.
My worldview doesn't allow for tearing someone to pieces and scraping the flesh from their bones with sharp oyster-shells.
There is no reason to think that this was a religiously motivated attack.
First you say "there is no reason to think that this was a religiously motivated attack" then you say "apparently the Jews started it by causing disturbances and massacring Christians." Which is it going to be?
Where there is power there is politics. It just so happens that those in power were the church on one hand and the state on the other. So religion and politics are inextricably linked.
If you prefer Socrates Scholasticus' account then fine:
Yet even she fell a victim to the political jealousy which at that time prevailed. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes, it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace, that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop. Some of them therefore, hurried away by a fierce and bigoted zeal, whose ringleader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home, and dragging her from her carriage, they took her to the church called Caesareum, where they completely stripped her, and then murdered her by scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell. After tearing her body in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there burnt them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypatia_of_Alexandria
Sounds like Gibbon portrayed the event exceedingly accurately.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 09
3 edits
Originally posted by Green PaladinIt seems I'm in good company.
[b]HAHA. You seriously trust the works of Edward Gibbon?
Yes, I do. And until you present me with evidence that suggests I shouldn't I will continue to do so. Gibbon has been described as an "English giant of the Enlightenment."
Mounting a bandwagon of praise for the later volumes were such contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Rob _of_Alexandria
Sounds like Gibbon portrayed the event exceedingly accurately.[/b]
Gibbens certainly is a respected scholar. He wrote a significant volume on Roman history which centuries later, academics still rely on. But he harboured a grudge against Christianity and he brings a bias to all his works on early Christianity. This is universally acknowledged and any lecturer worth his salt would warn his students of this.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Green PaladinMy worldview doesn't allow for tearing someone to pieces and scraping the flesh from their bones with sharp oyster-shells.
[b]HAHA. You seriously trust the works of Edward Gibbon?
Yes, I do. And until you present me with evidence that suggests I shouldn't I will continue to do so. Gibbon has been described as an "English giant of the Enlightenment."
Mounting a bandwagon of praise for the later volumes were such contemporary luminaries as Adam Smith, William Rob _of_Alexandria
Sounds like Gibbon portrayed the event exceedingly accurately.[/b]
Nor does mine. It is abhorrent. There is no question of that and it seems that Socrates, and many other contemporaries agreed, since Socrates says it brought much "opprobrium".
First you say "there is no reason to think that this was a religiously motivated attack" then you say "apparently the Jews started it by causing disturbances and massacring Christians." Which is it going to be?
I do not see a contradiction. In WWII, English fought against German but the war was hardly racially motivated. There is no evidence that religion caused these attacks; it is not a straightforward case of Christian pogroms against Jews based on a fundamentalist supercessionist theology.
Where there is power there is politics. It just so happens that those in power were the church on one hand and the state on the other. So religion and politics are inextricably linked.
Except that the murder was carried out by a mob, without any evidence of support from the Church.
10 Jan 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Conrau K[/b]Gibbens certainly is a respected scholar. He wrote a significant volume on Roman history which centuries later, academics still rely on. But he harboured a grudge against Christianity and he brings a bias to all his works on early Christianity. This is universally acknowledged and any lecturer worth his salt would warn his students of this.
[b]My worldview doesn't allow for tearing someone to pieces and scraping the flesh from their bones with sharp oyster-shells.
Nor does mine. It is abhorrent. There is no question of that and it seems that Socrates, and many other contemporaries agreed, since Socrates says it brought much "opprobrium".
First you say "there is no reason to thi hat the murder was carried out by a mob, without any evidence of support from the Church.
If Gibbon 'harbours a grudge' against organised religion I would say that it is wholly justified. The despicable acts that have been committed by religious zealots over the centuries shouldn't be dressed up. Besides Gibbon's account of Hypatia's death is very similar to Socrates Scholasticus' so his 'bias', if any exists, is irrelevant.
In WWII, English fought against German but the war was hardly racially motivated.
