Are the Gospels Antisemitic?

[Cleopatra]

While discussing with ceo_esq his excellent review on the film " The Passion of Christ" the issue of the antisemitism of the Gospels came up.

Before starting discussing the topic we saw that first we have to clarify whether we will examine strickly the texts or we will take into consideration the teachings of the Church fathers who interpreted the Gospels.

I think that it is necessary to clarify this before proceeding to the discussion.

I will wait for ceo_esq to re-post his last message to the other thread and add something if he thinks that it is necessary.

 

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
It's hard to argue with you there, although it's not clear to me whether we should take this as an indication that you don't believe Jesus existed (either as a historical figure or as the Incarnation). I don't suppose it matters, though.

I tend to believe the theory that if he existed he was a jewish reformer , christianity took shape much later. His story is one of the most fascinating ones it has distilled the human experience and knowledge from thousands of years . But it doesn't matter.

True, if you're referring to the victims of Christian (or other) anti-Semitism. I'm not sure exactly what you mean in this context, however.

Yes this is where I refer. Christian antisemitism was alive until the 18th centuy, then it turned into this racial thing although it was the Catholic Church of Spain that made the first references to the "jewish blood". Alhough... Ha! The first reference of the sinful jewish blood lies in the gospels. In our days in the Arab world it's the christian antisemitism the Arabs use to fuel hatred. So, I do have an issue with those who revive those old stories.

I agree that it's probably impossible to discuss the history of Christianity without reference to the Gospels, but surely it ought to be possible to discuss the Gospels as texts without reference to subsequent Christian history.

It depends on what you want to discuss. If you want to discuss the language of the Gospels or to trace the existence of symbols from other or previous religions then yes you are right but as you know since the holly books are not cooking books, most of them are filled with symbolisms, they address foreign people, usually not so educated, they say nothing without the interpretation.

We are in 2004 , Christianity dominates in the western world and our priests in the Sunday mass in their homily they analyze the Gospel, they don't take for granted that people who attended the mass understood . If somebody who has never heard about Christianity starts reading the Gospels he won't understand a thing.Not to say that the first heresis started exactly because they let people reading the texts by themselves ...

If the Gospels are inherently anti-Semitic, presumably they have been so from the moment they were set down in writing. How is that fact changed by anything that occurred after they were written?

I think that you will agree that we can talk about the Gospels from the day that they apostoles started to spread them not from the day they were written but I do not wish to dodge the issue you raise. In the Gospels you will not find any parts that attribute to the jews evil characteristics so, Saint John the Chrystostom and the Church Fathers who spreaded the Gospels were heretics or they misunderstood the religion they tried to sell? How far a justification can go ceo_esq?

When a group of people are sketched as the Christ killers and they are painted as the Christ killers, when on "this canvas" the fierce Pilatus is depicted as a kind man and the jewish council is depicted determined to execute our saviour the Christ does it matter if the portrait's title is " A day in Jerusalem"?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Before starting discussing the topic we saw that first we have to clarify whether we will examine strickly the texts or we will take into consideration the teachings of the Church fathers who interpreted the Gospels.

I think that it is necessary to clarify this before proceeding to the discussion.

I think the choice rests on whether you wish to focus discussion on WHY the Church has a history of anti-semitism (in which case you should include the interpretation of texts) or whether anti-Semitism is one of the foundations of the Church (in which case you ought to focus on just the texts themselves)

 

[Vinnie]

Some of the comments apear tp be blatantly anti-seitic. We must note that when the Gospels were written the Christians were a minority group emerging as a cult from the Jewish religion. The biggest problem of the Jewish people saying "Crucify him" and "let his blood be on us and our children" arrived much later on when Christianity came into power. This "good news" then turned "very bad" for Jews who were persecuted ala the Gospels.

Vinnie

 

[Cleopatra]

I will reply to these after ceo_esq posts his last post to which I have to reply as well. The good news is that ceo_esq is not an compulsive poster and this discussion will go slow.

 

[bignickel]

Copying and pasting my previous post:

[T]he Gospels are inheritly anti-semetic because they place the blame on Jesus' death on the Jews. Instead of the Romans. Where it belongs.

Let's not forget what they decided NOT to put in the film: "Let his blood be upon us and on our children." If that isn't a set-up for violent slaughters to happen over the next few thousand years, I don't know what is.

The Romans conquered the place. They had violent reprisals against any rebellions. We know that Pilate had been very vicious in his own reprisals. (Many of the people that were being preached to by the early Xtians probably did not know what we know now, considering our painstaking cumulation of historical writings and documents) Any suspected rebel or revolutionary was grabbed by the Romans and executed.

Jesus ended up on someone's list. The Romans grabbed him and executed him. End of story.

