Christian ethics vs. Roman/ pagan ethics

[deef]

I use this board a lot to check if my views of certain historical topics are actually accurate. I'm curious how accurate my view of christian and Greco-Roman ethics are.

I'll describe my views briefly:
Christianity transformed the Greco-Roman ethics in a major way. Unlike the Romans, Christians, ofcourse inspired by the teachings of Christ and Paul, were compassionate and looked after the weak. This was quite unusual in the Greco-Roman empire where abuse of the lower-class and slaves was quite common. That was something not even the Greek philosophers we admire ever really spoke out against.
Christians thought differently and acted differently. This is also confirmed by the pagan emperor Julian who spoke about how the "impious galileans" (christians) took care of the weak and ill.
Romans were not quite ethical on matters like infanticide and abortion. This is why a lot of women especially were attracted to christianity and eventually took their husbands with them. This is one of the major reasons for christianity's growth.

Ok, this is a very brief description of my views on this matter. I don't want to become one-sided and I know there are plently of people here with more knowledge on this subject than I. So my question is: how accurate are my views?

[unkleE]

For what it's worth, that's my understanding from Rodney Stark (though not everyone respects him) and John Dickson (an Aussie historian and christian).

[syzygy]

I would agree. I just read nearly the same thing in Ben Witherington, "The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth"; and it's been written about elsewhere. Witherington notes that this is a Jewish ethic; it didn't start with Jesus. jAs I understand ancient Greek morality, it had a lot to do with honor (arete). In Jewish and Christian thought honor belongs to God alone. For both Greek and biblical ethics, the imitation of God was central. But the Greek God or gods were either not concerned about earth (Aristotle, Epicurus) or if they were, they weren't much interested in any major changes. The Jewish-Christian God was very interested in this world and determined to "save" it from itself. Thus for the Greeks the best life was the care-free life of contemplation of eternal, unchanging truth, very conservative of the status quo. Christians and Jews could give their cares to the Lord, but that was an active, caring Lord, who inspired active concern among his followers.

[humphreyclarke]

I wrote something on this a while back

bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/02/human-value-in-ancient-world.html

Some of the differences between Greco-Roman and Christian ethics are quite subtle but important because they create a shift in priorities. For example Roman philosophers taught that a common humanity should be recognised; but this did not mean there was an obligation to give to the poor because the poor were in need. Instead if you were rich you were to engage in good works - but these were to magnify your own stature and patronage rather than directly benefit the poor. In Christian texts the poor come into focus in a way they did not in classical texts

[humphreyclarke]

On the flip side, someone like Ramsay McMullen would point to the fact that after the conversion of the empire slavery was not abolished, family law continued as before. Gladiatorial contest were got rid of - but these had be condemned by stoic authors as well and most notably Marcus Aurelius. Late antique legislation actually gets more cruel, including reviving the one where you stick the victim in a sack with a bunch of nasty animals and throw them in the river.

[deef]

Dec 1, 2010 15:01:55 GMT humphreyclarke said:

I wrote something on this a while back

bedejournal.blogspot.com/2009/02/human-value-in-ancient-world.html

Some of the differences between Greco-Roman and Christian ethics are quite subtle but important because they create a shift in priorities. For example Roman philosophers taught that a common humanity should be recognised; but this did not mean there was an obligation to give to the poor because the poor were in need. Instead if you were rich you were to engage in good works - but these were to magnify your own stature and patronage rather than directly benefit the poor. In Christian texts the poor come into focus in a way they did not in classical texts

That article was a great read, thanks for posting that.

[himself]

Everybody expects society comes with an on/off switch. Baptized on Monday; total selflessness and compassion on Tuesday. This is often not true even of ordinary folks, let alone of ruling class thugs.

Is selling oneself into slavery better or worse than starving in the street?
Is selling a captive of war into slavery better or worse than massacring him?

[hawkinthesnow]

On the slavery issue - it is true that slavery was not abolished with the advent of Christianity -and neither does the New Testament say very much about it. The two exceptions are St Paul's letter to the Ephesians where he says that in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, freeman nor slave, but they were all one in Christ Jesus. Then there is his letter to Philemon, asking him to receive his runaway slave Onesimus as a brother in Christ.
So although the institution itself was not abolished, Christians could not treat their slaves as mere chattels.
When we think of slavery of course, we mostly think of the African slave trade. Clearly, if St Paul had been around to see that he would have utterly condemned it.

[ignorantianescia]

Does anybody know how Christian morality relates to Egyptian and Semitic pagan morality? There are quite some similarities due to Judaism's roots and the cultural influence of Egypt and Mesopotamian kingdoms/empires, but does anybody know whether these are reflected in morality, too?