UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, COLORADO SPRINGS

BUSTING THE MYTH: THE USE AND MISUSE OF MYTH IN HISTORICAL PHILOSOPHY

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF ARTS BY LAURA A. DIFIORE

COLORADO SPRINGS, COLORADO APRIL 30, 2007

Busting the myth: The Use and Misuse of Myth In Historical Philosophy

Acknowledgements

I am indepted to Professors Robert Welshon and Sonia Tanner at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for their insight, support, and especially their patience with me, without which this would not have been possible. Thanks and appreciation also to Brandy, Joann, Evelyn, Ron and the rest of The Gang at Curlys Place, Calhan, Colorado. This ones for you guys!

Table of Contents Acknowledgements.....................................................................................................................................3 Introduction................................................................................................................................................5 Chapter 1....................................................................................................................................................6 Defining Myth........................................................................................................................................6 History of Myths....................................................................................................................................7 Chapter Two.............................................................................................................................................10 The Presocratics: The Search for Non-Divine Explanations............................................................10 Classical Greek Philosophers: Separating Myth from Reality.........................................................14 Chapter Three...........................................................................................................................................20 The Early Christian Era: A Return to the Divine.............................................................................20 Emporer Nero and The Fire of Rome................................................................................................24 Mythologizing the Myths: The Christian Apologists........................................................................27 Chapter 4..................................................................................................................................................35 The Death of the Myths.......................................................................................................................35 The Modern Era..................................................................................................................................44 Appendix A: Related Meaning-Evolved Words.......................................................................................47 Saga.......................................................................................................................................................47 Legend..................................................................................................................................................47 Pagan....................................................................................................................................................48 Index Locorum.........................................................................................................................................49 Bibliography.............................................................................................................................................51 Bibliography______________________________________________Error: Reference source not found

Introduction What, exactly, is a myth? Is it simply a story of unknown or pre-historic (meaning prewriting) origins, as the ancient Greek root word lead us to believe? Or are myths fictional stories, entertaining but with little to no truth value, as common modern usage of the word indicates? How did we go from ancient Egypt which completely lacks the word myth to the Greeks view of myths (as-stories, not necessarily fiction) to the modern-day view of myth as false stories? For the purposes of this paper, I will explore the roots of the words myth and mythology, and how they apply in the past and present, how the meanings of muthos and mythologia have evolved, the history of and demonization of myth, and a reevaluation of the nature of the truth-value of mythology. Finally, I will explore modern usage of the words myth and mythology and how they are used and misused, often as verbal or written weapons.

Chapter 1 In the beginning the gods did not at all reveal all things clearly to mortals, but by searching men in the course of time find them out better.
Xenophanes

Defining Myth The word myth comes to us from the ancient Greek word muthos, (or mythos ) which means word, speech, tale, or story and for the earliest Greeks, much like prior cultures, myth was exactly that: an account or story, usually of unknown or pre-historic origin; the literal truth was not of importance.1 The word myth had no truth value positive or negative to the ancient Greeks, although the actual content of individual myths most definitely did, even if that truth value was to show there was no truth value. Myth was essentially a category of writing, differing from purely economic or legal writings, without the emotive connotations it contains today. This is not to say that individual myths themselves had no emotive connotations they most certainly did, especially as cultural propaganda but the term myth did not. Mythology mythologia comes from the Greek words muthos and -logy, meaning a speaking, discourse, treatise, doctrine, theory, [or] science of.2 For the ancient Greeks, mythology literally means the study of and discoursing upon of stories. This definition has not changed much in our modern day except now the primary lexical definition of mythology means the study of myths, with an underlying assumption (and sub-definition) that

Mark P.O. Morford and Robert J. Lenardon, Classical Mythology 8th edition (New York: Oxford University Press,

2007), 3.
2 -logy. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-logy (accessed: February 21, 2007).

myths are essentially false and/or fictional stories.3 Commonly, the modern-day general meaning of myth is any generally believed truth that is actually false. It is important to note that for the earliest Greeks, the word myth as in story does not have the same mostly-fictional connotation it does to us today. Stories could refer to just about any kind of story including works of a scientific, rational, political, historical, or otherwise non-fiction nature.4 This concept is highly important to the understanding of myths, yet is often neglected in modern-day studies of myth. While stories about the gods, their nature and being, and their actions also fall under the definition of myth, the Greeks used the term theologia (), meaning an account of the gods to delineate stories of religious import from those we would consider epics, sagas and/or legends which the Greeks considered myths, since they were stories. History of Myths The roots of myth lie within prehistoric oral traditions. The oldest known myths in written form date to around 4000-3800 BCE, with the early Sumerians. Many of these Sumerian myths influenced the Egyptians and eventually the Greeks, with compelling parallels between all. Elements of these oldest known myths continue to exist in the Old Testament and other religious texts still in common use today. Myths were an early attempt at rational thinking and reasoning. Myths developed to answer questions about the nature of the world, the universe, the divine, and as an early method of history. Myths also served to unite a people under a common heritage, to invoke pride of place and culture, and, of course, for moral teachings and simple entertainment. (Myths still do
Morford, 3-6. Morford. A better term to use instead of story is the word account, as account more closely describes the ancient view of myths: they were accounts of past events, sometimes theological in nature, sometimes not. However, the lexical definition of muthos is story, so I will use the word story throughout, with the underlying assumption that story refers to accounts.
4 3

this today). Myths were used to explain and understand that which otherwise could not be explained or understood by then-contemporary technological or scientific methods; they were, in essence, entertaining instruction manuals about the gods, world, history, ethics and culture of a people. Myths asked and answered a particular question, and even though the conclusion was often deistic, they were still a form of reasoning. Myths traveled geographically and historically and were often adopted by and adapted to the needs of later non-originating cultures. It is particularly fascinating that many Greek and later Christian myths have their roots in ancient Egyptian and, to a lesser extent, Sumerian myths, yet neither ancient Egypt nor Sumer had a word or concept for myth.5 For the ancient Egyptians, there was no difference at all between a mythological or theological story, or for that matter, a historical work.6 The Egyptian corpus of literary works is incredibly extensive, containing a surprising variety of styles, but they did not differentiate myth, legend, religion, or historical works. Classification of Egyptian literature into categories such as wisdom, instruction, hymn, prophetic, and other categories is a much later scholarly convention. For the Egyptians, all was essentially truth, and the very act of writing held sacred implications. Unlike later cultures, the Egyptians, despite some writings that are arguably philosophical in nature, never questioned the truth-value of their myths, nor did they try to classify what, if any, elements of a particular myth were literal, historical truth. For the Egyptians, there was no need to define the truth elements of a myth because they knowingly elevated their pharaohs to the status of a god. A pharaoh, as a matter of course, was a representative of the god(s) on Earth, and once he departed this life he would return to the world
Thanks to Professor Brian Duvick of the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, for his input on this. Note that neither the Sumerians nor Babylonians have a word for myth or a word representing the concept of myth. 6 The ancient Egyptian language does not have a word for stories, either, or anything resembling any of these words: history, saga, legend, tale, account, or fiction.
5

of the divine, what we would commonly refer to as heaven or the afterlife.7 A myth about a longdead pharaohs life, death, and godhood was based in historical fact for the ancient Egyptians, and was an integral part of not only their theology but also their daily life. There was no need to differentiate the truth elements from the dramatic or fanciful, because for them it was normal to base their myths on true historical persons (primarily the pharaohs). While the Egyptians did not question the truth-value of their myths, they did have literature best described as lamentations, where they questioned their gods actions or, more commonly, lack of actions.8 This questioning, still occurring today, was along the lines of why god permitted evil on Earth, why the god(s) didnt answer their prayers or end famines, and other troubles.9 However, lamenting god(s) failure to intercede on behalf of his people is a far cry from systematically examining the elements of their myths for truth-values, much less defining genres of writing. Differentiating what we would call literary genres and the truth elements of the ancient accounts would be the job of the Greeks.

7 Grimal. This was primarily true during the Old Kingdom, by the latter half of the First Intermediate Period and the Middle Kingdom, the association of the pharaoh with god(s) on earth had evolved to recognizing the pharaoh as a mortal human here on Earth. However, despite the recognition of the pharaoh as human, his (or her) ascension to the status of a god still occurred upon death. Admittedly, this is an over-simplification: the Egyptian view of their Pharaohs and gods is far more complex than space permits here. 8 Miriam Lichtheim, The Admonitions of Ipuwer, in Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Old and Middle Kingdoms. Vol. 1. (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press, 2006). 149-163. 9 Suffice to say, questions along these lines have occupied enormous amounts of the intellectual energy of philosophers, theologians, and everyday people ever since. Later Christian writers, especially the Apologists, would recast these accounts as evidence and/or proof that the Egyptians believed their god(s) to be false, much as they did with Greek and Roman writings.