That the Romans would have bothered to listen to the Jewish authorities about whom they wanted to have executed is bizarre. That they would have done so because of a possible uprising is just silly.

The early Xtians had the Book of Q: it contained the 'Good News', ie Jesus' quotations (he did say he was sent to bring the 'good news', after all). But they needed to sell Xtianity and convert the heathens. Thus the Gospels were created to frame a 'Life of Jesus' around the Book of Q.

In a time and place where Rome ruled over all, of course the Gospel writers are not going to want to antagonize the Romans by mentioning that they killed their Lord. So -> who gets the blame?

Elementary, me dear Watson (Sherlock would have said, if he had ever said it.)

Of course, these are things that people generally don't consider when they've been raised as Xtians. It's not until they take a few serious steps back from the whole thing and REALLY look at it, that they see something wrong. I've been reading Tim Callahan's "Secret Origins of the Bible", and during the chapter on the Passion, he mentions that if the Diciples all fled when Jesus was arrested... who was present during Pilate's interogation, the beatings, Herod's court, etc to write all that transpired there?

It struck me as such an obvious question. How could I have not seen such a thing? For well over 30 years, how could this not occur to me? Ah, but I had been told all this stuff as a kid, and back then, I hadn't been old or wise enough to ask such questions. Which pretty much shows you how Xtian memes are generally tranmitted. But that's for another thread. However: thats not the only thing that can be transferred to young minds without any developed mental buffers to screen them out to. Anti-semetism is just one of many that can be easily transmitted to the young developing mind...

 

[bignickel]

BTW - Chris in the other thread has already pointed out that "let his blood be upon us and our children" WAS in the movie, just not translated.

 

[stamenflicker]

What if the Jewish mob in history really did say "Let his blood be on us and all our children?" What would this argument look like then? It seems pretty odd to me that the starting point is an assumption. Then again, I'm in the Randi forums.

Flick

 

[bignickel]

What Jewish mob? The one in a propaganda piece selling Xtianity while trying to not provoke Roman wraith?

Here's a like minded question for ya: "What if there really WAS a Jewish cabal trying to undermine the Aryan nation, and steal their women?"

See my point?

 

[JAR]

I tend to believe the theory that if he existed he was a jewish reformer

I agree. Based on what is said about him in the Gospels, I'd say that he had his own interpretation on how to practice Judaism which contradicted greatly with the interpretations held by the Pharisees and Sadducees.

 

[JAR]

Copying and pasting my previous post:

[T]he Gospels are inheritly anti-semetic because they place the blame on Jesus' death on the Jews. Instead of the Romans. Where it belongs.

Let's not forget what they decided NOT to put in the film: "Let his blood be upon us and on our children." If that isn't a set-up for violent slaughters to happen over the next few thousand years, I don't know what is.

The Romans conquered the place. They had violent reprisals against any rebellions. We know that Pilate had been very vicious in his own reprisals. (Many of the people that were being preached to by the early Xtians probably did not know what we know now, considering our painstaking cumulation of historical writings and documents) Any suspected rebel or revolutionary was grabbed by the Romans and executed.

Jesus ended up on someone's list. The Romans grabbed him and executed him. End of story.

That the Romans would have bothered to listen to the Jewish authorities about whom they wanted to have executed is bizarre. That they would have done so because of a possible uprising is just silly.

The early Xtians had the Book of Q: it contained the 'Good News', ie Jesus' quotations (he did say he was sent to bring the 'good news', after all). But they needed to sell Xtianity and convert the heathens. Thus the Gospels were created to frame a 'Life of Jesus' around the Book of Q.

In a time and place where Rome ruled over all, of course the Gospel writers are not going to want to antagonize the Romans by mentioning that they killed their Lord. So -> who gets the blame?

Elementary, me dear Watson (Sherlock would have said, if he had ever said it.)

Of course, these are things that people generally don't consider when they've been raised as Xtians. It's not until they take a few serious steps back from the whole thing and REALLY look at it, that they see something wrong. I've been reading Tim Callahan's "Secret Origins of the Bible", and during the chapter on the Passion, he mentions that if the Diciples all fled when Jesus was arrested... who was present during Pilate's interogation, the beatings, Herod's court, etc to write all that transpired there?

It struck me as such an obvious question. How could I have not seen such a thing? For well over 30 years, how could this not occur to me? Ah, but I had been told all this stuff as a kid, and back then, I hadn't been old or wise enough to ask such questions. Which pretty much shows you how Xtian memes are generally tranmitted. But that's for another thread. However: thats not the only thing that can be transferred to young minds without any developed mental buffers to screen them out to. Anti-semetism is just one of many that can be easily transmitted to the young developing mind...

There was an article I read a short time ago which said similar things. I think I read it in Newsweek. Citing an ancient historical document that said that Pilate was a man who would condemn without hesitation, the article argued that Pilate would not have been the dissenting voice when the Jewish leaders wanted Jesus to be crucified, but rather would have been more than happy to have him crucified.

