Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Silverman WWJD, Hanukkah Edition
Posted by Jack Silverman on Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 12:23 PM
But Schiftan's larger point is the celebration of religious diversity and tolerance:
Ours is a city, and a state, and a nation, composed of Christians and Jews, of Buddhists and Hindus, of Muslims and Bahai, and even of those of no faith tradition or belief.What would Jesus, the Jew, do? He would treasure the Divine image he believed was contained in every human soul, and value the freedom of religious expression, which he fought for in his day, as well.
And that is perhaps the greatest gift of the holiday season, whether that gift is to be found under the tree, or under the menorah, or anywhere under the heavens. At this season, it is that gift that matters most.
Commenter Shelby Vaughn, obviously feeling the holiday spirit and in the mood to celebrate Jesus' message of love and tolerance, offered this observation:
Well we'll never know what Jesus the Jew would do because he was betrayed and crucified by his own.
With all the different news outlets and their varying agendas, it's a challenge to get to the bottom of the events of the last week. So I am quite moved by Vaughn's undying certainty in the veracity of a history written by people who weren't even there, and had their own agendas.
Since so many folks have a dog in this fight, I thought I'd look to the ultimate source for truth: The Straight Dope — "Fighting ignorance since 1973 (it's taking longer than we thought)." After all, if it's on the the Internet, it must be true. But seriously, the site has a very thoughtful, thorough piece on the topic (so thorough that I haven't had time to read it all, being deadline day and all). But here's an excerpt that eloquently states the case:
First, who killed Jesus is irrelevant. If you're a devout Christian, Jesus would tell you not to blame but to forgive. If Jesus hadn't died on the cross, you'd have no route to salvation. So in a way you should be thanking those who executed him, not blaming them.Sounds a bit like presidential campaigning, actually. You gotta play to your crowd. How timely.Second, as you say, the question is politically sensitive, to say the least. The accusation of "Christ-killer" was used as justification for isolating, robbing, torturing, and murdering Jews. It's only in recent times—the last fifty years, perhaps not that long—that leading Christian authorities have reviewed the circumstances and acknowledged the injustices of the past 2,000 years.
Third, there is no historical record of the condemnation of Jesus other than the New Testament. The different books of the New Testament give five slightly different accounts. Although the versions agree on the main points, the emphasis and details vary. Each author had his own biases and agenda. The authors of the gospels weren't writing objective history; they were trying to convert a particular audience, and their words reflect that.
The first Christians were Jews who appealed to other Jews to accept Jesus as the Jewish Messiah. Their preaching thus did not condemn the Jews too harshly, laying most of the blame on the Romans. When the Jews rejected conversion, many early Christians turned against the Jews and looked for converts in the vast Roman Empire outside Judea. Their preaching therefore was careful not to condemn the Romans too harshly, but it was OK to blame Jews.
After nearly 4,000 words of exposition, The Straight Dope offers the only logical conclusion:
SO, WHO KILLED JESUS, ALREADY?In summary, Jesus was killed because the Roman empire mercilessly put down any possible source of rebellion or riot. The empire's agents included the Roman prefect Pilate who ordered the execution, and the Jewish high priest Caiaphus and his council who initiated the process. Assigning responsibility to an entire group of people, whether the Jews or the Romans, is stereotyping, oversimplifying, and false.
Comments (32)
Showing 1-32 of 32
The Straight Dope is AWESOME. Have been reading it regularly since the '80s when it appeared in an Atlanta alt weekly (not Creative Loafing).
Have always wished The Scene picked it up, at least back in the days when it could afford to run syndicated columns ...
like
dislike
SHelby Vaughn is incorrect; as SD pointed out, Jesus was killed by agents of the Roman Empire. The Jews had not much to do with it in reality. The story was altered by the early Christian PR flacks b/c they were in fierce and sometimes ugly competition with traditonal Judaism for adherents and also wanted to avoid incriminating or accusing the powerful Roman authorities who at that time paid little attention to them.
