The "Dark Ages" were not all Dark Part One

 Many leftist are not the only ones that say the Middle Ages were dark times. This is a common claim many by many Evangelical Baptist Christians. They will speak of how awful the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages was. They will often refer to cruelty in Medieval torture, violent Crusades, suspicious inqusitions, and how the gospel was suppossedly lost for at least a thousand years. These same Evangelicals see the Protestant Reformation as a Restoration movement that restored the preaching of the gospel and the Christian Church from corruption. Worst of all, they see their beliefs as akin to that of the Protestant Reformers. 

Not only are the claims about the Middle Ages being the "Dark Ages," historically wrong, but these claims by many Evangelicals about the Middle Ages are often contrary to what the Protestant Reformers actually taught! 

I know where Evangelicals are coming from-because I once embraced much of their ignorance. Years ago, I learned about the Middle Ages and the Protestant Reformation through largely self study. More and more, I saw just how ignorant the historical claims about the Middle Ages are by many Baptist that school themselves better in their sermons than in their historical or literary knowledge, of which they are often strongly lacking. I have known few Baptist Evangelicals my whole life that knew much about history before America's own. 

Martin Luther critisized The Crusades movement in his On War Against the Turk. However, elsewhere, Luther spoke of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, whom he admired, as being the greatest proclaimer of the gospel despite Bernard supporting the Crusades. Yes, Luther became critical of the Crusades in his later life, but Luther never had the idea that all those in the Crusades were somehow devoid of the true gospel in their understanding. Even Luther then, did not believe the common Fudamentalist view of the Middle Ages being a time in which none are saved. 

In a past post titled Protestant and the Crusades, I explained that The Voice of the Martyrs by John Foxe was generally critical of the Crusades though it praised Richard the Lionheart of England. 

The point is not here on whether or not the Crusades were morally just wars or not but that the common claims made by many Baptist Evangelicals are historically ignorant. This continues to be an issue for many of them that need to be exposed to the fact that planet earth does not revolve just around the land of Tennessee or the "Bible belt". 

Further, many of the actions of the Middle Ages critisized by Baptist happenned only appeated in the second half of the Medieval era. The Crusades, the abuse if Indulgancs, the Inquesitions, the witholding of the communion chalice from the lay people and the abuse of multiple popes were all facttors to the Middle Ages mostly all known after 1000 A. D. . In other words, even if all the claims made by Baptist were true, that would still not illigimtize much of the Medieval Church before 1000 A. D. , which they ignorantly often also condemn. To make matters worse, they again show their historical ignorance by grouping the Middle Ages all together rather than understanding it as a period of history including other eras such ad the Early Middle Ages, the High Middle Ages, and the Late Middle Ages.

Some Baptist and Evangelicals claim there church existed underground and was supprssed by the Catholic Church, though they have never had sufficient evidence for this. Many of the past groups Baptist claim as pre-Baptist include the Lollards. However, while the Lollards often didn't infant baptize, many of them did believe in Purgatory. In other words, their views tended to not fully fit the views of present day Baptist. 

Baptist will sometimes excuse past church movements that didn't entirely reflect their current theology by saying that these groups were coming out of the Catholic Church therefore they didn't know any better. Centuries later, many Lutherans still hold their beliefs not because of their claim to tradition or because they are just now coming out of the Catholic Church but because of their belief Sola Scriptura. The Protestant Reformers often examined their beliefs in light of Scripture. The Baptist often claim that the Lutherans and other Reformed groups didn't go far enough, and should examine their teachings in light of Scripture. Baptist John Macarthur said in a debate with Presbyterian R. C. Sproul on infant baptism that the reformation has not went far enough. Those that make this latter claim often say Protestants still hold teachings not taught in Scripture but traditions passed down by the Roman Catholic Church. It often reflects the Evangelical attitude towards Creeds and Councils, that nothing should be used as authoratative but Holy Scripture. All the while that they say this they quote men not found in Scripture that reflect their theology and they used hymnals or praise ans worship songs that are not found in Scripture. On the contrary, the Puritans didn't even celebrate Christmas or Easter due to the lack of Biblical teaching towards these holidays in their view, yet many Baptist continue to practice them. If one also wants to get technical about it, only the Psalms, not the hymns are found in Holy Writ. to be used for singing to God yet many Evanfelucals hold traditions all their own. John Macarthur may think he is truly reformed from the Catholic Church but charismatic Christians or non-Trinitarians can just as easily point to him holding traditions passed down by Rome, whether taught in Scripture or not, and insist he is to close to Roman Catholicism. 

The Puritans were pretty consistent. Many of them didn't even celebrate drama or have theatre as these things were not taught in Scripture. But many of the modern day Baptist enjoy traditions all their own that are not taught in Scripture despite often criticising Roman Catholics and Protestants for this. 

Some will justify non-Biblical things like hymnal books or praise and worship songs by insisting they don't teach doctrine. Really? Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God Almighty teaches all the Biblical doctrine one pretty well ever has to know! The line and song are Biblical, but the point is simply that the hymns are not taught directly in Scripture.The Baptist that critisize the Rosary for its lack of evidence in Scripture use traditions all their own! This includes their love of Santa Claus at Christmas time (whom the Puritans did nor celebrate btw), and their historic preaching against alchohol and dancing all the while avoiding condemnation of gluttony. 

