This is a good and simplified explanation of what went on with regards to the Church around the sixth to ninth centuries in the Byzantine Empire. I'm very impressed that how far he described everything. Even bringing certain minor figures that is often not covered in a survey or non-major class like this. Well done. And thanks to Dr. Reeves!

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+John Kim // Thanks John! That is one of my style choices: I like to take a relatively well-known sweep and add color to the portrait with some lesser known people, etc. Glad you liked it. I find if it's done just enough it doesn't feel like minutiae but can expand our horizon as to what we see in certain eras. :)

@Vicjserrano

7 жыл бұрын

This is exactly the reason why I subscribed! Thank you.

@milosavpavlovic7548

7 жыл бұрын

Great lecture, but I got one question. Haven't Justinian in the end managed to defeat the Ostrogoths in Italy and after that they disappear from history, and even capture small portions of Visigothic Spain?

@milosavpavlovic7548

7 жыл бұрын

Also I have heard that iconoclasm was started because the fact that Arabs as Muslim were strictly against religious images, yet they were winning battle after battle against Byzantines. Supposedly Leo III thought that Arabs we doing something right and found that use of Icons of Christ and saints are probably what hinders the Byzantine armies. What do you think about that?

@ashleyloveland1739

7 жыл бұрын

John Kim yes exactly! Thank you Dr.Reeves!

Thank you for mentioning Belisarius. In my (limited) reading of his life, I have always been bemused that Hollywood has never made a movie about his life, to my knowledge. It seems to me that there was enough drama and tragedy, love and betrayal, in the court of Justinian, and centered on the life of Belisarius, to fill a few novels or a good mini-series. Since Hollywood seems to be out of ideas, other than comic book movies (which I like) and remakes of older movies and TV shows (Dukes of Hazzard...really?), I wish they would "discover" the wealth of stories in the history of the Eastern Roman Empire.

@Johnnycdrums

8 жыл бұрын

I agree with your analysis.

@thecompanypublicbroadcastc7587

7 жыл бұрын

A movie about Justinian and Byzantium may give them the fame they deserve.

@JRobbySh

7 жыл бұрын

No one in Hollywood would ever pitch that movie.The Italians make such movies because it is a part of their history. Italians make moves about Lepanto and the sieges of Vienna, because history has made them aware of the ancient conflict between Christianity and Islam. Ask an Oxford graduate about Lepanto, and you might get a flicker of recognition. Ask a Yale graduate and you will probably get a blanks stare.

When discussing the lingering Byzantine presence in parts of Italy and Sicily, its worth mentioning that these areas had been "Magna Grecia" since the early classical period. Ethnically and linguistically, Southern Italy and Sicily were part of the Byzantine sphere until the rule of the Normans, who pursued a conscious program of Italicization.

@JRobbySh

7 жыл бұрын

Reminding me of the old Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. Italy even today is culturally divided. With Rome situated in the middle between North and South. This is why the House of Savoy robbed the pope not only of the old papal states but even Rome itself, which was a pilgrimage city rather than a metropolis in 1870.The King was trying to unite the country, but he only succeeded in alienating Catholics.Garibaldi gained huge moral standing by not making himself ruler of the South and letting the king take over. Pio Non0 jokingly said that he and the atheist Garibaldi were the only non-political figures in Italy.

Lombards were not in Sicily in the time of Belisarius. In fact, Italy was mostly controlled by Goths. The Byzantines (with Belisarius as commander) conquer almost all of Italy from the Goths, and only then are invaded by the Lombards, three years after the death of Justinian.

Awsome episode. I had no idea that the Cyrillic alphabet had that much to do with the spread of Christianity.