10

Chapter Two Man is the measure of all things. Protagoras10 The Presocratics: The Search for Non-Divine Explanations The overwhelming majority of the Greek mythological corpus originated in oral traditions that were later written down. For the most part, once the myths achieved a written format, new myths ceased to be created. However, their myths were remade as needed for evolving cultural purposes, including simple entertainment, with the characters and plots especially inspiring literature and art (right up to the modern era). The myths became, in essence, received texts inherited from their own ancient past, and by virtue of their antiquity, were of divine nature but not origin and accepted as truth. The Greeks, unlike the Egyptians, began to question the nature of the world, the divine and their myths, especially their heroic myths. This occurred quite early in their history, arguably within one or two hundred years of developing writing if not earlier. The now mostly fragmentary writings of the Pre-Socratic philosophers are the oldest known recorded examples of philosophers approaching myths systematically. Anaximander, of the Milesian school, attempted to explain natural phenomenon as having distinctly non-deistic causes, and is the oldest known example of postulating that the sun, planets, and stars moved in circles.11 His explanation of lightening is particularly intriguing: Anaximandros said that lightning is due to wind; for when it is surrounded and pressed together by a thick cloud and so driven out by reason of its lightness and rarefaction, then the breaking makes a noise, while the separation makes a rift of brightness in the darkness of the cloud. (Aet. iii. 3; Dox. 367.)12
cf. Plato Theaetetus 160d, Aristotle Metaphysics 10.1053a. Anaximander lived from circa 610-546 BCE. 12 Arthur Fairbanks, ed. and trans. The First Philosphers of Greece (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1898), 8-16. Hanover Historical Texts Project, Hanover College Department of History. Aaron Gulyas, May 1998 (accessed: March 7, 2007)
11 10

11

Note how Anaximander never once credits any sort of divine causation of lighting: his reported theory of lightening is purely naturalistic and rational, based completely on his own observations without any reference to existing myths or theology.13 Anaximanders astronomical theories, derived solely from observation, constitute the origin of our Western concept of the universe.14 What is most remarkable about Anaximander is not how far off he was from the scientific truth about the nature of the universe, but how close he was. More importantly, his dedicated search for rational in lieu of divine explanations for the causes of natural events was ground-breaking and laid the foundation for much of the later Greek approach to understanding the world and subsequently our own approach. Thales, arguably even more influential than Anaximander on contemporary and future philosophers, also strove for non-mythological, non-deistic explanations of natural phenomenon, but like Anaximander, there is no evidence indicating any specific systematic approach to the myths of his time.15. Thales and Anaximander did not, apparently, attempt to systematically analyze the myths, just the natural world around them. In particular, they redefined their understanding of the natural world from a purely secular perspective. It follows quite naturally that they and others to follow would take the step from redefining the natural world of the myths to that of redefining the heroes and gods of myths. Thales appears to be the first to attempt redefining the divine heroes as humans who have ascended, so to speak. Thales implied that the ancient mythological heroes had mortal origins who achieved godhood through their earthly actions: Thales et al. say that spirits are psychical beings; and that heroes are souls separated
Observations remarkably close, albeit allegorical, to our own scientific understanding of the causes of lightening. An even more compelling example of Anaximanders theories is found in Plutarchs Symposium book VIII: Anaximandros; for he declares, that at first men were generated in the form of fishes they then came forth on the dry ground. The similarities to our modern understanding of evolution are compelling. 14 Dirk L. Couprie, Anaximander (c. 610-546BCE). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/anaximan.htm (accessed: March 7, 2007). It is unfortunate that to date, only a few fragments of Anaximanders writings are extant. Everything else we know of him comes from later writings on and responses to his theories. Cf. Platos Phaedo 72a12-b5, Aristotles Physics books I & III, Simplicius, Theophrastos, et al. 15 Thales lived from circa 624-546 BCE.
13

12

from bodies, good heroes are good souls, bad heroes are bad souls, (Aet. Plac. i. 2; Dox 275). This is a clear proposal that good souls (heroes) join the world of the gods after death, and works to explain the process of hero divination. Xenophanes, contemporary to both Thales and Anaximander, does more fully represent an early attempt at approaching all elements of the ancient myths from a rational perspective.16 His writings were especially influential, as evidenced by numerous then-current and later writings. Xenophanes took Thales and Anaximanders systematic approach to the natural world, and early steps towards the world of the heroes, and more fully applied it to the divine and mythological worlds. Xenophanes, obviously very well-versed in the mythological accounts of his time, appears to have eventually determined that there was significant dramatization occurring in the myths of his age, a dressing up (and down) of the ancient gods and heroes, so to speak. He thence postulated a systematic approach to understanding what and who god(s) were. In fact, despite Xenophanes obvious use of myths as a resource for his studies, he appears to be the first to refer to the ancient accounts as fictions not worthy of praise or discussion: And one ought to praise that man who, when he has drunk, unfolds noble things as his memory and his toil for virtue suggest ; but there is nothing praiseworthy in discussing battles of Titans or of Giants or Centaurs, fictions of former ages, nor in plotting violent revolutions. But it is good always to pay careful respect to the gods. (Emphasis added)17 Interestingly, this fragment infers the actions (battles) of men were praiseworthy, so long as they werent plotting violent revolutions, but the battles of the gods were not praiseworthy (although the gods themselves are). Note also that he is not saying the characters of the myths are fictitious, just their battles; in other words, the dramatic, colorful, and fantastical actions of the gods were fictions but not the god(s) themselves. This view that the actions of men were
Xenophanes lived from circa 570-480 BCE. Unlike later philosophers, especially Socrates, Xenophanes did not view poetry or the poets as anathema to rational thought; in fact, he was known for writing many poems himself. Fairbanks, The First Philosophers of Greece. 17 Fairbanks, 75. Emphasis added.
16

13

praiseworthy, perhaps even more so than the actions of the gods, is not necessarily in conflict with the prevailing view of the divinity of the gods, although it is very much in line and supporting of the Greek move to a human-centered worldview. Xenophanes approach to the divine was rooted in rationality. He found the Greek tradition of representing the gods as born (usually) of women and wearing mens clothing and hav(ing) human voice(s) and body somewhat uncomplimentary to the gods, and through his rational approach, determined that God is one, supreme among gods and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind. [Zeller, 524, n. 2. Cf Arist. Rhet. ii. 23; 1399 b 6].18 His defining of God as supreme among gods was not, contrary to later interpretations, early monotheism. Xenophanes was rationally arguing for one god over many, of perfect form and nature without the faults and design flaws of simple humanity. This argument, ironically, could be construed as supporting and confirming the current view of Zeus overlord role within the Greek pantheon, although he unquestionably found fault with the Greek custom of anthropomorphizing their Gods: Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods all things which are disreputable and worthy of blame when done by men; and they told of them many lawless deeds, stealing, adultery, and deception of each other. [Zeller, 525, n. 3. Cf. Diog Laer. ix. 18; Sext. Emp. Pyrrh. i. 224.]19 For Xenophanes, the myths did a disservice to the gods by humanizing them, including personality weaknesses, crimes, vice and abuses.20 The moral teaching value of the myths did not outweigh what he viewed as equivalent to sacrilege. Hecataeus, contemporary with Xenophanes and considered the first known Greek historian, also found fault with the human-created accounts of the heroes and gods, for much the
18 19

Fairbanks. Fairbanks. Xenophanes view of god(s) would later be recast extensively to support the arguments of the Christian

Apologists.
20 The Greek habit of humanizing the divine, faults and all, would later be a popular argument against their religious beliefs by the early Christians.

14

same reasons but a different conclusion: "Hecataeus of Miletus thus speaks: I write what I deem true; for the stories of the Greeks are manifold and seem to me ridiculous." 21 Hecataeus, however, did not deny the myths in the Homeric legend on the basis of a priori scientific impossibility, but instead, found them ridiculous because .his travels, geographical and historical studies indicated to him that, with so many different versions, one could not determine which was the true version, so therefore they must all be if not exactly false, not true enough to be worthy of accepting as true at all.22 While dismissing all myths catagorically because there are so many versions may be somewhat extreme, it does not appear that Hecataeus dismissed the gods themselves, just the human-created stories surrounding their actions. Classical Greek Philosophers: Separating Myth from Reality The word myth does not appear in any of the extant pre-Socratic fragments. This is not to imply that the term (or concept of) myth did not exist, it just highlights our lack of evidence for common usage of the word. The oldest known written use of the term myth dates to Plato, who routinely used commonly known myths as a means to dramatize his dialogues and make them accessible to his students.23 It is Socrates and Plato who first truly examine and question the truth value of the elements of myth from a purely philosophical approach, but more importantly, they are the first to suggest that if the possibility exists there could be a rational explanation, even if unknown, then their must be a rational explanation (an extension of the principle of sufficient reason, as first suggested by Anaximander).24 This, along with extending the rational approach of Xenophanes et al, is nicely demonstrated throughout Phaedrus.

21 James T. Shotwell, An Introduction to the History of History (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939). 138. Hecataeus lived circa 550-476 BCE. 22 Shotwell. 23 Plato did not coin the word myth his use of the word is far too comfortable to imply it was a new word. His usage indicates it was a common term. 24 Dirk L. Couprie, Anaximander (c. 610-546BCE) in The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006. (Accessed: April 2, 2007). Socrates lived from 470-399BCE, Plato from 428-348BCE.

15

Throughout Phaedrus myths are used as stories of rhetorical, political, theological, moral, historical or other value, while at the same time the assessment and usefulness of myths is considered and defined. While Socrates and Plato obviously view many of the myths as of having dubious literal truth to them, they does not discount the value of myths for making a point, defending or defeating an argument, moral or ethical teachings, and other uses. Regardless of the actual, verifiable literal or historical truth of a myth, myths themselves contained some level of truth value to them, even if the only truth value to them was to demonstrate how ridiculous or untrue a particular myth, plotline, or element was. What is of importance isnt so much how Plato and Socrates used myths, but the fact that they formulated a most effective philosophical approach of systematically questioning the nature and truth-value of the elements of a myth through the principle of sufficient reason, and in the process defined a new paradigm for accessing the myths. In Phaedrus, Socrates is asked by Phaedrus if he believes a local story about Boreas and Orithyia (Plato Phaedrus 227b-c).25. Socrates responds that the wise are doubtful, and continues therewith to offer a rational explanation of the myth: Orithyia was knocked to her death by a strong wind and not carried off by (the north wind) Boreas in a cloud of wind (227c)26. The discrepancies about the locality and the different versions, not to mention a perfectly rational explanation for Orithyias abandonment of Athens, are why Socrates questions the literal truth value of the elements of the myth. Not only is this an excellent example of his use of the principle of sufficient reason, it demonstrates the influence of the Pre-Socratic view. Socrates looks at the myth, examines the different versions of it, and as he reads the various plot
Morford, 600. Boreas was attracted to the Athenian princess Orithyia, daughter of the Athenian king Erectheus. When she rebuked his advances, he kidnapped her and swept her up in a cloud of wind. Boreas and Orithyia then ruled Thrace, where she birthed the winged heroes Zetes and Calais, and of two daughters, Cleopatra and Chione. Calais and Zetes are later featured in the Argonaut story. Boreas is the root of our word Borealis, as in Aurora Borealis or Northern Lights. See Phaedrus 229b-260a. 26 Plato, Phaedrus. Perseus Digital Library. http://www.perseus.tufts.edu.
25