I am sure there are Baptist out there who don't fit all the defintions I just gave. Heck, there are people born with two heads! As rare as is the coming of the Eclipse is to find a Baptist that has actually read books on the Middle Ages. They read books about America and Beth Moore and John Macarthur Bible studies, but when pressed to historical fact they usually fall short of any knowledge about Saint Augustine's theology or any badic facts of the Middle Ages besides what their sunday school teacher or pastor has demonized to them. 

Returning to topic, even the Protestants that saw The Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon once saw her as the church that gave them the Holy Scriptures. Luther credited the Catholic Church for giving them them the Bible. I would be curious to see if many Evangelicals would say the same. 

To those that say the gospel was lost in the Midfle Ages, Saint Augustine sometimes taught a justification that comes across just as faith while elsewhere teaching it of faith and works. Saint Bernard and William of Ockham taught justification by faith. 

For those that say the Bible did not exist in the hands of laypeople for a thoysand years, it also didn't exist in its entirety in the hands of all church clergy. Before the fifteenth century, most theologians only had fragments and nanuscripts of the Bible rather than a printed text. Fortunately, the printing press changed that and gradually the Bible became widely printed over the following centuries. Even if one takes the critical view of the Catholic Church by insisting it withheld the Bible from laypeople, it would be more honest to make this claim only from when the prininting press was invented and on, not an entire thousand years also before it as there had no been no printing press to make the Bible easily assebible to all! 

The claims of mamy Baprist are far fetched from the mainline Protestantism of the Reformation Era. Most Protestants wanted to reform the Catholic Church rather than leave it. Also, I have never found a single Protestant Reformer to teach the gospel was lost or none were saved etc. during the Medieval Era. John Calvin quoted Saint Augustine in his writings more than any other theologian. Even Thomas Aquinas had some respect frpm the Protestant Reformers despite being critisized for his view in Transubstantation. 

The early Protestants were not out to make a new church. In fact, they agreed in some ways more with the Medieval theologians before the Reformation more than did the Council of Trent. Trent came to put Scripture and Tradition as equals where as previous theologians had seen Scripture as the highest authority, a view embraced by the Protestants. Catholic memes across the internet critisize Luther as a fat guy that wanted to start his iwn church though they ignore the reality that Luther did all he could to reform the Roman Church before being excominicated. Only then, did Luther and his followers break ways with Rome as his own views towards the Roman Church grafually hardened. It was the Anabaptist that believed Christianity had disappeared before the Reformation and was sudenly now restored. 

Finally, we will look more at this in the following weeks. The Middle Ages gave us some of the greatest works of art and architecture and literature the world gas ever known. Petrarch, a Catholic, was the one that called the Middle Ages "The Dark Ages," and he called that because of the kack of knowledge about the golden literature and philosophy of the ancient world. Petrarch did not mean it in the sense of the Middle Ages being an era or eras with no legitimate church or gospel. Evangelicals need to study more on the Middle Ages before they making such demonizing claims of the past, especially those of the Fundamentalist Baptist traditions. 

R. C Sproul once said that when the Catholic Church anathamized Sola Fide that ir ceasrd to be a legitimate church. Agree or disagree with Sproul, he held a closer view to the early Protestants that the Refornation was a Reformation not a Restoration.  

 

So were The Middle Ages "The Dark Ages". If by dark ine means the many plagues and wars that went on for a thousand years, they may have a point! But for those that the say the gospel was lost during the Middle Ages, they are holding historical revisionism similar to the Mornons abd Jehovah Witness. 

We have a lot on this topic still to cover! Hopefully, the Covid 19 will end soon and things will get better! Blessings! 

Further Spurces: Reformation Thoughts by Alister Mcgrath, Christianity's Dangerous Heresy by Alister Mcgrath, Positively Medieval: The Dynamic Heroic Church of the Middle Ages by Jamie Blosser.

A Brief Overview of Anglo-Saxon history, language and literature

                                                                1. Anglo-Saxon history

The Anglo-Saxons were a unique people that thrived in what many people erroneously call ''The Dark Ages.'' The Angles, Saxons, and Jutes were tribes from northern Europe that migrated into Britannia and came to form as one group. They were Germanic settlers and tribes that came to Britain between the fourth and sixth centuries A. D. Upon their arrival in Britain during the middle half of the first millennium, The Saxons had mostly conquered the ancient Celts, and driven these latter tribes into Scotland and Wales. At first pagan, they gradually converted to Christianity since at least the arrival of Augustine of Canterbury from Rome. Once, Christian, the Anglo-Saxons helped to evangelize other European tribes. While the Anglo-Saxons were not the first people to live in Britain, much of British history, language, and literature is traced to their influence. 

Today, I would like to discuss in brief detail the literature and language of the people that we now call Anglo-Saxons. My ancestry as far I am aware, is probably Anglo-Saxon, and thus this subject feels personal to me. As early as I remember, I felt connected to the Anglo-Saxon peoples. 

                                                            2. Anglo-Saxon language

 

First off, the Anglo-Saxons were largely illiterate. Those that had a more fluent grasp of language often wrote in Old English. Old English was the language of the Saxons. A Germanic language, Old English, also known as Anglo-Saxon, is quite different from modern English. While some scholars claim Old English and Anglo-Saxon are not interchangeable, most agree that they are largely the same.

 

''Old English'' is frequently misunderstood by many Americans. As a few examples, many people erroneously call the works of Shakespeare or The King James Bible "Old English" when both are written in early Modern English! Here in America, there seems to be a great ignorance among most citizens about the roots of our American English linguistics, which can be traced, to the Anglo-Saxon/Old English Language. 

