By the way, I think the article is quite interesting on its own terms. "None" is a very viable answer, but clearly there's a history that requires arguing for it.
The argument (as I understand it) is that "they killed Christ". But what a base and stupid argument. Questionably true (leaving aside all questions as to the veracity of the accounts), as you could actually lay this at the feet of the Romans and make a good case for it, but ultimately it's irrelevant. And I say that, because (at least according to what I was taught) Christ was sent to us to die upon the cross for the world's sins. In other words, it isn't so much important as to who was responsible for Christ's suffering and crucifixion, as that is precisely why God sent Him to Earth. So if the Jews are to be held culpable as the agents of his death (which again, may or may not even be fair), then we must curse God himself for being the author of it. Yes, we punish the hitman who kills someone, but we hold the person who called the hit equally responsible or even more responsible. In fact, I daresay that Christians should consider the Jews role in Christ's death as doing God's will, and last time I checked, that was considered a "good thing".
With the Jews as a whole? None. The rank and file loved him. With the Jews' political elite that were willing to kill someone to protect their power structure and their position? A lot. But the Jews as a race or ethnic group were no more culpable than we are for the unethical actions of our own political structure (in fact, they were probably a lot less responsible than we are).
That excellent linked review at "The Nation" sent me over to download the Kindle version immediately, so there's another in my stack of things to read. (Thanks a lot.) I'm very interested in Nirenberg's insight that Christians are projecting their own scariest and most loathsome qualities onto Jews and persecuting them in order to purify their own self-image.
What a strange thing that Christians should have decided that Jews should be faulted for being too little like Greeks. The Jews themselves always saw the Greeks as one more in a long history of temptations toward worldly squalor and idolatry, and died in large numbers to protect their own insistence on fidelity to an austere God and His commandments. How strange that Christians ended up stereotyping Jews as more worldly or grasping than they were themselves.
Part of the Passion liturgy calls for members of the congregation to assume roles of various participants in the story, such as Peter denying Christ three times before the cock crows. Every year the most painful moment for me is when the whole congregation is required to call out "Crucify him!" It's not someone else making that demand, it's our own hearts. There are few things that persuade me of the otherwise impossible doctrine of Original Sin like contemplating anti-Semitism.
The New Testament is a snapshot of a particular style of Judaism that was losing itself in empty ritual and missing the point of God. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't all do that practically all the time! -- or if we could root out the error by persecuting the occasional "Judaizer."
Thanks for pointing me to this book, Grim. It looks as though it will speak to exactly what I said has been troubling me.
Jews and Greeks were known for rioting (with each other) in Alexandria before the Ptolemies were deposed by the Romans, and plenty of times afterwards.
The Romans had to deal with riots between Jews and Christians (or Jews who became Christians) both in the Eastern part of the Empire and even in Rome itself.
And the Romans had their own issues with Christians (however much Gibbon may have overplayed that argument), so that when that flip got switched, and the Romans went from persecuting Christians to persecuting anybody who wasn't a Christian, you got an altogether wonderful witches' brew of what were regional ethnic rivalries/conflicts getting encoded in the DNA (so to speak) of Western Christianity.
There's a passage in one of the gospels, where the mob at Christ's trial says, "His blood be upon us and our children!" I've always tended to read this in a historical/current events light, meaning that the gospel writer intended to suggest that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD was the consequence of that particular choice. I'm satisfied to leave it at that.
The New Testament is full of references that say that God is the Lord of all.
Romand 10:11 (New International Version) 11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Romans 11 is even clearer, where the Gentiles asked Paul whether the Jews who had rejected the early Christian teachers were rejected by God:
1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." 4 But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
.......
12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches.
***********
Paul goes on to say he expects God to eventually deliver ALL of the Jews.
Wrt the "upon us and our children", IIRC Jesus declined to press charges, and it seems presumptuous to try to do so on His behalf.
Later quarrels seem disproportionate, unless Jews were far more influential in the ancient world than we tend to think today. But a few years back I read (Stark?) an estimate that something between 5 and 10% of the Roman empire was either Jewish or strongly leaning that way. They had a religion so plainly superior to the pantheon that it might have attracted more interested people than we think. If both Jew and Christian were reaching out to the same pool of seekers, I can readily imagine some quarreling and drawing of lines (such as demanding that the communion bread be leavened so that it can't be mistaken for Passover bread).
Jesus declined to press charges, and it seems presumptuous to try to do so on His behalf.
Jesus seems to have given us explicit instructions in this regard, at least. He told his followers to make sure they had swords even if they had to sell their coats; but he forbade them, when they tried, to use swords in his defense.
So we fight for each other, to defend each other. We don't use the sword to fight for him. That's clear enough: he can call on legions of angels, should he wish.
Matthew 7:1“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2“For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
John 12:47“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
13 comments:
Ummmm...how about "None"?
Right, but what's the argument? :)
By the way, I think the article is quite interesting on its own terms. "None" is a very viable answer, but clearly there's a history that requires arguing for it.