16

elements of the myth, holds one question in mind: Is it possible that a rational explanation exists for this plot action? If yes, then the commonly believed (deistic) cause of that particular plot action must be inaccurate. For Socrates, many myths are nice allegories, but the inventors of such stories are not to be envied (227d). Socrates goes on to claim that those investigating myths are wasting a lot of time by engaging in a crude philosophy (227e) Yet it is equally obvious that Socrates has spent significant time investigating myths and the truth-value of their elements. For if he hadnt spent such time, he would never have come to the conclusion that myths such as Boreas and Orithyia are nice allegories with some elements of literal truth, much less known the various versions of the stories. Socrates differentiates between local human-centered myths and those of the gods, but applies the same reasoning to determine the truth value of all myths, regardless of the genre. Referring to the myth of Aphrodite and Eros, which earlier he and Phaedrus had introduced a tolerably credible and possibly true though partly erring myth to their discourse (once again demonstrating the principle of sufficient reason), quite clearly demonstrates Socrates approach to myths as containing elements of truth although studying and discoursing on myths is a waste of time (265b-c). This view of myths as partly erring does not stop Socrates from using myths to make a point. Perhaps prescient of how his use of myth could be misconstrued, Socrates later defines and defends his definition of the proper use of myth: poetry nor prose, spoken or written, is of any great value ifthey are only recited in order to be believed, and not with any view to criticism or instruction (277c). Socrates obviously views myths as of having value for purposes of criticism or instruction but decries the use of myths as proof of the veracity of any one persons claim or

17

discourse, much less as any sort of reliable authority. A modern equivalent would be someone claiming the Earth is only 6,000 years old (or any other claim) because the Bible says so. It doesnt matter to them that the Bible never states the age of the Earth, but the use of biblical writings as proof of the truth and factual value of any claim. To use any myth as proof ancient Greek, biblical, or otherwise especially without any external evidence, is abhorrent to Socrates, yet the use of myth to dramatize, demonstrate, and educate overall is of value. Socrates questioning of myths (especially theological myths) eventually led to his death on a charge of impiety, despite his assertion that the gods do exist. Euhemerus continued Socrates rational approach to myth some eighty years after his death, and approached myths as a long historical tradition by which the gods were originally [great] menlater raised to god hood.27 While Euhemerus applied rational thinking to myths, determining that many myths were traditional stories of actual historical men and/or natural events, he did not view myths-as-false anymore than Socrates did. He did go one step further and attempted to actually find the rational explanations, reportedly traveling throughout the ancient world searching for evidence.28 Unfortunately, what remains of Euhemeruss writings are fragmentary, but based on how often he was cited by later writers, his influence likely must have been quite strong. Socrates sufficient reason approach and Xenophanes systematic approach became much imitated and expanded upon not only by philosophers but also by early Greek historians. Hellanicus reportedly made a distinction between mythology and history, although like others, did use the myths as a historical source.29 Strabo reports the Greek historian Ephorus as one who drew a clear line between historical and mythological meanings in the various historical
Harris, William, Prof. Em. Euhemerism: The Greek Myths, Middlebury College http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/GreekMyth/Preface.html (accessed: February 10, 2007) 28 Ibid. 29 Hellanicus lived around 480BCE.
27

18

traditions (Geography 9.3.11-12, 10.3.4-5).30 Other Greek historians, to one extent or another, used or expanded upon or were reported to use this systematic and rational approach of the myths in their texts, including but not limited to Herodotus, Thucydides, Theopompus, Polybius, and Diodorus Siculus. 31 One notable exception is Timaeus, who apparently considered any intellectualist approach to the myths as a popular fad (Plato Timaeus 29c-d, 40d-41b). Regardless of Timaeus, the rational approach to history was firmly rooted, as evidenced by the styles of the later Roman historians, including but not limited to Quintus Ennius, Cato the Elder (of especial interest is his diatribe against admiring the Greeks and their encroaching influences), Titus Livius (Livy) and Plutarch.32 As the Greek view of the natural world evolved and extended into the world of myth and the divine, the responsibility for determining ethical behavior and thought made a parallel movement from the realm of the divine to the realm of the human.33 For the Egyptians, all centered on the divine, for the Greeks, despite the acceptance of the existence of the gods, most centered on the human. While the gods did exist, and the myths were true, ultimately, the gods and myths didnt really matter, except, perhaps, as a negative example of proper behavior (the gods and their surrounding myths were examples of how not to behave). What was important was mankind. Man was responsible for determining right and wrong, and was, rightly so, the ultimate authority of ethical behavior. It is, of course, much more difficult to determine proper ethical behavior, much less follow any such determination, when it comes from the hearts and
Strabo lived from ca 63BCE-42CE, Ephorus from ca 400-330BCE. Throughout Geography, Strabos usage of the word myth (42 occasions) indicates the modern meaning of false story was well established. See 6.1.1, 6.2.4, 7.7.12, 8.3.14, et al. 31 Herodotus lived ca 484-425BCE, Thucydides ca 460-395BCE, Theopompus ca 380BCE, Timaeus ca 345-250BCE, Polybius ca 203-120BCE, Diodorus Siculus ca 90-30BCE. 32 Quintus Ennius lived ca 239-169BCE. Cato the Elder lived ca 234-149BCE, see Maxims Addressed to his Son as quoted by Pliny the Elder in his Naturalis Historia chapter 29 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?lookup=Strab.+6.1.1. (Accessed: 22 April 2007). Livy lived ca 59BCE-17CE, Plutarch ca 47-127CE. This approach to myths as historical sources continues today. 33 I am indebted to Professor Sonia Tanner of the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, for her insight on this concept.
30

19

minds of man without the threat of divine punishment. Humans should determine what is good for themselves and choose to live ethically because it is rational to do so, not because it is the will of the gods. In other words, mankind should choose to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, not because some god or another demands such choice. It is through philosophical thought and rational examination of the ancient myths that the responsibility of ethics made its greatest strides in the move from divine to human authority and responsibility. The separation of the human world from the divine was well on its way but by no means assured. The ultimate war of the worlds was about to start: the Christians were coming.

20

Chapter Three Remember that all is opinion. Marcus Aurelius Antonius The Early Christian Era: A Return to the Divine By the very beginnings of what we now refer to as the first century CE, the Greek view was generally accepted as myths have elements of literal historical truth. This was also true for the Romans with one major exception: the Romans, similarly to the Egyptians before them, knowingly elevated their most respected and/or successful citizens to divine status. While the Greeks continued a rich tradition of literature, including many stories and plays expanding upon the gods and other mythological heroes, they didnt really create new myths, much less new gods. The Romans, on the other hand, created temples, cults and myths around their men of power and success, usually shortly after death, and continued this practice throughout much of their history. For the Greeks and Romans at the turn of the calendar, with rare exception, the gods exist and are deserving of worship, some gods are humans who earned divine status, the myths are worthy to read and have inherent value but are not considered sacred texts, and the separation of history and myth as a concept was well-established.34 With the advent of Christianity, not only would this view of myths eventually be used as an argument against the truth value of the existing belief systems, it would propel purposeful change in the meaning of the word myth itself. At first, the early Christians existed primarily and nearly exclusively as a response to what was viewed as problems within Judaism and not necessarily a response to the other existing belief systems. It is apparent that the continuing progression of rational thought, represented
34 For the Greeks and Romans, texts never held sacred value in and of themselves, as the Bible or Koran do for many today. While the subject matter of their texts may have been of a sacred nature, the texts themselves were not considered of divine source.

21

primarily by the influence of the Greek philosophers, quickly became a much greater threat to the nascent Christian movement than the entrenched values, rituals, and practices of the Jewish followers. Christians, at a surprisingly early stage of their development, became concerned about what would happen if the philosophers of the time started applying their rationality to the developing Christian mythos. Educated early Christians were aware of the philosophical debates within Greece and Rome about the existence of the gods and the truth value of their myths, and likely that even the least educated were somewhat aware of the ongoing debate.35 Seeing how philosophical approaches to the ancient myths and religious beliefs created a lessening of their authority, especially their divine authority, it is probable that early Christians would fear that same philosophical and rational approach applied to their own developing mythos. Which, of course, is exactly what happened: the Greek and Roman philosophers began to apply their logical tools to the arguments for Christianity, to the detriment of the early Christian movement. But would the philosophers tools diminish the power of the newly evolving Christian mythology, as it did the ancient mythology? Early Christians were not going to risk that happening. Using the same Greek philosophical argumentation tools, early Christians began a proactive and virulent response to the philosophers not only to defeat their arguments, but to continue what the Greeks themselves unwittingly started: the systematic dismantling of an entire ancient belief system through the tools of rational (and even irrational) philosophy. This was not only reactionary, designed to protect their emerging faith system, but purposeful.36 Unfortunately, many of the earliest Greek arguments against Christianity are no longer extant. However, from the many existing Christian arguments against the Greek philosophers,

35 By this time, of course, Greece was part of the Roman Empire, but to avoid confusion, I will continue to refer to Greece and Rome as separate countries. 36 I am indebted to Professor Robert Rex Welshon of the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, for pointing out to me this important concept. By irrational philosophy, I am referring specifically to the extensive and perhaps unfortunately effective use of logical fallacies throughout many of the works of the Apologists.

