The New Testament is profoundly rooted in what Friedrich Nietzsche called slave morality. Its sense of moralss and the societal values it expounds can be described as a downward pull towards a changeless avowal of a black homo. One can see the New Testament as copying the ideals of the Old Testament. for the full Judeo-christian message is merely. repeating Mikhail Bakunin: God is everything. humanity is nil ; God is the maestro. humanity its slaves. As such. moralss. values and virtuousnesss that sprang from the New Testament is and will ever be that of a slave race.
Knowing that Jesus himself was extremely influenced by Judaic tradition. one can state that the New Testament is simply a continuance of the Old Testament. The ethical ambiance of the classical civilisations of Greece and Rome were different from that of the Judeo-christian 1. The Greeks and the Romans were far more positive in their mentality of life and their civilisations were a mish-mash of what Nietzsche referred to as Apollonian and Dionysian elements. Whereas the Judeo-christian God regulations and controls all. the Greeks and Romans were able to build a system where Fate controls all including the Gods and goddesses themselves.
Unlike the Hebrew and Christian “slave” . the Grecian “human” is non a merchandise of his God but of his passion. his capacity to ground. and his yesteryear. There may be Gods and goddesses. but they exist as portion of a hierarchy in nature. When a adult male fears a God. it was because of that god’s power ( and there were many a discrepancies of such powers ) . A adult male hence fears God because he saw God as a superior ; but this does non intend that he saw God as a maestro. On the contrary. a Grecian or a Roman may conceive of himself powerful plenty to dispute the Gods.
The Gods were feared because of their powers and non in the Christian sense when people fear God in fright of a barbarous penalty in the hereafter. Therefore. the Classical ethical ambiance promotes what Nietzsche called maestro morality. What was valued more was the capacity of human existences to lift up towards the degree of a God ( like Homer’s Achilles ) and non how much one has knelt before a God. There may be a baronial credence that the actions of the Gods were considered destiny ( as in Virgil’s Aenied ) . human actions still determine whether this or that human becomes a maestro or a God.
What is similar between the Greco-Roman and Judeo-christian the sense of moralss and sets of values and virtuousnesss is their compulsion for what is ideal. Classical values are based on the doctrine of a signifier and substance. where the signifier may endure alterations but its substance remain lasting. Changes may snuff out the signifier but the substance ne’er perishes. Plato’s cave demonstrates this dichotomy in world. In the Judeo-christian sense excessively resides this dichotomy: organic structure and psyche. The organic structure may die but the psyche does non.
Taking attention of the psyche is hence first precedence of Judeo-christian morality while decoding and understanding the substance is the first precedence of Greco-Roman doctrine. This difference is highlighted by the fact that Jesus’s taught his wisdom through verbal fables concentrating on morality. Homer and Virgil through their written vulgar show of the human senses in its battle against reverent intuitions. while Plato in his philosophical piece of lands that promoted a certain grade of idealism.
This difference between Jesus and the classical authors can besides be attributed to their audiences: slave morality for Jesus. maestro morality for the classical authors. Therefore. Jesus himself was go oning a tradition deep into the universe of the Old Testament “slaves” and in forging himself as the Jewish messiah his instructions were meant to salve his universe the same manner as Moses salvaged his. The degeneracy of Judaic society during the clip of Jesus was reminiscent of the Hebrew society before Moses came down with the two tablets in his custodies.
Judaic society had become a corruptness of its former glow and the instructions of the Christ was supposed to clean away such corruptnesss. Whereas Homer. Plato and Virgil wrote in effort to expose the human spirit in its pure and existent substance. Jesus spoke of that spirit’s concluding finish. The New Testament. in this sense. failed to recognize that most of the clip the journey of the human spirit is more of import than its finish.