MartinCothran
@MartinCothran
Author: Traditional Logic, Material Logic, Classical Rhetoric. Editor: Classical Teacher. Provost: Memoria College. Podcast: Classical, Et Cetera
Well, first of all, we didn't choose the term and can't change it. History gave it to us. And, second, I don't know another term that is limited to what we now mean by it, and encompasses as much as it does.
Judeo-Christian is a redundant label because everything that is good and true in Judaism is rightly termed Christian as we are the inheritors of the promises given to Abraham and all those before and after him to the people of God. The Talmud is not part of our tradition.
"The aim and office of instruction...is to enable a man to know himself and the world."—Matthew Arnold
Matt is a good friend of mine, but I would simply say that by the time of Christ all Jews had already been Hellenized. They were even using a Greek version of the Scriptures.
I actually watched a small Circe conference years ago where Matt Bianco pointed out the deficiencies in Hebrew education and how it was the Greek educated who could see that Jesus was truly the Messiah.
This is a really good metaphor for something.
Same height party where everyone was 6’5” thanks to custom 3D printed shoes. [📹 luciannovosel]
If you want to come up with terms that designate shared beliefs b/t Christianity and Islam (there are a few) or Christianity and Mormonism (there are a few there too), good for you. But that doesn't negate the reality of an identifiable cultural reality called Judeo-Christian.
From now we should say 'Judeo-Christian-Musim' then. How about throw in Mormon for good measure?
Well, fortunately historic Christian theologians and philosophers had enough intellectual integrity to recognize truth even when it was voiced by someone with whom they otherwise disagreed. That's how it should work.
I think the same as Thomas Aquinas quoting Ibn Rushd? Or Early Christianity quoting Platonism.
So you are judging all relations between Christians and Jews on the basis of one particularly ugly period? You might remember that America had a war with England. Can we judge the relations between the two countries merely on that event?
I found this conversation interesting, engaging. May I submit an historical observation? Western Christendom: the Black Death revealed deep suspicion, enmity, between Christians and Jews, as did expulsions. Judeo-Christian would have been incomprehensible.
Yes. Probably because Islam is a Christian heresy.
Christians embracing the Old Testament (actually different canons) doesn't mean there's agreement on the Old Testament between Jews and Christians. You know Muslims quote the Gospels right?
And what do you make of the fact that, Jewish writers such as Philo Judeus, Maimodes, and Solomon Ibn Gabirol were frequently quoted by Christian philosophers?
Yes they believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah and then Judaism and Christianity irrevocably split after the Second Temple Period. Judaism became Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity moved away from many early Jewish customs.
G. K. Chesterton: "Christianity is the fulfillment of paganism."
The Church embraced Pagans, so what? Is it now 'Judeo-Pagan-Christian'? And agreeing on some things doesn't mean anything. Muslims agree with us on some things. How about the term 'Judeo-Christian-Muslim'?
So therefore they had no shared beliefs at all? They both believed in the scriptural status of the Old Testament. That sounds like a pretty big hunk of shared belief to me.
Yes they believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah and then Judaism and Christianity irrevocably split after the Second Temple Period. Judaism became Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity moved away from many early Jewish customs.
The relationship was one of theological disagreement not union as implied by 'Judeo-Christian'.
So the early Christians didn't believe they were fulfilling Jewish prophecy?
The relationship was one of theological disagreement not union as implied by 'Judeo-Christian'.
You do realize that Christians universally, from the very earliest times, recognized the Old Testament as Holy Scripture, right?
If Jews and Christians did, then it certainly was not a mainstream view.
So you're saying that no one before the 19th century had a conception that they lived in a culture which held philosophical and ethical views that were shared by both Jews and Christians?
That example proves my point. People didn't live with the *idea* of DNA for centuries and then suddenly name it later. They got the idea and then named it concurrently. But you're claiming that the *idea* of 'Judeo-Christian' was around for a thousand years but nobody named it.
Proof that no one had DNA before the late 19th century.
"Human Flourishing" is a translation of Eudaimonia which goes back thousand of years. There are other words that are synonymous with 'Human Flourishing' that precede its use. Where is this the case for 'Judeo-Christian'?
To @greg_ashman 's point, what about DNA? Before the discovery of DNA, did anyone have any? Was there a term that translated DNA we're not aware of?
"Human Flourishing" is a translation of Eudaimonia which goes back thousand of years. There are other words that are synonymous with 'Human Flourishing' that precede its use. Where is this the case for 'Judeo-Christian'?
Right. This chart shows that there was no human flourishing before 1980. @Harold1066AD
And here's a rising favorite among classical schools: "Human Flourishing"
I never claimed "Judeo-Christian" indicated a historical period. I said it was (at least partly) a historical TERM. You are again sneaking in a false assumption: that all historical terms refer to historical periods.
'Judeo-Christian' is not a historical term. Nobody uses the term 'Judeo-Christian' to refer to a period of history. It's a term used to highlight the supposedly shared beliefs or religious culture of Jews and Christians in contradistinction to Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists etc.
This is the social constructivist parlour trick. It’s like saying that, in the past, people didn’t have DNA.