The Gospels and NT are the greatest collection of propaganda of all time.
Pack,
Do you have sources for that? I am interested in reading them.
No doubt that some of the early Christians fought with the Jews. But it was a mutual conflict. For example, it is thought that Nero's second wife, Poppaea Sabina, was a Jew and that she convinced Nero to blame the Christians for the great fire.
It should also be noted that what we call antisemitism existed well before the Christian Era but for very different reasons. Essentially the Jewish refusal to adopt key elements Hellenistic culture created all manner of problems with the Selucids in Judea. Roman antisemitism grew out of their willingness to accept Roman rule exacerbated by occasional Roman efforts to get the Jews to worship the cult of the Emperor.
I think Jesus would be a Republican. I think he'd be a member of the NRA and vote to abolish the EPA, Welfare, and the Department of Education. Cut Pell Grants that allow poor kids to go to college, cut unemployment insurance, cut the food stamp program, cut Medicaid and Medicare. He'd be a big death penalty advocate too. I think he'd support a constitutional amendment to save America from gay marriage and flag burning. I think he would definitely recognize corporations as people with souls and everything.
Actually, smoothy, Jesus has already returned. His name was Ayn Rand.
Poppaea Sabina? Selucids? Damn, looks like I need to go to finishin' school.
pack - thanks for the chuckle.
jack - trust me, you don't want to go to that school. Newt is the dean.
I think the first paragraph of the Cecil Adams quote is the key. If you believe the dogma, Jesus was SUPPOSED to be killed. That was the caper from the beginning. Everything went as planned. Blaming anyone for his death amounts to second-guessing God, who, presumably, could have stopped it. It was scripted from the beginning. It wasn't just the basis for the Passion Play, it WAS the Passion Play. A ritual.
Pontius Pilate found no fault in Jesus, no rebellion against Roman authority, and didn't really see the need to execute him. But Pilate gave in to the urgings of the Jewish priests who viewed Jesus as a threat after he exposed their wickedness. It was all predicted by the anicient prophets.
I wonder if the ancient priests predicted how I would expose gast's weaknesses.
Actually gast, the gospel author (of the Q gospel) or authors wrote the stories so that it would look like the stories were the fulfillment of ancient bronze-age semitic pastoral sky-god prophecies. They wrote their own history, sort of like right wingers do today.
As much as it pains me to admit it, I agree with Gast on this one. Pigs can start flying now.
1. The Romans killed Jesus. Under Roman law, Jewish leaders were not allowed to execute anyone. Executions were reserved for the Roman authority.
2. The fact that some of Jesus' enemies were Jewish religious leaders overlooks the fact that all of Jesus' supporters were also Jews. Some of the Pharisees (forerunners of modern rabbis) were among them. John's gospel, for example, presents the Jewish sanhedrin as deeply conflicted over Jesus — believing on the one hand that someone who performed so many "signs" could only have received such power from God but also fearing that this power and his popularity among some of the peasantry would lead the Romans to view him as a threat to incite yet another Jewish messianic rebellion. From my Jewish friends I've often heard repeated the old joke, "Put three Jews in a room and you get five opinions." The Jews of Jesus' Judea and Galilee were no different.
3. Up until 66-70 AD, when the Jewish rebellion occurred, culminating in the destruction of the Second Temple, Christians were viewed as another sect within Judaism, sort of like Protestants or Copts are viewed as groups within Christianity. After 70 AD, the only survivors among the diverse groups within the Judaism of Jesus' day were the Christians and the Pharisees. Christians increasingly began to identify themselves by emphasizing their differences with the Pharisees. So the Gospels, all of which were written after 70 AD, not surprisingly pick episodes from Jesus' ministry that show him in conflict with the Pharisees and underplay the many more things they shared in common.
