"I think we should throw those books in a fire"

[CivilDiscourse]

The first comments about anti-Semitism in the ancient world begin around post #340. The first mention of "as we know it" occurs at post #386. With her initial claim seppa'd, H_A changed the parameters to "as we know it."

Please don't fall into her trap of posting numbers

The quote function is so much better

[tabibito]

Have you provided an actual definition of what you mean by "anti-semitism as we know it"?

The first comments about anti-Semitism in the ancient world begin around post #340. The first mention of "as we know it" occurs at post #386. With her initial claim seppa'd, H_A changed the parameters to "as we know it."

[CivilDiscourse]

Please provide the exact quote from me where I have written that "there was no anti-Semitism in the ancient world".

Have you provided an actual definition of what you mean by "anti-semitism as we know it"?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

But that was not your original claim anyway. Your original claim was that there was no anti-Semitism in the ancient world.

Please provide the exact quote from me where I have written that "there was no anti-Semitism in the ancient world".

[tabibito]

The contention has been that anti-Semitism as we understand and define that term today, existed in the Graeco-Roman world. It didn't.

At best, the claim that there was no anti-Semitism as we know it in the ancient world has no support. But that was not your original claim anyway. Your original claim was that there was no anti-Semitism in the ancient world. Moreover, your claim that Nazism drew on church anti-Semitism, which had religious aspects, doesn't float if your definitions are accepted. Nazi anti-Semitism had precious little religious basis, but it did reflect already cited attitudes of 1 century pagan writers.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The argument throughout has been that racism existed in the Graeco-Roman world, and racism that was directed against the Jews. There has been no shift to "racism generally:" it has always been the basis of the argument.

The contention has been that anti-Semitism as we understand and define that term today, existed in the Graeco-Roman world. It didn't.

[Sparko]

"Widow" is a word that means a woman who has lost her husband (dead). "Widower" is the term for a man who's wife has died. But there is no word for a mother who has who's child has died. I guess that means that a mother's child never dies, eh? After all there is no word for it.

[tabibito]

You have now shifted your contentions to racism generally. And as has been noted certain attitudes of superiority and inferiority did exist in the Graeco-Roman world.

The argument throughout has been that racism existed in the Graeco-Roman world, and racism that was directed against the Jews. There has been no shift to "racism generally:" it has always been the basis of the argument.

[Gondwanaland]

Did you actually read my post to which this is a reply?

Yes, and I agreed with your correction of your fib. Did you read what you just replied to?

Writes the man who .has yet to provide an iota of evidence in support of his ludicrous notions concerning the Graeco-Roman world.

Oh, it's 'ludicrous' now, is it? Go pound sand hun, I ain't jumping through any of your hoops when you pretend to be a historian and don't know what a Hellenistic Scholar is. Get rekt.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Oh my. We have retreated to the same failed ploy you attempted with respect to homosexuality. Saying it didn't exist until someone coined the term in the 1860s

I have never denied that same sex practices existed. I noted that the ancient world did not use that term to describe them.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

No clue what post 460 is and likely neither does anyone else if they have people on ignore, etc. But yes, I did indeed answer your question, despite your fib you made claiming otherwise.

Did you actually read my post to which this is a reply?

The one with the unsupported opinion is you, who thinks that the existence of other racist elements negates anti-semitism and that anti-semitism requires some sort of institutionalization to exist

Writes the man who .has yet to provide an iota of evidence in support of his ludicrous notions concerning the Graeco-Roman world.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Now now. Chauvinism didn't exist until the nineteenth century. Nothing in the early centuries could possibly reflect chauvinistic attitudes.

Ancient Egyptians certainly viewed Egypt and themselves as superior to other peoples. Chauvin is supposed to have been involved in Napoleon's campaigns which puts him a little earlier but from the early nineteenth century the term certainly came to epitomise the glorification of all things military.

Or rather, the development of the word has no effect on the existence of the circumstance or object in question. Grafit, for example, certainly existed prior to the eighteenth century - when the word was first coined - but the word for the substance until then was Schwarzblei.

I am sorry but I have no idea what those two sentences are supposed to mean.

Goodness - not from the church after all, not from religion but from pseudo-science. Not from early times, but from the nineteenth century.

The term racism yes. It is generally held to have originated in the nineteenth century and its intellectual roots are to be found in that century Opinions on the subject often contend that racism should be more precisely described as “scientific racism,” and that it was an offshoot from some of the ideas about evolution that developed in the nineteenth century.

I specified cultural isolationism - such things as refusing to enter a gentile's house, or to partake in the festivals of the locations where they were living. And yes, that was Judaist (i.e. religious sect) conduct, which did not extend through all of Hebrew society.

As previously noted many Jews were Hellenised and the Hasmoneans adopted aspects of Hellenised life.

