The ongoing discussion of the origins of Holy War have prompted to insightful replies from Col. Bunny. So I have decided to continue the series on this issue. Col. Bunny tells us this:
I still have some skepticism about how Christian countries might have been transformed in ways by their experience with the Muslims. I recall Bruce Catton making in the point that the Civil War started out with informal, relaxed, democratic discipline but as the horror of the war sunk in it came to tying offenders to wagon wheels and administering the lash. Harsh methods can be seized on according to logic entirely on one side. This practice wasn’t necessarily copied from the Confederates.
The key point is the innovation of Holy War. Please be patient with me, as we must go through High Paganism, the origins of Islam and the spread of Christianity through the old Roman world in order to delve into this properly.
Prior to Christianity, the West subscribed to High Paganism. Contrary to the belief of some Christians, High Paganism was actually a pretty decent affair. There’s a reason, after all, that the Divine Comedy doesn’t actually torment the historical High Pagans, as it does the other sinners. They are in the first level of Hell, to be sure, but it is an earthly paradise. It was Elysium, a reflection of Heaven.
In any event, High Pagans were syncretic and preferred either co-opting the gods of other peoples, something Rome did frequently, or equivocating one god with another. I.e. your god of rivers was probably the same as this other god of rivers, here. Even when religions were “stamped out” this was usually a voluntary affair. A conquered people might think that their god had been defeated, and there was no point in worshiping him anymore. Better to worship the “superior” gods of the conquerors.
Historical Low Pagans, of course, were not so peaceful (see: Aztecs). But the less said of them, the better.
Anyway, the point is that Rome, prior to Christianity, had no notion of Holy War, because High Paganism did not require it. If war had any religious overtone at all, it was simply that you asked the god’s favor before you marched off. Barbarian Low Pagans, when encountered, were wiped out or civilized. Fellow High Pagans tended to merge into the Roman religious framework without issue. Indeed, the Romans had a fetish for Eastern superstitions and frequently pilfered religious ideas from the conquered East.
Now, Christianity came along, and coopted the Roman Empire, but did so peacefully. The Roman State was initially hostile to Christianity (and, it should be noted, Judaism as well) because it was seen as a danger to the state. Christians refused to deify the Caesars and followed their own laws, even when they conflicted with those of the state.
But then Christians took over the state, and that stopped. The reverse didn’t happen. You didn’t see Christians rounding up High Pagans and throwing them to the lions. Indeed, by the time of Honorius, they had outlawed that sort of thing entirely.
Point is, High Pagans didn’t have Holy Wars. Christians didn’t introduce the practice. Even the Jewish precedent of Canaan was restricted to one small geographic region only. They were not instructed to conquer the world and convert it.
Now, the exigencies of war often force a harshness onto a people. Things that would not be considered in peacetime are resorted to in war, as Col. Bunny tells us. Yet, we do have just such a desperate war to compare to: the Byzantine-Persian war of the early 7th century. This war brought both the Roman/Byzantine Empire and the Sassanid Persian Empire to their knees, respectively.
In it, we see the Roman Empire initially losing ground. Egypt, Syria, Palestine and much of Anatolia is lost to the Persians. Jerusalem is sacked, the True Cross is taken as part of the war booty (whether or not it was actually the True Cross is a matter for historical debate, I suspect it was a 4th century forgery). Emperor Heraclius, however, manages to reverse the misfortunes of Rome in a campaign reaching into the heart of Mesopotamia, defeating each army sent against him, in as epic a story as Xenophon’s Anabasis. There, he compels the Persians to withdraw from their conquests and return the relics, or face destruction. This war lasted nearly 20 years, and was more devastating than anything the Germans ever achieved.
Yet even here, the war did not take on the characteristics of a Holy War. This was not Christian against Zoroastrian, it was Roman against Persian. This, even though the holiest of Christian artifacts had been taken by Persia. There was no sense of trying to convert the Persians by the sword, or of spreading Christian faith. Neither, it must be said, were the Persians interested in doing these things. In Persia, there were even Christians who fought against Rome. The Nestorian Christians tended to prefer Persian rule to that of Rome.
