Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Jul 16, 2023 10:05 am
Curious also about the views of the other users of the forum
The belief in a Messiah-figure in the first century CE seems anti-Roman to me, so I would consider any writings from that time that espouse this belief to be "anti-Roman," in the sense that it was hoped that the world would be run by a Messiah-figure instead of by Rome (i.e., that "one from their country should become governor of the habitable Earth," as Josephus put it).
One way around this for Josephus (and Rabbinic Judaism) was to apply this idea to Vespasian, but Jesus is presented as saying that he was (or would become in a heavenly form after his death) Daniel's "son of man" figure, and this figure is described as being given "dominion, glory, and kingship,that the people of every nation and language should serve him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, that will not pass away" (Dan. 7:14), in contrast to the status quo in 1 John 2:16-17, 1 Cor. 7:31 and Mk. 14:61-62:
For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh, the desires of the eyes, and the pride of life—is not from the Father but from the world. The world is passing away, along with its desires; but whoever does the will of God remains forever.
For this world in its present form is passing away.
Again the high priest questioned him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?”
“I am,” said Jesus, “and you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
So yes, I'd say that the gospels (and the rest of the NT) are anti-Roman in this sense, because while they may support the status quo for the time being (e.g., 1 Peter 2 and Rom. 13), they expect the status quo (which at that time was Roman) to soon change when Jesus comes to Earth in the form of a heavenly being.