Stephen said
What’s your point?My point was that you should read Dr Moss’s book.
Moss, however, exposes that the “Age of Martyrs” is a fiction—there was no sustained 300-year-long effort by the Romans to persecute Christians.
Steefen
Her book is off topic.
Nero did not set Jewish Zealots on fire after Rome burned? Jewish Zealots have been known to embed themselves in the Jesus movement.
The film, Paul, Apostle of Christ, is not about 300 years. It is about persecution, not of 300 years but of the time in response to the fire in Rome.
Not sustained, no. But many substantial intervals in which it was very dangerous to be openly Christian.
The way later Christians depicted persecution was mythicized–as Jesus was–but persecution of minority groups isn’t mythical. Anymore than the Holocaust was, even though there is already a mythical aspect to the way it’s depicted–and used, sometimes, as a political tool. And then certain groups jump on the mythicized elements and use them to pretend it wasn’t really that bad.
There’s a tendency to minimize the troubles of people we don’t like, while maximizing those of the people we sympathize with.
GoranCEH said
I’m talking about film. The point is clear. The film does not fully reflect the life and the time of Paul, especially the clash with the apostles.
Well the movie is a superficial evangelistic take on the story. Nothing wrong with that but you shouldn’t expect any subtlety or controversy.
And then certain groups jump on the mythicized elements and use them to pretend it wasn’t really that bad.
As far as Prof Moss’ book, well everyone will just have to actually read it first to respond to it adequately now, won’t they? She shows, pretty convincingly, that the historical Christian narrative of “persecution” was overblown and the “Cult of the Martyr” ultimately served a propagandistic function. Sure, there were instances of opposition but it was localized, sporadic and had nothing to so with Christian doctrine. It was primarily because of their social/civic practices. It was only towards the end of paganism that there were widespread attempts to suppress Christianity and by then it was much too late.
If a movie is already made about Paul, of course the Bible itself speaks of those controversies and its clashes with the apostles. It is not some history that is outside the church and the gospels. So the film wanted to cover up that clash and the hypocrisy of Paul (in my opinion) when he offered a sacrifice in the Temple for example to be a follower of the Law and not himself a follower of that Law and therefore expelled from the Temple in Jerusalem. 🙂
I think you can (as you just did) make that argument – but it seems a generous reading of Paul giving the at times deeply negative – i’d say pejorative – regard for the Law that he displays – specifically the dietary concerns. While I cannot, sadly, read the original Greek, read in translation I don’t walk away with the idea that he is saying “this is an emergency.” He is pretty clearly saying – this no longer applies, but I will pretend it does if that prevents people from getting upset.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
2 Guest(s)