4. Packrat, it's not really correct to say that the early Christians made up their own history. What's more correct is that the early Christians were still wrestling with the question of who Jesus was. Before the gospels were put in written form, his followers remembered things he had said that pointed to the belief that he was the messiah. They also looked back on their own Jewish scriptures and began to interpret some of them in a fresh light given things they knew about Jesus. For example, they looked at the passage that says "Out of Egypt I have called my son" — which in its original context was about the children of Israel and began to see it as a prophetic reference to Jesus, remembering that Jesus' family had fled to Egypt in fear of Herod. When they re-read the "suffering servant" passages from Isaiah, which in their original context apparently referred to the suffering nation of Israel as a whole, and saw them in a fresh way in light of Jesus' own suffering and death, especially the reference to "by his stripes we are healed."
5. What would Jesus say about religious diversity? There's no clear-cut case. You can certainly make the case that Jesus saw himself not as a universal savior but as someone who had come for Jews alone. He makes a very xenophobic reference to a Gentile (Syro-Phoenician) woman when he speaks of pearls before swine, until she more or less shames him and persuades him to act on her behalf. On the other hand, he passes through Samaritan territory (a devote Jew in his day would regard himself as defiled if he even stepped across the shadow of a Philistine on the road), and he spent several days in one Samaritan village preaching and teaching to them. But it's worth noting that nowhere in the gospels (and, remember the gospels were not a compendium of what Jesus said but selective histories of what the gospel writers thought were the most important or pertinent things Jesus did or said in the eyes of the somewhat differing audiences for each gospel) did Jesus ever speak of starting a new religion. Someone who reads the gospels objectively, without any knowledge of the 2000 years of Christianity that followed, would think that Jesus never intended for those with whom he interacted to be anything other than Jews.
Pete,
You are neglecting that Judas and Pontius Pilate had Free Will. They were not acting out assigned roles as if in a 'Passion Play.'
In addition to the argument that without the crucifixion, there would be no Resurrection, a better reason not to blame the Jews or the Romans is that the action of a few individuals does not convict their contemporaries much less their descendants.
"1. The Romans killed Jesus. Under Roman law, Jewish leaders were not allowed to execute anyone. Executions were reserved for the Roman authority."
I was just going to mention this. Also, crucifixion was a distinctily Roman form of execution.
Min,
Actually crucifixion was adopted by the Romans from their long-time enemies, the Carthaginians. Curiously the Carthaginians were descendants of the Phoenicians {which is why the Romans called them the Punic Wars}, a Semitic people from the land of Tyre and Sidon.
From Jesus' interview with Pontius Pilate comes one of his more quoted comments, "Render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's," and that's why Pilate thought him innocent of trying to usurp Roman authority. My sister, who has attended many bible studies and many, many church services, thought that the quote meant to pay your taxes until I told her my own take was that God was not interested in material posssessions or positions, but only in our spiritual nourishment. She said, "Hmmm...." but didn't disagree, which she usually does. Anybody else got a different opinion?
@Min: You need a poofreader.
Min,
Not a great deal.
The Romans took other people's technologies and improved them or they developed counter measures. They imported Greek art, literature, science and engineering among other things. The apogee of military organization, the manipular legion, was designed to provide flexible options for defeating everything from the phalanx to mountain barbarians.
The great genius of the Romans was their adaptability. They were excellent engineers, soldiers and lawyers because they could take basic principles and adapt them to new situations while retaining those principles. That is one reason that Roman Law, from the XII Tables to the Law Code of Justinian {the Corpus Juris Civilis}, a span of over 1,000 years, us such an achievement.
Mark:
"You are neglecting that Judas and Pontius Pilate had Free Will. They were not acting out assigned roles as if in a 'Passion Play.'"
Maybe so, but when you've got a supreme being involved in the incident, it becomes hard to assume anything. I still think it is serious chutzpah for Christians to hate Jews for their supposed participation in the central, necessary and fundamental event of Christianity.
(yawn) Jesus votes Republican and would be a member of the Belle Meade Country Club. If he is white and not too Jewy. Nobody wants kreplach on the buffet. "...Let the eagle soar..." (As sung by John Ashcroft.)