22

we can gain a great deal of understanding of what the Greeks claimed. From the early Christians own accounts, we can determine that the primary points of contention were as follows: (1) reaction and rebellion to the Greek move of ethical responsibility to humans from that of the divine; (2) the undignified actions of the existing gods; (3) the lack of uniformity and agreement between the various versions of the myths and belief systems; (4) the lack of agreement amongst the philosophers especially regarding the nature of the gods; (5) the stillgrowing recognition that some divine beings and most ancient heroes were originally ordinary men; and (6) the worthiness of worshipping formally mortal men. The Christian reaction and response to these points was simple: discredit and demonize the myths and belief systems they supported using the very myths and ensuing philosophical analyses as a weapon. By intentionally misrepresenting and recasting the Egyptian, Roman and especially Greek writings, beliefs and myths, along with using the very humanlike nature of the gods of myth, the Christians redefined the meaning of myth to their advantage. In essence, they systematically categorized texts and teachings as divine or mythological, the subsequent result that divine texts became absolute truth, while mythological texts became false, spurious, fictional and even blasphemous. Of course, divine texts meant solely those of the ancient Hebrew tradition and the developing Christian texts. By definition, all other texts were mythological and therefore at best of no useful value, at worst sacrilegious.37 While this was purposeful, it was not necessarily intentionally violent, although violence did result on both sides. It is well known that Christians were considered problematic almost from the start. Granted, much of that viewpoint was inherited from the association of Christians with their predecessor Jewish culture. They refused to pay homage and sacrifice to the gods, they considered the existing religions barbaric, and especially considered many of the common
37 Actually, whether or not to use what we would call the Old Testament texts was a source of much debate within the nascent Christian movement, and still is to this date.

23

entertainments (such as gladiator competitions) immoral and/or barbaric. The early Christians report they were accused of atheism, cannibalism, polygamy, impiety, incest, hatred, and, especially, cowardice. All of these accusations they returned in kind on the Greek and Roman belief systems, and added additional accusations. But for the Christians, perhaps the biggest scare point in the evolving philosophical debate was that of moving ethical responsibility to humans. The concept that mankind was trustworthy enough to be responsible for determining ethical behavior was not only abhorrent, it was downright frightening. Apion, in 38CE, led a deputation to Caligula to complain of privileges granted to the Jews in Alexandria, specifically that these privileges were in conflict with the existing laws and traditions regarding proper religious piety. Flavius Josephus responded to Apions claims with Against Apion, an intriguing defense of Judaism. While the extent of Christian influence in Alexandria at this point is unknown, Josephus criticism of the Greeks, especially their selfimportance and their fabulous narrations (fabulous meaning derogatorily fantastical and fanciful) is nearly foundational to many subsequent arguments against the Greeks, and especially against the truth value of the myths (Against Apion 1.23).38 The Roman Emperor Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, henceforth Claudius, was one of the earliest Roman emperors to issue legislation directly responding to rising religious and cultural tensions. Claudius ruled from 41CE until 54CE, and sometime during this time he instituted several religious reforms, particularly against the practice of proselytizing. In response to complaints by Roman Jews about the emerging Christian faith, or more likely as a response to the Christians themselves and their growing agitation in opposition to the existing Jewish traditions and faith, he banished from Rome all the Jews, who were

38

Flavius Josephus. Against Apion. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/agaap10.txt

24

continually making disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus.39 This early legal response, one of simply banning those causing the most strife or conflict within the populace, is a response that would be repeated numerous times over the next five hundred years, oddly enough more often than not against the Greek and Roman faiths. What is most remarkable about this particular legal response is that it indicates just how far the debate within the Jewish community had spread to the general populace. If the strife had been solely within the Jewish community, a community that was probably quite small compared to the rest of Rome and especially the rest of the Roman Empire, the likelihood of needing legal remedies would have been small. Since this agitation required legal response, it follows that the debate was causing a large enough amount of social friction to indicate it was not only troublesome, but spreading, although it seems that the debate was still one primarily between that of the emerging Christian faith and the existing Jewish faith. The debate was not quite yet one of Christians versus the existing Greek and Roman faiths, but this was about to change. Emporer Nero and The Fire of Rome Shortly after ascension to power of Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, henceforth Nero, the early Christian movement would fully emerge as a response to the Greek and Roman religious belief systems, a response that quickly evolved to include social, legal, and philosophical traditions. In 64CE, four districts of Rome were completely destroyed by fire, with at least seven districts suffering extensive damage. It seems that it was widely suspected

39

C. Suetonius Tranquillus. The Lives of the Twelve Ceasars. Volume 5: Claudius. Trans. Alexander Thomson, M.D. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6390/6390.txt Chrestus is Christus, or Christ. Note that the Christians were still associated as members of the Jewish community in the eyes of the Roman government, they were not considered a separate people or movement quite yet. He also legislated against the rites of the Druids, which were considered incompatible with Roman religious traditions and filled with horrid cruelties, but at the same time, attempted to increase the influence of the Eleusinian Mysteries, especially those of Athens, and ordered the repair of the Temple of Venus Erycina. It does not appear that these laws were upheld by the authorities or courts very much. Upon his death, Claudius was deified almost immediately by the Senate and his successor.

25

that Nero himself started the fire, or ordered it, and this claim is still made today in numerous historical depictions. However, the possibility exists that it is more likely Nero simply took advantage of the existing fire and probably ordered minimal firefighting response, a crude form of urban renewal. Regardless of the fires cause, it did create an environment where Nero could subsequently not only rebuild Rome, but also build a great palace in his honor. In response to the accusations and gossip regarding the cause of the fire, Nero famously blamed the Christians, as reported by Tacitus: Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired (Annals 15.44).40 To call this moment in history a turning point may be an exaggeration, but not too much so. From this point in time on, the Christian response genuinely moved from one of Judean reform to one of across-the-board social and cultural reform. Virtually all Christian response writings from this point forward no longer concerned themselves with Jewish reform but of reform of Greek and Roman practices, specifically, reform in the form of negating and defeating the ancient mythological and philosophical influences. The practice of referring to the ancient myths and belief systems as fictions truly began within this time period.

40 Tacitus, The Annals. Book 15, 44. Trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_%28Tacitus%29/Book_15 [D]oomed to the flames and burned was particularly horrific; the victims would be covered with tar and set on fire, left to burn for hours.

26

It is at this point in time, also, that the practice of converting Gentiles to Christianity fully took root, most likely as a means to increase not only their numbers but also to put themselves in a more favorable light in the eyes of the general public while taking advantage of growing sympathy for the movement. While many Romans viewed Neros actions against the Christians approvingly, it is well attested that many others, especially non-Christians, viewed it as atrocious and over-reaching. Ultimately, by unwittingly putting the Christians in an underdog position, Nero inadvertently created an environment of sympathy, which goes a long way towards general acceptance as a legitimate faith and eventually increases conversions. This environment of sympathy opened up the Christians to a much larger audience than almost any other historical action or philosophical argument to this point, an environment they took full advantage of. Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus, hereafter Pliny the Younger, in his letter to Emperor Trajan XCVII66, written sometime between 98 and 117, shows not only the extent and speed with which Christianity was spreading, but also the remarkable ambivalence authorities experienced in dealing with their purported crimes: Having never been present at any trials concerning those who profess Christianity, I am unacquainted not only with the nature of their crimes, or the measure of their punishment, but how far it is proper to enter into an examination concerning them. whether repentance entitles them to a pardonwhether the very profession of Christianity, unattended with any criminal act, or only the crimes themselves inherent in the profession are punishable; on all these points I am in great doubt. 41 Here Pliny is questioning exactly what crimes the Christians are committing, and which crimes should be punished. Is simply calling oneself a Christian a crime? Is this a question for the authorities at all, or should only real crimes be punished (such as theft, murder, etc.) This is, in essence, a legal argument with philosophical undertones.

41 Pliny the Younger. The Letters of Pliny the Younger. Chapter XCVII66. http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?pageno=117&fk_files=2025 (Accessed: 12 April 2007)

27

Pliny later explains how he was currently dealing with accused Christians, ordering various punishments because he was persuaded, whatever the nature of their opinions might be, a contumacious and inflexible obstinacy certainly deserved correction.42 This same letter demonstrates Plinys concern that this crime was not only spreading far and fast, it was infecting those of the highest of ranks, a serious concern to the stability of the State: There were others also brought before me possessed with the same infatuation. But this crime spreading (as is usually the case) while it was actually under prosecution, several instances of the same nature occurred. For it appears to be a matter highly deserving your consideration, more especially as great numbers must be involved in the danger of these prosecutions, which have already extended, and are still likely to extend, to persons of all ranks and ages, and even of both sexes. In fact, this contagious superstition is not confined to the cities only, but has spread its infection among the neighbouring villages and country. Nevertheless, it still seems possible to restrain its progress.43 Although Pliny the Younger believed it was still possible to restrain Christianitys spread, attempts at restraining had already proven counterproductive. Legal remedies would not work, and in fact, served to further put Christianity into a sympathetic light. Despite growing sympathy for the emerging Christian movement, the existing belief systems still flourished, and the influence of philosophical rationality, especially as presented by the Greek philosophers, continued to represent a threat. Mythologizing the Myths: The Christian Apologists Associating the ancient belief systems and myths with falsehood was the most effective argument used by the early Christians to reduce the influence of these systems. The Christians redefinition of the nature of the gods, in particular, the nature of God (as the only god), using much of the Greek philosophers own words, would eventually do more to dismantle the existing faith system than all other arguments combined. But exactly how did they do this? By outright calling the myths fictions and ridiculing the human-originated stories of the actions of the gods.
42 43

Pliny. Pliny.

28

The fact that the Christians own texts, both what we refer to as the Old Testament texts and the emerging Christian texts were also of human origin, containing many of the same mythological elements as the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman corpus did, never seems to cross their mind. If it did, it certainly wasnt reported so. The early Christian saint, Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter entitled To the Magnesians, warns Christians to [b]e not seduced by strange doctrines nor by antiquated fables, which are profitless. 44 Note especially his usage of the terms antiquated fables, a clear move to associate the ancient beliefs and their supporting mythological corpus as fiction. It is with Ignatius, also, that the move away from Judaism also becomes apparent: It is monstrous to talk of Jesus Christ and to practise Judaism (10.7). This move away from Judaism is not just a religious movement, it is also one that places the ancient Jewish teachings and traditions nearly on the same level as that of the Greek and Roman myths: that of antiquated fables. Although most arguments henceforth would be directly targeted specifically at the Greek influence (and Roman legal responses), it is clear that virtually all ancient beliefs, teachings, rituals, practices and especially myths were henceforth to be considered spurious and fictitious, regardless of their origins.45 For Ignatius, not only were the ancient myths now fables, but also the teachings of the philosophers were to be considered unworthy of attention (Jesus Christ [is to be] our only teacher) (9.3). Numerous other Christian Apologists would echo these concepts in many future texts. The Didache, a popular and influential early catechism, arguably the first formal catechism despite its somewhat casual writing style, warns early Christians against many sins,
44 Ignatius of Antioch. The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Magnesians, Chapter 8:1. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-roberts.html Ignatius of Antioch lived from 35-107CE. It is not known precisely when this letter was written, but contrary to many placing it as late as 110-115CE (after his death!), I believe it was most likely written no later than 85-90CE. 45 The use and value of the ancient Hebrew traditions seems to be one of convenience at this time in history, some argued against the use of any of the received texts, much of what we now call the Old Testament, others argued for their use, both sides often arguing virulently. It is, to some extent, a debate that continues today.