Just who is indulging in vague generalisations?

You are.

The reasons behind those attitudes doesn't change the attitude and action. They may explain or even, on occasion, excuse the attitude and action - but the attitude and action remain what they are.

You have now shifted your contentions to racism generally. And as has been noted certain attitudes of superiority and inferiority did exist in the Graeco-Roman world.

The following remarks are from the British sociologist Michael Banton who has published widely on racism. He defines racism and prejudice thusly: “By racism is meant the doctrine that a man’s behaviour is determined by stable inherited characters deriving from separate racial stocks having distinctive attributes and usually considered to stand to one another in relations of superiority and inferiority." He also contends that prejudice, although related to racism, is somewhat different and that it has been defined as "a generalisation existing prior to the situation in which it is invoked, directed toward people, groups, or social institutions, which is accepted and defended as a guide to action in spite of its discrepancies with the objective facts".

The comment about hobbyhorses demonstrates that "my" words are well founded.

My observation was premised on your peculiar fascination with those particular topics.

[tabibito]

Firstly the term "racism" first occurs in the OED in 1910. The term "racialism" first appeared in print a little earlier and secondly you are utilising aspects of a specific form of racism which did not exist until the nineteenth century.

No one disputes that notions of cultural or racial superiority existed in the ancient world. The ancient Egyptians were somewhat chauvinistic and the Greeks considered anyone who did not speak Greek to be a barbarian [the word is still in use today to denote someone who uncultured and/or wantonly destructive].

Now now. Chauvinism didn't exist until the nineteenth century. Nothing in the early centuries could possibly reflect chauvinistic attitudes. Or rather, the development of the word has no effect on the existence of the circumstance or object in question. Grafit, for example, certainly existed prior to the eighteenth century - when the word was first coined - but the word for the substance until then was Schwarzblei.

No one has ever disputed the possibility that group hatred and bigotry may have existed in many forms in the course of human history but the attitudes of the Graeco-Roman world were not the same as those which produced the [supposedly] scientific racism of the nineteenth century.

Goodness - not from the church after all, not from religion but from pseudo-science. Not from early times, but from the nineteenth century.

The Greeks and Romans described other peoples and explained their own superiority as well as the good values or and/or inferiority of other groups.. Tacitus writes of the Germanic tribe the Chatti as being given to orderly judgement and sagacity. However, other writers including Strabo and Manilius considered the Germans to be untrustworthy and liars. However, their views cannot be taken as a consensus and those opinions may have something to do with the disastrous event of 9 CE.

Given that Jews lived in the diaspora and what would become various parts of the Roman empire your comment concerning isolationism is questionable. Furthermore, despite the initial uprising by the Maccabees, the Hasmoneans readily adopted many aspects of Hellenistic culture. Nor can the later Hasmoneans working with Rome be discounted in creating further tension between the Greeks and the Jews, from which some Greek hostility was inevitable.

I specified cultural isolationism - such things as refusing to enter a gentile's house, or to partake in the festivals of the locations where they were living. And yes, that was Judaist (i.e. religious sect) conduct, which did not extend through all of Hebrew society.

However, without an understanding of the history of this region from the Persian period onward vague generalisations pertaining to the Jews have no validity.

Just who is indulging in vague generalisations?

Once again I have never disputed the existence of what we might term proto racism within the ancient world but the reasons behind those attitudes are complex and you cannot apply a blanket assertion to widely differing ancient cultures.

The reasons behind those attitudes doesn't change the attitude and action. They may explain or even, on occasion, excuse the attitude and action - but the attitude and action remain what they are.

Along with the dates of the Passover as recounted in the gospels that appears to be another of your hobbyhorses.

To which I can only reply, those are your words, not mine.

The comment about hobbyhorses demonstrates that "my" words are well founded.

[Gondwanaland]

Firstly the term "racism" first occurs in the OED in 1910. The term "racialism" first appeared in print a little earlier and secondly you are utilising aspects of a specific form of racism which did not exist until the nineteenth century.

Wait are you seriously trying to claim that something doesn't exist until the point at which a word is invented to describe it? Because that looks like what you are trying to declare here. Which is truly insanely idiotic. But that would be par for the course for you.

[Gondwanaland]

You are quite correct I did make an erroneous remark at post #460. You did acknowledge, if not directly address, my question.

However, your unsupported opinion is still misguided and flawed and no amount of metaphorically stamping your foot or making pejorative remarks towards me will alter that fact.

No clue what post 460 is and likely neither does anyone else if they have people on ignore, etc. But yes, I did indeed answer your question, despite your fib you made claiming otherwise

The one with the unsupported opinion is you, who thinks that the existence of other racist elements negates anti-semitism and that anti-semitism requires some sort of institutionalization to exist