Pete,
I think you are talking about a different time in the history of Christianity. Very few Christians today even think about the myth of collective guilt among Jews.
I get your point about assuming anything about the Will of God. But Free Will is central to the situation of man in seeking to follow God and achieving Salvation.
Mark, I was just commenting on the the original blog post, which indicates that some people today, probably considering themselves Christians, do blame Jews. I don't know how many actually do. I'm not a Christian myself.
Gast wrote:
"From Jesus' interview with Pontius Pilate comes one of his more quoted comments, "Render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's," and that's why Pilate thought him innocent of trying to usurp Roman authority. My sister, who has attended many bible studies and many, many church services, thought that the quote meant to pay your taxes until I told her my own take was that God was not interested in material posssessions or positions, but only in our spiritual nourishment. She said, "Hmmm...." but didn't disagree, which she usually does. Anybody else got a different opinion?"
Gast, you have the setting for this all wrong. The "render unto Caesar" comment did not occur in Pilate's hearing. Rather, as the gospels tell this story, it involved a group of pharisees who were trying to bait Jesus into a trap by asking him whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. If he answered yes, then they could present him to the people as a collaborator with the hated Roman occupiers. If he said no, they could present him to the Romans as a rebel against their authority. Instead, he confounded them with an elusive answer. Since the Roman coin the pharisees showed him bore an image of Caesar, Jesus said to give to Caesar what belonged to him. The question then would be what belonged to God. The answer for Jesus, as a devout Jew, would have been to give God obedience to the Law, which boiled down to the two commands of loving God fully and loving one's neighbor — neither of which should have been seen as any threat to Caesar.
On the other hand, some things Jesus said were bound to be seen by the Romans as subversive. For example, as the Vanderbilt scholar Amy Jill Levine at Vanderbilt points out, the Lord's prayer begins with the phrase, "Our Father in heaven." It sounds innocuous until you consider that Rome's subjects were taught to view the emperor as their father. By affirming that their true father was in heaven, with authority over and above that of even Rome, Jesus and his followers were making a political statement that would not have sat well with Roman officials who knew of it.
Bubbadog,
Christ's Ministry occurs around AD 30 which is in the reign of Tiberius, the Richard Nixon of Roman Emperors. Augustus was only deified at his death and Tiberius {who was the son of Livia's first husband} never bothered with religious honors. Despite being a parsimonious ruler and one who would always resort to diplomacy before war, his paranoia and vindictive nature made him disliked by many Romans, especially the historian Tacitus. Of the first five Emperors, only Caligula and Nero had pretensions to divinity. Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius were all deified on their deaths. In fact it is said that Claudius's last words were "I believe I am becoming a God."
At that time the cult of Emperor worship was not really a major aspect of Roman society much less foreign policy. That would come later as the principate grew into a more isolated and institutionalized operation.
What the Romans in the time of Christ would have objected to was the teaching that there was only One God, which would have invalidated the host of Roman Gods. And Christ's followers were too minor to bother Rome.
After Christ's death, the issue about the Christians that upset the Romans was their constant conflicts with Jews. Serious riots occur in Alexandria and Rome that caused the Romans to expel the Christians from the capitol.
As late as the early 2nd Century the historian Tacitus was serving as a provincial governor for either the Emperor Trajan or Emperor Hadrian. Tacitus asks the Emperor how to deal with the Christians in his part of Asia Minor. The answer is to leave them alone to violate the laws on religion as long as they don't cause trouble or if they demand to be martyred. Then they were to be executed.
Bubbadog: Good for you. My memory's getting fuzzy. I went back and reread Matthew and came across Jesus's acknowledgement that he was there to fulfili prophecy and Pontius Pilate, even though he decreed the crucifixion, washing his hands of responsibility and laying the blame on the Pharisees and their mob of followers.
@packrat: My Ryrie Study Bible says Matthew was a Roman tax collector (despised by the Jews, of course) who answered Jesus' call and became one of apostles; he is mentioned only one other time. John was also a disciple. It would seem that if the Gospels of these two were written in 70 AD, then they would also be close to that age when they wrote them.