Of course, not long after, the Arabs show up. Sassanid Persia disappears, and Byzantium survives as a vestigial state. 300 years of archaeological and literary darkness happens. And when the historical record reappears, we see that Christianity is now practicing theocracy, Holy War, the church-sponsored persecution of heretics and infidels, etc…
Col. Bunny tells us the following:
If secular authority was broken in the frightful 300-year period it reinforces the debt that the West owes to the Church. If it was guilty of secular excess it should surprise no one who studies how political power is exercised and by whom. The Church was a pretty corrupt and un-spiritual entity at times with its own armies, even, at least, one female pope, and the split papacy of the Avignon popes.
He is, of course, entirely correct here. For whatever evils the Church may have absorbed (and whatever their origin), it is clear that without the church taking the helm, Christianity may have been entirely subsumed by Islam, and the remains of Classical civilization would have gone with it. The West owes a debt to the Church for saving it from destruction.
Nonetheless, the Church definitely absorbed these notions from somewhere. I postulate that they were passed on to it from Islam. But that begs the question, where did Islam get it? For this, let us travel to the origins of Islam.
There is a theory that much of the Quran parallels an ancient Syriac Christian lectionary. Furthermore, it is clear that Islam shares something with Judaism and Christianity (it is commonly thought of as an Abrahamic religion). Islam even considers Isa (Jesus Christ) as a great prophet, yet still a man, a sentiment shared with early Arian Christians. Yet Islam also shares a number of peculiar affinities with Judaism, specifically regarding dietary laws and the like, which Christians more or less abandoned.
Pre-Islamic Arabia was a religious stew. There were many Jews, many Christians, pagans and even some who were hybrids of these. The Ebionites, for instance, were Jews who recognized Christ, but did not fall into the usual Christian framework. One of Mohammed’s companions was said to be of Ebionite extraction.
So Mohammed, raised as a pagan, would have had knowledge of Jews and Christians, for they were often neighboring tribes. Now, Mohammed was first and foremost a politician. It is not surprising, then, that he would try to form some kind of syncretic religion (remember, the Ancient world did this a lot!) out of the pieces of Judaism, Christianity and Arabic paganism.
The only problem was, the Jewish Arabs thought Mohammed was a fraud. At first, Mohammed seems to have tried to pass as more or less Jewish himself, but he was not raised in the tradition. There were holes in his knowledge, holes that a proper prophet, as he claimed to be, should NOT have. Arab Christians, mostly of Arian extraction, seem to have cared somewhat less. Anyway, the Jews rejected him completely.
Either way, however, Mohammed was furious. He slaughtered Jewish tribes with reckless abandon. Up until this point, he seemed pretty tolerant. He wished to unite the Arabs under a common banner (his own). From this point on, it seems to be a case of “become a Muslim or die.” With Pagan Arabs and Christian Arabs more or less becoming Muslim under his banner, he had the manpower to eliminate his Jewish rivals.
For Arabs, prophethood was one of the few ways in which a warlord like Mohammed might gain lordship over ALL tribes, instead of just one or a few, as was the norm. Arab society today is still very tribal, and it is rare to see individuals who can lord over them all effectively. Such men are inevitably either warlord dictators or religious theocrats.
Mohammed was both. But he could not have the Jewish Arabs undermining his authority. So, the concept of Holy War comes to the forefront. Convert or die (or prostrate yourself and pay tribute — the origin of the Jizya). He reserves several passages for his hatred of Jews.
Oddly enough, however, Mohammed seemed somewhat more tolerant of the Christians. In the Suras, he mentioned the Romans favorably, and essentially supported them in their war against Persia, whom he regarded as polytheist. His successors, however, were not. Mohammed’s body wasn’t even cold before the first waves of Arab raiders entered the Roman Empire.
Holy War was now preached against every non-Muslim. The Quran was not fully written down and codified until this invasion was in full-swing. Even today, the Quran and the Hadith are like split personalities, preaching both peace and war, tolerance and hate, and this has become a convenient cover for Islam when it is gathering strength and wishes to appear peaceful, but also a justification for war when it is strong enough to wage it. This is the split nature of Mohammed’s quest: to unite the Arabs under his banner, through whatever means possible, peace or war. Say what you will of him, but he was a driven man.
So Islam was as much a political ideology as it was a religious one. Christianity was not, it concerned itself with matters of faith, and let one render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. Secularism got its start in the High Pagan world, and was inherited by the Christian world.
