(8 votes, average: 4.63 out of 5)
Loading...I announced on Friday that we have cancelled (or at least postponed) the Nile-cruise trip I was planning to make with Thalassa Journeys, because of the ongoing situation in the Middle East. Here I’ll say a word indirectly about the conflict.
As you may have noticed, I have a resolute policy not to discuss politics on the blog. I have always wanted the blog to be politically-neutral, so that people of all persuasions on governmental policy and action, social agenda, particular elected and appointed officials, and so on can benefit from the knowledge scholars (who are also of various persuasions) have acquired in studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, the history of early Christianity, and the many related topics connected with religion in antiquity.
And so I will not be commenting or giving my views about the war with Iran and related conflicts. BUT, I thought it would be useful to say something factual about armed conflict from an ancient historical perspective. This is something I talk about in my recent book Love Thy Stranger, and it has to do with the to-us-somewhat-strange reality that in ancient discussions of morality, there appear to be no objections to power relations and their social effects, no moral condemnation, for example, of slavery or war. Why is that?
I argue that it is because of a different “common sense” dominant throughout antiquity, a common sense that I call the dominant ideology of dominance.
Here is how I talk about it in the book. (PLEASE:
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
Thank you for your explanation of the norms of ancient imperial rule.
In the Old Testament, empires such as Babylonia and Assyria are portrayed as enemies of God, whereas Persia is viewed quite favorably. I assume this is because Cyrus the Great authorized certain Israelite leaders to return and rebuild the temple. However, what was the historical reality? Would it not have been entirely possible for ancient Persia, as a ruling power, to persecute the Jews as well?
More fundamentally, should ancient Persia be understood as an exception to the general “ideology of dominance” you describe, or rather as an example of the same ideology expressed through a different strategy of rule?
Oh, Persia (and Cyrus himself) were very committed to the idea of domination. They simply had different mechanisms for implementing it.
Titus 1:16-They profess that they know God; but in works deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate.
This passage reminds me of the current zeitgeist of a large swath of the religious/political climate of America. I left religion long ago, but these words attributed to Marcus Aurelius remain relevant to me:
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.
Remember: “In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are only consequences.”
Robert G Ingersoll
Seems your dealing with some now, good luck!
And today, we believe it’s okay to dominate, slaughter and exploit animals. History is going to condemn us BIGLY.
The mass production of animal slaughter is a huge moral issue now that plant based eating is on the rise. (I tried plant based off and on for 4 1/2 years but couldn’t sustain it.) Steven Pinker wrote an article about how people in the future will consider animal slaughter a barbaric practice. They won’t be able to relate to the concept of killing an animal for food.
Since it appears the Hebrews were indigenous Canaanites, who separated themselves out from their neighbors by cultural practices, the “Conquest” as described in the OT is not historical. Subsequent generations constructed an origin story for themselves. What I wonder is why use a conquest narrative in the first place? Why a genocidal conquest? They could just as easily had their mythical ancestors inhabit a deserted wasteland.
Does the “ideology of dominance” give us a clue? Was conquest the only schema that made sense to them? Any intuitions?
Yes, it probably played a role. The Israelite God was more powerful than the pagan gods and proved it by allowing his people to conquer the land.
Modern sensibilities quickly descend into the fallacy of presentism. Do you think anyone considering or conducting warfare in say, the 16th century CE, would have paid attention to the Geneva or Hague Conventions? What about the underlying motivations for war? Which would lead us to a discussion about a Just War. A good book on that subject (and abortion and capital punishment) is Ronald J. Sider’s “The Early Church on Killing”.
Yes, they do. We tend to think our modern ethical views are superior to those that preceded us. That itself is not presentism, though; presentism, as I understand it, would be assuming people in other contexts SHARED our views. If by “presentism” you mean that we are focused on our own views, then yes, that’s true.
very interesting. “The ideology of dominance” makes sense both then and now.
I think history shows whether someone thinks their cause is just or not, they don’t usually deliberately start a war unless they think they can win. Plus the winners usually write history so we mainly get their view of events. But, we have many examples of people “fighting for god” that believe their cause is on the side of god (pick your religion through history) and so their god will swing the odds in their favor. And they think any sacrifice they or their family makes will be rewarded later. So fanatics often don’t worry about the odds or starting what you and I would consider a losing fight, because they “win” ultimately in god’s reward either way.
J.C. Squire wrote a biting poem in 1916, on the topic of both sides of a conflict claiming to have “God on their side” :
‘The Dilemma’
God heard the embattled nations sing and shout
‘Gott strafe England!’ and ‘God save the King!’
God this, God that, and God the other thing—
‘Good God!’ said God, ‘I’ve got my work cut out.’
Right!
In our time I think the equivalent word is “dominion”.
“The Melians tried to sway their aggressors: they had remained neutral in the war and did not deserve to be assaulted.”
This reminds me of the scene from the movie Unforgiven when Gene Hackman’s character had a rifle pointed at him and, knowing he was about to die, said “…I don’t deserve this…”. Clint Eastwood’s character then said “deserves got nothing to do with it”, before pulling the trigger.