29

especially that of sacrificing food to idolsfor it is the service of dead gods, along with numerous warnings against false teachings, especially early Christian itinerates, but also presumably those of popular philosophers.46 The use of the term dead gods is interesting, because it acknowledges their one-time existence and the (presumably) importance of the ancient gods, but at the same time puts them in the category of dead, implying that these gods no longer have any power. Since these gods are now dead, they no longer have need of sacrifices, especially food sacrifices, much less any need of worship. Aristides the Athenian wrote extensively against the prevailing belief systems. In his Apology of Aristides the Philospher, a highly influential and effective work that, despite the use of numerous logical fallacies is overall remarkably solid, he claims that there are four classes of men: --Barbarians and Greeks, Jews and Christians.47 The connotations of associating the Greeks with Barbarians is obvious. For Aristides, the Barbarians, who worshiped natural elements such as fire, water, the sun, moon, etc., were misguided but simply didnt know any better, while the Greeks, due to their intellectual accomplishments, should have known better and therefore have committed a greater sin against God with their introduction of many fictitious godssomemales and some females and some were adulterers, and did murder, and were deluded, and envious, and wrathful and passionate, and parricides, and thieves, and robberssomewere crippled and limped, and some were sorcerers, and some actually went madand some even died etc.48 Of course, Aristides plays upon the ever-increasingly popular accusations against the Greek gods: those of incest, parricide, infanticide and cannibalism (IX).
46 Didache. Chapter 6. Trans. Roberts-Donaldson. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html (Accessed: 22 March 2007). The dating of the Didache is much disputed, but the textual contests and later quotes from it lead me to believe it was most likely written sometime between 80 and 100, as per Jonathan Draper (Gospel Perspectives v. 5, p. 269, as quoted at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html). Its warnings against prophets, teachers, apostles, and other itinerates offers a quite intriguing view of the early movements of Christians. 47 Aristides the Athenian. The Apology of Aristides the Philosoper. Translated from the Syriac version by D.M. Kay. Chapter II. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html (Accessed: 15 April 2007). Aristides died around 134, his Apology was written around 125. The influence of this work is apparent in many further works, especially those of Justin the Martyr. 48 Ibid.

30

Aristides connects the foulness of this error (that of believing in false gods) with wars, and great famines, and bitter captivity, and complete desolation (IIIV). The irony that these selfsame wars and famines are suffered upon by all of mankind, including Christians, regardless of their faith, seems to elude him. Aristides also refers to the ancient myths as invented tales, of which cause much evilamong men, who to this day are imitators of their gods, and practice adultery and defile themselves with their mothers and their sisters (IX). It is with Aristides that we also find the gods redefined as demons, and the claim made that if they really were gods, they would not be lame (as Hephaistos) or insane drunks, much less able to be killed (as Dionysius) (IX). Throughout the Apology, Aristides expands upon the faults and weaknesses of many of the Greek gods, albeit often confusing them with Roman and/or Syriac names (Herakles a tyrant, Apollon jealous, Artemis and Rhea disgraceful, Aphrodite and Tammuz and others of adultery, Kore and others powerless, etc.). Aristide finds it amazing that the Greeks, who surpass all other peoples in their manner of life and reasoning could not see the truth, and have gone astray after dead idols and lifeless images without realizing that their gods are not gods (IX). The Greeks erred further when they failed to realize that their laws, which they hold with such high esteem, are continuously violated by the actions of their gods. The Greek laws, therefore, must be unrighteous in not being made according to the will of their gods. For if the will of the gods is in killing one another, and practicing sorcery, and adulteryand in robbing and stealing, and in lying with males then the laws of men must parallel the will of the gods (XIII). Why have laws that condemn actions commonly committed by their own gods, yet not consider the gods actions to be crimes? Of course, Aristides accuses the Greeks of the same crimes as their gods, as commemorated in their myths. For Aristides, the narratives about

31

their godssome of them myths, and some of the hymns and elegies are empty words and noise, and the myths are shallow tales with no depth whatever in them and have no value at all, especially since they so obviously condone detestable actions, especially the practice of males lying with males (XIII).49 Clearly, Aristides is continuing the association of myth with that of false teachings, with the obvious aim to discredit the myths and everything associated with them, especially the gods. The Egyptians were not safe from the knife of Aristides pen. They, who are more base and stupid than every people that is on the earth, have erred more than all. This claim was made against the Egyptian practice of associating gods with animals and plants, a practice deemed ridiculous by Aristide because their gods [are] eaten and consumed by men and other animals (XIII). If a god can be eaten and doesnt have the power to stop this from happening, he or she cannot be much of a god. For failing to see this, the Egyptians are more stupid than the rest of the nations (XII). The influence of Aristides Apology, the earliest extant work of a fully Apologetic nature, cannot be understated. He is quoted, paraphrased, or mentioned by at least twelve of the early Christian apologists over just the next fifty to seventy-five years, and continues to be a source for future writers at least as late as the mid-1400s. Theophilus of Antioch was particularly virulent in his attacks on the ancient Greek, Roman and Egyptian belief systems, especially the Greeks and their philosophers. In To Autolycus, Book III Chapter 2, he questions what good did it do Epicurus to maintain that there is no providenceor Socrates to swear by the dog, and the goose, and the plane-tree, and

Aristide mentions homosexuality and incest five times, each time together as to associate them as equivalently depraved acts. The biggest crime committed by the Greek gods, however, does seem to be their inability to prevent negative things from happening to themselves. In other words, their biggest flaw is that of powerlessness, a flaw Aristide reiterates at least sixteen times throughout this work.

49

32

states that Aesculapius was struck by lightening when he invoked demons.50 He questions the appeal of rationality, especially as presented by the Greeks, and defines such pursuits as philosophy as having no benefit to mankind: What did Platos system of culture profit him? Or what benefit did the rest of the philosophers derive from their doctrines? Theophilus then refers to methods and dialecticals of the philosophers as useless and godless opinions. The irony that he is using their own philosophical methods their opinions to devalue them is apparently lost on Theophilus. Theophilus, like others before him, uses the fact that the philosophers refute one another as evidence they are all wrong and that their teachings shame their reputations (III.3).51 Of course, their refuting one another was entirely the point of philosophy! For the philosophers, then and now, questioning and finding flaws in one anothers arguments was the primary method of not only proof, but also to strengthen and resolve issues of importance. But Theophiluss accusations of the Greek gods, myths, and philosophers of encouraging cannibalism was particularly effective: Zeno, and Diogenes, and Cleanthesinculcating the eating of human flesh: that fathers be cooked and eaten by their own childrenDiogenes teaches children to bring their own parents in sacrifice, and devour them. Associating the gods with cannibalism serves to put the gods in an ugly light and raises the question why anyone would want to worship someone who eats their parents. Theophilus association of the myths and philosophers as false teachings is endemic throughout his writings. Just a few examples from Book II alone: Did they not, when they essayed to writeteach the perpetration of lasciviousness, and fornication, and adultery; and did they not introduce hateful and unutterable wickedness? (II.3)
50 Theophilus of Antioch, To Autlycus. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm Theophilus lived from ca 163-182 CE. It is believed this work was written towards the very end of his life. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theophilus.html. The comment on Socrates swearing by the dog (see Phaedrus 228b for example) and goose must have been effective, as it would be repeated by Lactantius and Tertullian, and alluded to by many others. 51 Theophilus seems to completely miss the irony that Christians often refuted themselves from the very beginning, especially as to proper worship.

33

Epicurus himselfteachesincest with mothers and sisters. Why do Epicurus and the Stoics teach incest and sodomy. (II.6) Platohis doctrine [is] dreadful and monstrous (II.7) The gods committed grossly wicked deedspromiscuous intercourse and beastly concubinage. (II.8) to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors (II.26) as Plato and Apollonius and other mendacious authors (II.29) Theophilus then proceeds to completely misrepresent Platos teachings, claiming that he denies that the gods are to be worshipped (III.7). In chapter 18, the philosophers are miserable and very profane and senseless persons. Theophilus also attacks the Egyptians: And Manetho, who among the Egyptians gave out a great deal of nonsense and the Romans for their barbarous gladiator shows and naming Superbus the Proud for first defil(ing) virgins. The effectiveness and influence of Theophilus claims is apparent, as the format and his claims would be repeated in numerous other writings by almost all other church fathers. Justin the Martyrs numerous works not only clearly demonstrate the arguments for Christianity and against the existing religions and their associated mythology, they too were highly effective and influential, with his format and many of his points repeated frequently by other writers over the next three hundred years. Justin, in particular, associates the traditional practices of temple sacrifice and worship as demonic and misleading. He refers to charges that Christians were atheistic as being instigated by evil demons, demons that both defiled women and corrupted boys, associated the gods of old with demons. Justins argument was simple: these demons created fear in men, and this fear interfered with their judgment resulting in these demons mistakenly being called gods. In a intriguing twist, Justin uses the death of Socrates as proof of these demons: And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men

34

who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist and a profane person, on the charge that he was introducing new divinities.52 While Justin misrepresents the criminal charges that led to Socrates death, his use of the wellknown account of Socrates death as caused by demons is effective, and perhaps more effective than the argument that the gods were originally men. However, Justin does use the gods were invented by men argument, too, in Chapter 9, Folly of Idol Worship: And neither do we honour with many sacrifices and garlands of flowers such deities as men have formed and set in shrines and called gods; since we see that these are soulless and dead, but have the names and forms of those wicked demons which have appeared. and making an image of the requisite shape, they make what they call a god; which we consider not only senseless, but to be even insulting to God. What infatuation! that dissolute men should be said to fashion and make gods for your worship .(Chapter 9, emphasis added.) The key premise of Justins argument against the existing gods is the human-origination of the gods and their associated myths. The concept that the gods were invented by men is an extension of and expansion upon the older Greek claim that some heroes and gods were originally men. For Justin, this is further support for his claim that the gods are false.

