Maurice's Timeline - An Extra Book In the New Testament

Interesting idea. Consider me subscribed.



Is it the collection of four chant which I might know under the name "Psalms of Salomon"?
Which today are considered as originating from a Pharisee sphere?
(I remember a verse along the lines "the sinner falls, and curses himself ... the righteous man falls, and rises again")

Many thanks for your comments.

No these are separate from the psalms of Solomon ...

See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odes_of_Solomon

and the text is here:

http://www.carm.org/odes-of-solomon



There is a difference between what later generations dared to use as a vindication, and the (largely obscure) process of canon forming itself.

Most likely the New Testament consists exactly of those books which were read most frequently in service in the majority of communities.
Intriguingly, this selection seemed to converge in distant and largely independent cities! Otherwise, the notion 'canon' would be much more problematic or even non-existent ...
Using a piece of scripture in service implies its acceptance as "Word of God" to some extent, even if not in so many words and without theological nitpicking.


Moreover, many Biblical books are attributed not to Apostles, but to disciples of Apostles.
And to be honest, to imagine that Hebrews was written by Paul seems a faint excuse for having it in ...

I tend to agree

This having been said, there is little reason why Christian communities should deem that book(let) so precious. It is plausible that many chanted these Psalms in service - but to be treated like other New-Testament books there should by some reference to Jesus Christ - in a more direct way than in, say, the canonical Psalms ...

The Messiah and the Son are mentioned in a few places, for example Ode 24:

1 The Dove fluttered over the Messiah, because He was her head; and she sang over Him and her voice was heard:


Hm, I wonder what a few additional scripture verses saying something similar to dozens of others would move ...

Well, in this timeline Emperor Maurice (and his successors) sees these words aimed directly at him:

Ode 17 1 I was crowned by my God: my crown is living: ....... 11 And I went over all my bond men to loose them; that I might not leave any man bound or binding: 12 And I imparted my knowledge without grudging: and my prayer was in my love: 13 And I sowed my fruits in hearts,

He saw in this that he was instructed by God to end slavery..... and to tell others.
 
Alright. I like your idea of changing something crucial at the heart of Christianity without turning Orthodoxy upside-down, and even without easy-to-grip consequences for theology ...
 
Lecture 8

Lecture 8 - The Papal Encyclical "In Nomine Domini"

Popular English operettas have romanticised Constantinople in the 7th century as a place of grateful freedmen and jolly citizens, as in the lyrics "Rule Rhomania, Rhomania Rules the Waves, Romans Never Never Ever Will Be Slaves".

In contrast Parisian historians have portrayed the situation as one in which freed slaves were merely given the freedom to starve.

However we will consider here the actual historical picture.

This lecture centres on the Papal Bull "In Nomine Domini" issued in AD 614 by His Holiness Boniface IV, which gave slaves the rights to be baptised, receive the Eucharist, marry, and receive proper rites at funerals. This was a significant part of the efforts by Emperor Maurice and his son Theodosius III to eliminate slavery within the Empire.

We will also examine how Maurice's own four main decrees :

  • banning the sale and inheritance of slaves,
  • providing manumission for all imperial slaves,
  • buying up some male slaves who would then serve in the Army on quarter-pay
  • and allowing all other slaves be granted a 'day of rest' on which they could work for payment
actually worked in practice, and how different elements in the Empire reacted to the evangelical zeal of Maurice and Theodosius in this matter.
 
Last edited:
the various German and Italian dialects.

To hand in a little nitpick (as early as students usually do with their homework):

The notion of a "German language", which is implied by your terminology "German dialects", is intimately related to the establishment of a common German identity; and this depends to a large degree on Otto the Great. If you cancel Otto's and his time's achievements - which is highly plausible after such a long time - the the Roman term "Germany" and "Germans" would most probably not be applied to any contemporary people IMHO. We would - for instance - have Frankish, Saxon, and Allamanian-Bavarian-Langobardian, the last onee under one of these three names.

For Italy, these arguments do not apply ...
 
