>Paradoxically, in spite of its Christianization, the Byzantine Empire: ". . . saw to the transmission of the old authors. The classical tradition was thus maintained in Byzantium where, from 425 to 1453, the schools of Constantinople remained its pillars. This is why it is unsuitable to speak about the “Renaissance” in the Eastern Roman Empire. In the West, on the other hand, the rediscovery of Homer was a striking fact for the first Italian humanists."
The Christianization of the Byzantines was not some crude "Old Testament as literal truth" kind of dogma, but a mix of New Testament ideas with neo-platonism and influences from ancient Greek thought. The early theologians (considered "saints") had all studied those philosophies and had extended knowledge of ancient Greek thought.
Early Christianism was much more subtle than the crude version of Christianism post protestantism (protestantism itself being a fundamentalist movement, to go "back to roots" and back to the book, it's easy to understand why. It was a version of the religion for simple minded Germanic folk at the time that couldn't handle much subtlety).
Homer, to get back to the point, was official reading in Byzantine school education.
Worth noting, that unlike the western empire, that had the rule of the pope, the Byzantium had separate church and state.
> Worth noting, that unlike the western empire, that had the rule of the pope, the Byzantium had separate church and state.
This is an utterly bizarre misinterpretation of Orthodox Christianity. The position of head of the Orthodox Church was in the gift of first the Eastern Roman Emperor and then the Ottoman Emperor until the end of the Ottoman Empire. The Emperor didn’t have total control, the Church was an autonomous power centre of some note but the balance of power between the Church and the temporal power was more similar between Islam and Orthodox lands than the Eastern and Western Churches.
Caesaropapism's chief example is the authority that the Byzantine (East Roman) Emperors had over the Church of Constantinople and Eastern Christianity from the 330 consecration of Constantinople through the tenth century.[4][5] The Byzantine Emperor would typically protect the Eastern Church and manage its administration by presiding over Ecumenical Councils and appointing Patriarchs and setting territorial boundaries for their jurisdiction.[6] The Emperor exercised a strong control over the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and the Patriarch of Constantinople could not hold office if he did not have the Emperor's approval
Caesaropapism is an old understanding of the state of affairs in the Byzantine empire, which has been abandoned by modern scholars.
In fact the link you posted admits so:
"However, Caesaropapism "never became an accepted principle in Byzantium."[10] Several Eastern churchmen such as John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople[6] and Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, strongly opposed imperial control over the Church, as did Western theologians like Hilary of Poitiers and Hosius, Bishop of Córdoba.[11] Saints, such as such as Maximus the Confessor, resisted the imperial power as a consequence of their witness to orthodoxy, . In addition, at several occasions imperial decrees had to be withdrawn as the people of the Church, both lay people, monks and priests, refused to accept inventions at variance with the Church's customs and beliefs. These events show that power over the Church really was in the hands of the Church itself – not solely with the emperor."
You’ve gone from saying that the Orthodox world had separation of Church and State to pointing out that there were periods when the fusion between the two was less than perfect.
If anyone reading wants to understand how weird Western Christendom was compared to comparable civilisations Fukuyama’s Origins of Political Order is a good place to start.
If you’re interested in the relationship between Ummah and state in Islam which is very similar to Church State relationships in the Eastern Roman Empire look at Timur Kuran’s work.
>You’ve gone from saying that the Orthodox world had separation of Church and State to pointing out that there were periods when the fusion between the two was less than perfect.
The separation was having two different sources of power -- as opposed to one, and those sources having relative autonomy.
Whether the two occasionally collaborated, or one occasionally imposed its will on the other and vice versa, is something different than having both religious and state power concentrated into one entity (caesaropapism).
Nothing in historical affairs is "perfect". Separation of church and state in the modern West has not been "perfect" either, even where e.g. the constitution guarantees it.
Modern scholars on Byzantium disagree with that it was an example of caesaropapism -- and your own source tells as much.
