"judeo-Christian vs Greco-Roman influences and the American Revol

[sylla]

... the term "Judeo-Christian" itself is somewhat misleading, implying a fusion of Christianity and Judaism.

That term implies Christianity took (stole, in fact) the Jewish theology, beliefs, traditions and sacred texts, an accurate description of the historical facts.

[barca]

... the term "Judeo-Christian" itself is somewhat misleading, implying a fusion of Christianity and Judaism.

That term implies Christianity took (stole, in fact) the Jewish theology, beliefs, traditions and sacred texts, an accurate description of the historical facts.

 

 

The original Christians didn't see themelves as stealing those texts. They viewed those texts as their own.

 

In the aftermath of the Jewish Wars, Christians sought to emphasise that they viewed themselves as the rightfull aires of the Jewish religion. They were hoping to be more accepted by the Romans by pointing out do them that they were a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition. At the same time they wanted to be perceived as separate from the nonchristian Hebrews, because they didn't wan't to be viewed a part of the Jewish revolt.

 

Pontius Pilate is portrayed as an enigmatic and somewhat sympathetic figure in the New Testament. Josephus portrays him as a ruthless enforcer, who did whatever he had to do to put down any rebellion.

 

I believe that some of the recently discovered Gnostic texts also show Pontius Pilate in a different light.

[Nephele]

In the aftermath of the Jewish Wars, Christians sought to emphasise that they viewed themselves as the rightfull aires of the Jewish religion. They were hoping to be more accepted by the Romans by pointing out do them that they were a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition.

 

I don't see how Christians pointing out that "they were a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition" might have impressed the Romans to the extent of making the Romans more accepting than usual of such a religion, considering how new cults were easily accepted into Roman society.

 

I'd thought that it was the atheism of the Christians

[barca]

I don't see how Christians pointing out that "they were a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition" might have impressed the Romans to the extent of making the Romans more accepting than usual of such a religion, considering how new cults were easily accepted into Roman society.

 

I'd thought that it was the atheism of the Christians

[Nephele]

Bart Ehrman explained it this way (See p 255 of Lost Christianities) below

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=URdACxKub...;q=&f=false

 

The Romans were willing to make an exception for the Jews and tolerate their "atheism" as long as they remained loyal. They were allowed exemption because of their long tradition of monotheism. All this changed with the Jewish Rebellions.

 

That's at least his interpretation of what was going on. There may be some scholars who disagree with him.

 

Yes, that excerpt to which you linked confirms what I stated about how the Romans viewed the Christians as being immoral in their refusal to acknowledge other deities, in addition to how the Jews were cut some slack due to their ancient traditions.

 

But, unless I'm missing something, I don't see a mention there of the Christians having attempted to pass themselves off as "a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition" in order to receive the same dispensation from the Romans that the Jews received. If anything, it's my understanding that the Christians viewed themselves as something new and different from Judaism, referring to their Christ as the "new Adam." (With the apparently inclusive term of "Judeo-Christian" being a modern American construct.) Could you perhaps point me to the section in that book that states otherwise?

 

-- Nephele

[barca]

... the Christians viewed themselves as something new and different from Judaism, referring to their Christ as the "new Adam." (With the apparently inclusive term of "Judeo-Christian" being a modern American construct.) Could you perhaps point me to the section in that book that states otherwise?

 

-- Nephele

It's been while since I was looking at Ehrman's ideas, and I'll try to find where he spells it out more specifically.

 

It seems to me he went farther to make the following extrapolation

 

As Sylla pointed out, the early Christians considered themselves a sect of Judaism.

 

The Christians sought exemption from persecution for their "atheism" by claiming their long ancestral tradition. In their minds, they were the true followers of the original faith, and the others had gone astray, and had also proved to be disloyal to Rome.

 

They were saying that 1. They were the true followers of the ancestral tradition and 2. They were not disloyal to Rome since they were not part of the rebellion

 

In this way they were dismissing the Jewish rebellion as a misguided group who were not in touch with the mainstream, and the Christians wanted distance themselves from the rebels.

 

That is at least my recollection of Ehrman's points. When I get a chance I'll go back and review his works in more detail to see if my memory serves me correctly.

[barca]

(With the apparently inclusive term of "Judeo-Christian" being a modern American construct.)

 

Can you explain that?

[barca]

(Before following this path, we should probably verify if the Monotheism Forum is not a better place for this debate).

 

We sort of got off the original path of the discussion. Here is an an article that presents a somewhat idealistic viewpoint of ancient Rome's contribution to America. I'm not sure how well it would be received by the general public.

 

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Political...oad/88424_1.pdf

 

Any thoughts?

[Nephele]

(With the apparently inclusive term of "Judeo-Christian" being a modern American construct.)

 

Can you explain that?

 

By "modern American construct" I meant that the term "Judeo-Christian" was coined in the late 19th or early 20th century (I believe in the U.S., but I haven't got the O.E.D. handy right now) to describe those religious values thought to be common to both Judaism and Christianity that are influential on Western civilization.

