medieval-religion: Scholarly discussions of medieval religion and culture

>> i beg to differ.  historians, anthropologists, even the church fathers
>> who denounced the subversive ideology, understand "millennial" only to
>> refer to expectations of collective salvation on this earth, in the
>> flesh, a messianic kingdom traditionally lasting 1000 years (hence,
>> millennialism, of which messianism is a subset of millennial movements
>> led by a messianic figure).
>>
> VKI:  I believe your use of the term 'millennial' is a radical one and
> does not
> agree fully with any that I have read.  I have no idea who the
> historians,
> anthropologists and church fathers you refer to are.

the only dramatic change i'm making is to split apocalyptic off from
millennial as a second dimension (temporal) in which these movts take
place.  the standard def. of millennial used by cohn, hobspawm,
worsley, barkun, ehrman, talmon, gry (1904), etc. etc. is an imminent
(ie apocalyptic) expectation of a radical and total transformation of
this world where evil and injustice rule into one of peace fellowship
and abundance.  the millennial, as i say, comes from the fact that in
the xn church, these kinds of beliefs were termed millennial because
they so often sprung out of readings of Rev 20:1-7, and that is the
genealogy of our modern historical and academic discourse.  what's the
problem?

> In general millennialism
> does refer to a 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth, but
> postmillennialists do
> not believe this means that Christ is physically present or that there
> is a
> collective salvation.

do i detect a post-millenialist here?  your definition is either
augustinian (it's on earth, it's already started) or a non-apocalyptic
(gradualist) version of the post-millennialism that gave us modern
science (a centuries long endeavor to create the millennial society,
esp scientific utopianism) among other major components of western
culture.  but in augustine's case, it's not millennial -- there is no
tangible redemption in this world, it is invisible -- and the second,
this gradual notion of building up progress was not even part of the
early xn millennial imagination, indeed i'd say not for the first xn
millennium.

> Your use of 'subversive ideology' referring to
> millennialism, makes it appear that you have an axe to grind.

no. i watch my historical actors grind and use their axes to wipe out
millennialism which, unchecked, can lead to wars in which tens of
millions die (Hong Xiu Quong, 1850-64, 20-35 million).  sometimes such
ruthlessness may seem justified (Hitler), but sometimes it grinds down
whole populations (inquisitorial europe).  the roman decision to
execute Jesus was, from an administrative point of view, obviously
indicated.  anyone who can rouse such enthusiasm is dangerous.

anyway, any ideology that views the present world as evil and about to
be overthrown is subversive, no matter how pacifistic.  before you
assume i have an axe to grind, shouldn't you ask me how i feel about
subversion.  i wd hope my work showed that i held the right kind in
high regard.

> I see nothing
> subversive about traditional postmillennialism,
> but rather find it to be
> consistent with what a lot of people in our day believe--the world
> will get
> better and better.  Even Ronald Reagan believed this and said so.

well, i think i know what you're talking about... the warm version of
earlier red-hot ones, which can give a religious glow to the
(hopefully) steady progress of civil society.  that's fine, and i
probably have the same general orientation to millennialism as you do
-- transformative, mildly active, transition to a demotic millennium,
sword into plowshare et al..  what you've described is an
non-apocalyptic post-millennialism.  all in its due time, do your part,
things will get better.

but i'm surprised to hear that as "traditional".  who wd you say are
the major proponents of such a "post-millennialism"?
if it is now so, my guess is that it hasn't been "traditional" for more
than a couple of generations, and something i'd probably look back in
the early 20th century for its earliest articulations.

> Post-millennialism can be Christian or non-christian.  The Christian
> version
> believes that the world becomes better because of Christ working in
> the world
> through the Holy Spirit and Christian principles.

yes, that divinely inspired people can bring on the millennium.  i
think the earliest example of this is probably the joachite
spirituality of the 13th cn, and i think you see it -- in a ferociously
accelerated form -- in the peace movts.  i think this is a major
contributor to the establishment of civil societies in the west, about
which i hope to write in detail in my third volume entitled, No King
but God: The Commoner's Bible and the Origins of Civil Society in the
West.
>
>> if you think this is splitting hairs, you need to re-enter a world
>> where ecclesiastical authorities held millennialism as taboo, with
>> grave consequences for those who broke that taboo.
>>
> VKI:  I missed this place somewhere in my education.