It also argued that the Jewish leaders had Jesus punished for his doctrine out of fear that his new religion would be seen as rebellious to Roman rule by Pontius Pilate and that Pontius Pilate would react by punishing the Judaeans. The article supported this with a quote from John 11:50 where Caiaphas, the high priest says in a meeting of the Sanhedrin, "You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

What Jewish mob? The one in a propaganda piece selling Xtianity while trying to not provoke Roman wraith?

Here's a like minded question for ya: "What if there really WAS a Jewish cabal trying to undermine the Aryan nation, and steal their women?"

See my point?

Precisely!

 

[ceo_esq]

As Cleopatra requested, here’s a repost of my last post from the other thread (note that the context is a little different now, of course). This is just a cut-and-paste.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Yes this is where I refer. Christian antisemitism was alive until the 18th centuy, then it turned into this racial thing although it was the Catholic Church of Spain that made the first references to the "jewish blood". Alhough... Ha! The first reference of the sinful jewish blood lies in the gospels. In our days in the Arab world it's the christian antisemitism the Arabs use to fuel hatred. So, I do have an issue with those who revive those old stories.

OK, although I don't think anyone here has revived those stories, so I'm not sure what the direct relevance is.

When you mention a Gospel reference to sinful Jewish blood, are you by any chance alluding to Mt 27:35? (Technically, of course, it's a reference to Jesus' blood rather than an explicit reference to "sinful Jewish blood".) Taken out of context, I agree it's not hard (though not necessarily obvious, either) to turn this into the basis for blood libel. But Matthew doesn't place these words in Jesus' mouth. He places them in the mouth of a mob of people that Jesus suggests have no idea what they're doing, much less what they're talking about. Plus, since the very idea of a blood libel constitutes a contradiction of several features of Jesus' teachings (even just within Matthew), one would think that if Matthew intended to endorse the notion of "sinful Jewish blood" he'd have either clarified how the notion could be harmonized with the rest of Jesus' theology, or toned down (or deleted) the contradictory teachings.

Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, and these specifics should wait for a separate discussion. But you and I were both trained in textual interpretation, and we know that the most reasonable interpretation of one part of a text is generally the one that harmonizes best with each other part of the text - even if it's not the most obvious interpretation at first glance.

Originally posted by Cleopatra
It depends on what you want to discuss. If you want to discuss the language of the Gospels or to trace the existence of symbols from other or previous religions then yes you are right but as you know since the holly books are not cooking books, most of them are filled with symbolisms, they address foreign people, usually not so educated, they say nothing without the interpretation.

I think I've made clear what I understood us to be discussing - whether the Gospels are inherently anti-Semitic. By this I mean (to rephrase yet again): Evaluated as a whole, do the Gospels carry within themselves a predominantly anti-Semitic message? If they do, we ought to be able to find it there by ourselves. If they don't, then the anti-Semitism in later Gospel interpretations is obviously coming from somewhere else than the Gospels themselves. I honestly don't see how reading Chrysostom is going to help answer the initial question.

And consider, for a moment, how we got on to this subject. I voiced my opinion that Mel Gibson did not inject any anti-Semitism into his interpretation of the Gospels, such that any anti-Semitism in the movie was already in the Gospel texts that Gibson was using as his source. (How much is that, in my view? None to speak of, although as I said earlier I don't have especially strong views on the subject.) Gibson wasn't copying the relevant dialogue and events, etc., from Chrysostom or some other exegete, so far as I can tell.

 

[Cleopatra]

OK, although I don't think anyone here has revived those stories, so I'm not sure what the direct relevance is.

But this is what Gibson's film did.

Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself, and these specifics should wait for a separate discussion. But you and I were both trained in textual interpretation, and we know that the most reasonable interpretation of one part of a text is generally the one that harmonizes best with each other part of the text - even if it's not the most obvious interpretation at first glance.

You were getting ahead indeed so I snipped the previous part. The Gospels as any spiritual document are not a plain text. You cannot even use them as an historical source without their interpretations of those who taught them.

I think I've made clear what I understood us to be discussing - whether the Gospels are inherently anti-Semitic. By this I mean (to rephrase yet again): Evaluated as a whole, do the Gospels carry within themselves a predominantly anti-Semitic message? If they do, we ought to be able to find it there by ourselves. If they don't, then the anti-Semitism in later Gospel interpretations is obviously coming from somewhere else than the Gospels themselves. I honestly don't see how reading Chrysostom is going to help answer the initial question.

Chrysostom was not any person, he is among those who founded the religion and spread it to the world. I believe that it is relevant to judge the Gospels along with the early Christian teachings as a whole.