I would also point out about the 7th Ecumenical Council, that as with all the councils, was an affirmation and articulation of the first Council, where the dual nature of Christ was established. When the Church expanded to the Slavic north, it brought a fully articulated, mature doctrine, which partly accounted for its success. That's what Bishop Kallistos Ware says, anyhow...:)

god damn what they did to hagia sophia just makes me rage

@JRobbySh

7 жыл бұрын

Culturally. maybe. The Nestorians were able to survive and even expand under the first Caliphates. But Islam gradually became quite hostile to Greek art and thought over the centuries. A primitive school, which claimed to bring back Islam to a “desert” faith keeping coming back to dominate. What Isis is doing has been done before. For instance the impulse that led to the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchure in 1009.

I read that the Platonic school was closed due to practice of astrology, but not because Justinian was anti-philosophical or against neo-platonism. Neo-platonism was very popular amongst church theologians due to it's focus on "another world".

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

***** // Hey Norwegian. It depends on how you see the role neo-Platonism played in the church. It certainly has influence on a certain segment of Christian scholars. I wouldn't say Christians like it because it focuses on 'another world'. You don't have to leave the Bible to find that teaching. They always appreciated it's epistemology, which laid the source of meaning as in the immaterial world--and that synced up well with the doctrine of God as the creator, etc. There are other elements they liked, too. But saying there was influence and saying they wanted to leave a fully pagan school open are two different things. The one thing I don't go into in the video is that Justinian had opened his own school that would champion Christian philosopy (which would certainly have scholars in favor of neo-Platonism). But he wanted this one closed as it represented a threat, both to the Christian faith and to the prestige he hoped to bring to his new school in Constantinople. Thanks for the comments! :)

@AnonNorwegianPartiot

9 жыл бұрын

Ryan Reeves Yeah, well I know that you find support for focusing on the afterlife in the Bible, but what I meant was that later, especially in the Medieval period, Christians really down played the role of this life and hat their focus on the next one. Things like sex was almost looked upon as a sin and the joy of sex was not supposed to be something you embraced. Now I would agree a lot on this, if it wasn't for the fact that it was seen this way in marriage as well. There is nothing in Scripture that says you can't enjoy the sexual intercourse you have with your spouse, but that you should not live a hedonistic life style. Yeah, it represented a threat due to the people in the school teaching astrology, which is why it was seen as a threat and closed down. Another thing is also that the school had long passed it's golden age in the ancient times of Plato. It was not much coming out of the school, so it's not like Justinian closed a school which developed the same extent of knowledge as in the ancient times. It was pretty dead for a long time.

i think it may be worthy of note that the same period as the iconoclasm is about that of mohammed, who (according to his modern followers, at least), seems to have had a bit of a problem along similar lines. abrahamic fundamentalism? seems to fit in with the not too much later schism comment about the unleavened communion host, in a kind of tangential way. perhaps a pinch of arianism too. could islam be a sort of eastern pre sub-schism, pitting a sort of "fundamentalist abrahamism" POV against the "modern fancy-pants" trinitarian POV? it would seem a reasonably easy "sell" philosophically to an arian, especially if they had been "coercively converted" a bit. gotta say, doc, i just kind of stumbled on your channel one day, and haven't found anything not to like yet. clear, concise, far from dull, several vids in, i'm honestly not only impressed, but learning something too. kudos!!

is there a part 3?

Cyril and Methodius did not devised the Cyrillic alphabet. They have created the glagolic script to be used in Moravia. After their death the teachings of the ortodox monks and their books were destroyed, as the Pope pushed to diminish byzantine influence in the region. The cyrilic alphabet was developed in the Preslav literary school funded by King Boris of Bulgaria. The original glagolic script was used up to the 10th century in the Ohrid literary school again under bulgarian rule. The way that lecture represent the history almost imply some form of spontaneous conversion and adoption of literacy occurred within the slavic world as a side note. This was simply not the case. The adoption and development of ortodox christianity was due sustained effort of missionaries and scholars. Especially after the ottoman conquest of europe, as many ortodox scholars fled to the north east.

