Rome in transition

[juantoo3]

What is truth? What are you specifically intending with the word "truth?" There are so many truths it is impossible to guess which one you mean.

That post is 13 years old.
I don't think that theistic scholarship is the only factor in determining truth.

And yet still accurate and relevant. And since historic scholarship formed the major basis for this essay, I think the fundamental truth the essay highlights is not particularly theistic.

The Pharisees claimed that "they knew it all", as do many people throughout time.

So do many people even today. It seems to be especially common among those with a vested interest in promoting a religion.

In fact, the only religion I've heard/read/seen say anything remotely otherwise is Buddhism. And for purposes here I include Atheism as a religion, it is most certainly a Dawkian meme.

To wax philosophical for a moment, the reason you will not hear me state that I know it all is because it seals the mind. A closed mind cannot grasp, cannot learn new things, cannot see the forest for the trees.

Faith is a personal thing between ourselves and God. As Jesus, peace be with him, has said .. we need to make many sacrifices to serve God .. it is not about what we like and don't like .. it is about loving God more than ANYTHING .. including our own relatives and nation.

Agreed, but that path may wander in many different directions. A loving G-d clearly intended no other way, as evidenced by the magnificent creation all around us.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..since historic scholarship formed the major basis for this essay, I think the fundamental truth the essay highlights is not particularly theistic.

History plays a part in determining "the nature of the divine". Scriptures are part of history.
We all make our own conclusions from our studies .. and God knows why we say what we say.

Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries.

Your 'essay' shows that it is unlikely that what the majority of Christians believe is correct.
I have no problem with that .. argumentum ad populum is fallacious.
i.e. a creed must be true because many or most people believe it

The same goes for ANY belief.

 

[juantoo3]

Theology is the systematic study of the nature of the divine and, more broadly, of religious belief. It is taught as an academic discipline, typically in universities and seminaries.

Perhaps, but I've always considered Theology a systematic study of scripture from a religious perspective, particularly if not exclusively from a Christian perspective. Hence why I asked what you meant by "truth."

I find it generally more pragmatic and functional to follow Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria." Typically, science addresses questions of "how?" and religion addresses questions of "why?," and trying to use one to address the other only results in talking past each other. That is the reason this discussion was built on the history board, not the religion board. But equally, using another religion to address the "science" (inasmuch as history can be) only reverts to talking past each other...therefore my question.

BTW, this thread would equate better with a history of religion (specifically Christianity) or anthropology of religion, both of which also taught in universities.

History plays a part in determining "the nature of the divine". Scriptures are part of history.

I am hoping the non-overlapping magisteria helps explain why I feel the need to clarify what you are getting at. From my perspective it appears you are attempting to use science to justify faith, and/or faith to justify science. It doesn't work, I've tried for years. It doesn't help that the subject at hand skirts between the two magisteria.

 

[RJM]

History plays a part in determining "the nature of the divine". Scriptures are part of history.
We all make our own conclusions from our studies .. and God knows why we say what we say.



Your 'essay' shows that it is unlikely that what the majority of Christians believe is correct.
I have no problem with that .. argumentum ad populum is fallacious.
i.e. a creed must be true because many or most people believe it

The same goes for ANY belief.

You have no pictures in your home, right? Only Arabic Quran scripts framed on the wall? Michaelangelo, Van Gogh, Carvaggio are rejected? Photography is rejected? Any representation of any animal or human form is rejected? Even pictures of flowers are rejected?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I find it generally more pragmatic and functional to follow Gould's "non-overlapping magisteria.

..in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences adopted a similar stance. Its publication Science and Creationism stated that "Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

This sort of attitude stems from ignorance, imo.
Ignorance ON BOTH SIDES. Scientists see that many religious claims are proved scientifically wrong, and so-called "creationists" often have questionable creeds, understanding religion as a "literal God's word".
This gives the false impression that religion and science contradict each other.
They should not!

From my perspective it appears you are attempting to use science to justify faith, and/or faith to justify science. It doesn't work, I've tried for years.

