What do you think?
Rate this book
De paganos, judíos y cristianos
Momigliano expone sus tendencias historiográficas a través de una selección referente al estudio de la historia del mundo clásico antiguo. Enfoca la ideología particular de los antiguos griegos, romanos, judíos y cristianos, explicando principalmente las causas por las cuales un pueblo como el romano fue cambiando su religión conforme lo exigían sus ambiciones imperialistas.
537 pages, Hardcover
First published November 1, 1987
1 person is currently reading
103 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 30, 2018
This book consists of a collection of lectures. As such, it offers various snapshots revolving around the subject of the title but not a sustained or detailed treatment. This was something of a disappointment to me, though I came to the book with a few lectures specifically in mind as being of interest.
The book starts off with a couple of lectures focused on historiography of the subject at hand, neither essay of which was of particular fascination.
The third chapter deals with the concept of universal history as it developed in the ancient world--the idea of presenting world history as a story, with the foundation of man to the climax of kingdoms. Early world history was often structured around the theme/theory of metals--rising and waining kingdoms that descend through the various qualities of metal (gold, silver, etc.). Another common structure of bodily--world empires as youths, adults, and old people. Polybius writes what he calls the first universal history because he argues that only with the rise of Rome could universal history be written, Rome being the first truly world empire (the gall of this is a bit offputting to me, since other powerful empires existed in the world at the time and since other powerful empires had preceded it).
It is in the fourth chapter that Momigliano starts to cover territory more of interest to me. Here, he focuses on Roman writing about religion--specifically about Roman religion. These writings by Varro and others have largely been lost and are only put together through quotes from others. But there is a move among such writers to bring such religion to the fore; meanwhile, Cicero, who the author spends much time on, after the death of his daughter, largely pushes religion aside.
The fifth chapter discusses how difficult it is to piece together what religious practice was like in the first century BC in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. Despite this, the author manages to present some cogent ideas about religious practice in these places, most especially in Rome, where to get a feel for religion, one need only take a walk and observe what festival was being celebrated at a given time.
Next, the author discusses how Roman emperors became gods and what this meant. Some writers during the World War II era argued that the emperors were not so much worshipped as simply given homage--but the distinction is unclear, as writers since they have argued. The author sees the transition as one to make up for a loss of faith in the gods of old--the emperor was a living god, who could help restore faith in the other gods. Also, the worship developed out of worship of dead heroes, which became worship of living local magistrates, which became worship of the emperor, who took on more-and-more nonkingly power.
The next chapters focus on apocalpytic writing. One is a chapter on Josephus and his seeming isolation from apocalyptists writing in his day. Another deals in how writers of the time use apocalyptic pronouncements to oppose Roman rule.
In yet another chapter, Momigliano looks for an in-depth philosophic/theologic argument for polytheism and paganism in the Roman empire akin to that made for monotheism by the Christians. He does not really find it, he denotes, though the last section on the emperor Julian seems to me to provide exactly that. That Julian grew up Christian and turned away from it does mean, however, that he was in many ways arguing as much against Christianity as for paganism. For him, the polytheistic national faiths each served the individual nations within the Roman sphere--pagan gods were in a sense servants of departments of a most high god. Such accounted for cultural differences between peoples (more than the tower of Babel accounts for, which is simply linguistic differences). The proposed rebuilding of the Jewish temple was in this context--that is, as the rebuilding of the temple of one of the national gods, who was subservient to the great god. For Christians, by contrast, Rome eventually came to be an example of the one king/empire uniting the world, just as God would depose it and become supreme. Rome offered peace and thus the ease of the spread of Christianity. And Rome destroyed the temple, because of the Jewish rejection of Jesus.
In the next chapter--and in many chapters following--Momigliano turns to study biographies in the ancient and medieval world. In one, he focuses on Diogenes Laertus, who, he denotes, wrote primarily to promote Greek and pagan ways, completely ignoring the Christian cult that must have been growing up all around him. Other chapters focus on a faux letter between Seneca and a woman named Anna, a comparison between pagan and Christian women as seen in the lives and biographies of an aristocratic family, and a discussion of an autobiography of a medieval convert from Judaism to Christianity (the last section of which discusses the start of the Bar Mitzvah tradition).
Within all this, a chapter on the use of religion in Rome during the Imperial period proves quite valuable, though it is hard to summarize as it is not a terribly thesis-driven essay. Momigliano talks of Rome's adoption of others' pagan faiths, of the return to religious concerns under Augustus, and the foundation of the imperial cult.