 

As for the early Christians in Rome... I can't help but smile a bit as I imagine A. Patricius Romanus looking somewhat askance at his slave, Fervidus (who has only recently heard the Word and converted to the new Christian cult) as Fervidus (descended from a long line of domestic-bred slaves) humbly requests his master's patience and acceptance, explaining how he is "a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition."

 

-- Nephele

[barca]

As for the early Christians in Rome... I can't help but smile a bit as I imagine A. Patricius Romanus looking somewhat askance at his slave, Fervidus (who has only recently heard the Word and converted to the new Christian cult) as Fervidus (descended from a long line of domestic-bred slaves) humbly requests his master's patience and acceptance, explaining how he is "a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition."

 

-- Nephele

 

The Romans certainly didn't accept that viewpoint. Celsus, for example, looked down on them:

 

"...they gather a crowd of slaves, children, women and idlers...... Come to us you who are sinners, you who are fools or children, you who are miserable, and you shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven..."

 

And, as you probably know already, there are numerous similar statements attributed to him.

 

Addendum:

 

We also have to be careful about making generalizations about the early Christians. Prior to the Council of Nicea they were fairly diverse in their beliefs.

 

Jesus Christ himself didn't necessarily see himself as a revolutionary:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/09/opinion/09wills.html

 

Some of the Martyrs were purposely misunderstood so that in their minds they could attain salvation by dying as Christ did.

Edited November 26, 2009 by barca

[Ludovicus]

As for the early Christians in Rome... I can't help but smile a bit as I imagine A. Patricius Romanus looking somewhat askance at his slave, Fervidus (who has only recently heard the Word and converted to the new Christian cult) as Fervidus (descended from a long line of domestic-bred slaves) humbly requests his master's patience and acceptance, explaining how he is "a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition."

 

-- Nephele

 

The Romans certainly didn't accept that viewpoint. Celsus, for example, looked down on them:

 

"...they gather a crowd of slaves, children, women and idlers...... Come to us you who are sinners, you who are fools or children, you who are miserable, and you shall enter into the kingdom of Heaven..."

 

And, as you probably know already, there are numerous similar statements attributed to him.

 

Our Fervidus must have seemed a threat to A. Patricius Romanus and the whole Roman order. There is a passage from Paul in which he states that " neither Greek nor Jew, male or female, slave or free..."

 

While this revolutionary impulse of early Christianity did not survive the Empire much, I can see how it challenged Roman power.

Edited November 26, 2009 by Ludovicus

[barca]

The author ends with two utterly chauvinistic slogans in the form of rhetorical questions:

“Are we willing to follow that path of empire? Do we have the reserves of moral courage that the Romans did to undertake that burden of empire?”

and an absolutely ambiguous statement, open to any ad hoc interpretation:

“And what will be our legacy?”.

 

I interpreted these questions more from a philosophical standpoint. Pat Buchanan asked a similar question. He is a conservative and but not a supporter of the war in Iraq.

 

And here is an interesting review of one of his more controversial books

http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~preston/buchanan.html

It's about 10 years old, but it does address those issues. A more recent book of his, Where the Right Went Wrong addresses the war in Iraq.

Edited November 26, 2009 by barca

[Marcellus Mastrannus]

Thomas Jefferson (founding father) actually described himself as a epicurean.

[barca]

Thomas Jefferson (founding father) actually described himself as a epicurean.

 

Is that why he included "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration?

[Nephele]

As for the early Christians in Rome... I can't help but smile a bit as I imagine A. Patricius Romanus looking somewhat askance at his slave, Fervidus (who has only recently heard the Word and converted to the new Christian cult) as Fervidus (descended from a long line of domestic-bred slaves) humbly requests his master's patience and acceptance, explaining how he is "a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition."

 

-- Nephele

 

Our Fervidus must have seemed a threat to A. Patricius Romanus and the whole Roman order. There is a passage from Paul in which he states that " neither Greek nor Jew, male or female, slave or free..."

 

Precisely, Ludovicus, and that's the point I was attempting to get across with my little scenario of A. Patricius Romanus and his recently converted slave of Latin extraction. It could only seem to Romanus that his slave Fervidus was being somewhat presumptuous, in suddenly claiming to be "a part of a continuum of thousands of years of religious tradition" merely by virtue of having recently converted to the new cult.

 

No doubt in the East the Christian cult might have been tolerated as an off-shoot of Judaism. But to those back in the mother city of Roma, familiar (perhaps to the point of contempt) with the new converts coming primarily from the slave population and lower classes, I can't really see any such claims of religious precedence by the Roman Christians as being taken seriously and earning them the same level of tolerance granted to the Jews. Paul's assertion of neither Greek nor Jew was probably at least one thing that the Romans might agree on, regarding the Christians.

 

Sorry to take this a bit-off topic, folks. I now return you to the interesting discussion of Graeco-Roman influences and the American Revolution.

 

Thomas Jefferson (founding father) actually described himself as a epicurean.

 

Is that why he included "the pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration?

 

I never thought of that before, but that does make sense and ties in quite well!

 

-- Nephele