Right!!
Hi, Bart. I’ve been working my way through the blog archives and came across your recommendation of Kristin Swenson’s A Most Peculiar Book. (Thank you!) In it I found a wonderful quote: the author told her seatmate that “I was on my way to a conference, an academic gathering of Bible scholars. He perked right up, launching into what he believed King James really meant when he wrote Genesis.”
Thanks for the laugh!
The other one I’ve heard is “If the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus Christ, it’s good enough for me.” That may be apocryphal, but Kristin’s quote (above) is a first person account.
Oh – and would this count as a Bible joke, per your request of April 22nd, 2026 ?
Yup, we’ll count it!
How is Nestle-Aland pronounced? Nessel? Ness-lee? Aland like the name Alan plus a d?
Thanks.
(I just read https://criticaltexts.com/history_nestle_aland/ about a study of how the various editions of Nestle-Aland came about, and it made me wonder.)
Ness-lee; Aw – land. Both accented on the first syllable.
It’s the story of life on this planet, that might dominates, and, with humans’ natural audacity, might thus makes right. (As a woman, I often wonder how history could have been different if women were rulers since they would have had to call on other forces besides sheer physical dominance. But, wait—men would never have allowed that, so there we are, back to dominance by physicality.) Jesus (a man! ) calls us to another world, one to be inaugurated by the coming Son of Man(note “man”) , that will function according to the rules of God (also conceived traditionally as “man”). What does this show me??—that we cannot conceive of an existence apart from gender (power) roles. Our language shapes and constricts our imaginations, and thus, while we picture the Kingdom (king!) of God, God’s being and activity may be on whole different level (pun intended). We can hope to see “face to face” that that the love Christ embodies will actually be the ground and entirety of reality that transforms our hearts and minds (in the “form” in which they survive death!) Whew!
Re Thucydides, the consensus of scholarly opinion these days leans toward assuming that Thucydides intended his work as an indictment of the “might makes right” argument of the Athenians in the Melian dialogue, rather than as an endorsement of that argument. Certainly there are still classicists who would say that Thucydides agreed with this “common sense” (of the time) argument, but the current balance of opinion is clearly the opposite — that Thucydides intended his readers to be appalled by the Athenians’ chilling statement to the Melians.
Of course, however we interpret Thucydides’ intention there, you are right that a great many people at the time undoubtedly did see “the strong do what the can and the weak suffer what they must” as a simple statement of fact.
Thanks. Yeah, I’d say it’s hard to know an author’s intentions, but I’d like to see the arguments. Is there a good summary someplace? In any event, yup, it does seem to be a statement of fact widely shared. (Sarah, my Shakespeare-scholar wife, and I have long had a comparable argument about Merchant of Venice. She insists that it is meant to argue *against* an anti-semitic view; I insist it is embodying it, and that to think otherwise is … wishful. Her wish is that I’d learn more about Shakespeare….)
Check out Lovejoy’s The Great Chain of Being, a book that offers a historical look at a concept intuitively and universally accepted for centuries that the universe has a hierarchical structure–some things on top (countries, races, sexes, etc.) and other things are below. This is a divine plan; during the middle ages it justified divine right of kings, so while there exists an “ideology of dominance,” that dominance is justified theologically. Called “White Man’s Burden” during the British Empire, “Manifest Destiny” during westward expansion, “The Great American Century,” “American Exceptionalism,” or more currently, “America’s Golden Age.”
Your wife is undoubtedly correct when it comes to Shakespeare’s perspective in The Merchant of Venice. I won’t embark on a lengthy analysis of the prevalence of usury in Shakespeare’s England – short version: just about everybody did it, and nobody believed that Christian merchants didn’t charge interest- but it is also important to remember that Shakespeare was an actor as well as a playwright.
And any actor given a choice between playing Antonio or Shylock will take Shylock, and probably burst into tears of gratitude for the chance to speak the lines of what is probably the greatest speech Shakespeare ever wrote. He knew exactly what he was doing.
Incidentally, you might like to read Shakespeare on immigrants, or better still track down the video of Ian McKellen reciting the speech from St Thomas More earlier this year; plays are meant to be acted. It would not go down too well with many people in your country and mine, but it should do.
With regard to the Bible and other collections of literature that attempt to cover the evolution of human thoughts and beliefs, we should also take time to study and think about how “What was Then” has evolved to become “What is Now.” Think about how beliefs have dramatically evolved in just the 250 years that the United States of America has existed, and the extensive shift in written beliefs and practices regarding: 1) the rights of minorities, and 2) the accepted roles for females in society and businesses that a majority of the public (perhaps a small majority!) has decided to encourage in the last 65 years.
Bill Steigelmann (Age 91and a Retired Engineer who attends a UCC church nearly every Sunday but does not believe Jesus is God, but instead taught us that we should put significant efforts into helping others — per Bart’s most recent book!)