Not at all. You might feel that a belief doesn't need justifying and a "gut choice" is acceptable, but I don't.
As I said recently in another thread, it is fine to believe something that is unlikely due to historical evidence, but we need a good reason for doing so. How are YOU suggesting a person can differentiate between truth and falsehood?

 

[muhammad_isa]

You have no pictures in your home, right? Only Arabic Quran scripts framed on the wall? Michaelangelo, Van Gogh, Carvaggio are rejected? Photography is rejected? Any representation of any animal or human form is rejected? Even pictures of flowers are rejected?

This has nothing to do with the subject.
Furthermore, there is nothing in the Qur'an saying that photography is rejected.

 

[juantoo3]

This gives the false impression that religion and science contradict each other.

With all due respect, I can only believe you misunderstand.

I will repeat for emphasis, but I don't know offhand how better to explain: Science answers "how" questions, Religion answers "why" questions. The questions are very different, and the outlooks of each are very different. The expectations of each are very different. And the foundations are very different.

Not at all. You might feel that a belief doesn't need justifying and a "gut choice" is acceptable, but I don't.
As I said recently in another thread, it is fine to believe something that is unlikely due to historical evidence, but we need a good reason for doing so. How are YOU suggesting a person can differentiate between truth and falsehood?

I honestly do not understand how you can reach that conclusion, presuming you have read my work. There's no purely "gut choice" in ANY of my beliefs, academic or spiritual.

And once again, I ask politely but firmly, what do YOU mean by "truth?" Until you give this one answer I've asked now 3 times, I cannot proceed.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There's no purely "gut choice" in ANY of my beliefs, academic or spiritual..

I never said that there was. I said "we", as in one needs a good reason.
I'm not quite sure what your beliefs are .. your signature gives little away

And once again, I ask politely but firmly, what do YOU mean by "truth?" Until you give this one answer I've asked now 3 times, I cannot proceed.

I use it in the sense of "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality".
That God exists, is a given .. I know it can't be proved, but that is neither here nor there.

We can make conclusions on the probability of something being true. We are also able to
subjectively confirm the truth of something through experience.
i.e. the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

A person with knowledge can be agnostic, as can a person without knowledge have a strong faith.
"truth" is not about somebody's convictions .. it is universal.

 

[juantoo3]

I use it in the sense of "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality".
That God exists, is a given .. I know it can't be proved, but that is neither here nor there.

That would be axiomatic, in a self-contained religious sense, but certainly not truth in the scientific sense of knowledge of principles by observation and deduction. Which only serves to illustrate my point, Science and Religion answer very different questions.

My personal belief of G-d or in G-d is irrelevent. He cannot be proven, therefore cannot be invoked to establish scientific proof.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That would be axiomatic, in a self-contained religious sense, but certainly not truth in the scientific sense of knowledge of principles by observation and deduction.

That is dishonest.
We are not talking about the question of whether God exists.
We are talking about the question of a creed being likely to be correct or not.

Scientific facts are also about probability. That is why one minute scientists might say "butter is bad for you"
and another minute say that "butter is good for you".

My personal belief of G-d or in G-d is irrelevent.

I see. You just "enjoy" discussing.
Well, you should not get upset if somebody disagrees with you, in that case.

 

[juantoo3]

Who's upset? Not I.

We're discussing the history of Christianity.

I couldn't help but notice how upset some persons were when I requested a similar study of Islam.

But I'm not concerned about swaying your opinion one way or the other. You're not swaying mine.



PS, its actually brutally honest (warts and all).

 

[juantoo3]

Donation of Constantine, so I don't forget. Thank you Bobx.

"The Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the 4th-century emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy.[1]

In many of the existing manuscripts, including the oldest, the document bears the title Constitutum domini Constantini imperatoris.[2] The Donation of Constantine was included in the 9th-century Pseudo-Isidorean decretals. Lorenzo Valla, an Italian Catholic priest and Renaissance humanist, is credited with first exposing the forgery with solid philological arguments in 1439–1440,[3] although the document's authenticity had been repeatedly contested since 1001.[1]"

Wiki Donation of Constantine - Wikipedia

 

[Thomas]

I just checked Valla (of whom I did not know) – was ready to read we burnt him at the stake! (A humanist, challenging papal authority).

Apparently not. A rocky career – seems he was a spikey fellow – ended up in Rome as a papal secretary.

Died 1457 and buried beneath a monumental bronze behind the altar of Saint John Lateran. In 1576, Pope Gregory XIII, a staunch believer in the Donation, had the tomb destroyed and, presumably, his bones scattered ...

He was put on trial before the Inquisition in 1444, but avoided prison by the intervention of his powerful employer, Alfonso V of Aragon.

In his critical study of Jerome's official Latin translation of the Bible, Valla argued that the practice of penance rested on Jerome's use of the Latin word paenitentia (penance) for the Greek metanoia, which he believed more accurately translated as "repentance." Valla's work was praised by later critics of the Church's penance and indulgence ...

from wiki entry on Valla.

It seems to me that perhaps more should be made of the discussion of metanoia, its meaning, but I can see that having a certain undesired impact on the Latin institution.

 

[juantoo3]

I just checked Valla (of whom I did not know) – was ready to read we burnt him at the stake! (A humanist, challenging papal authority).

Apparently not. A rocky career – seems he was a spikey fellow – ended up in Rome as a papal secretary.

Died 1457 and buried beneath a monumental bronze behind the altar of Saint John Lateran. In 1576, Pope Gregory XIII, a staunch believer in the Donation, had the tomb destroyed and, presumably, his bones scattered ...

He was put on trial before the Inquisition in 1444, but avoided prison by the intervention of his powerful employer, Alfonso V of Aragon.

In his critical study of Jerome's official Latin translation of the Bible, Valla argued that the practice of penance rested on Jerome's use of the Latin word paenitentia (penance) for the Greek metanoia, which he believed more accurately translated as "repentance." Valla's work was praised by later critics of the Church's penance and indulgence ...

from wiki entry on Valla.

It seems to me that perhaps more should be made of the discussion of metanoia, its meaning, but I can see that having a certain undesired impact on the Latin institution.

Indeed, however Valla was not the first Catholic monk humanist, by the same Wiki reference. Needless to say, that alone caught me off guard. Desecration of the man's tomb seems to me an excessive overreaction, but that kind of thing was pretty common back then. I'm reminded of Constantine exercising Damnatio Memoriae regarding Maxentius, itself not new as that had been done before by other Roman Emperors.

Valla's was not the first challenge to the authenticity of the Donations, he was the one to present the most concise objection to that point put forward, and it was shortly after supported by several other linguistic scholars. Even so, the Donations had their adherents for another couple hundred years, staunchly digging in their heels. And there is no denying the political motivations for touting the Donations to begin with.

Valla's literary objections were composed of a good bit more than the one word. There were also linguistic anachronisms, verbiage that was not accurate to the period supposedly written. This too is expanded on in the Wiki.

 

[juantoo3]

The guy who wrote the Gospel of Luke also probably penned Acts. If the story in Luke is more a liturgical and literary work than a historical account, how much more so is it's epilogue in the Acts of the Apostles? Since it's likely that the Acts material is to some degree mythology, what exactly do we know about Paul strictly from his own work? Try separating the two. It's really hard because almost everything about the imagery we've built up around Paul comes from the Acts story, and the point of the Acts story is to build this legend of the lives and glorious deaths of the Apostles of the Round Table. Paul was worked into that legend. He was shoe horned, posthumously no doubt, into that pantheon of Patriarchs by Luke the Gospelier. That surely suggest politics, but I don't think, like Maccoby, that it suggests control by Paulinist editors of the final shape of the Gospels.

Chris

post 89: Rome in transition

Going back through this thread because I am heavily invested, I see again this post by @China Cat Sunflower. I haven't heard from Chris in years, I hope he and his family are doing well. This is from 2008, here we are now in 2024, so what...16 years later if my math isn't screwed up. (Good grief, is this thread that old???)