As mentioned above, the Anglo-Saxons wrote Old English in the earliest of English Literature. Old English was the language of Beowulf and other important Anglo-Saxon works. Before we understand Saxon literature, it is important to know a little bit about how the English language has changed. 

Old English was the common language in England after the conquest of the ancient Celts. This is an example of Old English: "Eadwine eorl com mid landfyrde and draf hine ut".

Middle English was spoken by many people in England after the Norman Conquest. An example of Middle English would be: "Swelleth the breast of Arcite and the Sore Increaseth at his hearte more and more."

Early Modern English originated practically at the time of the Protestant Reformation {or possibly a little later}. This is an example of early modern English, which I have taken from The King James Bible: David said furthermore, "As the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die; or he shall descend into battle and perish. "

The English Language has changed dramatically over the years. Even today, the dialects of English often vary from one country to another. The roots of our English language go back to the Anglo-Saxons, though Middle English was later frequently influenced by French and Latin. 

Is the Anglo-Saxon language relevant to our modern world? Yes! The more we understand it, the more we understand English history. Words in our present English language such as arise, arm, and art, are derived from the language now known as Old English. The modern English word ''arm'' derives from the Anglo-Saxon word earm, which can mean poor or miserable. The more we understand Old English, the more we will also understand our own language as we can understand the etymology of keywords that we speak and write and read. 

                                                                 3. Anglo-Saxon literature

Though it is often claimed that Chaucer is the father of English Literature, this is only a half-truth. While the language of Old English was much different than our present English, English Literature has origins long before the great and one and only, Chaucer. 

Middle English works including Sir Orfeo and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight too were written in the latter part of the Middle Ages. Yet they too, like The Canterbury Tales, were written in Middle English, and hence, are not the oldest works of English Literature. 

Some people trace English Literature all the way back to the Celts in ancient times, though more commonly, the literature of the Anglo-Saxons is recognized as the first works of English Literature. The reason for this is because the literature of the Celts was not written in any form of English. Sometimes, ''British Literature'', is used to describe all those works of literature written in England that were not written in the English Language.  

All works were written by the Saxons before 1066 A. D. were written in Old English. While some written works continued in Anglo-Saxon after the Norman Conquest, the English Language largely faded, though never went totally extinct, until it was popularized again by John Wycliffe and Geoffrey Chaucer in the fourteenth century. Some debate whether the language of Old English (which some scholars consider to be separate from Anglo-Saxon), to have existed until the twelfth or thirteenth centuries. Ultimately though, it seems to be a general consensus that the English language began to fade in the British Isles with the rise of French during the eleventh century. Indeed, The Canterbury Tales, along with the works of the Pearl poet helped popularize Middle English in the later era of the Middle Ages.  

From Anglo-Saxon Literature, we will find both epic poems and prayers. I think we will have to hardly observe also, that their literature was quite different than would be the literature of the English people after the Norman Conquest. While Old English Literature did not totally disappear after the Norman Conquest, it was gradually suppressed after this time. 

Caedmon's Hymn is sometimes called the oldest work of English Literature {though it is not the oldest.} This poem is quite the foundation of all English Literature as it describes God's great creation of the world. What we know of this poem is only from the great Peter the Venerable himself.

 . Beowulf needs no introduction to justify its canon among the works of English Literature. This poem reflects both the paganism and Christianity of the Anglo-Saxon people. As I will be blogging about it Beowulf soon, I will save my literary discussions for it some other time. In many ways, Beowulf was for the English what The Iliad and The Odyssey were for the Greeks. An epic poem, Beowulf, continues to be read and loved today. Like Caedmon's Hymn, Beowulf was written in Old English. So were The Seafarer, Judith, and The Wife's Lament, all important works of Anglo-Saxon Literature. 

The Ecclesiastical History of the English People by Bede the Venerable is one of the most important of Anglo-Saxon works. It tells the story of how Christianity emerged in the British Isles. A monk, Bede, is perhaps the greatest source for the history of the English people besides that of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. While Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People was written in Latin, many works from British writers are still considered English Literature {though others would call them American Literature.}

These are just some examples. I will be posting and studying Anglo-Saxon history and literature in the following weeks. As we learn about the Anglo-Saxons, it helps us politically understand the foundations for later English and American governments. From a literary point of view, we will find stories that are both mythological and Christian, often both at the same time. The study of Old English Literature must be understood and is arguable, necessary to know and appreciate one's English heritage. 

                                                                 

                                                                    

Further Sources: English Literature by Benjamin W. Griffith, Anglo-Saxon Poetry translated and edited by S. A. J. Bradley, Anglo-Saxon England by Lloyd and Jennifer Laing, The Norton Anthology of the Middle Ages.

A Review of Canterbury Tales: The Franklin's Tale

 In the introduction to to The Franklin's Tale, the Franklin praises the squire's wit. He also says concerning the squire's speech that it has given him much pleasure. The Franklin says he wishes his own son to be like the squire. The Franklin then tells his tale.

In the prologue to The Franklin's Tale, the Franklin speaks of Bretons and their songs. He has remembrance of one of their songs. However, he tells the travelling company that his own speech is just simple and plain. 

