Clivedurdle

Life in the allegedly "pagan" world was pretty joined up - the gods were part of your day to day life, you enjoyed various rituals and dramas, if you moved somewhere else you would start worshiping the local gods as you learned the local language - when in Rome.

Pliny complained about people not joining in the normal community goings on and setting up separate - elitist? - groups. Voluntary associations - like of firefighters - were seen as serious threats = possibly like loose threads or cancers.

What do we get with xianity? A new political force - the church opposed to the state, and then for a while controlling the state.

But this is new - it has moved from the old power battles between various groups to battles between institutions with rule books or theologies.

And evidence of this is that we focus on arguments about the specific rules of cricket and their interpretation of a religion instead of asking about the gestalt, the interrelationship with the political and social world.

Was the tearing down of the temples a symptom of the creation of a new world order of formal religion over here, state over there, and private life somewhere else in contrast to the pretty free and open ways of the true gods and emperors and civitas?

ApostateAbe

Christian societies may have had political patterns that had commonalities with the doctrine, but I don't know about that. The political philosophy of separation of church and state, as we know it, originated largely in the European Enlightenment with John Locke, and it was first put into practice by the early United States federal government. John Locke's formulation followed from his theory of the social contract, in which government ideally does not have power over the consciences of individuals. He does not seem to draw inspiration from the historical practices of Christian leaders, except, perhaps, in what they did wrong.

IamJoseph

The earliest separation of state and religion is seen between King david - who represented the state rule, and the Prophet Nathan - who represented the Law. Nathan confronted and challenged David before the entire nation - demanding David pay the price of his transgression - and Nathan won.

ApostateAbe

In church when I learned about the story of King David and Nathan, it was given with the same lesson that I believe about it today. It isn't about the separation of religion and state. On the contrary, it is about the supremacy of God and the laws of God over the state. Even kings are held accountable to God. I think Jeffersonian liberals should appreciate the doctrine of the rule of law underpinning the story. I don't see the doctrine of the separation of church and state.

IamJoseph

Religion is a later term. The laws of the Hebrew bible turn the world and its institutions, and represents the counter force to the state. No such thing as religion without the law.

Huon

... according to the report written by the party of Nathan, many centuries later.

Then, Nathan could be bribed, David understood, and Nathan was correctly bribed.

bacht

The issue did come up under the Hasmoneans, though probably not in the same intellectual framework we use. The Pharisees objected to the rulers taking the titles of both king and high priest, and the general idea of royal interference in the appointment or dismissal of the high priest [in contrast under the Persians there was no ruling native dynasty, just the high priest as representative of the rule of God]

PapaverDeum

So, in your example, David is the state and the Nathan represents religion. But then you associate Nathan (or religion) with "Law".

This seems completely antithetical to the modern conception of separation of Church and state. The idea being to remove religion from the state, and to remove state control from religion.

I think that what you speak of is almost the polar opposite of separation of church and state.

Yes, religion is a later term, as is sep of Church and State. Your statement "No such thing as religion without the law" again seems antithetical to SoCS.

In the modern idea of separation, law operates independently of religion, with no regard for any one religion, treating all religions as equal under the law.
That (all religions equal, pluralism, differnt religions under one state law) would be completely foreign and likely incomprehensible to ancient Judaism.

If anything, it would be the syncretism of the Roman empire (and at times their willingness to allow local religions to continue) that would seem more compatible with the modern idea of SoCS.

Heck, according to Josephus the second temple Judeans could not tolerate the legionary standards even being in the city. I don't seee a whole lot of toleration for pluralism within ancient Judaism.

bacht

That was probably true in Judea, but don't forget that many Jews were scattered around the Roman and Parthian empires. All they had were synagogues and the Torah. The Judeans and their Galilean cousins probably saw themselves as guarding a culture threatened by overwhelming Hellenization.

We don't really know how pluralistic the Hebrews were in monarchical times, but Nehemiah had to deal with intermarriage and disappearing Jewish traditions in the 5th C bce. By Hasmonean times there was enough stress to generate strong apocalyptic desires.

Of course it's been argued that monotheism by its nature is exclusive and intolerant, I'm not sure if this is an iron law of religion.

IamJoseph

Religion is a latter term. The law/s come from the Hebrew bible - exclusively. Nathan rep the law; David rep the state. Nathan felled David by the law.


The US Constitution being based on religion is incorrect - it was based on the laws of the Hebrew bible. There are no laws in the NT or Quran the world's institutions follow: name one from those religions?



They could not tolerate an image for worship - which is in-between a ritual and scientific law. However, the moral, ethical, judiciary, civic, women's and animal rights laws, etc [non-ritual laws] are contained only in the Hebrew bible - and they transcend both state and religion. If in doubt, check up on your judiciary laws.