Greco-Roman Context of New Testament?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

isn't that why we watch the likes of Muhammed Ali, Mike Tyson, etc?

Isn't that why Obama was forcing everyone to accept trans in their bathroom?

I think some enjoyed watching the Mockingjay - I admit, I watched it too.

Maybe we aren't so different as one may think at first glance. Maybe that is why the US is the last beast of Revelation. Just some thoughts

Interesting!

But real death and real blood are not quite like the movies and Marquess of Queensbury rules!

[mfbukowski]

17 hours ago, Anijen said:

I am exactly correct on the definition of presentism which is when we (now, today) interpret values of the past with today's values. IOW we should not anachronistically introduce our present-day judgment and form an opinion on that judgement.

 

Scratches head. First, you said you disagree with me on both counts, but then give me a correct definition of presentism in this sentence above. The same definition (basically) I used. Perhaps, when you wrote; "Presentism" and then wrote; "We can't conceive what it was like to be Roman"  I misinterpreted your second sentence as an example of presentism (in which I disagreed with you). I disagreed because the mere conception (conceiving of what it was like to be Roman) is not presentism. Hence, my posted reply of; "You are misdefining presentism here." If I still have misinterpreted your post I apologize.

Regarding your disagreement of the second part, (which I think is when I wrote; "We can conceive what it was to be Roman") As a Historian (quasi- historian, I have given it up for a legal career). Although it is true we can not fully or completely know the Roman Empire, we can actually conceive what it was like to be Roman. The very definition of the word conceive is; to form a notion, opinion, imagine, think, believe... I submit we can conceive what is was like to be Roman, which is far different from having a complete knowledge. However, after a second reading of your second post you changed it slightly to: "we cannot conceive fully..." So, perhaps we are close to agreeing.

 

Regarding Classical Latin, I have better than a rudimentary knowledge. As I said, I was/am a past History major, and I received my Juris Doctorate this week, my knowledge of Latin helped. However, I wouldn't say I am even close to fluent.

 

Sorry, others might be able to catch sarcasm from posts, I am not that talented. Are you mocking me here? If so, I think it is uncalled for.  I can never tell if the little emoji is to confirm this was suppose to be taken humorously or otherwise not seriously intended. If so, I guess my humor needs to be updated.

Congratulations on your graduation.  Law school can be very grueling.

Perhaps you do not know I am a sarcastic guy but there are definitely a few misunderstandings here.

I did did not mean to debate your definition- I read dictionaries pretty well too.  What I disagreed with was not your definition but the implication that presentism was not present  in the previous posts.  There WAS presentism in the previous posts, just as you defined it.

So that was one disagreement- the idea that what was presented earlier was not "presentism"

Disagreement 2:  We can know what it is like to be an ancient Roman.

We are largely formed by our culture in every possible way, our values, our perceptions, the way we think, our philosophical and religious and moral presuppositions- everything. 

I googled this in 2 minutes but there are many articles like this one:  https://psychneuro.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/cultures-influence-on-perception/

I did change it to "fully" so yes perhaps we are close.

I merely asked about Latin because language is such an important part of culture- as you know actually speaking classical Latin would take years of study to get all the declensions and cases with the correct endings mastered.  Reading it is fairly easily, but to speak it correctly would require a far greater understanding of grammar than most English speakers have.  But the structure of the language is also different- the idea of waiting for the verb - the revealing of what is going on for the end of the sentence for example- the whole thought structure is different.

And then I mentioned the moral values-

And no, of course I was not mocking you.  

Edit- lol- important word- I did NOT mean to debate your definition straight out of the dictionary

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by mfbukowski

[clarkgoble]

14 hours ago, halconero said:

How is that not Hellenistic Culture? Sure, they were monotheistic, but so were other Hellenistic groups, and their conception of God at that point was heavily Platonic. Heck, the notion of the an intermediary divine being called the Logos was lifted from Greek philosophy.

You're arguing against a strawman. No one is denying strong Hellenistic influences. The question is whether it makes sense to talk of non-Hellenistic culture as well. To make an analogy it's akin to saying there's only American culture and we shouldn't even have the category of Spanish culture when analyzing the culture of Los Alamos. There's no doubt that even in the lives of hispanic immigrants most of the culture they deal with is American. But there's a utility of talking of other cultures (Spanish, Mexican, Swedish, German, etc.) as well.

Edited May 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Gervin]

On ‎4‎/‎30‎/‎2017 at 2:39 PM, Mormons Talk said:

What aspects of Greco-Roman life do you consider to be important for better understanding the New Testament?  

I recommend "The First Urban Christians" by Wayne Meeks for a better understanding of the socioeconomic and political milieu of first century Christianity. 

https://www.amazon.com/First-Urban-Christians-Social-Apostle/dp/0300098618/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

[mfbukowski]

21 hours ago, RevTestament said:

isn't that why we watch the likes of Muhammed Ali, Mike Tyson, etc?

Isn't that why Obama was forcing everyone to accept trans in their bathroom?

I think some enjoyed watching the Mockingjay - I admit, I watched it too.

Maybe we aren't so different as one may think at first glance. Maybe that is why the US is the last beast of Revelation. Just some thoughts

Blood and sins of this generation.....

You can't escape it

On the other hand we have this from "Sympathy for the Devil" from the Rolling Stones- who after all should know

Quote

I shouted out,
Who killed the Kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me

Was it really?  

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Blood and sins of this generation.....

You can't escape it

On the other hand we have this from "Sympathy for the Devil" from the Rolling Stones- who after all should know

Was it really?  