As a historical note, the Bretons that the Franklin spoke of, were famous storytellers, particularity of King Arthur and other Celtic legends. Breton Lays were popular short narrative poems, focusing on on love and adventure, with frequent influence of supernatural elements. Like The Franklin's Tale as an example of a Breton Lay, Breton Lays often considered the role of chivalry in their narratives. 

The tale opens, speaking of a knight from Brittany who attempted to serve his lady as best as he could. For the record, the knight bears the name of Averagus. He had worked very hard to win her. The lady herself, by the name of Dorigen, was most beautiful. Averagus promised to never take domination of Dorigen, nor display jealousy against her. His sole intent towards her was to obey her and follow her will in all things. Only in appearance, would he seem to be her sovereign, lest it reflect on his own rank. 

But a squire of the land, Aurelius, desires the lady for his own. He ever mourns with lament that she is not his. He prays to Phoebus Apollo as he desires she be his. She rejects his desire for her as he continues to mourn. Dorigen, desperate for the return of her husband, agrees to love him if can remove the rocks from the coast so as to see her husband safe. In reality, her promise was meant jokingly. However, in a certain sense she sacrifices her own will for her love towards her husband while Aurelius holds her to the promise she made. Aurelius consults his master, Apollo. He continues to pray to the gods and mourn for himself that the lady is not his to take. 

Averagud finally returns and finds his wife weeping over the squire of the story that will not give up pursuing her. Just as the lord returns, more is at hand. Aurelius's older brother tries to help him as he sees his younger brother mourn. He convalescence his younger brother to find one that knows the magic of the planets that can perceive make false illusions.  Through such an illusion, it appears that all the rocks have been taken. Now, Aurelius holds Dorigen to this as he wants her as his wife. Averagud implores his wife to give her love to Aurelius rather than break her word. 

One day, Aurelius meets up with Dorigen in the gardens. He finds her lamenting and pities her with admiration of her love for her husband and her husband's loyalty to seeing his wife keep her word. As a result, Aurelius bids her return to her husband. No surprise, Avergud and Dorigen live happily ever after.

Averagus and Dorigen his wyf

In sovereyn blisse leden forth hir lyf.

Never eft ne was ther angre hem bitwene;

He cherisseth hur as though she were his queen; 

And she was to him trewe for evermore.

Of thise two folk ye gete of me na-more.

As to my own personal thoughts, I see much about chivalry and in this story. The noble couple exemplify perhaps the desired love we all long for: loyalty and compassion. Throughout the text, we see there love for each other unwavering by the amount of time or place that they are in. Their love is constant, their loyalty is tested, but never broken. 

I find The Franklin's Tale to strongly resemble The Odyssey by Homer. Here, we find a noble lord far away from his wife as another man tries to win her heart. Sound familiar? In The Odyssey, Odysseus is gone from his homeland for many years while other princes try to win his wife, Penelope's heart. Like Odysseus in The Odyssey, the knight in The Franklin's Tale successfully returns home to his beloved wife.

The Franklin's Tale maybe one of the best of The Canterbury Tales. Here Chaucer weaves words and important themes essential to practically all stories: love and friendship.  I find it perhaps surprising then that this tale is not more widely well known, and that even many copies of The Canterbury Tales don't even include it!

Holy Scripture gives many accounts of loyal marriages and friendships. Concerning marriage alone, the most obvious example would be the love and humility Christ shows towards the Christian Church, His Bride, which is eternal in nature and dignity. 

What is the overall theme of The Franklin's Tale? I am sure we can find many! For me though, the essential message of the story is that love and loyalty do pay off even when we don't foresee the good results of them. Also, that true love can be tested through hardship, but love is enduring in all things. Perhaps last, honesty is important, and so is not making promises that we can't keep!

Saint Paul the Apostle tells us in 1 Corinthians 13 that of Charity, Faith and Hope, Charity is the greatest of these three. We would take much wisdom to adhere to the apostle's words. 

A Review of Canterbury Tales: The Merchant's Tale

English writers for centuries have praised Chaucer for centuries. Whether it be Ben Johnson or William Blake, we find the influence of Geoffrey Chaucer in the greatest writers of English dramatist and poets.  

In the prologue to The Merchant's Tale the Merchant speaks of his admiration of Griselda as spoken of in The Clerk's Tale in contrast to many other wives. The host essentially asks the Merchant to tell a tale concerning the art of women. Indeed, no Griselda do we find in this tale; nay, in fact, the opposite. 

A worthy sixty year old knight that did live in Lombardy began to desire a wife. This old knight is spoken of as having wisdom. His name is January

The narrator speaks of the goodness of having a wife.

Here, we see an end to this tale. The young lovers commit sexual acts high in the tree before they fall to their doom. 

Interestingly enough, the text calls marriage a sacrament. This could be a factor in support of Chaucer being Roman Catholic rather than a Lollard after all. The institution of marriage as a sacrament was attacked during the sixteenth century by many of the protestant reformers but defended by the Roman Church and Henry VIII. I personally defended Matrimony as a sacrament in an early college essay that surprisingly was given a good grade by a non-Catholic source. More recently, I have considered more about the debate over the number of sacraments but have not yet been convinced of any less than seven. It is also interesting to mention though, that many Medieval theologians before the fifteenth century taught a multitude of sacraments, some as many as thirty. 

Returning to the text, Chaucer continues speaking of the glory of having a wife. It is as if Chaucer is setting us up for a fairy tale like story in which this noble knight wins the heart of a young woman. Nothing, could be further from the actual events to follow.