The argument (as I understand it) is that "they killed Christ". But what a base and stupid argument. Questionably true (leaving aside all questions as to the veracity of the accounts), as you could actually lay this at the feet of the Romans and make a good case for it, but ultimately it's irrelevant. And I say that, because (at least according to what I was taught) Christ was sent to us to die upon the cross for the world's sins. In other words, it isn't so much important as to who was responsible for Christ's suffering and crucifixion, as that is precisely why God sent Him to Earth. So if the Jews are to be held culpable as the agents of his death (which again, may or may not even be fair), then we must curse God himself for being the author of it. Yes, we punish the hitman who kills someone, but we hold the person who called the hit equally responsible or even more responsible. In fact, I daresay that Christians should consider the Jews role in Christ's death as doing God's will, and last time I checked, that was considered a "good thing".
With the Jews as a whole? None. The rank and file loved him. With the Jews' political elite that were willing to kill someone to protect their power structure and their position? A lot. But the Jews as a race or ethnic group were no more culpable than we are for the unethical actions of our own political structure (in fact, they were probably a lot less responsible than we are).
That excellent linked review at "The Nation" sent me over to download the Kindle version immediately, so there's another in my stack of things to read. (Thanks a lot.) I'm very interested in Nirenberg's insight that Christians are projecting their own scariest and most loathsome qualities onto Jews and persecuting them in order to purify their own self-image.
What a strange thing that Christians should have decided that Jews should be faulted for being too little like Greeks. The Jews themselves always saw the Greeks as one more in a long history of temptations toward worldly squalor and idolatry, and died in large numbers to protect their own insistence on fidelity to an austere God and His commandments. How strange that Christians ended up stereotyping Jews as more worldly or grasping than they were themselves.
Part of the Passion liturgy calls for members of the congregation to assume roles of various participants in the story, such as Peter denying Christ three times before the cock crows. Every year the most painful moment for me is when the whole congregation is required to call out "Crucify him!" It's not someone else making that demand, it's our own hearts. There are few things that persuade me of the otherwise impossible doctrine of Original Sin like contemplating anti-Semitism.
The New Testament is a snapshot of a particular style of Judaism that was losing itself in empty ritual and missing the point of God. Wouldn't it be nice if we didn't all do that practically all the time! -- or if we could root out the error by persecuting the occasional "Judaizer."
Thanks for pointing me to this book, Grim. It looks as though it will speak to exactly what I said has been troubling me.
Jews and Greeks were known for rioting (with each other) in Alexandria before the Ptolemies were deposed by the Romans, and plenty of times afterwards.
The Romans had to deal with riots between Jews and Christians (or Jews who became Christians) both in the Eastern part of the Empire and even in Rome itself.
And the Romans had their own issues with Christians (however much Gibbon may have overplayed that argument), so that when that flip got switched, and the Romans went from persecuting Christians to persecuting anybody who wasn't a Christian, you got an altogether wonderful witches' brew of what were regional ethnic rivalries/conflicts getting encoded in the DNA (so to speak) of Western Christianity.
History: there's always more of it.
There's a passage in one of the gospels, where the mob at Christ's trial says, "His blood be upon us and our children!" I've always tended to read this in a historical/current events light, meaning that the gospel writer intended to suggest that the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD was the consequence of that particular choice. I'm satisfied to leave it at that.
No beef.
The New Testament is full of references that say that God is the Lord of all.
Romand 10:11 (New International Version)
11 As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 12For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 13 for, "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."
Valerie
Romans 11 is even clearer, where the Gentiles asked Paul whether the Jews who had rejected the early Christian teachers were rejected by God:
1 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 "Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life." 4 But what is God's reply to him? "I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal." 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
.......
12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches.
***********
Paul goes on to say he expects God to eventually deliver ALL of the Jews.
Valerie
Wrt the "upon us and our children", IIRC Jesus declined to press charges, and it seems presumptuous to try to do so on His behalf.
Later quarrels seem disproportionate, unless Jews were far more influential in the ancient world than we tend to think today. But a few years back I read (Stark?) an estimate that something between 5 and 10% of the Roman empire was either Jewish or strongly leaning that way. They had a religion so plainly superior to the pantheon that it might have attracted more interested people than we think.
If both Jew and Christian were reaching out to the same pool of seekers, I can readily imagine some quarreling and drawing of lines (such as demanding that the communion bread be leavened so that it can't be mistaken for Passover bread).
Jesus declined to press charges, and it seems presumptuous to try to do so on His behalf.
Jesus seems to have given us explicit instructions in this regard, at least. He told his followers to make sure they had swords even if they had to sell their coats; but he forbade them, when they tried, to use swords in his defense.
So we fight for each other, to defend each other. We don't use the sword to fight for him. That's clear enough: he can call on legions of angels, should he wish.
Nice way of stating it James.
Matthew 7:1“Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2“For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you.
John 12:47“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world.
Post a Comment