@RyanReevesM

7 жыл бұрын

Very helpful points. I am not an historian of languages and so certainly admit I overgeneralized. Many books make the same over-generalization, but that's not exactly a reason to continue saying it! But you are very helpful here for me, certainly! :)

@jonathandoe1367

7 жыл бұрын

It's okay. Everyone else has trouble with the Slavic languages too. There was actually of a profusion of variations in the Slavic scripts, which have been gradually changing all the way to modern times, and even modern Cyrillic varies significantly based on which language it's being used for. It really takes special attention to keep it all straight. (It doesn't help that it's based mostly on Greek, whereas Latin was more influential in general.) It's very interesting. If you ever need a hobby...

Needless to say, Leo III's greatest importance was his defeat of the saracen at the Siege of Constantinople. Undoubtedly changed the history of the world.

Iconoclasm was probably a reaction against claims or practices promoting the Mandylion of Edessa. It was a relic with the "true image" "not made by hand" of a human face thought to be that of Christ. It was credited with defending Edessa against the Persians in 544. It was apparently captured by the Sassanians along with the the city of Edessa itself in 609. Eventually (in 944) it was brought to Constantinople, from whence it disappeared during the sacking of Constantinople during the 4th Crusade. The Shroud of Turin shows up in Europe about a century and a half later in the hands of Geoffroi de Charny, a nephew of the second in command of the Knights Templar, a man with a nearly identical name: Geoffroi de Charney, who had been roasted to death along with Jacques de Molay. Ian Wilson is credited by wikipedia as being the first to propose that the Shroud is the same relic as the Mandylion. His theory is that as the Mandylion the cloth would have been folded and framed to show just the head of the image, not the whole body. He was able to detect certain otherwise inexplicable details in the icons that appear to be reproducing wrinkles or other artifacts in the Shroud. If they are the same relic, it would tend to explain why icons, especially icons of Christ, would receive excessive veneration in the region, and in turn why a backlash of iconoclasm might be provoked from time to time, especially when the Mandylion was in Christian hands and a fresh batch of icons of Jesus could be made. Icons of Jesus would be painted according to precise specifications to reproduce the details of the Mandylion, and then upon completion be blessed by being touched to the original image. Specific prayers and meditations may also be prescribed to be said during creation or blessing. In this way the sanctity and specialness of icons would be established. Even today, the Orthodox Church tends to adulate icons more than in Catholicism. I'm speaking here of attitudes of the laity more than official teaching. Catholics generally regard images as merely worship aids, with about the same level of sanctity as an antique songbook or Bible, valuable, beautiful, and possibly rare, but not receptacles of sanctity and miracle-inducing power. Icons have never been as popular as statues in the western church. We may light candles before statues and kiss them or touch their toe for good luck, but usually not icons. Even so, we know that statues are just wood or metal and have no power. We're really relying on God's power, mediated through the prayers of Jesus or the saint. The Orthodox Church regards icons as carrying something of the sanctity of the person it represents. The western church reserves such ideas of sanctity and miracle-working power for relics, not mere images and statues. Even so, both Catholic and Orthodox churches teach us not to worship relics or icons as gods. The one God is the source of all good. Kissing or touching a statue or icon is like touching the hem of Jesus's garment. The woman with the hemorrhage wasn't expecting any power from the hem, but rather Jesus himself.

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

Thanks for the comments. For where I was going the evidence still places this in the realm of 'theory', in that there is no smoking gun that proves it one way or the other. The originators of the dispute just starting blustering and then it passed into an official conciliar fight. So my goal here was just to let viewers know there is no smoking gun, per se, but I am not opposed to various theories of how these fights started.

@aaronmunn2918

7 жыл бұрын

Icons basically have a sacramental function in Orthodoxy. Sort of like the modern western doctrine of Transignification (the Lord's Supper) in Catholic or Anglicans theology. The icon mediates the presence or reality of a saint, without necessarily being identical to that reality.