Chaucer recounts Biblical stories about several women and how they brought goodness to those around them. 

Lo, how that Jacob, as thise clerks rede,

By good conseil of his moder Rebekke,

Bond the kides skin aboute gis nekke;

Thurgh which his fadres benisoun he wan.

Chaucer speaks of your wife being the keeper of your household. He also implores husbands to love their wives.

One day, January. speaks to his friends. He insists he will not have an old wife but one no older than twenty years of age. He speaks of old wives knowing mischief-as if young ones don't know this also. 

May is the virgin that January chooses to wed. They go to church together. At their wedding feasts came many guests including the Roman goddess Venus* attend. 

Damian, a young squire of January, is not happy about the union of January and May as husband and wife. He begins to die in grief over her while writing a letter to express his feelings. She is given the letter by Damian while memorizing it word by word. 

January meanwhile, took his wife into a garden that only he had the key too. We are told that the gods had no greater garden and that even Pluto played there. A fruit fell from the gods in the Heavens that hits January and influences him into blindness. 

Several months go by and by this point January has come to live with his blindness. He ever kept a hand on his wife though.

Damian eventually got hold of the key and slipped into the garden the same day blind January and his wife entered. His wife asked for a pear and so climbs up into the tree where Damian awaits her. From the Heavens, January is given sight again and asks what is happening. May claims it is her that has given him sight again however. The tale ends shortly thereafter. 

In the epilogue to the tale, the host is thankful that he doesn't have a wife Like that. He also speaks of the naivety that men have towards the trickery of women. 

As to my personal thoughts, this story is kind of a strange one! None of the characters I found to be likable or honorable. This is probably one one of my lesser favorites of The Canterbury Tales. We have characters that all seem self centered. We also have a tale though that does seem to be a moral in its own which is what we desire will unfold its own consequences in our lives. If we desire lust for example, it will eventually destroy us. The consequences of sin may seem indifferent but it always comes back to haunt those that partake in it. 

On another note, the whole sexual activity in the tree was kind of weird! Usually, sin always has a way of hiding its own acts but sooner or later the truth will be known.

1 John 2: 26 tells us much in relation to the story as a whole. January, was either covetous or lustful-if not both. 

For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the World. -1 John 2: 16



*Venus was the Roman goddess of love and beauty. The Greeks called her Aphrodite. 

An Introduction to Judaism in the Middle Ages

 It is no surprise to anyone knowledge of history that the Jewish people have been the most persecuted group of ethnicity for thousands of years. Antisemitism is still common in our culture. While the subject of Judaism is a broad one, I have written this post in preparation as n introduction to future post on the history of the Hebrew people throughout the Medieval World.  As a Protestant Christian, I find more and more that many Christians are ignorant of the history and theological beliefs of Judaism. In future posts I will attempt not only through history and theology to write of why I and so many others believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah that the Jews waited so long for, but why understanding Judaism is pivotal to anyone that professes the Christian faith. 

In future posts, I will also discuss how Christianity has sometimes been misused as violence towards the Jewish people. There were certainly instances in the First Crusade and later in the Protestant Reformation, where Christians resorted to hatred of the Jewish people. I will also discuss ways Antisemetism can be brought to an end.  

Jewish theology reflected many similarities and differences to Christianity. As an example, Jews have historically rejected the doctrine of original sin. Jews also believe in free will, a concept that brought them more at odds with Martin Luther and John Calvin than that of the Catholic Church. At the same time, Jews have historically aligned with Protestants more in icolnolasm than the reverence for images and icons practiced by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Communions. Jews, as well as Christians, have also never had a universal agreement over what books are in Holy Scripture.

But the biggest differences between Judaism and Christianity are concerning the revelation of God in Holy Scriptures, and concerning the role, or lack of, of Jesus Christ in salvation. The Talmud calls the Trinity blasphemy, and considers Jesus Christ to be damned. To Jews, the Messiah prophesied of in the Old Testament was not fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Much like Christianity, Judaism has its own denominations. Mainstream Judaism, also known as Rabbinic Judaism, includes three major branches to its adherence. Those in Rabbinic Judaism consider The Talmud to also be authoritative besides the books of The Hebrew Bible, or Old Testament. Reform Jews are accepting of women ordination and homosexuality. Their philosophy tends to be very humanistic with an emphasis more on ethics than on theology itself. Orthodox Jews on the contrary, remain much more largely unchanged by the theology of their ancestors as they hold and trace to Abraham, and to the Pharisees in particular. Conservative Jews tend to follow in between both of these camps. Reconstructionist Jews don't fall into Rabbinic Judaism and don't see themselves exclusively as God's chosen people.

Samaritans are sometimes included within the Jewish faith. It has been said that they are descendants of Joseph from the Book of Genesis. The Samaritans are said to be descendants of pagans and Jews that intermarried, hence, the Jews rejected them. Not placing emphasis on Jerusalem for the sight of their sacrifice and worship of God, the Samaritans unto this day worship God with their sacrifices of animals on Mt. Gerizim. The mountain is sacred to the Samaritans as they consider it to be the place at which God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. Like the Sadducees, the Samaritans only accept the Torah as authoritative.  

The Sadducees were the succors of the Hebrew priesthood line from throughout the Old Testament. Their origins, like the pharisees, are from the 2nd century B. C. during some Jewish internal conflicts. The Sadducees rejected the role of the Talmud and affirmed only the first five books as authoritative.