I thought you would know that it was the great secret combination. Just read his "secret society" speech...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=secret+society+speech+jfk&view=detail&mid=ED7DFC91496F8829F598ED7DFC91496F8829F598&FORM=VIRE

[halconero]

12 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

You're arguing against a strawman. No one is denying strong Hellenistic influences. The question is whether it makes sense to talk of non-Hellenistic culture as well. To make an analogy it's akin to saying there's only American culture and we shouldn't even have the category of Spanish culture when analyzing the culture of Los Alamos. There's no doubt that even in the lives of hispanic immigrants most of the culture they deal with is American. But there's a utility of talking of other cultures (Spanish, Mexican, Swedish, German, etc.) as well.

Not a straw man at all. I'm not arguing that you're in denial of Hellenistic influences. I'm saying that rather than being a distinct culture within a Hellenistic world, that it was a Hellenistic culture with distinct aspects. There's a hug difference. To use the example we've been utilizing of Mexican-descendent people in America, the multi-generational Chicanos have a culture that is neither wholly Mexican, but is a product of larger American influences to the point where Chicano culture is an American culture with unique aspects (same with Pennsylvania Dutch, Franco-New Englander culture, Louisiana creole, and Irish Americans) from its originating group. Private Mendez may enjoy Mexican cuisine at home and speak a sort of pidgin Spanish to his born-in Mexico abuela, but waves the American flag, says the Oath of Allegiance, etc. Distinguishable as a subgroup of the larger American group, but still American.

I've previously given a few other pieces of evidence for this in the 2nd Temple Jewish context, but aside from that there is the huge aspect of language. Jews at the time primarily spoke Greek and Aramaic. Not even Hebrew. It was largely a dead language at that point. Like I said previously their scriptures were Greek and the guiding philosophy/theology on God was Greek. Their literature was in the Greek style along with much of their architecture. I absolutely 100% agree with you that we should study and value the discrete ethno-religious groups in the area, but my argument is that you can't remove them from the Hellenistic context because they were largely Greco-Jews. Remove that and you remove the background upon which their uniqueness is understood. My argument is not that you're denying the influence of Hellenism on 2nd Temple Judaism and the huge variety of groups associated with that term. Not at all. Their unique features should be studied. My argument is that you can't "overstate" Greco-Roman culture because they were all part of Greco-Roman culture, not merely influenced by it.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

I thought you would know that it was the great secret combination. Just read his "secret society" speech...

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=secret+society+speech+jfk&view=detail&mid=ED7DFC91496F8829F598ED7DFC91496F8829F598&FORM=VIRE

Very odd how Communism became the Illuminati.

 

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, halconero said:

I've previously given a few other pieces of evidence for this in the 2nd Temple Jewish context, but aside from that there is the huge aspect of language. Jews at the time primarily spoke Greek and Aramaic. Not even Hebrew. It was largely a dead language at that point. Like I said previously their scriptures were Greek and the guiding philosophy/theology on God was Greek. Their literature was in the Greek style along with much of their architecture. I absolutely 100% agree with you that we should study and value the discrete ethno-religious groups in the area, but my argument is that you can't remove them from the Hellenistic context because they were largely Greco-Jews. Remove that and you remove the background upon which their uniqueness is understood. My argument is not that you're denying the influence of Hellenism on 2nd Temple Judaism and the huge variety of groups associated with that term. Not at all. Their unique features should be studied. My argument is that you can't "overstate" Greco-Roman culture because they were all part of Greco-Roman culture, not merely influenced by it.

Well, yes the Jews spoke enough Greek to get along as necessary with the Romans, but their primary language was Galilean Aramaic. There are several attestations that they were not fluently Greek-speaking: Peter's speech betrayed him as a Jew to the Romans at Jesus' trial, so they continued to identify him as one of Jesus' followers despite his continued denials. Josephus also basically tells us Greek is a foreign language to the Jews. Their Galilean Aramaic dialect is well attested in the archaeological record. I don't believe we have any real record that the Jews in Jerusalem used the Greek Septuagint. Hebrew continued to be the language of the Tanakh, but those who didn't know it also used the Targums, which were Aramaic - not Greek. Do we have any good textual or archaeological evidence that the Septuagint was not just used in Egypt but in Jerusalem as well(besides the "Septuagint" verses in the Bible)?

Edited May 3, 2017 by RevTestament

[clarkgoble]

10 hours ago, halconero said:

Not a straw man at all. I'm not arguing that you're in denial of Hellenistic influences. I'm saying that rather than being a distinct culture within a Hellenistic world, that it was a Hellenistic culture with distinct aspects. There's a hug difference. To use the example we've been utilizing of Mexican-descendent people in America, the multi-generational Chicanos have a culture that is neither wholly Mexican, but is a product of larger American influences to the point where Chicano culture is an American culture with unique aspects (same with Pennsylvania Dutch, Franco-New Englander culture, Louisiana creole, and Irish Americans) from its originating group. Private Mendez may enjoy Mexican cuisine at home and speak a sort of pidgin Spanish to his born-in Mexico abuela, but waves the American flag, says the Oath of Allegiance, etc. Distinguishable as a subgroup of the larger American group, but still American.

And yet we find it very useful to talk about Mexican culture and the rest. That's all I'm saying. You're saying it's not useful. I merely point out that talk of non-Hellenistic culture and non-American culture within the various civilizations is typical among scholars so it clearly has some utility. I'm not quite sure why you want to dismiss such talk.

Edited May 3, 2017 by clarkgoble