Then, 300 years of contact and conflict with Islam pass, and when we see history pick back up, Christians are practicing things that look an awful lot like a dim reflection of Islamic practices. Theocracy, warlordism, Holy War, etc…
Col. Bunny may still be correct. We don’t have a time machine, and what I propose is a mere hypothesis. But either Islam inspired similar behavior on the part of Christianity, or the survival of Christianity rested on it inventing the practices independently. It may even be possible that both theories are not mutually exclusive, and that some practices came from Islam and some were invented independently. We are not likely to ever know for certain.
What is known, however, is that these things only entered the Christian world AFTER Islam, and so whether by inspiration or by forcing the hands of Christians, we do have strong evidence that Islam is responsible for the cultural and economic damage suffered by Western Europe, and by extension, the cultural damage that continues today, now in the hands of Atheist Socialists.
A few things I can’t fully agree with in each of your previous posts… though overall they were pretty good.
First off, where you took my quote in the previous post wasn’t really where I was intending to go. I was thinking in terms of personal one-on-one. And there IS an alternative to where you took things. It’s one that no nation throughout history — Israelite, Judean, or otherwise — has been willing to do for very long (if they ever were at all). But under the original Old Covenant ancient Israel DID go to war… but only under God’s direct guidance through the prophets (when provided) and the priests via the Urim and Thumim. And even THAT was not SUPPOSED to have been necessary, as the original plan was for God to send hornets to drive the Canaanites out without any fighting at all. Israel rejected that plan, so He gave them their wish… and things went downhill from there.
That said, where you took things IS the logical extension of that means of thinking, of “I want to fight my own battles and just have You help me” thinking that ancient Israel succumbed to, and every nation afterwards has as well. It just shouldn’t _have_ to be.
And that leads (sorta) into the second point of disagreement. You may note I carefully refer to ancient Israel. I do so for a reason. Most people see absolutely no problem with conflating ancient Israel with Judah, but this is a mistake. They are not the same group. Judah and the Levites were a SUBSET of ancient Israel that retained their identity throughout the ages since. The other “lost” 10 tribes weren’t actually lost. Just most of them don’t know it — or aren’t (by and large) willing to accept it if they (or some of them) do know.
The Jews did not practice Holy War in their invasion of Canaan… because at that point in time they *did not exist as a separate group*.
And think about this: Paul was sent to the Gentiles, Peter was (primarily) apostle to the Jews… what about the other 10? (Eleven, actually, but one — James the brother of John (Acts 12) — was martyred so early on that it’s not unfair to consider Paul his replacement.) They were sent to specific people… and there were even 10 of them! How handy!
How could they have been sent to the “lost sheep of the house of *Israel*” _if nobody knew who and where they were_??
They couldn’t have been. And while it *IS* possible God simply told them where to go, it’s far more likely they knew exactly where to go all along and just had to be told to go.
Finally, I will disagree with one more point that’s worth discussing. And while I agree with the basic sentiment that the ABUSE of the system — the systematic theocracies, the Inquisition, the idea of “torturing the sinner to save them from themselves”, outright “holy war”, etc. — clearly post-dated their encounters with Islam’s invasions, there WERE abuses and persecutions before that. The reason Egypt literally fell into Islam’s lap was no doubt quite multifaceted. But the way the Monophysites had been so persecuted by Rome beforehand did NOT help. Whether you think their idea was right or wrong — personally I think it was both wrong AND closer to accurate than what the Catholics taught — they weren’t well treated.
Had the Catholics truly been as “tolerant” as you want to remember them as — they were FAR more so than Islamics, of course — the Monophysites wouldn’t have given Egypt over to Islam on a silver breadbasket… and the rest of history after that point would have been at least _somewhat_ different.
Granted, an organization should not — nay MUST not — tolerate outright heresy within its ranks. But the Catholic church had abrogated to itself the “right” to police even those OUTSIDE its ranks *long* before Islam kicked this persecution from a 5 to a 50. And it also punished things as “heresy” that simply ARE NOT CLEAR in the scriptures… or worse yet, actually ARE what the scriptures say…
Contrast that instead with Paul’s treatment of the blatant sinner in Corinth. What happened to him? He was put out of the church. That’s it. When he repented and changed, he was allowed back in. And that too was it.