The Holy Scriptures have been preserved by the Jews for thousands of years. It is pretty wild to think that long before Christ, just how much Judaism saw the Torah preserved for at least 1200 years before Christ. The frequent criticism of the accuracy of the Bible by modern skeptics is quite refutable. They often refer to the fact that we don't have the original books of the Bible but only translations or later manuscripts by scribes. The skeptics often point towards variation in Bible manuscripts.While Biblical manuscripts vary some, they most certainly agree for the most part that the Holy Scriptures preserve  the message of salvation. what is talked about even less by the secularist is that there are more manuscripts of the Bible from the ancient world than all the works of Plato, Aristotle, Julies Caesar, and others, combined. Over 20,000 Bible manuscripts of the Old Testament alone, still exist from the ancient world. But how about evidence for Julies Caesar existence? Roughly only 12 manuscripts. God has preserved the Holy Scriptures through the works of both Jews and Christians for thousands of years. The preservation of the Masoretic Text by the followers of Judaism shows us not simply the accuracy by which Jews have preserved much of the Holy Scriptures, but also brings us to a new topic.

It is sometimes claimed that the Roman Catholic Church gave Protestants the Bible and therefore Protestants should be Catholic and trust the church of Rome's interpretation of the Scriptures. This view is problematic not only because it assumes the Catholic Church was the only church that gave Protestants the Bible, but for the principle fact that Judaism gave Catholicism the Old Testament, which Jews call the Hebrew Bible.

 Roman Catholics assume by their argument that Eastern Orthodox were not the ones that gave Protestants the Bible. Actually, the King James Bible derives largely from Byzantine Type texts that were used by Eastern Orthodox. Also, many of our oldest Bible manuscripts are from the Coptic Christians. Yet again and again, many Catholic apologist seem to think their church was the only one that gave Protestants the Bible. They also often wrongly assume that even if the Catholic Church had been the only church to predate Protestantism, that still doesn't mean it is guaranteed the infallible right to interpret it always faithfully.

But perhaps most striking and significant however is that the Old Testament is derived from the Jews. Yes, you read that right! Protestant Christians owe more credit to the Jews for giving us the Old Testament than we do to Roman Catholics.

By the argument Catholics use on who gave us the Bible, we should all be converts to Judaism The Catholic Church would not have the Bible if Judaism had not preserved it for them. See how the Roman Catholic argument falls into its own shekels? I don't know why I never thought of this before, but I did today.

While Protestants should be grateful to Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians for preserving the Holy Scriptures for 2000 years, that should not be used against Protestantism in way to somehow disprove it. Indeed, men in great theological errors can still preserve the Word of God, for which we owe them much credit. Further, Eastern Orthodox also claim to be the true church and can just as much as claim they gave Protestants the Holy Scriptures, and therefore Protestants should trust their judgement of them.

Catholic Apologist base so much of their argument for the superiority of Catholicism over Protestantism on this irrelevant argument that perhaps it is a little embarrassing for them. They seem to not acknowledge Judaism as being authoritative over them as it preceded Catholicism just as Catholicism precedes Protestantism.

Judaism precedes Roman Catholicism so Catholics should convert to Judaism if they are looking  for what faith gave us the Old Testament. Long before the papacy, there were Pharisees and Sadducees for example.

How we determine what is right and wrong is not by looking at what religion or priesthood is the oldest. The Christian faith is to be based off of the Holy Scriptures. A true faithful interpretation of Scripture is one in which we read the Word without presumptions of any doctrines we currently hold and formulate our theology from the texts themselves. Christians have been criticized by Jews for reading the Old Testament as pointing towards the New Testament without a presupposition that the New Testament is already true. In light of all these things, we should more closely examine the debates between Judaism and Christianity.

Further Sources: Compact Bible Dictionary by Ronald F. Youngblood and F. F. Bruce and R. K. Harrison, What do Jews Believe: The Spiritual Foundations of Judaism by David S. Ariel.

Medieval and Renaissance: What's the Difference?

For many years I saw the Renaissance as an era within the Middle Ages. Later, I changed my view to an understanding that the Renaissance was a separate era than Medieval Times and was very adamant about supporting that view. I often emphasized that the Protestant Reformation was not Medieval but post-Medieval. More recently, I have changed my view again to the belief that the Renaissance should actually be understood as part of the Middle Ages.

Now before I expound on why I believe the Renaissance is actually Medieval, we have to first understand when the Middle Ages began and ended. Over the years, various scholars have had different views about the timeline to the history of the Medieval World. Perhaps most common,is the claim that the Middle Ages began with the gradual fall of the city of Rome in the 5th century and ended just before the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century. Thus, a common timeline for the Middle Ages is that it lasted roughly 400-1500 A. D. . Such a view is not without those that differ however, as some see the Middle Ages as only beginning as late as the 7th century or later, and ending only in the sixteenth century at the latest. Frequently, Christopher Columbus's coming to the New World or Luther's Ninety-Five Thesis are seen as the end of the Middle Ages. Others see the Middle Ages not as ending until Henry VIII severed ways with Rome in the sixteenth century.

One rather consistent view would be to say the Middle Ages began with the emergence of Christianity under Emperor Constantine in the fourth century and ended with the fall of the Byzantine Empire in the fifteenth century. This view is quite plausible as it ties the history of the Middle Ages to a consistent beginning and end to the Byzantine Empire. 

