The books of the Apocrypha : $b their origin, teaching and contentsOesterley, W. O. E. (William Oscar Emil)
Religion
The books of the Apocrypha : $b their origin, teaching and contents
Oesterley, W. O. E. (William Oscar Emil)
Bible. Apocrypha -- Introductions
It was through the conquests of Alexander that the ways were made
clear and wide for this later form of the Greek language, this
Hellenistic Greek, to find an opening in all directions, and to
be employed as a common means of communication in ever-increasing
measure. Close upon the soldiers followed the merchants, nor did
it take long before colonists came and settled down in the newly
conquered territories; and when once colonies of Greek-speaking
people were established, teachers soon came and took up their
abode in the new settlements. New Greek cities thus arose in which
practically only Greek was spoken; with the employment of this
language it followed in a natural course that the influence of the
Greek spirit, and with it Greek forms of thought and Greek ideals,
made itself felt. In this way Alexander’s ambition was attained;
for his ideal was not only to conquer lands; he desired also that
the hearts and minds of men should be brought under the domination
of that Greek culture which was destined to affect the religion,
the philosophy, the literature and the art of mankind for all time.
Alexander was a worthy pupil of his great teacher, Aristotle.
It is, perhaps, not always sufficiently realized that the Hellenistic
Movement coincided to a large extent with an epoch which was in some
notable respects one of dissolution. In the domain of learning, for
example, the older Greek idea of the possibility of a single mind
assimilating the whole content of knowledge had been discarded; for
it had come to be seen that the sum of knowledge in its manifold
ramifications was far too great to be acquired by any one man,
however learned, and that specialists must devote themselves to
different departments of learning. Hence arose the grammarian as
well as the rhetorician, the historian as well as the mathematician,
while the philosopher occupied his special position.[7] The scholar,
therefore, who desired to gain some insight into more than one of the
various branches of knowledge no longer went, as in earlier days,
to one teacher who was supposed to possess encyclopædic learning,
but he studied under a grammarian in order to learn grammar, under
a rhetorician in order to learn rhetoric, under a philosopher in
order to learn philosophy, and so on. This newer system had already
forced itself to the front some time before the actual period with
which we are dealing; there are clear indications in the methods
and teaching of Plato, to say nothing of Aristotle and his pupils,
of an increasing tendency of making wider differentiation between
the various sciences, and of dividing them up into their various
groups. Philosophy stands alone; the exact sciences go each along
the line of their own development. What was thus prepared by these
great philosophers and their followers was acted upon and greatly
developed during the Hellenistic period proper. Nowhere was this
more the case than in Alexandria, the city of Alexander’s founding.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account