That was the model that SHOULD have been used. It’s a pity indeed that it wasn’t.
I will reply in more detail later. As you have noticed, I find this particular topic absolutely fascinating, so I do enjoy discussing it.
But for the nonce, I’d like to point out that the Monophysites, while definitely disapproved of, may not have actually been persecuted to the level that some Byzantine historians have assumed. For one, during Justinian’s day, there was a tendency toward toleration of them (Theodora may have been a practicing Monophysite herself).
Second, periodic attempts, such as Heraclius and his Monothelite compromise were proof that there was an active attempt at reconciliation anyway. In any event, Egypt was Egypt. If there was any part of Christendom that was most anarchic, and bizarre, Egypt was it. Supposedly the “monks” of Egypt had a habit of beating the tar out of each other with cudgels as opposed to engaging in debate.
Now, traditional thinking tells us that the Monophysite community supposedly welcomed the Muslims in. But how would they do this? Did they open the gates to Alexandria? Did they provide auxiliary forces to the invaders? It seems unlikely, because in 645, the Byzantines returned to Alexandria by simply sailing into the harbor. They recaptured it just by virtue of BEING there. The city didn’t resist them at all.
Then the invasion force subsequently squabbled among themselves, and didn’t see to the proper defense of the city when the Muslims counterattacked. When it fell the second time, the Byzantines were unable to mount a new expedition. Egypt was lost for good that time.
Much of this may be due to the fact that Byzantium did not have time to rebuild the cities damaged by the Persians, or restore their fortifications. The Romans were masters of siege craft and fortress-building (the Theodosian walls were their crowning achievement in this regard). So much of Roman military strategy, even in the 7th century, revolved around being able to maneuver an army into enemy territory, while having a secure, fortified supply base that could look to itself to draw from.
It’s worth noting that by the time the Muslims reached Carthage, the speed of conquest slowed dramatically — Carthage and the surrounding areas were properly defended, supplied, and fortified, still, and had not suffered the depredations of Persia.
In other words, I would suggest the possibility that the Persian war made Egypt more vulnerable than any duplicity on the part of the Monophysite community (if, indeed, there was any at all).
Hmm, yeah I hadn’t actually heard of the idea of “duplicity”, just “converting in droves”. Which made it MUCH easier to hold the area than a resistance would have. Though whether a serious one actually would have arisen is pure speculation…
Either way, though, your point about fortifications (or lack thereof) and surviving military power (or ditto) likely played a huge part as well.
Side note: your theological conclusions are, quite frankly, beyond my ability to debate. Your knowledge of scripture is a testament to your faith, sir. In matters of scripture, I am inclined to defer to your judgement. In fact, I’d love to talk more about scripture with you in the future, because I suspect I could learn much from you.
Well in trade, I would say your knowledge of history far surpasses my own. What I’ve picked up is bits and pieces here and there… and often what I “know” is what I’ve heard… sometimes second or third hand. So please do keep the lessons coming, because I very much enjoy reading them; whether it contradicts what I think I know or not either way it’s interesting reading.
As for scripture, nobody can know it all, or be right ALL the time. But I have made it a point to try to make sure I know what I believe and also WHY I do.
Thanks for the good press here, Dystopic.
On the issue of theocracy I don’t think it ever manifested itself in Christianity. The Church was all that was left by way of a supranational organization (I always try to throw in “supranational” to make my arguments more impressive) during That Time. Dominant, highly influential, controlling and what have you but I think it would have had to have steered clear of de jure rule. I’d think “render unto Caesar” was pretty clear about the need for there to be a separation. A lot of de facto rule, no kidding.
The Reformation led to “religious” wars but my view on that is that the truth underlying such conflicts has more to do with political ambitions. The n. German princes during the wars of the Reformation went the way they did because they sensed an opportunity to have more freedom of operation. Phillip II wanted to tame the Protestant crazies in England but it wasn’t theocracy he was wanting to re-establish. I’m mixing up theocracy and holy war a bit here but even with Phillip I can believe that he had imperial ambitions.
I certainly don’t see the Crusades as holy wars. Whoever organized them, Church or prince, they had a good grasp on the threat (unlike just about every price, potentate or surrender monkey I can name today).