To make matters more confusing, some see the Middle Ages as originating in England later than some other countries. Also, the same is said for the English Renaissance that it began roughly a century after the Italian Renaissance had started.

Concerning literature too is another issue. English Literature by Benjamin W. Griffith consider the Anglo-Saxon work, Beowulf, to be ancient English Literature. However, Beowulf is included in the Nortan Anthology of the Middle Ages. Perhaps England's timeline of history does not totally correspond to that of Italy or Greece in relation to the Medieval Era? It is certainly something to think about.

No doubt, England probably tended to be a little bit slower in catching up with its times than did other places in Europe. The Petrarachan Sonnet certainly laid the foundations for the Shakespearean Sonnet. Dante also had influence on Chaucer. Many of the opposition to the Catholic Church concerning theological issues in the Middle Ages originated with the French and Italian Waldensians before it did many of the reformers in England.

While we may not all agree on when the Middle Ages began or ended in England, it does seem that that Medieval Times came later to England than it did to some other countries. The same is true true for the English Renaissance.

It is my personal opinion that the Middle Ages began as early as the fourth century. What we to remember though, is that Medieval Times and the Age of Chivalry are not exactly interchangeable. Knighthood certainly didn't exist in the days of Saint Patrick for example. I personally believe the fourth century is a good origin of the Middle Ages mostly because the rise of Christianity which seems to have brought on an entirely new era in history.

But if the Middle Ages began in the fourth century, when did it end? This one maybe a little more complicated. Like C. S. Lewis, I consider the Renaissance to not really be a separate era of that of Medieval England*1.  As the Protestant Reformation took place just shortly after the English Renaissance began, I also do believe that the early part of the Protestant Reformation should also be understood as Medieval. 

While some place the Middle Ages and Renaissance as ending as late as 1700, I wonder if such a date is stretching them a little too far. While I believe the early Renaissance to be still Medieval, perhaps the latter part of it we should then understand to be a separate era.

In my opinion, the Middle Ages probably ended around the time of the Protestant Reformation. However, I think if we examine history we will find that Protestantism was not entirely a new movement but based upon many ideas from Medieval Theologians like Wycliffe or William of Ockham. While some may not see Luther as Medieval, I would probably stretch the Middle Ages to around the early seventeenth century, at which point the Reformation had mostly succeeded, and America was being gradually settled by the English. Perhaps Medieval aside, we can stretch the Renaissance then until the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, if not later.

C. S. Lewis became the chair of Medieval and Reinsurance Literature near the end of his life. Lewis frequently refers to Edmund Spenser in his works. He was also famous for a line, ''The Renaissance  never happened.'' He understood the English literature of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries to actually be Medieval. Because of this, I think we can faithfully and fairly assume, that Lewis would have also considered the early parts of the Protestant Reformation to still be Medieval (at least, those concerning England). For more on Lewis's view on this subject, check out Mcgrath's book mentioned below.

So if the early Renaissance era was actually Medieval, how did it come to be understood as such? Further what about the ''Dark Ages? '' These topics will be discussed soon. 

In the book, The Bright Ages, several views on Medieval history are suggested. Medievalists have significantly differed from each other in the dating of the Medieval timeline. While I feel accepting of the 400-1500 A. D. system, I also can see various other dates as to the beginning and end of the Middle Ages. For example, The Bright Ages talks about some who even believe the Middle Ages ended as late as the nineteenth century! 


Further Sources: The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor, C. S. Lewis: A Life by Alister Mcgrath, The Norton Anthology of English Literature: The Middle Ages by Stephen Greenblatt, The Barron's Guide to English Literature by Benjamin W. Griffith.

*1- https://www.jstor.org/stable/26814235

A Great film on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

I recently saw a film based on the Medieval poem, Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. As someone that loves Medieval Literature, and has loved it as soon as I remember, I take most opportunities to watch historically accurate medieval films. Prior to watching Gawain and the Green Knight, I had just watched Marvel's Black Panther, and I continue to be be amazed by how much the arts have mostly went downhill. I guess some would prefer a film about rap music and a racial agenda than to the literary classics of the past! Black Panther has to be one of the most overrated movies I have ever seen! Not sure what year this film based on Sir Gawain and the Green Knight was made. You can watch it here on YouTube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBEv8xjBJf8

The movie is personally one of my favorite films about the Middle Ages. As far as I can tell, it is also accurate to the story. A film titled the Green Knight, is coming out later this year. Hopefully, the upcoming film will be just as good.

I learned a lot about the story { which I read twice before } by watching this film. You can also learn about medievalism in general by just watching things played out as it would have looked in Medieval Times.

For my previous thoughts on the poem check out the following link
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-review-of-sir-gawain-and-green-knight.html

As an interesting note, I recently learned that Gawain's shield has much significance. It has Gold and a Red Pectangle with a picture of the Virgin Mary on the inside. Somehow I guess I missed that the two times I read the poem so far! His shield represents symbols of virtue including chivalry, generosity, fellowship, chastity, courtesy, and piety. The chief of these virtues is chastity.

I probably will give more personal thoughts as well as academic research about Sir Gawain and the Green Knight in a future post! For now, enjoy the film!