Ideas of racial superiority and religious discrimination were central to the ideology of Nazi Germany. Because World War II was not wholly racially/religiously motivated doesn't mean that some are not. Religious differences have long been a breeding ground for intolerance, discrimination and barbarism. Jews have been persecuted throughout history by Christians. Our good friend Cyril, who the Church thought so well of that they canonised him, led the charge against Jews by banishing them from Alexandria.
Except that the murder was carried out by a mob, without any evidence of support from the Church.
This mob's worldview is instantiated by organised religion. Of course the Church would not officially sanction something so abhorrent. No, the Church would never do something so evil as to appear to be evil!
Originally posted by Conrau KIf the Church had nothing to do with Hypatia's murder, why was she brought to a church to be murdered?
This is an online translation of Socrates' account of the tensions between Christians and Jews. According to him, the violence was started when Jews stopped attending synagogues but having dancers parade through the streets. They refused to stop. When ordered to cease by St. Cyril, they took to massacring Christians.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf hts, and transactions of that sort. "
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf202.ii.x.xv.html
John of Nikiu seems to think the murder was swell and implicates Cyril as well:
And thereafter a multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the magistrate -- now this Peter was a perfect believer in all respects in Jesus Christ -- and they proceeded to seek for the pagan woman who had beguiled the people of the city and the prefect through her enchantments. And when they learnt the place where she was, they proceeded to her and found her seated on a (lofty) chair; and having made her descend they dragged her along till they brought her to the great church, named Caesarion. Now this was in the days of the fast. And they tore off her clothing and dragged her [till they brought her] through the streets of the city till she died. And they carried her to a place named Cinaron, and they burned her body with fire. And all the people surrounded the patriarch Cyril and named him "the new Theophilus"; for he had destroyed the last remains of idolatry in the city
http://www.cosmopolis.com/alexandria/hypatia-bio-john.html
10 Jan 09
Damascius writing less than a century after the event says that Cyril was directly involved:
Thus it happened one day that Cyril, bishop of the opposition sect [i.e. Christianity] was passing by Hypatia's house, and he saw a great crowd of people and horses in front of her door. Some were arriving, some departing, and others standing around. When he asked why there was a crowd there and what all the fuss was about, he was told by her followers that it was the house of Hypatia the philosopher and she was about to greet them. When Cyril learned this he was so struck with envy that he immediately began plotting her murder and the most heinous form of murder at that. For when Hypatia emerged from her house, in her accustomed manner, a throng of merciless and ferocious men who feared neither divine punishment nor human revenge attacked and cut her down, thus committing an outrageous and disgraceful deed against their fatherland. The Emperor was angry, and he would have avenged her had not Aedesius been bribed. Thus the Emperor remitted the punishment onto his own head and family for his descendant paid the price. The memory of these events is still vivid among the Alexandrians.
http://cosmopolis.com/alexandria/hypatia-bio-suda.html
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderWritten some 300 years later? Do you see a problem?
If the Church had nothing to do with Hypatia's murder, why was she brought to a church to be murdered?
John of Nikiu seems to think the murder was swell and implicates Cyril as well:
And thereafter a multitude of believers in God arose under the guidance of Peter the magistrate -- now this Peter was a perfect believer in a ...[text shortened]... ins of idolatry in the city
http://www.cosmopolis.com/alexandria/hypatia-bio-john.html[/b]
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
10 Jan 09
Originally posted by no1marauderWritten about 100 years later by a guy who wrote Pagan polemics against Christianity. See a problem?
Damascius writing less than a century after the event says that Cyril was directly involved:
Thus it happened one day that Cyril, bishop of the opposition sect [i.e. Christianity] was passing by Hypatia's house, and he saw a great crowd of people and horses in front of her door. Some were arriving, some departing, and others standing a ...[text shortened]... s still vivid among the Alexandrians.
http://cosmopolis.com/alexandria/hypatia-bio-suda.html