Going back over this and trying to place myself in the time. Chris is correct, what is written is not a history lesson, it is a morality lesson,

Jesus, Yashua or Yeshua, also Joshua, had departed his apostles, they were now on their own. No New Testament yet, the first book wasn't written for another 20 years or so. Jesus had previously taught (possibly ordered) his apostles to go out and evangelize. So we know headquarters was Jerusalem, and these guys were functional Jews. They were doing what a good Jew would do.

The Mediterranean is a bustle of economic activity, there's boats back and forth quite literally from the far side of England to Lebanon and Israel. From time to time "we" find their wrecks. Metals, foodstuffs, slaves, likely gold and other valuables for payment...even sometimes armies, and pirates. Various seaside ports became important economic hubs. In these economic hubs which are governed in greater and lesser degree (mostly greater) by Rome, the indigenous peoples of the surrounding areas were of different ethnicities, but most by far were heavily imbued with Greek - language, thought, philosophy. Money was involved, and at the risk of stereotyping the Jews were in on that, and each of these economic hubs had a Jewish community. These are the places that were safe havens for Paul, and from there he could reach out into surrounding communities.

I don't know why any of the other apostles' missionary ministries did not pan out. Is it Thomas I heard rumor in India? Santiago - St. James - is said to have been in the Spanish Pyrenees. Other than that, we only know by history that James was murdered in Jerusalem just prior to the Romans marching in and destroying the Temple. There is an intriguing and persistent rumor, supported by the Vatican, that the first Christian Missionary Church was in Cornwall, England, founded by Jesus himself. SW England had the first Christian Community. The Old Wattle Church was surrounded and protected by the Glastonbury Abbey until it was all destroyed by Henry VIII.

The Basque people too, have their own unique Christian history.

We know so little about the fates of the other apostles, it is usually shrugged off as "most were killed off," and that's about it except for John. John was exiled at an old age to a penal colony on Patmos Island. Of the others I hear nothing.

Even regarding Peter...who has an entire Basilica named after him...it is curiously silent in the historical record as to how he died. The unofficial official Church stance as I am given to understand is that Peter was also crucified, just after Paul, and for some reason insisted on being crucified upside down. I'd be happy to see something to back that up.

I have argued before that if it had not been for the effort of Paul, Christianity would be a footnote. Further, it would be required to first be Jewish before one could become Christian.

Paul was a tentmaker and earned his keep while travelling; and Paul had status, being able to go back and forth between these economic centers he was fluent not only in his native Aramaic/Hebrew, but also in Greek (the language of commerce...and the Greek Septuagint had already been around for a couple hundred years by then), and because he was a Roman citizen, no doubt he was conversant in Latin. I don't think this multilingual situation is unique - at the time it was probably par for the course, especially for the merchants and undoubtedly for the wealthy merchants.

We are told, and no reason not to believe, the travels of Paul are accepted as real under scholarship. We know there are Christians in Rome in 64AD, same year Paul died, Rome caught fire and "Nero fiddled," blamed it on the Christians and killed a lot of them off. So yeah, if you are a Christian at this moment in time, in someplace other than Rome, your ears are perking up and you're watching around a good bit more closely expecting the axe to fall at any time.

I'd have to follow up, but the Diaspora, the mass forced migration in the wake of Bar Kochba, the Jews would have scattered to these far flung Jewish communities. I don't see why some might not have gone to places they didn't previously know by circumstance, but by and large I would expect the Jewish economic zone communities would have swollen. Whether the Jews were immediately chased farther afield I don't know, but I doubt it because trade continued. Even so, there would be an intense suspicion in the air, not only for Jews...but for "Jews light" only recently known as Christians.

We know in general terms Rome was tolerant of other religions, not usually a problem as other religions of locals tended to correspond well with what the Romans officially had, other than perhaps sacrifice to the Emperor (as a god). Judaism was granted special exemption because theirs was an ancient religion. Christians on the other hand, were viewed as some new cult, often accused of sacrificing and eating a human...which apparently was too much for the delicate stomachs of Romans, the same Romans who enjoyed a weekend afternoon watching paid soldiers dispatch hapless petty criminals for sport.