52 Justin the Martyr. The First Apology. Chapter 5. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm Justin uses the word demon seventeen times in this work.

35

Chapter 4 For all things soon pass away and become a mere tale, and complete oblivion soon buries them. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus The Death of the Myths Over the next 250 years, despite growing sympathy for Christianity, the existing belief systems still existed, although in an ever-decreasing circle, and the influence of philosophical rationality, especially as presented by the Greek philosophers, continued to represent a threat, albeit one that continued to wane.53 But the threat represented by philosophical influences, however much it was decreasing, was continuously and increasingly responded to by Christian theologians and philosophers, primarily along the same argumentative lines as laid out by Aristides, Theophilus, and Justin Martyr. The arguments were prolifically reiterated and often expanded upon by Athenagoras, Tatian, Arnobius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Marcion of Sinope, Philo of Byblos, St. Cyprian, Lactantius, Augustine and others. Paralleling these arguments were numerous legal responses, however, the nature of these legal responses moved from dealing with the Christian Problem to that of the Pagan Problem.54 Because so very few philosophical works outside of those of the Christian Apologists exist today, it is through an examination of the legal response that we can gain an understanding of the continuing evolution of Christian primacy and devolution of the ancient myths.

53 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. The Thoughts of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Biographical Sketch. Longs Translation edited by Edwin Ginn. 1893. Gutenberg Project, http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/tmrcr10.txt (Accessed: 20 April 2007). In some provinces where Christianity had taken particularly popular hold, numerous temples began to close as early as 125CE due, in essence, to lack of popularity and support in the form of sacrifices. The (negative) economic impact in some provinces was the cause of numerous pleas to the various Roman Emperors for relief, usually in the form of legally banning Christianity or enforcing existing laws requiring support of the state religions. I believe these pleas, economic in nature although often disguised as pious appeals, are often wrongly used as proof of rampant persecution against the Christians, because the plea seem to far outnumber the few documented legal responses. Admittedly, I have not had the time nor enough space to fully explore the legal aspect of this time period. 54 It was my intention to write this entire paper without ever once using the word pagan, as I was concerned the strongly negative connotations of the word would cause inadvertent biases in meaning. Unfortunately, it looks like I have to use it once and only once, right here.

36

In 311CE, Galerius ordered an edict that all religions were to be tolerated, which included Christianity.55 Although not necessarily the first edict along the lines of religious toleration, it was the first to specifically mention toleration of Christians, albeit a grudging one. Notably, Galeriuss order is more of an appeasement to the continuing Christian appeals for acceptance and reform. Galerius by no means accepts Christianity, much less converts to it. As he states, the Christians had followed such a caprice and fallen into such a folly that they would not obey the institutes of antiquity (Ch. 34). This statement means, in essence, that he is giving up on ever convincing the Christians of the error of their ways, so to end the continuing controversy, grants an official indulgence to the Christians for the safety of the commonwealth (Ch. 34). In 313, Constantine I famously orders what is now known as the Edict of Milan, which declared official governmental neutrality in regards to all religious worship, including Christianity. This order has historically been given far more emphasis than it deserves, especially in many History Channel documentaries about the history of Christianity. It is traditionally represented as the first law making Christianity an official religion, which it did not do at this time, although it does specifically grant Christians the right to worship without harassment. In fact, in 325 during the First Council of Nicaea it was specifically ordered that the ancient customs of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis shall be maintained.56 Ultimately, all Constantine did was legally declare an official hands-off policy towards all religions, a policy that ultimately would be short-lived. Constantine I is also routinely misrepresented as being the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity. This is historically inaccurate (its a myth!). Eusebius later attempt

55 Galerius, Galerius and Constantine: Edicts of Toleration 311/313. Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University, http:// www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.html (Accessed: April 6, 2007) 56 The Profession of Faith of the 318 Fathers, 6. First Council of Nicaea, in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman P. Tanner. Eternal Word Television http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/NICAEA1.HTM Although the Council was ordered by Constantine, there does not appear to be any evidence that he actually presided over the council.

37

to place all of Constantines actions in a light of conversion notwithstanding, Constantine I never converted to Christianity, although he was baptized on his death bed, this does not represent willing conversion, and likely may have been an act not necessarily of his own will.57 One of his co-successors, his son Flavius Julius Constans, henceforth Constans, banned sacrificial acts, especially blood sacrifices, in 341.58 After his death and the death of his cocounsel, Constantine II, his cousin, Flavius Claudius Iulianus, henceforth Julian the Apostate, would rule the Roman Empire from 361 to 363CE. Julian is considered the last Emperor to support the traditional beliefs and also represents the last chance, at least legally, for the survival of the traditional systems. Julian is particularly interesting as he was initially raised as a Christian, but eventually rejected Christianity and pursued Neoplatonism, especially as it applied to and supported the traditional belief systems. Julian attempted to reconcile the continuing conflict between the traditional systems and the Christians through various laws and edicts. His work Against the Galilaeans, refers to Christianity as a fiction of men composed by wickedness which contains nothing divine..and is childish and foolish.59 Paralleling the earlier and continuing Christian association of the ancient myths with that of fictions and fables, Julian argues that Christianity appeals to that part of the soul which loves fable and is childish and foolish, [and] has induced men to believe that the monstrous tale is truth (Book I). His referring to the Christians as Galilaeans is meant to reassociate Christianity of their origins with the still-maligned Jewish faith. This works to demonstrate the abandonment of Christianitys historical foundation within the Jewish faith as an argument against Christianity. Remarkably, Julian admits that it is true that the Hellenes

57 Eusebius, The Conversion of Constantine. Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/conv-const.html (Accessed: April 7, 2007) 58 Constans, the third son of Constantine I, jointly ruled the Roman Empire from 337 to 350CE. 59 Julian the Apostate. Against the Galilaeans, as excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum. Wilmer Cave, Trans. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm (Accessed: 20 April 2007).

38

invented their myths about the gods, incredible and monstrous stories, but also applies this concept to the tradition of Adam and his desire to not be alone in the Garden of Eden. He further declared that the woman traditionally provided by God to ease Adams loneliness eventual deception was not only wholly fabulous, but equally as fabulous and fictional as the Greek myths. Julian argues that if God is as all-powerful and perfect as the Christians proclaim, He would never have created a deceitful and deceptive partner for Adam. This argument obviously parallels the prior Christian arguments against the Greek gods (which parallel earlier Greek philosophical arguments) especially their lack of foresight and powerlessness to prevent subsequent harms to themselves and others. The teaching that the serpent spoke to Eve is also ridiculous, as Julian questions what sort of language are we to say that the serpent used when he talked with Eve? Was it the language of human beings? And in what [way] do such legends as these differ from the myths that were invented by the Hellenes?60 Julian further parallels prior arguments against the Greek gods against Christianity, when he claims that unless every one of these legends is a myth that involves some secret interpretationthey are filled with many blasphemous sayings about God.61 Not to mention that the idea that any mere woman could ever have enough power and influence over a man to lead to the entire races downfall in the eyes of God is also ridiculous. The various actions of the jealous God, especially His reported punishments of humanity for various crimes against God, are also unflatteringly compared to the Greek mythological traditions regarding their gods. Ultimately, Julian decried what he viewed as the destruction of the Roman culture and traditional economic system as represented by the temple system. In particular, he regretted the loss of a rich and long-lived cultural tradition in favor of Christianity, which he viewed as restrictive, intolerant, and inflexible. In response to what he considered as tragic actions
60 61

Ibid, 6. Ibid.

39

perpetuated by his immediate predeceasing Emperors, Julian enacted numerous laws ordering religious toleration, the reopening of the traditional temples, the lifting of bans against traditional sacrifices, restitution for temple damages, and other laws intended to reduce and/or remove the influence of Christianity from the general public, especially within the schools.62 Julians attempts at restoring the ancient traditions and encouraging an environment of religious toleration was regrettably short-lived, as all of his rulings, orders, and edicts were quickly overturned following his death. It is remarkable that any of his writings still exist, especially his Against the Galilaeans text, especially considering how quickly he was ostracized by current and subsequent Christian authorities and Roman emperors. It is, in fact, the Christian authorities of the time that tacked on the prenom of the Apostate to Julian, as a method to discredit his arguments and actions. Flavius Gratianus Augustus, henceforth Gratian, ordered the Altar of Victory removed from the Roman Senate, prohibited traditional worship, especially sacrifices, in the city of Rome, confiscated temple funds (especially those returned to the traditional temples during the time of Julian), and ordered that all Roman subjects commit to the Christian faith (Th.XVI.i.2).63 In 380CE, Theodosius I made the public practice of the Greek religions illegal. In 389CE, he declared that the only official holidays are Christian holy days and Sabbaths (Th.XV.v.1). Obviously, the earlier ban on sacrificial acts wasnt very effective, because Theodosius I reiterates the ban a second time in 391, along with reissuing the edict that Christianity was to be the only official faith (Th.XVI.i.2). In this same year, he ordered the closure of all the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian temples, along with ending all temple subsidies. The economic impact of this move, along with the economic advantages of a single state religion, is obvious. This year also saw the extinguishment of the eternal fire in the Temple of Vesta, the disbanding of the
62 63

See especially his School Edict and the Tolerance Edict. These edicts occurred between 375 and 383.