You think I’m saying Caesaropapism is true. I never said that, while you did say
> Worth noting, that unlike the western empire, that had the rule of the pope, the Byzantium had separate church and state.
The Wikipedia article on Caesaropapism is enough to disprove that, which is why I used it. The fact that there were disputes between the Emperor and Church does not change the facts that (a) It was usually the Enperor (b) By any modern standard there was no separation of Church and State.
The Saud family do not provide all the imams in their kingdom, nor do they unilaterally decide on doctrine in case of disputes. The ummah have substantial autonomy and can and do argue take part in political discussion.
If you’re willing to call that separation between Church and State we disagree only on labels. Otherwise you’re wrong.
I wasn’t arguing for Caesaropapism, just against separation of Church and State in the Eastern Roman Empire.
This is a really bizzare comment. The early Protestant reformers were all highly educated academics. Luther was a classically educated professor of theology. Calvin was a university educated lawyer who had published commentaries on Seneca (a Stoic philosopher). Philip Melanchthon was a university lecturer on oratory and Latin literature, and published a Greek grammar. It is a bit of a stretch to paint them as simple-minded Germanic folk (especially since Calvin was French). All of them were familiar with the theology of the early church fathers and appeal to it in their writings.
While the pope had plenty of temporal power in the renaissance, it's certainly incorrect to say that any pope ruled anything that could be called the western empire before that. Instead of a strict separation of church and state, the Byzantine emperor Justinian appointed 3 successive popes after re-conquering Italy from the ostrogoths.
Luther certainly was not a simple-minded German folkperson, however in his time the Mass was commonly in Latin, which was not understood by the folk. One of important results of the Reformation was the translation of the Bible and liturgy in the language of the people (this happened in Czech lands already at the time of Jan Hus, but not elsewhere). The Catholic hierarchy was also perceived to be highly corrupt and the teachings not accessible by the common people, so the Reformation aimed to change all that. This is sort of what I feel where the OP is going with his comment.
The new theology caught on as a simplified "back-to-basics" doctrine for the masses, and shed a lot of the subtlety of earlier theology.
Instead of being less indoctrinated protestants became more fundamentalist and less nuanced than Catholics -- which can be seen in a very crude example in today's "bible belt" version of christianity (and even someone like Nietzsche alluded to that kind of influence by Luther).
>It is a bit of a stretch to paint them as simple-minded Germanic folk
Not them (as people), their doctrines (and eventual audience). It was a simplified and fundamentalist approach to theology -- and owes a lot to its translation to common folk language and the political interests of the day for its quick adoption.
>Instead of a strict separation of church and state, the Byzantine emperor Justinian appointed 3 successive popes after re-conquering Italy from the ostrogoths.
That was a power move, in an always tense political climate in the Eastern empire. There were the opposite moves as well -- the patriarch at war with the emperor, criticizing public policy, and so on, depending on the balance of power.
Such incidents aside (across a millennium of state history), they remained two separate domains, not a single unified source of church and state power.
The separation of church and state thing is arguable. I suppose when one of the titles of the Emperor is “Equal Of God”, that does make him somewhat immune from ecclesiastic authority.
There was all kind of tension and power plays between the two kinds of authority. Titles don't reveal everything. Even popular revolts (especially helped by the army), for example, would often dispose of one emperor and get another in power.
The Christianization of the Byzantines was not some crude "Old Testament as literal truth" kind of dogma, but a mix of New Testament ideas with neo-platonism and influences from ancient Greek thought. The early theologians (considered "saints") had all studied those philosophies and had extended knowledge of ancient Greek thought.
Early Christianism was much more subtle than the crude version of Christianism post protestantism (protestantism itself being a fundamentalist movement, to go "back to roots" and back to the book, it's easy to understand why. It was a version of the religion for simple minded Germanic folk at the time that couldn't handle much subtlety).
Homer, to get back to the point, was official reading in Byzantine school education.
Worth noting, that unlike the western empire, that had the rule of the pope, the Byzantium had separate church and state.