In a message dated 97-06-21 09:31:44 EDT, Steve Harris writes:
> But, when the glory of Rome passes, and the Germans and Franks are
> blessed with the translatio imperii et studii, what are the implications
> with respect to Christ's expressed Roman citizenship? (Orosius' book,
> after all, was perhaps the major sourcebook in the early Middle Ages for
> history.) I am suggesting that the implications are so unpalatable that
> in the English translation of Orosius, any mention of Christ's Romanitas
> is entirely excised. (And that means reducing all mention of Christ to a
> few lines!) In fact, Anglo-Saxons generally go to great lengths to
> clothe Christ in Germanic garb, to rid Him of Romanitas altogether. He
> is protrayed as a Germanic warrior, a Germanic king, a Germanic lord,
> etc. After all, in the age of Charlemagne and in the age of Alfred, why
> would God boast of Roman citizenship?
>
I think you have 2 or 3 threads entangled that maybe ought to be separated.
First, the early christian community understandably wanted to distance itself
from judaism. One of the most dramatic signs is the change in connotation of
the number 13, which we still consider inauspicious. It's generally
auspicious in the OT. It's never mentioned in the NT, though it may be
implied when 13 persons dine at the Last Supper. Making Christ a Roman
citizen rather than a Jew may fit into this pattern of insisting on basic
differences between judiasm and christianity. To set this into context, you
have to realize that the differences may not be that great, which is why we
use the term judaeo-christian. The ethical differences between Christianity
and Judaism are virtually nil. The "theological" difference is that
Christians believe Christ is the Messiah promised in OT prophecies. Jews say
that Messiah has not yet come. All the other stuff is secondary
accretions--like changing the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday.
Second thread. If you look at Early Christian art, you'll find that prior to
about 800 virtually all Christian communities were remaking Christ in their
own image. In Ethiopian Gospelsbooks he appears as a black man. In Irish
Gospelbooks he has blonde hair and blue eyes. In Rome, he's portrayed with
short hair, Roman style and he's also fairly plump. Only the so-called
Byzantine Christ is thin, bearded, long hair, etc. Happened to be how men
wore their hair in the Byzantine Empire at that time.
Third thread. The Chuch, at a certain point, wanted a common image of Christ
that would be recognizable, not all these different images. Same logic as
using Latin for church services. I don't know the political ins and outs
that led to Irish art being rejected and Carolingian art receiving the
imprimatur. But the net result is the monolithic Christ figure most people
know today. And I think Charlemagne played a big role. You call him German.
He wanted to think of himself as a new Roman emperor, and even proposed to
the Empress Irene of Byzantium on the basis that if they married, it would
reunite the two parts of what had once been the Roman empire. She turned him
down.
Carolingian art looks like an attempt--fairly primitive--to revive the art of
the Roman Empire, which also was what the church wanted.
Anyway, try separating out these diverse threads, and see if it helps.
pat sloane
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|