The last few chapters of the book appear to be reviews and other ephemera. There is a chapter on Max Weber's use of the term "pariah-religion" to describe Judaism (how it really wasn't appropriate and what Weber's views really were) and a chapter on Jews in Italy (mostly in the twentieth century, before and after World War II). A chapter about how the Romans posed their origins in relation to the Greeks is rather interesting, especially if one has an interest in the Aeneid. The supposition is essentially that the Greeks see themselves as superior insofar as they were immigrants to the land as opposed to emigrants from a land; for the Romans, this distinction was unimportant. But it was important that somehow they relate to the Greeks; this is done through the story in the Aeneid, but that story in part involves a person who deserts the battle of Troy, who is something of an enemy to the Greeks but has to be somehow transformed into something of a friend. The last chapter is a long critique of the work of the linguist Georges Dumezil and his historical sociological work that claimed Indo-European cultures were split in a tripartate function: production, priesthood, and soldiers--Momigliano finds this idea preposterous.
The book starts off with a couple of lectures focused on historiography of the subject at hand, neither essay of which was of particular fascination.
The third chapter deals with the concept of universal history as it developed in the ancient world--the idea of presenting world history as a story, with the foundation of man to the climax of kingdoms. Early world history was often structured around the theme/theory of metals--rising and waining kingdoms that descend through the various qualities of metal (gold, silver, etc.). Another common structure of bodily--world empires as youths, adults, and old people. Polybius writes what he calls the first universal history because he argues that only with the rise of Rome could universal history be written, Rome being the first truly world empire (the gall of this is a bit offputting to me, since other powerful empires existed in the world at the time and since other powerful empires had preceded it).
It is in the fourth chapter that Momigliano starts to cover territory more of interest to me. Here, he focuses on Roman writing about religion--specifically about Roman religion. These writings by Varro and others have largely been lost and are only put together through quotes from others. But there is a move among such writers to bring such religion to the fore; meanwhile, Cicero, who the author spends much time on, after the death of his daughter, largely pushes religion aside.
The fifth chapter discusses how difficult it is to piece together what religious practice was like in the first century BC in Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem. Despite this, the author manages to present some cogent ideas about religious practice in these places, most especially in Rome, where to get a feel for religion, one need only take a walk and observe what festival was being celebrated at a given time.
Next, the author discusses how Roman emperors became gods and what this meant. Some writers during the World War II era argued that the emperors were not so much worshipped as simply given homage--but the distinction is unclear, as writers since they have argued. The author sees the transition as one to make up for a loss of faith in the gods of old--the emperor was a living god, who could help restore faith in the other gods. Also, the worship developed out of worship of dead heroes, which became worship of living local magistrates, which became worship of the emperor, who took on more-and-more nonkingly power.
The next chapters focus on apocalpytic writing. One is a chapter on Josephus and his seeming isolation from apocalyptists writing in his day. Another deals in how writers of the time use apocalyptic pronouncements to oppose Roman rule.
In yet another chapter, Momigliano looks for an in-depth philosophic/theologic argument for polytheism and paganism in the Roman empire akin to that made for monotheism by the Christians. He does not really find it, he denotes, though the last section on the emperor Julian seems to me to provide exactly that. That Julian grew up Christian and turned away from it does mean, however, that he was in many ways arguing as much against Christianity as for paganism. For him, the polytheistic national faiths each served the individual nations within the Roman sphere--pagan gods were in a sense servants of departments of a most high god. Such accounted for cultural differences between peoples (more than the tower of Babel accounts for, which is simply linguistic differences). The proposed rebuilding of the Jewish temple was in this context--that is, as the rebuilding of the temple of one of the national gods, who was subservient to the great god. For Christians, by contrast, Rome eventually came to be an example of the one king/empire uniting the world, just as God would depose it and become supreme. Rome offered peace and thus the ease of the spread of Christianity. And Rome destroyed the temple, because of the Jewish rejection of Jesus.
In the next chapter--and in many chapters following--Momigliano turns to study biographies in the ancient and medieval world. In one, he focuses on Diogenes Laertus, who, he denotes, wrote primarily to promote Greek and pagan ways, completely ignoring the Christian cult that must have been growing up all around him. Other chapters focus on a faux letter between Seneca and a woman named Anna, a comparison between pagan and Christian women as seen in the lives and biographies of an aristocratic family, and a discussion of an autobiography of a medieval convert from Judaism to Christianity (the last section of which discusses the start of the Bar Mitzvah tradition).
Within all this, a chapter on the use of religion in Rome during the Imperial period proves quite valuable, though it is hard to summarize as it is not a terribly thesis-driven essay. Momigliano talks of Rome's adoption of others' pagan faiths, of the return to religious concerns under Augustus, and the foundation of the imperial cult.
