The Byzantine Christian Empire (Part 1)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- This video looks at Eastern Christianity which we know today as the Byznatine Empire. We look at the struggles to enforce the faith under Theodosius I and the separation of East from West in the Christian Church.
Ryan M. Reeves (PhD Cambridge) is Assistant Professor of Historical Theology at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. Twitter: / ryanmreeves Instagram: / ryreeves4
Website: www.gordonconwe...
For the entire course on 'Church History: Reformation to Modern', see the playlist: • Renaissance & Modern H...
Amazing. 11 years of Catholic school education (2nd to 12th), 4 years of Dominican High School education, and I even went to a Catholic university law school and took some Canon Law electives, and NEVER even an once of this much analysis.
I'm enjoying your videos, especially the Byzantium series. It is so little discussed by Western Church historians.
+Daniel Clark // Thanks, Daniel! I agree. I find the focus of history should be equally on the East and the West. Historians often have trouble fitting everything in to a course, but I would rather skim other subjects and tell this story than ignore it.
Excellent summary, and especially good for drawing attention to the massive importance of Emperor Theodosius in the history of Christianity whereas most people only know about Constantine.
Just recently it is become my good fortune to view your presentations. The lectures are succinctly delivered and graphically sustained so as to benefit any audience and encourage learning. I am working through the Yale Courses, by Dr. Paul Freedman, on the same subject matter and they are a bothersome project; however, the knowledge is worth the bother. The professor is wonderfully nutty and validates your work in the main points. He seems to have stretched it a bit in regard to there being only One Rome based on notions of sustainability of the word Rome. Why not Imperial Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire and Kingdom of Byzantium? Just thinking out loud, food for thought. Having said all these words in gratitude for your efforts, I shall get back to it.
Julian wrote a book defending his wearing a beard? This I need to read. Too funny.
Given current mens fashion trends maybe it should be put into print again?
I enjoyed the documentaries very much. Its good. Verbal content is matched with some great visual information and I watched about 5 hours of your stuff tonight with a 6 pack : ) VERY nice
So good, it's addictive!
The main question here is when and why did the city of Rome itself cease to be the main center of power for the Empire? Well before the transfer of the capital to Constantinople, the economic and political importance had already moved East. Cities like Milan and Ravenna were bigger and ore important than Rome. From our modern perspective, we over-emphasize the events of the West.
Exactly. Constantine moved the center of the empire east for a number of reasons. Even before the time of Constantine's rule Rome had become a periphery.
Diocletian wanted the new capital to be Nicomedia, but Constantine chose Byzantium primarily because it was easier to defend than other potential sites. Aside from those you already mentioned, some other reasons for the move were that it was closer to trade routes like the Silk Road, and it had ports. As most of the empires wealth passed through that region, being there made it easier to keep an eye on things.
Also, the politics in Rome had become entrenched and toxic. There was a lot of nepotism occurring, a lot of different factions moving against each other, a lot of plotting and intrigue and no one knew who to trust. For years those in power had taken to living out in the 'burbs for their own safety and ruling (or trying to rule) from a distance. Constantine knew it wasn't safe for him to be there, either. Of course, there were many factors involved in the decision, and these are only a few. Generally speaking, it just made more sense.
What a good way to spend a quiet Sunday afternoon. Learning a lot, and a good starting point to read up on certain aspects, to compare this with what you've said, then return to your lecture, to my trustworthy guide so to speak. Also a bit of chuckling at the "philosophical beard". And tons of video lectures left to discover via your channel (can't wait to get to the "Luther and Calvin" series. In May?) Thanks!
Very good work. Though, please allow me to point that the video title is wrong. It should be "The Eastern Roman Empire". The term "Byzantine" was never used by those who are described by it today.
The term was introduced by catholic german scholar Hieronymous Wolf in 16th century. The Catholic priests, for ideological reasons refused to call the empire of the (schismatic accordinging to their own belief) Orthodox Christians, with its official name, which was Rome and Roman state. This 'noble' name they said, reffered to Catholic Rome and not to Constantinople.
The Protestants on the other hand, never stopped calling the empire as Eastern Roman empire or Late Roman Empire. J.B.Bury objected to the label "Byzantinist" explicitly in the preface to the 1889 edition of his Later Roman Empire. He says "Byzantium never existed, Rome fell in 1453".
Even as a Christian, it is hard not to like Julian the Apostate.
An independent thinker who certainly understood the nearly eternal hypocrisy of the church.
And if a Christian is the one who killed Julian, that was not very Christian of him. In fact it was murder.
Eastern CHRISTIANITY is the original CHRISTIAN church. The term Orthodox mean traditional, unchanged.
H Pn And Catholic means universal.
