![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sophiaserpentiaThe Roman Empire was the first civilization that strongly and effectively encouraged the separation of religion from nation.
Before that, religion was very strongly tied in with national or tribal identity. It still is, to a large extent. But the idea of religion as a "system of thought or belief" which you could treat like a set of concepts detached from life in any way would have sounded alien to the ancient mindset.
Before the Romans came along, when you conquered a nation, you destroyed the temples and idols and killed the priests. You broke up families and burned cities, enslaved sons and raped or forcibly married daughters. You forbade speaking the names of the old gods, under threat of having one's tongue cut out. You did this because if you didn't, you would eventually have an insurrection.
At some point, though, the scale of such an undertaking became too big, and the benefits therefrom were not enough to justify it. Working cities were worth more than empty mines and farmlands. Compare what happened to the Jews after their conquest by Babylon (their temple destroyed, forced exile to Babylon, families broken up, etc.) and after their conquest by Alexander (Hellenization). The Jews did not become free of Babylon until they were freed by the Persians. They did however successfully rise up against the Seleucids.
One innovation of the Roman regime was to undermine the existing culture's rituals and doctrines, divorcing them from national or tribal identity. Priests and religious leaders were convinced (one way or another) to act in cahoots with the Romans. So the voices of the gods, which had in the past spoken on behalf of the nation's interest, now gave a suitably 'sanitized' message which supported Rome.
Under this scheme, religious dissidents were no longer part of the cultural tapestry. Instead they were labelled blasphemers. This way, the Romans could keep their hands clean while their puppets took care of dissidents -- effectively turning their subjects against one another.
Consider again the Jewish experience. The prophetic tradition was a long-established voice whereby one could speak with religious authority on behalf of the economically and socially disadvantaged, chastening the rulers if they became too harsh. Prophetic writings were incorporated into the tapestry of Jewish belief. Under the Romans, and their puppet high priest, prophets were not tolerated; they fled out to the wilderness, to the banks of the Jordan River or the cliffs overlooking the Dead Sea.
The Romans were accomplished at the art of cultural appropriation. Greek and Egyptian rituals and myths were turned into interesting diversions for the Roman upper class, completely stripped of cultural significance.
I think one thing that made this possible was the unprecedented communication and exchange of ideas that occurred at the time. It became possible for someone to see that, for example, Tahuti was not unlike Hermes, and Dionysos was not unlike Asar. It could also be seen that rituals were somewhat similar from one culture to the next.
This observation (which glosses the tribal significance of these things) was used to devastating effect by the Romans. There was also, as some scholars have noted, a general breakdown at that time of the national order. Movements like the Cynics flourished -- people who renounced national identity, who refused to cooperate with economically exploitative regimes and saw themselves as citizens of the human race.
So, Jewish religious dissidents spoke harshly of their religious leaders, and the symbols of their religion which had been appropriated by the imperial regime. The Dead Sea Essenes included the priests among the Sons of Darkness. Gnostics spoke of Jehovah as a false demigod posing as God. John the Baptist called the priests a brood of vipers and Jesus spread parables illustrating their hypocrisy and spoke of tearing down the Temple.
It may have been the goal of Paul (a Hellenized Roman citizen) to spread the rebellion, but in effect what he also accomplished was the cultural appropriation of the early Christian movement. This effectively divorced it from its roots as a Jewish egalitarian dissident movement and made it into something concerned primarily with "spirituality," remote from the concerns of life, politics, and economics.
Before that, religion was very strongly tied in with national or tribal identity. It still is, to a large extent. But the idea of religion as a "system of thought or belief" which you could treat like a set of concepts detached from life in any way would have sounded alien to the ancient mindset.
Before the Romans came along, when you conquered a nation, you destroyed the temples and idols and killed the priests. You broke up families and burned cities, enslaved sons and raped or forcibly married daughters. You forbade speaking the names of the old gods, under threat of having one's tongue cut out. You did this because if you didn't, you would eventually have an insurrection.
At some point, though, the scale of such an undertaking became too big, and the benefits therefrom were not enough to justify it. Working cities were worth more than empty mines and farmlands. Compare what happened to the Jews after their conquest by Babylon (their temple destroyed, forced exile to Babylon, families broken up, etc.) and after their conquest by Alexander (Hellenization). The Jews did not become free of Babylon until they were freed by the Persians. They did however successfully rise up against the Seleucids.