And consider, for a moment, how we got on to this subject. I voiced my opinion that Mel Gibson did not inject any anti-Semitism into his interpretation of the Gospels, such that any anti-Semitism in the movie was already in the Gospel texts that Gibson was using as his source. (How much is that, in my view? None to speak of, although as I said earlier I don't have especially strong views on the subject.)

Correct and I disagreed. In my opinion the Gospels are antisemitic and the proof apart from the texts that we will quote is the interpretation the Holly Fathers gave them.

Gibson wasn't copying the relevant dialogue and events, etc., from Chrysostom or some other exegete, so far as I can tell.

The image we have today about the events of the crucifixion is not based on the Gospels only but it is based mostly on the teachings of the Holly Fathers.

In any case I intend to post the parts of the Gospels I consider antisemitic , an opinion that was not formed only by reading the Gospels but by studying those who founded the religion.

If the Gospels weren't antisemitic those who interpreted them wouldn't see it and they wouldn't base their teachings on them.

 

[ceo_esq]

In my opinion the Gospels are antisemitic and the proof apart from the texts that we will quote is the interpretation the Holly Fathers gave them.

...

If the Gospels weren't antisemitic those who interpreted them wouldn't see it and they wouldn't base their teachings on them.

I think you're going about this backwards. If "the Gospels are inherently anti-Semitic" means, as I've tried to define the proposition reasonably, that the Gospels taken as a whole are not susceptible to any reasonable interpretation other than one tending to justify hatred of Jews in general, how are 2, 5 or 10 anti-Semitic Gospel interpretations going to be probative of the proposition? On the contrary, the quickest way to go about this is to see whether we can identify even one reasonable Gospel interpretation (i.e. one reasonably faithful to the original texts) that doesn't involve Jew-hatred, for then we will have effectively disproved that the Gospels are inherently anti-Semitic.

I hope you can see the problem with the assertion "If the Gospels weren't anti-Semitic, those who interpreted them wouldn't see it and wouldn't base their teachings on them." If that were true, then we needn't have considered in the other thread whether The Passion of the Christ was anti-Semitic or not. The mere fact that moviegoers in Damascus emerged from the cinema howling that the film exposed the murderous perfidy of the Jews would be ample evidence that the film is indeed anti-Semitic. Let's distinguish between an anti-Semitic text and an anti-Semitic interpretation.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

ceo_esq,

Have you had the opportunity of reading Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus?

 

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq,

Have you had the opportunity of reading Who Killed Jesus?: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus?

No, but I'm generally familiar with its basic thesis. I suppose I'm somewhat open to the notion that the un-historicity of certain aspects of the Gospels is relevant to our analysis, but then again, since I think I might be willing to concede (at least for purposes of this question) that the Gospels might be unhistorical in their entirety, does it truly matter? Even if we treat the Gospels as works of purest fiction, shouldn't we be theoretically be able to make some assessment of their anti-Semitism (in much the same way as we might assess the anti-Semitism present in a novel)?

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

Even if we treat the Gospels as works of purest fiction, shouldn't we be theoretically be able to make some assessment of their anti-Semitism (in much the same way as we might assess the anti-Semitism present in a novel)?

Perhaps recognizing a persistent effect is more important than taking a conflated story and speculating on the intent of the storytellers.

I believe that an anti-Pharisiac polemic became increasingly anti-Jewish as (a) the authority of the Pharisees increased with the destruction of the temple, (b) the nascent Judaic-Christian cult found itself effectively ousted from normative Jewish circles as a result of the Birkat ha-minim malediction, and (c) Christianity became more and more a Gentile mission. This is the context that gives us such silliness as Luke 13:10-17, while allowing a passion narrative that transforms an arrogant and vicious Pilate into an increasing pleasant chap as we march from Mark to John.

 

[ceo_esq]

Perhaps recognizing a persistent effect is more important than taking a conflated story and speculating on the intent of the storytellers.

Quite possibly, although that would seem to detract somewhat from the project of textual criticism in general. But at any rate, the persistent effect isn't in question here; I think we can all stipulate to it. I thought we were engaged in the latter endeavor more than the former.

 

[ReasonableDoubt]

I see no basis to insist that the authors held Jews as a people in contempt, so I woud use "anti-Judaic" rather than antisemitic. I'm not even sure that I would use the term 'antisemitic' to characterize Roman oppression/suppression. But, clearly, the growing clash with Judaism, taking place in a period bracketed by Masada and Bar Kochba, serves as context for the process of story creation/conflation. One need only look at the more recent clash between Catholic and Protestant to see how volatile and hostile such a context can become.

To create a fiction that castigates the Priesthood, belittles the Pharisees, and prettifies Pilate, while the Pilates of the area have peppered the Levant with crucifixes upon which hang the defenders of Judaism is, if not technically 'antisemitic', every bit as reprehensible.