While I don't often agree with the "Answers in Genesis" people, I found
this interesting. They quote Daniel Boorstin, in his book
The Discoverers:
"A Europe-wide phenomenon of scholarly amnesia... afflicted the continent from AD 300 to at least 1300. During those centuries Christian faith and dogma suppressed the useful image of the world that had been so slowly, so painfully, and so scrupulously drawn by ancient geographers."1
Which is a rather odd thing to say. Just a few months back my history of science prof told the class that the majority of learned Christians in the medieval period believed in a round earth, based on their reading of classical texts. Jeffrey Burton Russell examines the issue in his 1997 book
Inventing the Flat Earth, which he
summarizes here. A choice morsel:
"A few—at least two and at most five--early Christian fathers denied the sphericality of earth by mistakenly taking passages such as Ps. 104:2-3 as
geographical rather than metaphorical statements. On the other side tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, and scientists took the spherical view throughout the early, medieval, and modern church. The point is that no educated person believed otherwise. Historians of science have been proving this point for at least 70 years (most recently Edward Grant, David Lindberg, Daniel Woodward, and Robert S. Westman), without making notable headway against the error. Schoolchildren in the US, Europe, and Japan are for the most part being taught the same old nonsense."
James Hannam has also written
a brief but revealing account of the myth and the reality it obscures here. Of Boorstin he writes:
"His bias shows badly when he castigates Christians for thinking the world was flat when they did not and then praises the erudition of Chinese geographers who actually did believe it."
3 comments:
I can remember trying to read The Discoverers back when it was all the rage, and being quickly and completely disenchanted. My recollection is that he makes numerous errors of fact, similar to the one you mention here, in the first few pages. I don't know why he's still held up to such accolade. Either a poor scholar or a dishonest one, in my view.
I found Boorstin in The Discovers to be equally disparaging of anyone who holds up the progress of discovery. He will praise and demonize Christianity in equal turns depending on where he finds it in relation to this main concern of his – just as he praises and demonizes many others. This is where his real bias is. Then again, it is also the stated purpose of his book.
Now, he does massage the facts too vigorously sometimes but I've never let a strict adherence to the facts prevent me from enjoying something. :)
Boorstin I think falls into the same trap many writers do who are not specialists about what they write: accepting received wisdom that is seriously out of date. Much of what people think they know about the Middle Ages comes from the 19th century, and most of that was distorted by the needs of nationalism. As part of this, anything that could disparage the Catholic Church and the Catholic powers to the South was highlighted.
And when the facts weren't there, they were invented, like the story of Columbus being blocked by Catholic 'experts' who thought the world was flat. It was a story made up by a Protestant historian to blacken the rep of the Church.
BTW, I spent a summer in a seminar taught by Jeffrey Russell. A real scholar, a gentleman, and a devout Christian. He was working on the book about the flat earth story at the time. He had just completed his four volume study of evil! I would recommend you read anything he has written.
Post a Comment