Bryan Bridges yes it does...it's doesn't mean Vatican. ever wonder why the Pope of Rome leo used the Greek Catholic word vs the Latin universus?
MojoBonzo Catholic means universal in Greek...note the Creed of nicene. The Creed is set in stone...the Roman Catholic Pope/bishop Leo changed it to fit his agenda. it was another straw that broke camel's back in 1054.
edit: ooh youtube didnt show me your last reply, so i answered to what you said a month ago!
MojoBonzo well then...you know your lingo as I. yashoo!
Greeks rule!
Didn't Theodosius actually seek revenge on Thessalonica for killing one of his governors who happened to be a beloved friend of his, as Nick Needham stated in vol. 1 of his 2000 Years of Christ's Power?
I red a story that Contantus had Julian's father killed and took up Julian as orphan and that that is the reason why Julian hated Christianity so much.
just caught on to your vids.. thanks so kindly
+JimmyBootts // Thanks, Jimmy. Glad you like them. I had to make them for my courses and figured others might like them. Glad you stumbled on to the page. :)
Ryan Reeves Sir I as well, greatly enjoy your lectures. Kardashians History Kardashians History. Easy choice for me, a Real Mason (non occult). At least for me Really getting into Gnosis of our history, got me into current events. You start seeing the chess board, clearer. Done with mainstream tv. I need gnosis
even to day with my orthodox friends ...I can cause snarls to start up in 3 words ......AND THE SON
I am enjoying your lectures. I am learning so much. I am learning so many new things that we were never taught. Have you done one on the French Revolution? Again anyone who wants to learn and get a new and fresh approach watch these videos. You won't regret it..
+Frank Black // Nothing on it specifically, I'm afraid. But it's one of those 'on the list' for future topics. Thanks for the kind words, too. :)
In any of your lectures do yo discuss the Council of Jamnia (c.90 A.D.) and why the some Jews threw out the Deuterocanonical Books of the Old Testament, and why Luther followed their template? We know they were promulgated at the Synod Of Rome (382 A.D), regional Councils of Hippo (393 A.D.), and Carthage (397, 419 A.D), the Church again defined the same list of Books as inspired. Of course the Deuterocanonical Books were later ratified at II Nicaea (787 A.D) and Florence (1438 - 1435 A.D.). The Council of Trent (1565 - 1564 A.D.), infallibly reiterated what the church had always taught. Although it was the first infallible conciliar listing of each individual Book, it certainly did not add these books to the Cannon at Trent. The fact that portions of Daniel and Esther in addition to the other seven books is also interesting. What obligation do we have to follow the Cannons of one Jewish tribe over another anyway. The Septuagint had been used for years by the Church.
I want to thank you for posting such wonderful lectures. I have played many for my own student regarding Tolkien
the historical name for semi-arians (what they called themselves) is Exukontians and Homöans.
Ryan, thank you so much for such a educated video, so many just do not know about this:)
I would like to ask you, are you Greek/eastern orthodox? You seem very well researched, I have subed and will continue to watch any other work you put out.
Thank you again great lecture
Danielle
Thanks! I am not Orthodox, no. Thanks again!
So Ryan, why aren't you an orthodox christian?
"Julian" by Gore Vidal is a fascinating read.
476 more like fall of the city of Rome. The western roman capital was moved to mediolanum(Milan) and again to revenna by the time odoacer sacked Rome
Yes which is why there is a date range and then comments about the takeover of areas in northern Europe.
Another fantastic lecture! thanks for sharing brother
Do you publish any quizzes to test one's knowledge after these wonderful lectures?
This should go to the world of internet
"The Last Pagan", good title for a movie.
Arianism was propagated in the west among certain barbarian tribes (chiefly by Ulfilas), so the west was not quite the bastion of orthodoxy that it might seem in this lecture.
It should be noted that the religion of a region tends to be popularized by the political leaders. If the king is an orthodox Christian, then it's highly likely that orthodox Christianity will be popular among the people, if only to curry political favor. If the subsequent king chooses Arianism, then the religious allegiances of the people tend to shift as well. In Rome, there was no political rival to the pope, therefore it was much easier to maintain orthodoxy once it had established itself among the papal electors.
+dlwatib // Yes I would not want the West to be viewed as a bastion of orthodoxy, so I'm glad you raise this point. It was, as you point out, driven by kings. I do hit this in other videos around the subject--this is all part of a graduate course, so I tend to assume people have those other nuances from elsewhere. :)
But yes the West was more of a struggle for the Nicene views to rise to the top over against Arian or pagan views on the world. It was not always pretty, to say the least!
Nothing a little genocide by the Merovingian Franks couldn't fix. And as for paganism, well Charlemagne seemed to have an efficient method for "converting" Saxons.
im byzantine catholic. vat 2 guted much of the west and eastern rites. if you wanna see a giod service goto a slavic old traditional right, incredible
circa 17:00 "great big philosophical beard"?