 

[juantoo3]

It was also not uncommon for various Pagan traditions to bounce ideas off one another, so there were some amalgams of Latin/Greek/Egyptian/Persian/Iberian and who knows what else religions and philosophies, and into this mix is thrust a major Jewish migration and simultaneously a smaller but increasingly influential Christian migration as well.

I still haven't pinpointed the hard separation, but in previous discussion with Thomas I seem to recall there was already friction between Judaism and Christianity prior to Bar Kochba, possibly even closer to the time of the Temple razing. As the Jews pushed the Christians away (and vice-versa), there was nowhere else to go but into the arms of the pagans that surrounded them.

History is never static, it is a snapshot along a continuum.

Looking at a list of early Church fathers it appears that even among the first three (Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp), one has scholarly debate surrounding him...

Polycarp of Smyrna (69-155AD) "who was a disciple of John." Smyrna is in modern Turkey. I presumed this meant the apostle John. Apparently there is another contender, John the Presbyter, who is credited by Eusebius of Ceasarea with writing at least some of the Johannine books in the New Testament.

Clement of Rome is listed first (nothing political about that, I'm sure ), and Ignatius of Antioch (in far Southern Turkey)

Antioch "was also the main center of Hellenistic Judaism at the end of the Second Temple period" (i.e., Bar Kochba and the Diaspora) per Wiki

This Wiki is eye opening: Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia

Philo of Alexandria defended Judaism as a monotheistic philosophy that anticipated the tenets of Hellenistic philosophy. He also popularized metaphors such as "circumcision of the heart" to Greek audiences.[15]

Hellenization was evident in the religious Jewish establishment:

...'Joshua' became 'Jason' or 'Jesus' [Ἰησοῦς]. The Hellenic influence pervaded everything, and even in the very strongholds of Judaism it modified the organization of the state, the laws, and public affairs, art, science, and industry, affecting even the ordinary things of life and the common associations of the people [...] The inscription forbidding strangers to advance beyond a certain point in the Temple was in Greek; and was probably made necessary by the presence of numerous Jews from Greek-speaking countries at the time of the festivals.

 

[juantoo3]

So the "progressive" Jews were already amalgamating with Greco-Roman ideologies, why would it seem strange for the Christians to do the same?

Indeed, from this perspective, and looking at the Church Fathers, it would be more intriguing if there was not some form of amalgamation.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) was the first member of the church of Alexandria whose writings have survived, and was one of its most distinguished teachers. He saw wisdom in Greek philosophy and sought to harmonize it with Christian doctrine. Clement opposed Gnosticism, and yet used some of its terminology; for instance, he valued gnosis that with communion for all people could be held by common Christians. He developed a Christian Platonism[8] and has been described by scholars as "the founder of what was to become the great tradition of Christian philosophical theology."[21] Due to his teaching on salvation and divine judgement in passages such as Paedagogus 1.8 and Stromata 7.2, Clement is often regarded as one of the first Christian universalists.[22] Like Origen, he arose from the Catechetical School of Alexandria and was well-versed in pagan and biblical literature.[8]

emphasis mine, -jt3

While Paul's detractors want to blame Paul for the paganization of the Church, this was a matter that was well underway even before Paul was born. The amalgamation that took place is what saved the fledgling Church from being steamrolled and pushed aside, as happened with the Nazareans and Ebionites. This amalgamation expedited the assimilation and access into the greater pagan community. It wasn't Paul's fault personally, it was the accepted (at least by a significant percentage) situation on the ground at the time. And when we see such an early Church Father as Clement sympathetic to Greek (read that as "pagan") philosophy it really isn't any wonder the two merged. They were merged by peoples who were comfortable merging philosophies accommodating others who merged out of dire necessity.

 

[juantoo3]

Jerome of Stridon and the Latin Vulgate

"Jerome was a scholar at a time when that statement implied a fluency in Greek. He knew some Hebrew when he started his translation project, but moved to Jerusalem to strengthen his grip on Jewish scripture commentary. A wealthy Roman aristocrat, Paula, funded Jerome's stay in a monastery in the nearby city of Bethlehem, where he settled next to the Church of the Nativity – built half a century prior on orders of Emperor Constantine over what was reputed to be the site of the Nativity of Jesus – and he completed his translation there. He began in 382 by correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament, commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina. By 390 he turned to translating the Hebrew Bible from the original Hebrew, having previously translated portions from the Septuagint which came from Alexandria. He believed that the mainstream Rabbinical Judaism had rejected the Septuagint as invalid Jewish scriptural texts because of what were ascertained as mistranslations along with its Hellenistic heretical elements.[c] He completed this work by 405. Prior to Jerome's Vulgate, all Latin translations of the Old Testament were based on the Septuagint, not the Hebrew. Jerome's decision to use a Hebrew text instead of the previous-translated Septuagint went against the advice of most other Christians, including Augustine, who thought the Septuagint inspired. Modern scholarship, however, has sometimes cast doubts on the actual quality of Jerome's Hebrew knowledge. Many modern scholars believe that the Greek Hexapla is the main source for Jerome's "iuxta Hebraeos" (i.e. "close to the Hebrews", "immediately following the Hebrews") translation of the Old Testament.[22] However, detailed studies have shown that to a considerable degree Jerome was a competent Hebraist.[23]" -Wiki: Jerome - Wikipedia
emphasis mine, -jt3

See also Vulgate - Wikipedia

 

[juantoo3]

Earlier I said:

...Valla was not the first Catholic monk humanist, by the same Wiki reference. Needless to say, that alone caught me off guard.

I found this:

This (Renaissance humanism...note the lower case) first began in Italy and then spread across Western Europe in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries.

wiki: Renaissance humanism - Wikipedia

The 95 theses on the door of the Church in Wittenburg was in 1517, so the "Christians" were by default Catholic.

There's this:

Scholasticism was a medieval school of philosophy that employed a critical organic method of philosophical analysis predicated upon the Aristotelian 10 Categories. Christian scholasticism emerged within the monastic schools that translated scholastic Judeo-Islamic philosophies, and "rediscovered" the collected works of Aristotle. Endeavoring to harmonize his metaphysics and its account of a prime mover with the Latin Catholic dogmatic trinitarian theology, these monastic schools became the basis of the earliest European medieval universities, and thus became the bedrock for the development of modern science and philosophy in the Western world. Scholasticism dominated education in Europe from about 1100 to 1700.[1] The rise of scholasticism was closely associated with these schools that flourished in Italy, France, Portugal, Spain and England.[2]

Scholasticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[juantoo3]

I'd never heard of Aristotelian 10 Categories. Definitely more involved than what I want to get into right now.

Scholasticism basically led right into the current "science is the ONLY way to look at the world" attitude that prevails, at least in the West.

This doesn't surprise, I've traced the history of science back through medieval alchemy, and I suspect its roots, or at least a cousin, in Taoist alchemy.

I keep coming back in my mind to bananabrain's response to bobx. tilting at windmills: a response to 'redaction theory'
also: Tilting at windmills redux

There's more to sacred texts than critical dissection. Poetic license? There is more than the sum of its parts. I think those that dissect for the purpose of tearing down, or tearing apart, fail to take into consideration the purpose they were written, or certainly no more than lip service. I think that is what bb was trying his level best to get across to bobx, and bob simply wasn't having any of it...and the tone often was that of authority, intended or not, and ultimately bob never moved from his position.

What I took was that bob...a well lettered academic who was deeply familiar with the subject mentally...never took a moment to acknowledge the value beyond mere academics. And with a haughty air of authority! Just sayin ... and l like bobx.

There is more "experiential knowledge" elicited within sacred texts, not directly of course, but evoked. Science isn't equipped to measure this experiential knowledge, the tools don't exist. Science would have to be able to measure something like "beauty" to even begin to try.

One can tear apart a beautiful sonnet, explain every musical note, analyze every single lyric letter, even go so far as to dismissively say "it's a song that moves people." Yet that would not explain the sonnet as it is beautifully performed by adept musicians, because it must be experienced to appreciate the full value. The sonnet is more than the sum of its parts.

The only way to accurately understand is to fully immerse oneself into that experience.

It is only then one can say they "know," because that form of knowledge is experiential.