One innovation of the Roman regime was to undermine the existing culture's rituals and doctrines, divorcing them from national or tribal identity. Priests and religious leaders were convinced (one way or another) to act in cahoots with the Romans. So the voices of the gods, which had in the past spoken on behalf of the nation's interest, now gave a suitably 'sanitized' message which supported Rome.
Under this scheme, religious dissidents were no longer part of the cultural tapestry. Instead they were labelled blasphemers. This way, the Romans could keep their hands clean while their puppets took care of dissidents -- effectively turning their subjects against one another.
Consider again the Jewish experience. The prophetic tradition was a long-established voice whereby one could speak with religious authority on behalf of the economically and socially disadvantaged, chastening the rulers if they became too harsh. Prophetic writings were incorporated into the tapestry of Jewish belief. Under the Romans, and their puppet high priest, prophets were not tolerated; they fled out to the wilderness, to the banks of the Jordan River or the cliffs overlooking the Dead Sea.
The Romans were accomplished at the art of cultural appropriation. Greek and Egyptian rituals and myths were turned into interesting diversions for the Roman upper class, completely stripped of cultural significance.
I think one thing that made this possible was the unprecedented communication and exchange of ideas that occurred at the time. It became possible for someone to see that, for example, Tahuti was not unlike Hermes, and Dionysos was not unlike Asar. It could also be seen that rituals were somewhat similar from one culture to the next.
This observation (which glosses the tribal significance of these things) was used to devastating effect by the Romans. There was also, as some scholars have noted, a general breakdown at that time of the national order. Movements like the Cynics flourished -- people who renounced national identity, who refused to cooperate with economically exploitative regimes and saw themselves as citizens of the human race.
So, Jewish religious dissidents spoke harshly of their religious leaders, and the symbols of their religion which had been appropriated by the imperial regime. The Dead Sea Essenes included the priests among the Sons of Darkness. Gnostics spoke of Jehovah as a false demigod posing as God. John the Baptist called the priests a brood of vipers and Jesus spread parables illustrating their hypocrisy and spoke of tearing down the Temple.
It may have been the goal of Paul (a Hellenized Roman citizen) to spread the rebellion, but in effect what he also accomplished was the cultural appropriation of the early Christian movement. This effectively divorced it from its roots as a Jewish egalitarian dissident movement and made it into something concerned primarily with "spirituality," remote from the concerns of life, politics, and economics.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-04-05 06:21 pm (UTC)Still, it is matter of historical record that the even the brutalized Rome of the Roman Empire was a far sight better than what Christianity provided for the thousand years after the fall of Rome & that Europe only get better when it went back to its Greco-Roman roots. And even that going back was inspired in large part by Ghenghis Khan's secular empire.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-05 07:08 pm (UTC)The empire worked well because, like all empires, its citizens saw their lives going well. There was order and prosperity and an unrivaled degree of advancement in engineering. Never mind that the prosperity of an empire comes at the expense of someone else, far away -- subject nations being exploited economically.
It's worth noting that European ascendancy after the "Dark Ages" occurred when Europe once again established an imperial regime.
I'm not saying I'd prefer life in the Dark Ages over life in post-Enlightenment Europe, or that I'd prefer life in ancient Judea over life in modern America. I'm a product of the imperial culture into which I was born and would likely not prosper in those environments. But the idea that a secular republic is preferable to a religious regime is rooted in the modern idea of religion as something which cannot tolerate dissent or which prevents progress.
Dissenters have always had a difficult time of it, regardless of whether they lived in a theocracy or a relatively secular nation.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-05 10:17 pm (UTC)Just passing through friends of friends lists. Found your post very interesting.
From the English perspective I cannot agree with it; The Romans saw parallel gods everywhere, and England has many ancient sites which imply strongly that the Romans respected what they found. Belatucadros (please excuse my spelling) might be an English form of Mars in their eyes (everyone seeks their own frame of reference surely!), but both were worshipped, separately and together; In England, the former because it was his land, in Rome the latter for the same reason. They tried to placate the gods of other lands, to befriend them or appease them. None believed more strongly in the Genius Loci and the gods of race and place. They did not erode a god's personality by amalgamation - that was a Christian trick. Nor did they destroy the sacred groves, the stone rings and barrows of these islands.
Consider how the cults of Aset, of Mithras, of Cybele, all unapologetically 'foreign,' grew popular in Rome itself.
In Europe, if you seek the smashing of temples or the gradual erosion of belief through assimilation of characteristics, holy days and divine characteristics, don't expect to find much beneath the sign of the Eagle: Look for the sign of the Cross.
Thanks for listening.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-29 11:50 pm (UTC)