40

Vestal Virgins, and, in Egypt, the creation of the last known Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription. By this time, extremely few people still had the ability to read hieroglyphs. Within a few short years the art was completely lost, and would not be rediscovered until Champollion in 1828. In 392CE Theodosius I orders the destruction of the largest of the temples, the Sera Peum, and in 393 he outlawed the Olympic Games. Most dramatically, the Pythia at the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi gave her last recorded prophecy. In 396, Alaric I destroyed numerous ancient sites in Greece and the Eleusinian mysteries ended. Recognizing the possibility that all this destruction and the various legal prohibitions might have a negative effect on their cultural and economic heritage, (replacing all those destroyed temples was likely becoming very costly), in 399 Stilicho issued edicts protecting the ancient temples, ordered the converted, unoccupied, or damaged temples to be repaired and maintained, and reinstated the right to practice traditional rituals so long as such practices were not in public. It is highly probably that these edicts were not meant as a means of religious toleration but more for reducing the economic costs of the continuing temple destruction and to ensure social peace (as in the form of reducing vandalism, public unrest, riots, attacks, and various other legal and economic costs). This toleration did not last long. In 401, the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus was destroyed, its marble burned to make cement.64 Honorious, in 408, reenacts and adds to the laws against the fast-disappearing traditional faiths, ordering all statues and alters be removed and all temple funds be confiscated. In 415, the same year the Greek philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria was murdered by a Christian mob, Honorious enacts another law ordering the confiscation of temple funds. In a move distinctly aimed at making the traditional faiths uneconomic, in 41 he orders that only Christians can hold any and all government positions.
64 Aelius Stilo. The Destruction of the Pagan Temples. James Grout, Encyclopaedia Romana (University of Chicago: 1997-2007). http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/index.html (Accessed: 22 April 2007).

41

In a very brief move towards toleration, in 423 Theodosius II passed several laws aimed at reducing conflicts between traditionalists and Christians, but by 425 had rescinded these laws and ordered that all superstitions be rooted out.65 In 435, he orders anyone convicted of performing traditional rites and sacrifices be put to death, then in 438, he reenacts and reinforces these same laws. Most notable are his comments regarding those few stubborn people clinging to the old ways, comments reminiscent of the earlier comments of Pliny the Younger and others of his time against Christianity: Hence our clemency perceives the need of keeping watch over the Pagans and their heathen enormities, since by natural depravity and stubborn lawlessness, they forsake the path of true religion. They disdain in any way to perform the nefarious rites of sacrifice and the false errors of their baleful superstition by some means or other in the hidden solitudes, unless their crimes are made public by the profession of their crimes to insult divine majesty and to show scorn to our age. Not the thousand terrors of laws already promulgated nor the penalty of exile pronounced upon them deter these men, whereby, if they cannot reform, at least they might learn to abstain from their mass of their crimes and the multitude of their sacrifices. But their insane audacity transgresses continually; our patience is exhausted by their wicked behavior so that if we desired to forget them, we could not disregard them (2.3). Theodosius IIs Codex Theodosianus, essentially a compilation of the relevant laws regarding Christians and the remaining traditionalists, is an extremely good source of the viewpoints and laws against the traditionalists. In 451, Marcian, for the second time, reenacts the death penalty for anyone convicted of performing traditional worship and/or sacrifices, followed by more anti-traditional laws by Leo I in 472. We find the de facto end of the Western Roman Empire occurring in 480, but legal actions against traditional worship continued in the Eastern empire, especially in the form of the Corpus Juris Civilis, also known as the Codex Justinianus.

Theodosius II, The Codex Theodosianus as excerpted at Medieval Sourcebook: The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion, 4th Century CE. From Oliver J. Thatcher, Ed., The Library of Original Sources. Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907. Vol. IV: The Early Medieval World, pp 69-71. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/codex-theod1.html (Accessed: 16 April 2007).

65

42

The Codex Justinianus, ordered compiled by Justinian I during 529 through 534, contains many edicts and laws further positioning Christianity as the official state religion, along with continuing laws against traditional religious practices. Laws specifically targeting the Jews, placing them in an official second-class-citizen status, would remain in effect (if not politically then culturally) well into the Middle Ages. Christianity was firmly established as the only official state religion (Title I.1), banned any non-Christians from even referring to their faiths as religion, much less continue practicing the ancient traditions (I.2), banned unofficial interpretations of Christian teachings (presumably especially those of a philosophical nature, I.3), encouraged posthumous legacies to the Catholic church (II.1), banned the sale or purchase of relics of martyrs, (II.3), banned all laws and customs contrary to the Church and its ministers, (II.12), and permitted women to bequeath their estates to the Church (previously women could not individually bequeath their possessions, as their possessions were actually the possessions of their husbands or other male family member, II.13). This is not to be interpreted as any sort of womens rights or womens equality movement: it was ordered purely for economic reasons. As Christianity appealed in particular to women, it is obvious that numerous wives bequeathed their property to the Church presumably against the wishes of their husbands, especially non-Christian husbands.66 This edict banned husbands and other family members from contesting the contents of a womans will when the will bequeathed to the Church, and further ordered that the property of any person who chooses a monastic life becomes the property of the enjoined monastery. In Title III.2, the tax-free status of official Churches and their ecclesiastics is established, a practice reflected in modern-day American laws providing tax-exempt status for churches and other non-profits.67 Remarkably, however, in III.34, slaves
66

It is with regret that I do not have space to fully explore the significant role of women in the early Christian

movement.
67 The Egyptians did much the same thing. Pharaohs would often order favorite temples be exempt from any form of taxation, but they did not have any laws granting this to all temples.

43

are granted freedom should they be ordained a clerk by the bishop, albeit such ordination must be with the knowledge of his master and without [his] opposition. Although this manumission seems generous, it had one caveat: if a slave neglected or abandoned his clergy duties, he would revert to the status of a slave. It is in Title V, Concerning Heretics, Manicheans, and Samaritans, that we find the most detailed laws against the practice of traditional beliefs. From banning the privilege of dowry to non-Christian women to denying employment except in the most arduous and unpleasant of jobs, prohibiting all non-Christian teachings, ordering (yet again) the confiscation of all non-Christian temples and funds (not that there were necessarily any left by this point), all the way to prohibiting any sort of non-Christian assembly (III.3(1)). Notably, the Codex accuses the Manicheans and Donatists, non-official Christian sects, as having nothing in common with the human race (V.4), extending the prior prohibitions against the earlier Gnostics and demonstrating that while the threat of the traditional belief systems was almost null, the threat of non-Canonical teachings, especially those of a philosophical nature, continued. With the adoption of the Justinian Codes, the demise of the traditional belief systems was truly established, although admittedly little traditional worship remained. What little traditional worship remained received a small reprieve in 565, when Justin II, in a half-hearted, essentially worthless move, issued an edit ordering religious toleration. This edict was essentially too little, too late for the traditional belief systems as the myths and their associated heroes and gods were now firmly established as false fictions. The myths are dead. Long live the myths.

44

The Modern Era Over time, as Christianity came into political power (primarily in the form of the Catholic Church), persecutions increased against all faiths other than Christianity, including the very few remaining followers of traditional systems and also non-conforming Christian sects and cults as they arose. Massive destruction of remaining ancient texts happened over the next years, including but not limited to works of both mythological and philosophical natures. Many of these texts and their teachings, especially those of Aristotle, would not be rediscovered until the late 12th century, when they were reintroduced by Jewish and Muslim intellectuals.68 The influence of these works, especially the works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, reinvigorated much of the thinking of the high Middle Ages. This rebirth of philosophical rationality would eventually (and ironically) lead to the Reformation and, over time, the diminishment of the churchs political power throughout much of the Western world. With continuing archeological finds and subsequent translations and analysis of these ancient works, this influence has expanded and continues through today. The Greek view of myths as having elements of truth has particularly influenced modern historians and archeologists and to a lesser extent, modern philosophers; some of the most extraordinary archeological finds are directly related to archeological interpretations of the ancient myths. Through systematic and rational approaches, as defined as early as Xenophanes, much of what we now know of these early years is a direct result of such analyses. Using these approaches, archeologists have found clues to many significant finds, from Troy to Ramesses, Homer to Tutankhamen, and many others.

68 See the works of Averroes, Maimonides, Albertus Magnus, Averroes, Abelard, and Bonaventure. This time period saw the rise of Scholasticism. Also see especially the works of Thomas Aquinas, whose use of Aristotelian precepts is especially noted.

45

The influence, adoption, and adaptation of many ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman traditions by Christianity is much reported in many modern historical works, especially the Christian practice of co-opting many traditional holidays as Christian high holy days. But most importantly, the Christian demonizing of the myths and Greek philosophical activities has served to create an anti-intellectual attitude, one that still exists in one form or another today. There is a prevailing attitude that too much questioning leads to calamity and demise, especially too much questioning of sacred texts, which are to be accepted wholly on faith. This legacy, a direct result of the demise of the traditional belief systems unwittingly started by the Greek philosophers and effectively furthered by the Christian apologists, arguably has led to much human misery throughout the ages. From the so-called Crusades to current debates about stemcell research, philosophical, scientific, and political moves that potentially could create questions of or conflicts with sacred Biblical teachings are always wrought with much turmoil. On the one hand, Christianity represented a strong reactionary move against the Greek move of ethical responsibility to the realm of humans (a movement that would not be returned to until the modern era) and a return to a worldview of the divine similar to that represented by the Egyptians. On the other hand, Christianity represented a significant democratization of the afterlife. For the Egyptians, initially, the afterlife could only be attained by the Pharoahs; eventually the afterlife was extended to their closest and most loyal servants. The Greeks extended the availability of a glorious afterlife (the Elysian fields) to the best and brightest of men, based solely on their earthly actions. The Roman view of the afterlife was significantly similar to the Greeks. But the Christians opened the afterlife to everyone, regardless of political, economic, military, athletic, artistic, or intellectual successes, or better yet, despite earthly successes. Faith and faith alone, albeit along with living a Christian lifestyle, leads to the

46

afterlife (heaven). Opening the gates of heaven, so to speak, to all regardless of their social status, while often derided by the philosophers of the time, served to make Christianity appealing to the public at large, especially those of the lowest of classes. Despite a remarkably democratic afterlife, a democratic attitude towards non-Christian belief systems would not occur until the founding of the United States, where despite Constitutionally-guaranteed religious freedom, religious toleration continues to struggle. The Christian view of myths as false stories, however, is firmly established within the modern mentality. More specifically, the view of myth as meaning a commonly believed truth which is actually false is firmly established. Not a single day goes by without a reference in some published or televised work to one certainty or another as simply just a myth, phrases such as myth busting are endemic, and the word myth is routinely used to disparage or denigrate. Despite the pejorative connotations revolving around the word myth, the appeal of and fascination with the ancient myths, especially the Greek myths, continues to influence and evolve today with numerous modern-day adaptations of the ancient accounts, albeit much sanitized in order to avoid offending modern-day sensibilities. Regardless, the continuing fascination with the ancient myths is a practice that likely would be much admired by the ancients. From movies to books, poetry to songs, television shows to historical works, philosophy and archeology, the ancient myths continue to live on in our modern consciousness especially throughout North America and Western Europe. As a final note, it is with much pleasure that I report the following: in late 2006, the Greek courts lifted all legal prohibitions against practicing the ancient polytheistic traditions, a legal ruling the ancient gods likely greeted with much relief. After more than fifteen hundred years, the gods could finally return home.