what did they do to Jesus?  either hypothesis -- the romans because he
was dangerous to public order, as were so many other millennialists
like the zealots, or the jews because they were jealous of his charisma
and scandalized by his antinomianism -- is a millennial analysis of how
people in authority consider millennialists dangerous.  that's what
happens to millennial actors (until modern civil society).  as for
millennial writers, they live a life constantly on the edge of
denunciation.  as for those who fell afoul of the authorities, read
descriptions of john of rupescissa rotting in the papal dungeon,
watching the maggots eat his flesh.
>
>>> They were being apoclyptic specifically because they were
>>> millenialists--today they would be called post-millenial by those who
>>> classify
>>> various millenialists.
>>
>> as one of those who classifies these movts, i permit myself to correct
>> you.  the pax dei was post-millennialist -- ie the millennial kingdom
>> is built by divinely inspired human agents and only after
>> (post-millennium) does xt come again.  wulfstan, aelfric, other
>> churchmen who believed they lived at the apocalyptic moment and who's
>> writings are preserved, are careful to be eschatological (last
>> judgment, heaven and hell, no earthly salvation)not millennial of
>> any variety.
>
> VKI:  As you point out, the term 'post-millennial' refers to the
> belief in Christ's return, as to whether or not that would come before
> the
> millennial kingdom (premillennial), after the millennial kingdom
> postmillennial), or that there is no doctrine of a millennial kingdom
> in the
> Bible (amillennial).  Wulfstan, like other early Christians believed
> that the
> Christian Church Era was in fact the millennium--based on teachings
> like those
> in Revelation.

no. based on augustine's interpretation of Rev. which was a radical
reversal (one scholar called it a pirouette) of the earlier readings.
for aug. the millennium had already started, whereas previously (and
for a long time after) most people baptized into a religion that
promised the millennium in the (near) future.  augustine's
millennialism takes all apocalyptic expectations that would lead
suddenly (violently) to an earthly millennium (something we, in secular
language call a revolution) out of the vision.  all we can expect acc
to him, for apocalyptic events, is the end of the world and the last
judgment.
>>
>> somewhere, i'm not sure where, i have suggested that the pax dei of
>> 1033 was an early manifestation of post-millennialism and the
>> mass-pilgrimage to jerusalem of the same year was either
>> eschatological
>> or pre-millennial (jesus is coming back, be at the center of the
>> cosmos
>> for the resurrection of the dead).  the desire of pilgrims not to
>> return is a good sign of such motivations.
>
> VKI:  Okay, somewhere here we agree.  But we seem to be using the terms
> differently.  Could it be the term, 'posttribulationism' has effected
> your
> understanding of postmillennialism?

i don't follow you.

> I am certain, absolutely, that you are
> right about an early manifestation of postmillennialism, but I see
> many of
> these.

what do you see in xnty before 1000?

> I do not believe that premillennialism showed up this early.

i think premillennialism is the straightforward read of Rev. -- massive
cataclysm precedes the final battle, won by heaven, leading to a
magical millennium.  ultimately pre-millennialism is an apocalyptic
category because it anticipates a wildly convulsive apoc moment
(tribultion/rapture, antichrist, armaggedon) before the millennium.
one's behavior then is more a function of a) how imminent you think the
apocalyptic transformation is and b) what's the best way to prepare,
than where you end up.  in many cases, that can be left ambiguous.
apocalyptic believers are notorious for improvising the future.

you are not apocalyptic.  you like -- why not? -- the values and hopes
for a better world, of post-millennialism, purged of its convulsions
and violent dramas.  makes sense.  just not to everyone.  as they say,
the definition of the relativity of time is: the experience of two
minutes depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on.  for the
most part, the history of millennial outbreaks (ie of apocalyptic
episodes) is mostly about the impatient, urgently impatient.

> I could
> be wrong on this (I said that? Yes, I did.)

i'll say it to.  much of what i write is conjecture.  i welcome the
possibility to make it more informed.

> The postmillennial beliefs of
> this time saw Christ's return bringing in a pax dei as you pointed out
> earlier.

yes, but my sense is not that post-millennial beliefs in the culture
produced the peace movt (that wd make the underground strain i follow
much more powerful than even i imagined),, but that the peace movt's
unexpected success produced a major mutation in the millennial dna in
the west -- what we're calling post-millennialism.  certainly all the
major articulations of what to expect if the apocalypse began involved
the tribulations (esp antichrist) and cosmic transformations.  as i
said, all official ones were eschatological, not millennial.  the peace
movt set in motion a different, bottom-up strain that i think fed at
least the commoner's attraction to the via apostolica from then on.

>  SO, couldn't this all just be aspects of postmillennialism?  I am
> interested in
> why you would say premillennialism.

premillennialism for the pilgrims to jerusalem, not to peace
assemblies.  those who went there with no intention of returning almost
surely went because they expected the cataclysms of Rev and some form
of rapture (glaber's pilgrim begged to be taken up).  the enthusiastic
crowds we hear about at the pax dei most probably thought they were
building a messianic world.  sword into plowshare... and as far as i
can make out, it worked for significant periods (glaber gives four
years after 1033 -- that's a long time to tell yourself your in the
messianic world of perpetual jubilee).
>>
>> r

**********************************************************************
To join the list, send the message: join medieval-religion YOUR NAME
to: [log in to unmask]
To send a message to the list, address it to:
[log in to unmask]
To leave the list, send the message: leave medieval-religion
to: [log in to unmask]
In order to report problems or to contact the list's owners, write to:
[log in to unmask]
For further information, visit our web site:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/medieval-religion.html