Books that I Have Read from or about Greco-Roman and other Ancient literature

Greek literature includes some great mythological and philosophical works of the Western Canon. The Iliad and The Odyssey are two of the main great works from Greek literature. As much though as I like Greek literature, I prefer the literature of the Romans and their descendants. Latin literature is possibly my favorite language-literature of classical literature. Of course, the influence of Latin language literature went well beyond that of the ancient and classical world. Some of the most important classics of the Medieval World were also written in Latin. This post, however, only lists literary works that I have read before the spread of Christianity in the fourth century. 

While most casual readers are familiar with Homer's The Iliad and The Odyssey, in many ways, Latin literature has had as greater influence upon Medieval literature (and therefore this medievalist) than did Greek literature.  The Aeneid by Virgil is one of many great works from the Romans.  Latin literature took much from the Greeks before it. Homer, was an inspiration to many of the Roman classical writers. 

We owe the Greeks and Romans much about the great philosophies and literature works that have transcended admired readers for many generations. Thousands of years after Homer, we are still enriched by some of the greatest stories of all time that originated with the Greeks and Romans.

Although English literature originated in the Middle Ages, {though some consider Beowulf to be an ancient work of literature}, there are plenty of books about The Greco-Roman World that is important for Literature major of all stripes to read and study. I may however, have forgotten the names of some books that I have read about the Greeks and Romans over the years. 
Books of Mythology: The Trojan War by Olivia Coolidge, Greek Myths by Olivia Coolidge 

Books on the history of the ancient and classical world: Augustus Caesar's World, The Osborne Time Traveler Book of Rome and Romans by Heather Amery and Patricia Vana, Marathon by David. J. Califf, Famous Men of Greece by John H. Haaren and A. B. Poland, Famous Men of Rome by John Henry Haaren. 

 Books of Literature: The Iliad by Homer, The Odyssey by Homer, Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, The Metamorphoses by Ovid, The Eclogues by Vigil, The Georgics by Virgil, Classics of Catholic Tradition: The Passion of SS. Perpetua of Felicity Together with the Sermons of Saint Augustine by W. H. Shewring, Treatise on the Passover by Origen of Alexandria, The Didache, First Clement, Second Clement, The Aeneid by Virgil. 

Orthodox Britain Part VII

 

For my previous thoughts: https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/01/orthodox-britain-some-thoughts-on.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/01/orthodox-britain-some-thoughts-on_25.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/02/orthodox-britain-part-iii.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/04/orthodox-britain-part-iv.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/04/orthodox-britain-part-v.html

https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2020/08/orthodox-britain-part-vi.html

I did formerly address the fact in the previous posts of this series of how the Anglo-Saxons did not support the reforming papacy of the eleventh century. I used this as support for the view that the Anglo-Saxons in 1066 were not Roman Catholic. Of course, it is also widely well known that many kings in the eleventh through fifteenth centuries opposed a high view of papal supremacy when it came to interfering with their power. Henry I of England and Anselm of Canterbury came into conflict on this issue for example.   

So, to continue my discussion of whether England was an Orthodox country rather than a Roman Catholic one, let me say that I believe it was a Roman Catholic kingdom in 1066. For that matter, essentially all of Western Europe was. The belief that stands contrary to this is the recently popular view that the Anglo-Saxon Church was an Orthodox Church. However, I see little historical evidence for either of these views. The wide acceptance of the Filioque among the Anglo-Saxons is a strong indication of them not being Eastern Orthodox, for example. Furthermore, I have never read from or about any Anglo-Saxon theologians who taught a type of Palamism that would later divide the Christian Church between east and west.

Some Anglicans saw evidence that the Celtic/Anglo-Saxon Church had been a pre-Anglican Church before the eleventh century. This view was espoused by Archbishop Matthew Park of Canterbury, for example. While I believe it is a stretch to claim that the Anglican Church goes back to the apostle Paul (as some belief), there is evidence, nonetheless, to back the idea of a pre-Anglican Church. However, for historical purposes, I believe that it is fairer to describe the church before the Norman Conquest as the Celtic/Anglo-Saxon Church rather than as the Anglican Church considering the great breach in time between the Norman Conquest and the English Reformation. After all, from the eleventh century through the sixteenth, the English Church was more or less Roman Catholic. While we may be able to describe the English Church before the Norman Conquest as Roman Catholic, I don't believe this would be the most historically accurate for several reasons. Among them would be the reasons that I have already discussed. Another evidence against the English Church being Roman Catholic before the English Reformation, however, is in the writings of Archbishop Parker. A scholar of Anglo-Saxon studies, he concluded that the Anglo-Saxons had never taught Transubstantiation. 

On the other hand, I do not think it is honest for some Roman Catholic apologists to claim that the Anglo-Saxons were Roman Catholic in the sense of the church's developing teachings on papal supremacy, which as I have shown previously, the Anglo-Saxons clearly rejected. The fact that the Anglo-Saxons had a long history of debt to the Church of Rome's Christianization of Britain is not sufficient evidence to prove that the English people somehow supported papal supremacy when the evidence shows otherwise. For certain, the Anglo-Saxons are indebted not only to Rome but also, to the Eastern Christians who brought their art to the British Isles. 