To hand in a little nitpick (as early as students usually do with their homework):

The notion of a "German language", which is implied by your terminology "German dialects", is intimately related to the establishment of a common German identity; and this depends to a large degree on Otto the Great. If you cancel Otto's and his time's achievements - which is highly plausible after such a long time - the the Roman term "Germany" and "Germans" would most probably not be applied to any contemporary people IMHO. We would - for instance - have Frankish, Saxon, and Allamanian-Bavarian-Langobardian, the last onee under one of these three names.

For Italy, these arguments do not apply ...

An interesting point , thank you.

Otto, or his equivalent in his timeline, won't get anywhere near Rome. Though he might be able to unify Germany.

You may well be right. Would Saxon and Bavarian be mutually intelligible?

However bear in mind that there are a lot more 'successful' languages in this timeline than in ours, and peole have to group them somehow. What someone in our timeline might call distinct languages, someone in this timeline might call 'dialects'. Particularly if they are English.
 
This lecture centres on the Papal Bull "In Nomine Domini" issued in AD 614 by His Holiness Boniface IV, which allowed slaves to be baptised, receive the Eucharist, marry, and receive proper funeral rites.​

:confused:When did they lose those rights iTTL? Remember that much of the early Christian church was slaves, so there could not have been such a ban in place (early on)... It SOUNDS to me like you're confusing Roman slavery with American slavery...
 
[/LEFT]
:confused:When did they lose those rights iTTL? Remember that much of the early Christian church was slaves, so there could not have been such a ban in place (early on)... It SOUNDS to me like you're confusing Roman slavery with American slavery...

According to "Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire" by Marcus Louis Rautman, they didn't gain most of these rights until the 11th and 12th century IOTL.....

But I've worded it badly. I'm sure they were sometimes allowed these things in earlier history , what I should have said that they they had the legal right to these things.

I will amend this, thank you.
 
According to "Daily Life in the Byzantine Empire" by Marcus Louis Rautman, they didn't gain most of these rights until the 11th and 12th century IOTL.....
Hmmm... Very odd. I wish that Rautman had expanded on his comment, because he specifically references the New Testament (when they had those rights - within the church), and then jumps several centuries.

But, yes, I see where your comment came from. The craziest parts of TLs are often the OTL parts...
 
Would Saxon and Bavarian be mutually intelligible?

The point of minimal mutual intelligibility between Saxon and Bavarian may have been reached around 600 - 700 AD IOTL. I would describe it as "not really mutually intelligible, but easy to learn". Closer than modern Russian and Polish, but further apart than modern German and Dutch, or (arguably) modern Danish and Norwegian.
The German integration, which turned "Saxon" into "Lower German" between the 9th and 12th century was largely driven by politics and commerce, and has changed some aspects really deep in that language, comparably to what Norman French and Danish have done to English. A lot depends on the cultural, political, and economic contacts of a tribe/people to determine the fate of their language.


However bear in mind that there are a lot more 'successful' languages in this timeline than in ours, and people have to group them somehow. What someone in our timeline might call distinct languages, someone in this timeline might call 'dialects'. Particularly if they are English.

You're right, and clustering is most likely to follow political borders. So it's up to you ...


And of course, to a certain degree my comment is pointless as other English words would read different as well ... in case there is such a thing as an English language. ;-)
 
Last edited:
A completely different thought, now that I have browsed about the Odes:

As far as I have understood, the Odes were frequently circulated in combination with the Psalms of Salomon. perhaps that would prompt at least some local church to include them into their version of the Old Testament. Just as the Ethiopian Church has included Enoch literature in their Bible because of the quotes and allusions in the Epistle of Jude.
 
the Byzantines/Christians liked revoking Roman rights - look at the loss of rights for women, for example.

I thought Roman women didn't have any rights? Except as a property of their Pater Familias.
Women's rights were mainly a "barbarian" concept of the Gauls, Germans, etc
 
A completely different thought, now that I have browsed about the Odes:

As far as I have understood, the Odes were frequently circulated in combination with the Psalms of Salomon. perhaps that would prompt at least some local church to include them into their version of the Old Testament. Just as the Ethiopian Church has included Enoch literature in their Bible because of the quotes and allusions in the Epistle of Jude.


That's possible - but is unlikely to have much impact on the timeline....
 
Top