Medieval Women's Home Life Part One

                                                Rowena, pictured above, from Ivanhoe


Only in the past few decades have scholars come to realize the significance of women in Medieval Times. Many feminist today speak of ''the bad ole days when women were mistreated!'' In reality, Patriarchy contributes to women's happiness. For more on this, see Dr. Kantor's Work The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature. It is also not commonly talked about how women's happiness as been largely been deprived by irresponsible fathers in communities.
Peasant Women worked in the fields beside the men. Women were proud of their abilities to spin, weave, dyeing, and sewing. Most people in the country made their own clothes.
Women in the Middle Ages could not do many things that women can do today but this has also been exaggerated to portray Medieval women as only ''damsels in distress.''  Women were forbidden from being doctors, priests, judges, university or professors but they were allowed to pursue art and writing; craftswomanship and to be tradeswomen. Actually, the idea that women can only by housekeepers or child bearers only came about in the modern era. It is ironic that in many ways Medieval women were more responsible for work of different kinds than we often think! Whether it be Margery Kempe or Julian of Norwich, there was certainly influential Medieval women that wrote and were visionaries for their time.

In the Early Middle Ages, Monastic Women had a lot to do with bringing Europe to Christianity. Religious women throughout the Middle Ages tended to be mystical. Hildegard of Bingin wrote doctrinal literature that gained the support of the papacy.

I will stop there for tonight as I got reading to get too. In the following weeks, I will discuss more on the role of Medieval Women.

Also, check out my previous blog post:
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/01/some-brief-facts-of-women-in-medieval.html


Further Sources: Damsels not in Distress: The True Story of Women in the Middle Ages by Andrea Hopkins, The Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages by Norman F. Cantor.

Medieval vrs Modern Morality

The Middle Ages weren't all about wars and sieges. A number of famous writers came from England and other kingdoms throughout Europe. Still, the Middle Ages was much more than just the literary historical background for works like The Canterbury Tales and Piers Plowman. Contrary to many myths, Medieval people weren't ignorant as I discussed in blog posts here.
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/02/were-medieval-people-ignorant.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/some-great-books-that-defend-medieval.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/05/medieval-people-knew-bible.html

Liberal lies aside, let us unfold the curtain and find what Medieval people were like in their every day life.

Medieval People practiced courtship instead of dating. Marriages were often {though not always,} arranged by parents. We live in an environment today where many guys and girls go to the beach or hotel together with no parent around that it may all seem strange to many modernist.  Girls were often married at fourteen to young men usually around seven years their senior. Marriage at the dawn of youth may also seem practice to us from this era as few in the Middle Ages lived past fifty years of age. I remember seeing a clip from an old film in the past about a guy and girl that get into a car together and drive out as the young man suddenly turns into a wolf! I will say no more here of reasons why I support traditional courtship where young men approach the fathers of daughters before making serious relationships with the young women.
Whatever views we have about marriage, divorce and courtship we will soon find that people in the Middle Ages practiced very different customs and understandings of these subjects then most modernist do.

First of all, marriage was seen as a lifelong commitment between husband and wife by the Catholic Church. Although many of the early Protestants believed divorce and remarriage were allowed for exclusive cases like abandonment and remarriage only to those whose spouse had left them or committed sexual immorality, I have yet to see any Protestants that believed remarriage was just forgiven by Jesus as is the attitude of many Christians today. Protestants historically pointed towards Matthew 19: 9 and 1 Corinthians 7: 10-16 as legal grounds for divorce. On the other hand, some Roman Catholics claim the sexual immorality Christ spoke of was about those whose marriages were invalid due to incest etc, and therefore all divorces are morally wrong.  In reality, I don't think we will have to strive hard to find that both Roman Catholics and Protestants from the Medieval/Renaissance/Reformation Eras took the issue of marriage and divorce much more serious than we do today. Many of the same modern Christians that proclaim those that live in remarried estates to be forgiven are ever hypocritical as they are so quick to judge the homosexusal to be damned for him or her living in that abominable sin. Hypocrisy will only hurt the church, and Christians will always have to struggle with either being legalistic or worldly. In summary, whether we take the traditional Roman Catholic view that divorce is always forbidden, or if we take the view that divorce is sometimes allowed only for the partner done wrong by the cases mentioned, we still have to conclude that the majority of divorced and remarried cases in our present day churches wouldn't fit either's legal rights to divorce.

At any rate, Medieval Christians were much more conservative than many Christians today. Almost anything today that makes one be labeled a ''fundamentalist'' by mainstream audiences is exactly what was once the dominant view! Even ''Islamic radicalist,'' are really the true Muslims that interpret the Koran in many ways as Muslims once did.

Today, Christians that take the interpretation of the Bible as how it was always understood are also labelled ''fundamentalist.'' It is not popular nowadays to believe Jesus is the only way to Heaven and that all heathens that don't repent to Christ of their sins will burn in hell forever. Those that hold the liberal views generally find a way to bully the conservatives by portraying them as intolerant, Medieval and outdated.  Mainstream Catholicism and Protestantism have both put down the little guys in the traditional Roman Catholic or Evangelical Protestant circles.

I just wanted to share a few of those thoughts. In our modern age of leftist thinking, we don't need another cowardly Christian that goes with the flow but according to what we are commanded by the Holy Scriptures. Where are the men and women of God that are willing to be different? If Peter or Paul or John the Baptist excited today they would not be loved by the Greco-Romans of our churches despite the lip service to them made so many modern bishops and pastors make. While Christians die every day at the hands of Muslim countries every day too many American Christians are worried about the entertainment from the pulpit or being socially sensitive to what others want!

I will be covering Medieval Home Life in upcoming posts. This post was just to get some thoughts out!