With all of this said, my view now is that the Anglo-Saxon Church was a Roman Catholic one, but this does not mean that the Anglo-Saxons supported papal supremacy any more than did many of the Norman kings in the following centuries that clearly opposed this theological position. Many of the Anglo-Saxons like their later Norman Conquerors, saw the king as the head of the church in their land.  The ongoing conflict of power between kings and popes would come to heads during the Protestant Reformation. Theologically, it may be argued that the Anglo-Saxon Church was more Anglican than Roman Catholic. Nevertheless, the British Church was more or less Roman Catholic in the simple sense that the Anglican articles of the Reformation hadn't been written yet! 

In summary, I would more or less affirm that the Anglo-Saxons were Roman Catholics that resisted a high view of papal supremacy that was becoming dominant in the eleventh century. While this may sound like an oxymoron, I believe that is because most today judge Roman Catholicism as a complete acceptance of the pope's dogmatic teachings. Such, however, was not the case for all Roman Catholic monarchs and their subjects in times past. The Saxons were Roman Catholic in the sense that they held communion to Rome but I would argue, that their theology was in many ways more Anglican than Papalism. 

The Virgin Mary in the Protestant Tradition

                                                                       1. Introduction

Those that have followed my blog for a while know well that I have pointed out the historical fallacies of the modern Roman Catholic understanding of the papacy. They may also know well that I feel I have successfully proven that Papal Infallibility, and to a certain extant, Papal Supremacy, were later teachings in the history of the church. Today, I intend to blog on something from an opposite perspective of many modern  Evangelical Christians: I intend to show that many of them have gone too far in their rejection of Mariology. While I believe that many Roman Catholics are guilty of idolatry towards the Virgin Mary, others should not go to the opposite extreme of not honouring Mary at all. Unfortunately, many evangelicals, especially Independent Fundamentalist Baptist and those professing to be Reformed Protestant, are dead wrong on their complete rejection of Mariology. As will be discussed in another post, the Virgin Mary has been honoured in both scripture and history by Christians since the earliest of times. Far too often, has the Virgin Mary been cast aside in modern Evangelical Christian thought. 

Today, many Evangelicals will praise the Apostles Peter and Paul, but practically put their honour of Mary completely to the side. As soon as Mary is praised for her love of of her Lord, some are so fearful of giving honor to anyone but Christ (though actually they honor many other men besides our Lord) that they find any praise or honor of the Virgin Mary as simply being a Roman Catholic practice. 

The lack of reverence for Mary in low church Protestant and Evangelical circles is a remorseful thing. The time they do not spend in giving her the historical devotion that saints have shown her for two thousand years is replaced, if not superseded, by their love of their own theologians and pastors. The Virgin is extremely down played in such circles, they are quick to call her sinner, and much more slothful to honor her as did the Angel Gabriel: “Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art among women.” 

Before I proceed, the purpose of my post is not to defend many of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church about the Virgin Mary. While some of the doctrines I find concerning, if not idolatrous, I also do think that many on the Evangelical side have fallen into error on the opposite extreme. While most Evangelicals probably play it safer than do many of the Roman Catholics, I think we should learn from church history that neither one is the historical one. This first post however, will only focus on what I perceive as the errors of many modern day Protestants and Evangelicals. While many Evangelicals will immediately resort to their false claim that the reformers only held to some Mariology as they were coming out of the church of Rome, they fail to understand that the reformers not only examined many of their beliefs (whether true or false) by scripture, and likewise, that many pentecostals can see evangelicals not going far enough from Roman Catholicism just as evangelicals like John Macarthur do when they claim erroneously that infant baptism needs to be reformed from. It is all who one compares oneself too when something is too ''Catholic.'' Many charismatic non-denominational Christians could see Southern Baptist as being too ''Catholic'' for anything structured in church worship. The point that I am showing here, is that the argument that the reformers were in error with anything evangelicals don't like because the reformers came out of the church of Rome, is a weak one.  

                                    2. The Reformers taught Devotion to the Virgin Mary

Let us look at what Protestants from the past said about the Virgin Mary. It is interesting how far most evangelicals have departed from the Protestant Reformation on this. 

"But the other conception, namely the infusion of the soul, it is piously and suitably believed, was without any sin, so that while the soul was being infused, she would at the same time be cleansed from original sin and adorned with the gifts of God to receive the holy soul thus infused. And thus, in the very moment in which she began to live, she was without all sin..."-Martin Luther

"The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart."-Martin Luther

"Elizabeth called Mary Mother of the Lord, because the unity of the person in the two natures of Christ was such that she could have said that the mortal man engendered in the womb of Mary was at the same time the eternal God."-John Calvin

"I firmly believe that Mary, according to the words of the gospel as a pure Virgin brought forth for us the Son of God and in childbirth and after childbirth forever remained a pure, intact Virgin."-Ulrich Zwingli 

"I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary."-Ulrich Zwingli 

John Wesley too believed in the perpetual Virginity of Mary: The Blessed Virgin Mary, who, as well after as when she brought him forth, continued a pure and unspotted virgin. {"Letter to a Roman Catholic" / In This Rock, Nov. 1990, p.25}-John Wesley

I hope that all of this discussion here, will not cause knee jerk reactions from my evangelical friends. I encourage them to look more into these things before speaking about these things that they are usually ignorant of. Godspeed.