Why did some Christian thinkers object to the study of classical literature?

Question

During the rise of Christianity in Rome, why did some Christian thinkers object to the study of classical literature? What arguments were advanced by the defenders of classical learning?

Answer 1

There are a variety of reasons why some thinkers during Christianity's rise objected to the study of classical literature, just as there were a variety of people involved in it. Some of them are perhaps obvious if you think about it and are cynical enough:

For one, just as Christianity became the official religion of Rome, they were coming from of a period of official persecution. It was only in 313 C.E. that by law they had confiscated property returned to them. And, having the tables turned, some chose to take up the weapon which had been wielded so effectively against them. By 325 C.E., the Church - with the authority of the Emperor - began to ban the written world. Excluding the bible, of course.

Perhaps that begs the question of WHY they would want to ban all written works. I'm sure no small reason for this was the pagan nature of many of the prevailing classical works. Not only had these writings become heresy, they also served to differentiate Romans from their enemies in the east who continued to revere the ancient masters. A person who possessed a book of Greek tragedies was therefore not only an enemy of God, but also of the state.

Some historians believe, too, that people put up with this kind of censorship because the classical works were beginning to lose their validity in answering modern problems. The powerful Roman Empire cared for its citizens and protected them from enemies, but it also dwarfed them in a way that no Greek could be dwarfed in a polis. Coupled with a strong class structure, alienation of common citizens could become equally commonplace... people could not hope to aspire to affect the Empire or make any kind of mark on it. Given that many never travelled much outside the lands in which they were born, the Empire was even so vast that most could not even imagine its scope.

We can see some of this in the art of the time. Even imitations of classical work began to loose their luster and craft. Non-religious works are banned, of course, but it's also as if artists have lost interest in even religious work... paintings become as two-dimensional and without perspective as the world the artists had found themselves in. What could the Greeks know of this, whose world was ripe with individual power and possibility? There are historians who suggest that there was not even much effort required to get most people to abandon what has once seemed so dear.

Of course, even in such times there were vestiges of classical work and thinking: sometimes kept in hiding and sometimes unearthed in places where it had been forgotten. It has been suggested that the Italian Renaissance may have been due as much to elite citizens finally feeling free enough to show their carefully secreted prizes and sponsor more of the same from artists as to any other cause. Especially since the Church at that late date had lost much of its influence with the Black Plague.

Whether or not classical teachings were always relevant, they were superior those that succeeded them after the rise of Christianity in some respects. The influx of displaced wise men from the fall of Constantinople showed people how much they had lost, as they brought with them the logic of Aristotle and realism of classic art. To those in the know, these would always have been valuable, even if they could not say as much in public for fear of the Inquisition or other forms of persecution during the intervening centuries.

Answer 2

After the fall of Rome, and the donation by Constantine of the Roman Empire to the Catholic church, the only people left that could read or write, and were organized, were the Catholic clergy. They controlled all knowledge, therefore they had TREMENDOUS power.

Catholic philosophers, such as St. Augustine (5th century), objected to classical theory such as that proposed by Plato, Aristotle, and Cicero, because the Catholics believed all knowledge came from God.

They threw out reason for faith. You didn't need reason when you had faith according to them.

The Catholic church dominated Europe for 1000 years. It wasn't until the 1200's when Thomas Aquinas, the great Catholic philosopher, brought Aristotle back into the fold and blended classical thinking/learning with theology. This was called the scholastic method.

As for your question about the arguments by the defenders of classical learning...you have Thomas Aquinas, and mainly John of Salisbury, Dante, and Marsilius of Padua (the last two totally rejected church power) who started laying the ground work and eroding church power.

Dante and Marsilius said Constantine had no right to donate Rome to the church. They argued that monarchs (kings) held the power and the pope was nothing more than a bishop of his city, equal to the bishop of any other city in Europe.

Hopefully this helps you in some way.

Answer 3

I believe you are slamming Christianity, however be that as it will, I'd opt for classical mythology when you consider that the research of Christian mythology is extra conveniently to be had external the educational global than classical mythology. Take abilities of the assets at the same time they're to be had. You would be trained the technical definition of mythology which works anything like this: Mythology is a perception or approach of ideals which tremendously affects how a folks believe and behave; a global view. Notice that this definition says not anything approximately the veracity of the perception(s).

Answer 4

they just did not understand i suppose.