@brianingram4709

7 жыл бұрын

Transignification What is that? I think you mean Transubstantiation that is the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus ...and it is not a modern doctrine but one always held by the Church , both west and east

@JRobbySh

7 жыл бұрын

That is the Real Presence. Transsubstantion is a medieval formation coined as a result of philosophical controversy. Like consubstantial in the Creed. It was coined to emphasize an ancient teaching of the Church

Iconoclasm had a lot to do with the rise of Islam and Arab piracy in the Mediterranean

Wasn't iconoclasm a response to Islam's anti-idolatry principles?

@RyanReevesM

9 жыл бұрын

Yes and no. Historians have made that argument and it certainly has some merit. The main issue with that is the original people involved with it don't make this argument themselves. The Emperor just starts demanding they be destroyed.

@MatthewMcVeagh

9 жыл бұрын

Ryan Reeves It does seem a bit of a coincidence that it only happened after the rise of Islam. On the other hand not immediately afterward, but a century later when maybe a lot of former Christians in the lands now ruled by Muslims were converting, perhaps leading to a desire to win them back or prevent further losses. There are other cases in the world where an older religion creates new schools of thought in response to the innovations of later rival religions - for instance some say Vedanta is a form of Hinduism intended to answer the criticisms from Buddhism. And of course, in none of these cases does anyone admit this is what the motivation is, as it's rather giving the game away - the point is it's hoped it will simply have a proselytic effect. And it's not impossible the move was sincere and the result of long thought and digestions of discussions with people expounding a Muslim point of view.

@daledheyalef

8 жыл бұрын

+Ryan Reeves I've heard that there was a widespread belief that God was punishing Christianity for using images, and that this is why Islam was succeeding against them. This then motivated people to adopt Iconoclastic beliefs. This wouldn't be on the level of theologians, but more a belief of the masses. Is there any truth to this? Was such a belief widespread?

@aaronmunn2918

7 жыл бұрын

Leo III seems to have believed it. But the masses loved icons, it was the populace that resisted the most.

Name "Byzantine" is imposed from west as demeaning. Empire was by itself called "Romeya".

11:00 Lombards were npt pagans, they were Arian Christians.

no mention of the obvious Islamic influence on iconoclasm?

@RyanReevesM

8 жыл бұрын

+Waranle84 // That's because in terms of scholarship it is not obvious. People have suggested this may have been an influence, but no sources from the time mention them as the source of the issue. Instead they often point to internal squabbles over how to read commandment prohibiting images. There are analogous views in certain Protestant groups, for example, that are not influenced by Islam.

@BoqPrecision

8 жыл бұрын

Ryan Reeves thank you for the prompt reply :)

@JRobbySh

7 жыл бұрын

Given how little evidence we have of the teachings of Islam at that time.

The chariot race stuff sounds a bit like the supporters of Celtic and Rangers in Scotish football. Celtic is RC and its colours are green and whitel and the Rangers is Protestant and its colours are blue white and ref like the English flag.

I almost feel that icons came out of left field . From what I see it started sometime after the council of nicea. Also where did the practice of incense start??? I'm trying to peg what pagan practices crept into orthodox christianity.

@daledheyalef

8 жыл бұрын

+Eric The use of incense for worship is in the Old Testament.

@ElasticGiraffe

7 жыл бұрын

Eric The Dura-Europos church, the earliest archeological evidence we have of a Christian house church (3rd century), is covered with religious images. Incense is used in the Old Testament and referenced in the New Testament in the Book of Revelation. The tradition of worship in the Orthodox Church doesn't tolerate anti-Christian pagan practices, and the Second Council of Nicaea upheld the proper use of icons while ruling out the abusive excesses of popular piety.

The Pre nicene fathers were completely against images and icons all together. So how and when did it just start being used for veneration???? Did it have to do with Constantine making Christianity the state religion? Did it have to do with pagan converts and mixing pagan practices with Christian practices??? I know that the Ante nicene fathers and the early church was against it so I'm wondering how out of nowhere did it start????? Basically did the pagans bring veneration of icons into Christianity?????