Cromwell and his pals were highly doctrinaire and given to not a little iconoclasm (purity patrolling) but the Republic wasn’t a theocracy by any stretch.
As for warlordism, I see that not as a reaction to Islam or any outside doctrine. Europe of the 14th century was plagued by freebooters who were but small-scale warlords. Early 20th-s. China went through the Warlord Period, as we all know. Conclusion: default setting for any country that lacks effective government.
Islam’s central “strength” are the barbaric punishments for heresy, of which apostasy is one variant, and the authority granted to the ummah to kill heretics for pretty much any reason or no reason from what I can tell. Imams might wave their pinkie at someone and adios to that guy.
That is a particularly Islamic invention if what you say of the times of high paganism is accurate, which I think it is. You paint a most attractive picture of people who weren’t so bleeping fixated on petty details of bleeping doctrine (think “microaggressions”). I can’t imagine the ancestors bothering with that nonsense.
Every society has a certain set of core beliefs the contravention of which is intolerable, but in the past I surmise those beliefs had to do with simple survival and had more to do with treason than heresy.
The Spanish Inquisition seems to have taken on some of the severity and intolerance (contempt) of the Muslims but I do note that it was organized to root out false converts. But, hark, this presupposes that conversion was offered to the two groups who were otherwise subject to expulsion. Pretty lenient if you axe me for people who had suffered so long under Muslim rule. So I’m thinking there were core values that WEREN’T altered by exposure to the Muslim and that the harshness came about if it appeared that people had converted in bad faith and thus abused the kindness of people who had suffered under Muslim rule. The role of the Jews under the Muslims is not clear and I think you pointed out the Muslim practice of playing Jew off of Christian. Why the enmity to the Jews I don’t know. I do reject, as a side note, the notion that anti-Semitism springs out of the essential Christian soul to injure or destroy Jews who are utterly blameless and always minding their own business. That is the view of a many Jewish commentators, anyway, and I just don’t buy it.
The Inquisition as a whole lasted longer than the Sp. Inq. and, I believe, was a much more relaxed affair though I would not minimize any brutality experienced by some. It too followed on the heels of the Reformation when the Church sought to clean up its act. Judgment reserved here on the true nature and extent of the Inquisition. As a going-in proposition, I’ll not assume the Pope and his bishops were stupid, venal, and vicious in what they did. I’m very leary of the “approved” version of history that I’ve read all my life and prefer to assume good will and intelligence could well have played a part — as well as the ever-popular naked pursuit of power.
There is the undeniable phenomenon of ideological purity that certainly afflicts us today especially. “Capitalism” and “Western civilization” are oddly highly charged concepts whereas they are both terms that describe thinking and practices that are time-honored and eminently common sense. If we reason backward, the question is where did this get started, which issue you address in a very interesting way.
Papal “excess” appears to have been the product of crises of the times and not indicative of aberrant or transplanted thinking. However, I do think there is gold to be mined in the Reformation, suffused as it was by the Bible’s becoming available to lay audiences in their own languages thanks to translators and the printing press. Every man and his dog could thus become an authority on scripture. In fact, one of the admirable features of the Puritans is that they asked, not unreasonably, why certain practices were permitted when scripture did not mandate them. The Anglican Church also not unreasonably said why not allow them if they are not proscribed by scripture. Needless to say, the Puritans didn’t care for that approach and got carried away with breaking stained glass windows and smashing church organs.
Shades of today. Bottom line, I think there is a tendency in humans to think if I think about this one paragraph of scripture why the whole shooting match had better conform to my brilliant interpretation. The Adamites, for example, took the idea of the innocence of the Garden of Eden to heart and saw no reason why they couldn’t regain the innocence of the Garden. Hence their idea that they could relate to each other in the buff.
Same phenomenon with the Diggers and that other communist sect. Western man seems unusually prone to this kind of fanaticism and taking simple ideas to extremes. As sane Christians I know wisely say, you have to interpret scripture in the light of other scripture. The Bible Answer Man on the radio used to be a great example of someone who existed to damp down stupid speculation such as “can angels have sex with humans.” This tendency, political ambition, and the circumstances surrounding the Inquisition have more to do with our ancestors’ intolerance than an infection by Islamic “thinking.”