- This topic has 5 voices and 7 replies.
-
Posts
-
I started thinking yesterday that the Romans played such an instrumental role in the death of Christ, yet the entire empire would come to “convert” only a few hundred years later. I don't believe I've ever heard if there was a kind of collective lament experienced by Rome because of what it did. Isn't it true that today, Germany holds on to collective guilt over the Holocaust? If so, should we expect Rome to have held a similar feeling in the centuries after Constantine? I would think there were be some writings on this about such feelings in the West or in the Byzantine world, which was in possession of the Holy Land.
I don't think the Germans carry that much guilt over the holocaust. Many still deny it happened and others dismiss it namely the younger generation. My opinion of course.
I don't think the Germans carry that much guilt over the holocaust. Many still deny it happened and others dismiss it namely the younger generation. My opinion of course.
And you would be wrong. Most Germans fall all over themselves in their feelings and expressions of guilt for the Holocaust. I cannot tell you how many conversations I have had trying to understand why a German born in 1980 should feel guilty about the Holocaust. Then again, I don't understand why any white American should feel guilty about slavery yet plenty still do.
Okay just going by what my Dad said when he was in Germany back in 1984. You live there so you should know.
If I can go back to the topic; I think that this “guiltiness” seems to be quite a “modern” criteria in the way that today everyone “must” feel guilty about something, no matter how old the event or whatever it can be, but you are the guilty one.What the Romans did to Christ happened according to the rules of the time, Pilate just complied with what the priests decided about Christ's fate. (Didn't he wash his hands about this matter?) Local authorities wanted him dead, he complied in respect with local laws.As the authority of a Roman province, the Romans were in charge of keeping law and order, and regarding the Roman tolerance towards "foreign" religions, I don't think they were particularly against Christ himself but they just tried to appease the local authorities in order to "save" a local peacefulness. The Romans did not condemn Christ.
If I can go back to the topic; I think that this "guiltiness" seems to be quite a "modern" criteria in the way that today everyone "must" feel guilty about something, no matter how old the event or whatever it can be, but you are the guilty one.What the Romans did to Christ happened according to the rules of the time, Pilate just complied with what the priests decided about Christ's fate. (Didn't he wash his hands about this matter?) Local authorities wanted him dead, he complied in respect with local laws.As the authority of a Roman province, the Romans were in charge of keeping law and order, and regarding the Roman tolerance towards "foreign" religions, I don't think they were particularly against Christ himself but they just tried to appease the local authorities in order to "save" a local peacefulness. The Romans did not condemn Christ.
That makes sense, and I have wondered in the past whether Pilate was acting "justly" according to the rules of state at the time (even it was objectively the greatest injustice ever). However, did the post-Constantinian Romans look at it this way? Also, I would think they would have had a hard time excusing the Romans altogether since crucifixion was a Roman form of execution, and since the Roman soldiers played their own part in scourging and mocking Christ.But now, it has occurred to me that since the post-Constantinian Romans were both Romans and Christians, they could only have felt so much collective guilt; after all, they were both the oppressors and part of the group that was oppressed, so to speak.
I think it is important to remember that early Christianity was a very different thing to what we have now. The Bible didn't even get settled into its current form until the fourth century, and there were so many different varieties of belief to choose from that even firm adherents must have been a bit confused about what exactly was involved. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the details of the crucifixion story were pretty hazy in most Christians' minds at the time.
About early Christianity, a glass plate found in Spain shows a very different ChristBeardless Jesus
I think, though, that the Crucifixion was such an integral part of the Christian story that the main elements (who, what, why, where, etc.) would have been known by the believing masses. Pontius Pilate (and the other Romans) play such a large role in the story that it would be hard for Christians not to consider it. Perhaps, though, the activities which took place in the far eastern reaches of the Roman Empire would have been viewed less as a centrally-orchestrated event and more as a local affair and less guilt-by-association.
About early Christianity, a glass plate found in Spain shows a very different ChristBeardless Jesus
The earliest image of the bearded Christ that I can think of off-hand is in a mosaic at San Apollinare Nuovo in Ravenna, c. 504. A fourth century depiction of a beardless Christ would have been typical for its time.