47

Appendix A: Related Meaning-Evolved Words Myth is often used interchangeably with or in conjunction with saga and legend; however, these words do not exist in ancient Greek. Both saga and legend have evolved in meaning similarly to myth. Although Saga and Legend do have still some distinct textual and lexical differences, they are routinely used interchangeably today. Saga The lexical definition of saga dates to 1709, and relates specifically to an antiquarians' revival to describe the medieval prose narratives of Iceland and Norway. Saga comes from the Old Norse word saga, meaning story and is equivalent to the Old English word sagu meaning a saying. Sagas are narrative composition[s] of Iceland or Norway in the Middle Ages, or one that has their characteristics. Over time, saga has entered general use and now no longer has the geographical limitation of accounts specifically from Iceland and other Scandinavian/Norse countries.69 Our common modern usage of saga tends to be interchangeable with epic (from the Greek, epos ()) although it is seems to be often used interchangeably with legend. Legend Legend comes from the Latin word legende meaning for reading, to be read. Legend originally applied specifically to written stories, but not to traditional stories transmitted orally from generation to generation. 70 Interestingly, the meaning of legend evolved to specifically reference written accounts of Christian Saints, then evolved again around 1600 to gain a sense of any nonhistorical or mythological story.71 (The disassociation of legend from
saga. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/saga (accessed: March 2, 2007). 70 legend. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legend (accessed: March 2, 2007). 71 legend. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legend (accessed: March 21, 2007).
69

48

Christianity would be an interesting topic for further research.) Today, current usage of legend applies to nearly any personal achievement worthy of inspiring such a story.72 Pagan Pagan comes from the Latin, paganus, meaning villager, rustic, civilian. Roman soldiers used the word pagan, apparently with some derision, to mean any incompetent soldier. Tertullian and Augustine, in particular, are credited with applying pagan to anyone who continued to worship in the traditional ways. By taking the existing meaning of pagan as basically backwards people (like the modern-day term hillbilly) and extending it to apply to anyone who acted like pagans (and stuck to the old ways), pagan evolved in meaning. Today, the word is considered to have particularly derogatory connotations.73

Ibid. pagan. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pagan (accessed: April 30, 2007).
73

72

49

Index Locorum

Anaximander, 10, 11, 12 Anaximandros. See Anaximander. Apion, 24 Apollonius, 34 Aristides, 30, 32, 37 Apology of Aristides the Philospher, 30 Aristotle, 11, 47 Arnobius, 37 Athenagoras, 37 Augustine, 37 Cato the Elder, 19 Champollion, 42 Claudius, 24, 25 The Lives of the Twelve Ceasars. Volume 5, 25 Constantine I, 38, 39 Constantine II, 39 Cyprian, 37 Diodorus Siculus, 18 Ephorus, 18 Epicurus, 33, 34 Euhemerus, 17 Eusebius The Conversion of Constantine, 39, 54 Flavius Claudius Iulianus, Julian the Apostate, 39, 40, 41, 42 School Edict, 41 Tolerance Edict, 41 Flavius Claudius Iulianus, Julian the Apostate\i, 41 Flavius Claudius Julianus, Julian the Apostate Against the Galilaeans, 40 Flavius Gratianus Augustus, Gratian, 42 Flavius Josephus, 24 Against Apion 1.23, 24 Flavius Julius Constans, 39 Galerius, 38 Hecataeus, 14 Hellanicus, 18 Herodotus, 18 Hesiod, 13

Homer, 13, 47 Honorious, 43 Hypatia, 43 Ignatius, 29 The Epistle of Ignatius To the Magnesians 8.1, 10.7, 29 Irenaeus, 37 Josephus. See Flavius Josephus Justin II, 46 Justin the Martyr, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37 The First Apology, 35 Justinian I, 45 Justininian I Codex Justinianus, 44 Lactantius, 33, 37 Leo I, 44 Manetho, 34 Marcian, 44 Marcion of Sinope, 37 Nero, 25, 26, 27 Philo of Byblos, 37 Plato, 11, 14, 15, 33, 34, 47 Phaedrus 229c-230a, 15 Timaeus 29c-d, 40d-41b, 18 Pliny, 19, 27, 28, 44 Letters, XCVII66, 27 Plutarch, 11, 19 Polybius, 18 Polycarp, 37 Quintus Ennius, 19 Ramesses, 47 Socrates, 12, 15, 16, 17, 33, 35, 47 Stilicho, 43 Strabo, 18 Superbus, 34 Tacitus, 26 Annals 15.44, 26 Tatian, 37 Thales, 11, 12 Theodosius I, 42, 43 Theodosius II, 43, 44

50 Theophilus, 33, 34, 37 To Autolycus, 33 Theopompus, 18 Thucydides, 18 Timaeus, 18 Titus Livius, 19 Tutankhamen, 47 Xenophanes, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 47

51

Bibliography Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus.. The Thoughts of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Biographical Sketch. Longs Translation edited by Edwin Ginn. 1893. Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext04/tmrcr10.txt (Accessed: 20 April 2007). Aristides the Athenian. The Apology of Aristides the Philosoper. Translated from the Syriac version by D.M. Kay. Kevin Knight, Early Christian Writings. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/aristides-kay.html (Accessed: 15 April 2007). Couprie, Dirk L. Couprie. Anaximander (c. 610-546BCE). The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/anaximan.htm (accessed: March 7, 2007). Didache. Chapter 6. Trans. Roberts-Donaldson. Early Christian Writings. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html (Accessed: 22 March 2007). Eusebius, The Conversion of Constantine. Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/conv-const.html (Accessed: April 7, 2007) Fairbanks, Arthur, ed. and trans. The First Philosphers of Greece (London: K. Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1898), 8-16. Hanover Historical Texts Project, Hanover College Department of History. Scanned and Proofread by Aaron Gulyas, May 1998 (accessed: March 7, 2007) Galerius, Galerius and Constantine: Edicts of Toleration 311/313. Medieval Sourcebook, Fordham University, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/edict-milan.html (Accessed: April 6, 2007) Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. Blackwell: Oxford UK & Cambridge, USA, 1993. Harris, William, Prof. Em. Euhemerism: The Greek Myths, Middlebury College http://community.middlebury.edu/~harris/GreekMyth/Preface.html (accessed: February 10, 2007) Herodotus. The Histories. G.C. Macaulay, Trans., Donald Lateiner, Ed. Barnes & Noble Classics: New York, 2004. Ignatius of Antioch. The Epistle Of Ignatius To The Magnesians. Roberts-Donaldson, trans. Early Christian Writings. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatiusmagnesians-roberts.html (Accessed: March 2007) Inwood, Brad and L.P. Gerson, trans. Hellenistic Philosophy: Introductory Readings. Second Edition. (Hacket Publishing Company: Indianapolis and Cambridge, 1997). Josephus, Flavius. Against Apion.. William Whiston, trans. Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/agaap10.txt (Accessed: April 2007)

52

Julian the Apostate. Against the Galilaeans, as excerpted from Cyril of Alexandria, Contra Julianum. Wilmer Cave, Trans. Roger Pearse, The Tertullian Project. http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm (Accessed: 20 April 2007). Justin the Martyr. The First Apology. Trans. Unstated. Kevin Knight, New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm (Accessed: April 2007) legend. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legend (accessed: March 21, 2007). legend. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/legend (accessed: March 2, 2007). Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Old and Middle Kingdom. Volume I. (University of California Press: Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London, 2006). -logy. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/-logy (accessed: February 21, 2007). Morford, Mark P.O. and Robert J. Lenardon, Classical Mythology 8th edition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). pagan. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pagan (accessed: April 30, 2007). Pliny the Younger. The Letters of Pliny the Younger. Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/world/readfile?pageno=117&fk_files=2025 (Accessed: 12 April 2007) saga. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/saga (accessed: March 2, 2007). Shafer, Byron E., ed. Religion in Ancient Egypt: Gods, Myths, and Personal Practice. (Cornell University Press: Ithaca and London, 1991). Shotwell, James T. The History of History. (NY, Columbia University Press, 1939) p. 172. As quoted at Hecataeus. Wikipedia.org (Accessed: March 11, 2007) Tacitus. The Annals. Trans. Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. Wikisource.org. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Annals_%28Tacitus%29/Book_15 Theodosius II. The Codex Theodosianus as excerpted at Medieval Sourcebook: The Codex Theodosianus: On Religion, 4th Century CE. From Oliver J. Thatcher, Ed., The Library of Original Sources. Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907. Vol. IV: The Early Medieval World, pp 69-71. Fordham University. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/codex-theod1.html (Accessed: 16 April 2007).

53

theology. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theology (accessed: February 21, 2007). Theophilus of Antioch. To Autlycus. Trans. Unstated. Kevin Knight, New Advent. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02042.htm Tranquillus, C. Suetonius. The Lives of the Twelve Ceasars. Volume 5: Claudius. Trans. Alexander Thomson, M.D. Project Gutenberg. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/6390/6390.txt Stilo, Aelius. The Destruction of the Pagan Temples. James Grout, Encyclopaedia Romana (University of Chicago: 1997-2007). http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/index.html (Accessed: 22 April 2007).