Yup. It was a 'thing' back then. Hipsters aren't original.
What about part III? Conquest by the turks
are these in a podcast form anywhere?
I know that in this context Aryan is a religion, but can someone explain why throughout history so many groups are called Aryans? Obviously there's the Nazi's who considered themselves Aryan but then there was also a takeover of ancient india by a group called the Aryans.
K Boslice For the Aryans that was in conflict with India was named after the region to the north were they were thought to come. The Arianism got its name from the religious leader who proclaimed it. The Nazis used the name to makeup an unreal history and or religion for there new movement. This is what I have found in my studies
Julian.....the first original Hipster Emperor. I like this guy!
hey, great vedio.
I have a question for you.
can we say that modern day Russia is the legitimate heir to the Byzantine empire.
The son is not the father, is not the holy spirit...Yeshua says that no one get's to the father except through him (as he is the way) -- I've said this before, but the "way" is NOT the destination. Since there is a distinction between father, son and holy spirit how can any part of the Godhead be called "God"? A reference to one part is not a reference to the others. Yeshua makes it clear that he is subservient to the will and plan of the father, so it makes little sense to call any part of the God head "God" itself...and what's more is the blasphemous notion that "God" can be killed or worse yet, cast into hell! At least in Arianism there is a reasonable explanation, Trinitarian Christianity falls pretty short of the mark in answering these problems, at least insofar as my understanding is concerned. Perhaps you could help me better understand. I do enjoy your videos though.
I wish Jullian had won. Maybe if he had won, the west would have had a richer set of religious traditions to honor and respect. But I doubt that would ever last for long....
I couldn't agree more
C.F. Gauss VERY inaccurate explanation about fall of Rome. And too simplistic view of it.
Julian the Apostate is my hero -had he completed his restoration of the ancient faiths there would have been toleration of all creeds and not the tyranny of Christianity that happened under later Christian emperors -he allowed freedom of worship to the Jews so we would not have seen the hideous persecution of Jews that culminated in the Nazi holocaust. There would have been no Crusades and Inquisitions, burning of books and endless strife between Christian sects that resulted in the deaths of millions.There would have been the continuation of ancient science in the tradition of the great Greek pagan scientists and no stupid biblical beliefs like Adam and Eve, a geocentric universe, a flat earth. There would have been no Islam another lethal Abrahamic faith!
Kalo Arepo The same things would have happened anyways, they just would have been done by nonChristians.
Kalo Arepo Also, the Holocaust was not carried out by Christians. The First and Second Crusades were actually quite noble in purpose. The Inquisition was not done on the authority of the Biblical teachings, they were done on the authority of the Papacy. The Roman Catholic church uses what they 'sacred tradition' to help guide their interpretations of Scripture, but they actually end up twisting the plain teachings of Scripture.
Kalo Arepo Oh the irony! Did you not listen to other videos in this channel about Rome and early Christianity? Rome arrested and punished people not acknowledging the Emperor as God. And this resulted to a lot of conflicts with Jews as well as early Christians. Take your bs with you. Pagan Rome was imperialistic and it certainly extended further into centuries even as its power waned for a time. Certainly not a tolerant empire.
Philemona Myshkin -you are right-Christians were persecuted not for religious reasons but because they were deemed to be anti-social and not respectful of the ancient traditions and the ancient gods.They were also accused of being atheists i.e. not believing in the gods.Romans were very tolerant of most cults except the ones that threatened the public order and undermined the state. Cults like that of Cybele(The earth mother), the Druids and Christianity were deemed to be threats to the public order and to the Empire and hence banned .The Roman Empire was held together by emperor worship and if you refused the future of the empire was at stake. Actually relatively few Christians were put to death by the Romans -probably only a few thousand over a 300 year period -compare this with the millions put to death or killed by religious wars fuelled by different Christian sects.When emperor worship ceased because of Constantine's conversion it was replaced by almost the exactly same thing -the sacred emperor in the Christian sense which eventually surfaced as the Divine Right of Kings -the more things change the more they remain the same!
Kalo Arepo If they were persecuted for not believing in the traditional gods, and not respecting the traditional gods, and the Romans thought that would bring their gods' judgement, how is that not religiously motivated? I'm not trying get into to debate; I'm honestly asking.
...."faith" is the irrational belief in the improbable
You misspelled atheism.
Faith is the last refuge of those without evidence or argument.
faith is a gift from god. Study the history of the Resurrection, and when you find out its true, faith shows up!
C.F. Gauss And evidence there?
Arianism is the truth.. It's Islam. Those with understanding will understand.
Arianism was several centuries before Islam. Besides the timeline, Arianism is not Islam because they didn't follow the five pillars.