The last few chapters of the book appear to be reviews and other ephemera. There is a chapter on Max Weber's use of the term "pariah-religion" to describe Judaism (how it really wasn't appropriate and what Weber's views really were) and a chapter on Jews in Italy (mostly in the twentieth century, before and after World War II). A chapter about how the Romans posed their origins in relation to the Greeks is rather interesting, especially if one has an interest in the Aeneid. The supposition is essentially that the Greeks see themselves as superior insofar as they were immigrants to the land as opposed to emigrants from a land; for the Romans, this distinction was unimportant. But it was important that somehow they relate to the Greeks; this is done through the story in the Aeneid, but that story in part involves a person who deserts the battle of Troy, who is something of an enemy to the Greeks but has to be somehow transformed into something of a friend. The last chapter is a long critique of the work of the linguist Georges Dumezil and his historical sociological work that claimed Indo-European cultures were split in a tripartate function: production, priesthood, and soldiers--Momigliano finds this idea preposterous.
April 23, 2024
"The most dangerous type of researcher in any historical field is the man who, because he is intelligent enough to ask a good question, believes that he is good enough to give a satisfactory answer." p. 5
"The traditional father of Greek historiography, Hecataeus, lived at the end of the sixth century B.C.; the two men who shaped Greek historiography in the way that we know it, Herodotus and Thucydides, operated in the second half of the fifth century B.C." p. 33
"But I have no evidence to show that any pagan historian took the step of presenting world history in terms of the aging of an individual." p. 36
"We must conclude that in classical pagan historiography the application of the biological scheme to the history of mankind was scarcely more successful than the application of the scheme of the metallic age." p. 37
"... the development of the notion of the succession of world empires within Greek historiography, and I shall try to show that the Jews - and more precisely the authors of the Book of Daniel - derived this notion from the Greeks and turned it into an apocalyptic one." p. 32
"Josephus wrote on the border of two cultures." p. 116 He did not perceive that Jewish revolt was similar to those of other provincials and he " disconnects the events in Palestine from what was happening in the rest of the Empire." p.113
"There was no work in the Greek world from 100 BC to AD 300 that could compare with the literature in Latin of the Caesarean and Augustan period: the imperial Greeks never had their Cicero nor their Virgil, not even their Horace and the Propertius. On the other hand there was nothing in Latin comparable in revolutionary importance with the new Testament - a product of Greek culture. Of course that meant that Christian literature in Greek was of decisive importance in shaping the intellectual physiognomy of Christianity. But again simplification is discouraged as soon as we recall the name of St. Augustine whose Greek was bad." p 143
"The traditional father of Greek historiography, Hecataeus, lived at the end of the sixth century B.C.; the two men who shaped Greek historiography in the way that we know it, Herodotus and Thucydides, operated in the second half of the fifth century B.C." p. 33
"But I have no evidence to show that any pagan historian took the step of presenting world history in terms of the aging of an individual." p. 36
"We must conclude that in classical pagan historiography the application of the biological scheme to the history of mankind was scarcely more successful than the application of the scheme of the metallic age." p. 37
"... the development of the notion of the succession of world empires within Greek historiography, and I shall try to show that the Jews - and more precisely the authors of the Book of Daniel - derived this notion from the Greeks and turned it into an apocalyptic one." p. 32
"Josephus wrote on the border of two cultures." p. 116 He did not perceive that Jewish revolt was similar to those of other provincials and he " disconnects the events in Palestine from what was happening in the rest of the Empire." p.113
"There was no work in the Greek world from 100 BC to AD 300 that could compare with the literature in Latin of the Caesarean and Augustan period: the imperial Greeks never had their Cicero nor their Virgil, not even their Horace and the Propertius. On the other hand there was nothing in Latin comparable in revolutionary importance with the new Testament - a product of Greek culture. Of course that meant that Christian literature in Greek was of decisive importance in shaping the intellectual physiognomy of Christianity. But again simplification is discouraged as soon as we recall the name of St. Augustine whose Greek was bad." p 143
June 14, 2025
The essays in this collection are very diverse, there being no central theme beyond the author's historiographical focus. They are also very academic, which is to say dry, erudite and well-cited. Some, such as those for the Review of Books, would be accessible to the well-educated reader, others would be more appropriate for the specialist. A few were published in English, but many are translations.
The over-riding impression I obtained was of the author's great caution. He here spins no grand theories, paints no large canvas, but reminds us, again and again, of how little we know of antiquity.
I studied Latin in high school, worked with koine Greek in seminary, edited and wrote for the 'Ancient World' journal, and received two degrees in religion--and lots of this book was beyond my capacities.
The over-riding impression I obtained was of the author's great caution. He here spins no grand theories, paints no large canvas, but reminds us, again and again, of how little we know of antiquity.
I studied Latin in high school, worked with koine Greek in seminary, edited and wrote for the 'Ancient World' journal, and received two degrees in religion--and lots of this book was beyond my capacities.
July 24, 2020
Teleurstellend, naar De Slegte gebracht.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews