Religion may not survive the internet

[pellegrino]

For my money, the best way to understand Roman mentality in treating its conquered lands was suggested by Ernst Badian in Foreign Clientelae. Although Badian's book ends in the late Republic, it still works for understanding why Rome was so hard on rebels.

Badian's thesis is that, in the minds of the Romans, conquered lands should act towards Rome like clients act towards their patron (think of Bonasera the Undertaker & the Corleones for a good example of what the patron-client relationship looked like). Enemies were enemies. Clients were supposed to be unwaveringly loyal and grateful for their patrons' protection & guidance. This is why Rome was so harsh on revolting provinces; it was much more offensive than an invasion by an enemy. It was betrayal.

Plus, Romans were pragmatic. Why leave any of these guys alive to fight next year if you can kill them all now?

Man, this thread has a pretty high nerd-alert rating.
The intricacies of Pauline Greek in NT pseudepigraphia? Kill me.

roflmao! Aren't most non-sports threads here like that?

[Topper]

For my money, the best way to understand Roman mentality in treating its conquered lands was suggested by Ernst Badian in Foreign Clientelae. Although Badian's book ends in the late Republic, it still works for understanding why Rome was so hard on rebels.

Badian's thesis is that, in the minds of the Romans, conquered lands should act towards Rome like clients act towards their patron (think of Bonasera the Undertaker & the Corleones for a good example of what the patron-client relationship looked like). Enemies were enemies. Clients were supposed to be unwaveringly loyal and grateful for their patrons' protection & guidance. This is why Rome was so harsh on revolting provinces; it was much more offensive than an invasion by an enemy. It was betrayal.

Plus, Romans were pragmatic. Why leave any of these guys alive to fight next year if you can kill them all now?

Man, this thread has a pretty high nerd-alert rating.
The intricacies of Pauline Greek in NT pseudepigraphia? Kill me.

Well I defer to you and to AA in reading Greek, but it doesn't take a genius to see how different some of the pseudepigraphia are in comparison to the accepted Pauline epistles. The vocabulary of Ephesians and Hebrews is so radically different than Galatians or Romans. When you get down to the debatable ones, I have to defer to the experts who do counting how frequently a certain word appears to be so radically different than what Pauline epistles are acknowledged to have contained.

[Topper]

roflmao! Aren't most non-sports threads here like that?

I just enjoy reading stuff from you nerds. We cool kids want to be nerds sometimes.

[pellegrino]

I just enjoy reading stuff from you nerds. We cool kids want to be nerds sometimes.

Huh? Don't think for a moment you aren't one of the nerds.

[SeattleUte]

Yep. But you forgot one additional factor. Titus (Roman general in charge of the siege) needed a big victory to build a reputation and cement his position as frontrunner to replace his old man as the next emperor.

At the same time, Titus wasn't planning to destroy the temple and had given specific orders to his soldiers to preserve it, but one of them threw a torch in through an open window and all hell broke loose.

Titus still would have prefered to spare Jerusalem, I think. He'd have taken a surrender and allowed them to continue on except for making an example out of the leaders of the rebellion. I doubt he'd have even required them to make sacrifices to the emperor, who was at that time Titus' father Vespasian, as Nero had done. They didn't have much to prove. They'd won a bloody civil war against other aspirants to the purple. Judea, Galilee, etc. were restored to Roman rule, only Jerusalem remained a hold out. Vespasian and Titus were relatively enlightened, very learned men. They allowed Rabinical Judaism to get a start in the cities and were quite tolerant to Christianity. However, the relief in the arch of titus depicting Titus' victory parade is one of the enduring images of the Roman empire.

A little remembered fact that explains a lot on various levels is that Titus' chief general was a Jew (himself an apostate) and Philo's nephew.

[Topper]

Huh? Don't think for a moment you aren't one of the nerds.

I don't have titles and degrees like Solon, AA Pelagius, SIEQ, Lebo and yourself. I'm one of the cool kids.

[TripletDaddy]

HUh? don't think for a moment that you are one of the cool kids.

[Topper]

HUh? don't think for a moment that you are one of the cool kids.

I got my cool kid pin from my frosted mini-wheat box to prove it.

[All-American]

Well I defer to you and to AA in reading Greek, but it doesn't take a genius to see how different some of the pseudepigraphia are in comparison to the accepted Pauline epistles. The vocabulary of Ephesians and Hebrews is so radically different than Galatians or Romans. When you get down to the debatable ones, I have to defer to the experts who do counting how frequently a certain word appears to be so radically different than what Pauline epistles are acknowledged to have contained.

This is one of the things that I find frustrating about the Pauline question. Numerous scholars sit around and try to determine when vocabulary, themes, style, and the like are so different that it must mean that the epistle had a different author. It's very hard to take into account the fact that an author might have been writing to a different audience or might have learned a word or two after 30 years. Maybe there was more than one author to the various Pauline epistles, but any writer who generates enough material over the course of time will have scholars question authorship.

[pelagius]

This is one of the things that I find frustrating about the Pauline question. Numerous scholars sit around and try to determine when vocabulary, themes, style, and the like are so different that it must mean that the epistle had a different author. It's very hard to take into account the fact that an author might have been writing to a different audience or might have learned a word or two after 30 years. Maybe there was more than one author to the various Pauline epistles, but any writer who generates enough material over the course of time will have scholars question authorship.

Very much agree plus add to that potential variation over time in the amanuensis used by Paul, and variation over time in how much freedom someone like Paul may have given his amanuensis to approximate his thoughts.

[Pelado]

I don't have titles and degrees like Solon, AA Pelagius, SIEQ, Lebo and yourself. I'm one of the cool kids.

My understanding was that if you have to state that you're cool, you must not be cool.

I, however, know that I am not cool - without regard to what I found in my cereal box this morning.

[pellegrino]

I got my cool kid pin from my frosted mini-wheat box to prove it.

that's about how I got my "titles and degrees."

[Solon]

This is one of the things that I find frustrating about the Pauline question. Numerous scholars sit around and try to determine when vocabulary, themes, style, and the like are so different that it must mean that the epistle had a different author. It's very hard to take into account the fact that an author might have been writing to a different audience or might have learned a word or two after 30 years. Maybe there was more than one author to the various Pauline epistles, but any writer who generates enough material over the course of time will have scholars question authorship.

I generally agree with this, but 2 Thess. is (to me) a pretty glaring example of saying pretty much the opposite thing of 1 Thessalonians.

1 Thessalonians urges righteous living because Christ could return any second "like a thief in the night" (5.2), and reminds the people to vigilance lest that Day take them unaware.
2 Thessalonians walks this back saying "Well, there's lots of other stuff that has to happen first, like the Apostasy and the appearance of the anti-Christ, and a bunch of fake miracles and signs, etc." (2.3-12) - things that don't appear in other Pauline letters, btw.

Sure, there are several ways to explain this, such as Paul trying to set the record straight because the people took his first letter too literally and quit their jobs to wait for Jesus (2 Thess 3.11-12), or maybe a (forged) letter has arrived claiming that Paul is dead or that Jesus has already returned (2 Thess. 2.1-2), or maybe Paul just got more information and wanted to pass that along, since 1 Thessalonians is believed to be the oldest surviving of Paul's letters.

While I find the thematic differences stark enough to distrust the authenticity of 2 Thess, for me the clincher is 2 Thess.'s assertion that the letter is genuine. It seems forced to me to point out "See! Look! Not a forgery!" (2 Thess 3.17).

Dammit. I waded in here again.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I
Dammit. I waded in here again.

Don't ever apologize for contributing to discussions like this.

[Topper]

Very much agree plus add to that potential variation over time in the amanuensis used by Paul, and variation over time in how much freedom someone like Paul may have given his amanuensis to approximate his thoughts.

This is a very valid point.