At 01:28 PM 15-05-1999 -0300, you wrote:
>At 12:09 PM 5/15/99 -0400, Jacquelyn Kestner wrote:
>>Written versus non written really has little to do with the establishment of
>>belief systems. <...>
Very respectfully, are you seriously suggesting that the written
word, especially the bible, has had 'little to do' with the
faith of the Irish, Catholic and Scottish Celts...
including say these well-known Celts from history:
Columba, Patrick, Donatus, Cummian, Cathaldus,
Gibrien, Filan, Ultan, Fridolan, Fergan, Aileran, Columbanus,
Marianus Scotus, Colcu, Alcuin, Cormac MacCullinan, Aidan,
Petrocus, Diuma, Dicuil, Sampson, Magliore, Ciaran, Cuthbert
Agilas, Marinus, Anianas, Magnus, Erhardus, Alto, Virgilius,
<pause for breath>
Theclanus, Fridolinus, Kilian, Colman, Salust, Amor, Arno,
Murchurel, Vimias, Zimius, Martinus, Sedulius, Albinus, Dungall,
Ninian, Brendan, Moluag, Bathan, Donan, Coinneach, Drostan,
Machar, Maelrubba, Ronan
John Scotus Erigena ... should I go on?
Are you suggesting that these few
theologians, martyrs, missionaries, teachers and scholars were
uninfluenced by the written word, or the bible?
Surely these early Christians were active in their faith,
both personally and amongst their communities
and later when the influence of the Roman Church
became stronger, the Christian faith of the ordinary people
was soundly planted,
and so continued in song, prayer, community, faith,
and so on through the bitter religious
and social conflicts that followed the Viking raids,
doctrinal disputes, wars, upheavals, invasions and all the
other 'troubles' down to even the present day....
>>In fact, we have
>>only to look at the Highlands in the early modern period to see that
>>non-literate communities were able to share and propogate their faith
>>without written word. (Neil, help me with the date---wasn't the first Gaelic
>>Bible sometime around 1705?)
> Actually it was 1801 (tho' the first Gaelic New Testament appeared in
>1767). Prior to that, any Bible teaching given to Gaelic children from
>outsiders was required to be conducted in English, with the predictable
>result that very little if any of it was understood. I get the sense from
>reading the old texts (like the "Carmina Gadelica") that Gaelic
>Christianity was more about assimilating the names of key Christian figures
>into a largely pagan belief-system, which is what you'd expect when they
>had almost no
>access to Christian doctrine itself.
mmm what can I say except perhaps read some more?