With thanks to Bubbadog and Packrat for the prodding, I came across enough information to say that the "logical conclusion" drawn by The Straight Dope in the final paragraph of this blog is so much horse hockey. Jesus was not killed to stymie a rebellion, he died because he angered the Pharisees.
Silence speaks volumes, doesn't it? Oh I don't blame you, you old peach. I don't attend every argument I'm invited to either. Obviously, it would be sheer folly to pick up your end of this argument. 'Twould be a shame to shed such a magnificent cloak you've so intricately woven for yourself. Of course this doesn't mean I won't continue to bludgeon you with it, old shoe.
“Such as we are made of, such we be.” William S.
Gast, I don't think we will settle the debate over why Jesus was killed because the gospels themselves don't give you any obvious conclusion. Matthew blames it on the Jewish leaders exclusively and even contains the words that became the basis for the blood libel that persisted for centuries, when Pilate warns the crowd that Jesus' death will be on their heads, and the crowd shouts back in willing agreement.
John's gospel on the other hand is much more nuanced. Jesus acknowledges to Pilate that he is a king -- although, as he adds (in a way that might have been difficult for Pilate to comprehend) that his kingdom is not of this world. John reports that Pilate was troubled by this, and even more troubled by Jesus' claim that the only reason Pilate had any authority over him was because God had given it to him. There are strong hints in this that Pilate was concerned that Jesus (whether Jesus intended it or not) would be a political figure. And Pilate was not one to give the troublesome Jews of Judea the benefit of any doubt. He had such a reputation for brutality that even the Roman government found him excessive and removed him a few years after Jesus' crucifixion.
Mark: Thanks for some good info about the emperors of the first half of the first century. But also please note that my comments weren't predicated on the idea that the emperors were viewed as a god. (Although note also that Julius Caesar was proclaimed as a god after his death, which made Augustus the son of a god who was also viewed as a "prince of peace" for ushering in the Pax Romana). The emperor did not have to be viewed as divine to regard himself as a father to the people. The Russian czars (their very title is a corruption of the word "caesar") viewed themselves in this same way all the way down to Nicholas II.
"@packrat: My Ryrie Study Bible says Matthew was a Roman tax collector (despised by the Jews, of course) who answered Jesus' call and became one of apostles; he is mentioned only one other time. John was also a disciple. It would seem that if the Gospels of these two were written in 70 AD, then they would also be close to that age when they wrote them.
With thanks to Bubbadog and Packrat for the prodding, I came across enough information to say that the "logical conclusion" drawn by The Straight Dope in the final paragraph of this blog is so much horse hockey. Jesus was not killed to stymie a rebellion, he died because he angered the Pharisees."
gast, using the Bible to prove the Bible is true is called circular reasoning, and it has nothing to do with logic. That the gospel of Matthew is attributed to him doesn't mean (and most biblical scholars agree) that he wrote it, or most of it.
"Matthew blames it on the Jewish leaders exclusively and even contains the words that became the basis for the blood libel that persisted for centuries, when Pilate warns the crowd that Jesus' death will be on their heads, and the crowd shouts back in willing agreement."
And that is obviously a made-up scenario that doesn't hold water at all. The early Christians wanted to hang this on the Jews so they anonymous author of Matthew (or perhaps of the Q gospel) made up an alleged and highly unlikely dramatic scene whereby the Jews freely accepted (and even asked for) blame not only upon themselves, but succeeding generations, yeah, THAT'S really likely...you know, the NT really is a nasty little document, if you're Jewish.
@Packrat, dude: I harbor no anger or resentment towards the Jews and am a strong supporter of Israel's right to exist. If you want to use writers who find fault with Scriptures, that's fine. Remember, though, they're researching the same material as other biblical scholars who have reached a different conclusion. It's all opinion.
Regarding your statement that the NT is a nasty document if you're Jewish - it's also a nasty document if you were Christian in those times.
