• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the anti-semitism in the New Testament thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Hmnnn,

those sound vaguely contemporary.

I was hoping for tomes of the times.

You know, like a Jerusalem Gazzette or the like.

Much of the current writing is done for mere sensationalism. Both for and against. It helps to polarize the discussion and sells a ton of books.

But you never answered my questions and I'll restate for you: Could the religious rulers of the day have POSSIBLY been corrupt? Could they POSSIBLY have been hypocrites? Do you have any time sensitive corroboration for your views on this? Are you blindly following the scholastic endeavors of some conspiracy theorists. Was there really someone on the grassy knoll? Finally, how could Jews asking for another Jew's death possibly be seen as antisemitic???
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
The fact of the matter is that you have a perception of 2nd Temple Jewish leadership, and that perception has been formed entirely by anti-Judaic apologetics. Fortunately, not all Christians share your inclinations ...

In truth, the Pharisees get "a bum rap," says Thomas Smith, the dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Loyola University in New Orleans and an early church historian.

"The Pharisees," he said, "were a major component of the `glue' that held Judaism together after ... the destruction of the Temple" (in A.D. 70). Indeed, the Pharisees were the predecessors of the modern rabbis.

< --- snip --- >

So why do the Gospels portray the Pharisees in such a negative light? The answer may reflect Christian attitudes at the time the Gospels were written more than attitudes during Jesus' day, Smith said.

"The Gospel writers, all of whom are anonymous (the titles come from the late second century), would have had some interest in portraying the Jewish religion as obsolete, and Jews as rejecting the true Messiah," Smith said.

Interestingly, Smith points out that Mark, the earliest of the Gospels, doesn't depict the Pharisees quite as harshly as subsequent Gospels.

Madden said the Pharisees enjoyed argument, and it's quite conceivable they would have debated at length with Jesus over interpretations of the law.

But he suggested that the Gospels used the Pharisees mostly as foils for Jesus, narrative devices to provide a counterpoint to his teachings.

Amy-Jill Levine, a professor of New Testament studies at Vanderbilt Divinity School in Nashville, Tenn., agrees.

"For a modern, albeit inexact, analogy: The New Testament's depiction of Pharisees is much like the depiction of very liberal Democrats by very conservative Republicans, or vice versa," she said. "Some Pharisees were hypocrites, as, of course, were some Christians; others were not."
But make no mistake, scholars say, whoever the Pharisees were, they had little to nothing to do with Jesus' crucifixion.

- see Scholars examine whether Pharisees get a `bum rap'
Again, with respect to your requirements, I cannot guarantee that Smith is not Jewish and, indeed, a name like Amy-Jill Levine does not sound particularly gentile. But, given that the article was published in the "North Carolina Baptists' News Journal", I thought that you might cut me some slack.
 

Lloyd

Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
Merely the observation that you have made a claim that you are either unwilling or unable to substantiate.
I couldn't find much. I think I pieced that together from the fact that Jewish persecution of the Early Church was almost entirely in the first century, while at the same time Roman authorities were only just starting to discover their existence. Actual evidence either way is pretty sketchy.

What's the debate about anyway? I know it's more or less about Jewish-Christian relations in the very early Church, but other than that I just see a bunch of back and forth exchanges.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
My dear Deut...

Straining the gnat and swallowing the camel is a tough job, but it seems you are more than up to it!

Again, I would like some unbiased evidence of your allegations that is from the first century. Neither Christians nor Jews would portray the happenings in an unbiased manner. You are prancing forth more of these conspiracy theorists that were not "eye witnesses". Surely this is not to hard for such a lucid and bright person as yourself to understand. My problem with such modern sources is not whether they are Jewish, Indian, Caucasion or what... it has to do with the validity of their observations. They are looking at this through the filter of time and that tends to distort reality.

If the Bible were SO anti-Judaic, then WHY would they write such a GLOWING report on Gamaliel??? (See post 15 for the verse). Yes, it is more convenient to overlook this, but it appears that your vendetta to portray the NT as anti-semitic exceeds the actual evidence by several quanta. In other words, compared to your vetted smear campaign of the authors of the Bible, their aledged attempts to smear the Pharisees and Saducees is quite amateurish.
 

Ronald

Well-Known Member
Mal 3:6 "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob.

Heb 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Mt 5:17 ¶ "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

Mt 11:19----------- "But brilliant men like you can justify your every inconsistancy!" The LivingBible

NetDoc, you are just like a "Christian." - "Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up."

You seem to destroy the two commandments, you say that Jesus changed to, from ten.

You love your gift more than the giver. LOL
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Ronald... I am a Christian. No more and no less. If I differ from your preconceived ideas about Christianity in that you feel I have to be a Casper Milquetoast, well then you missed the whole point of LOVE. Sometimes love is shown in it's anger, sometimes in it's insistance of the truth. Love wants the very best. Jesus loved the Rulers that he castigated. He even loved the money changers he chased out of the temple.

Jesus did indeed FULFILL the law and the prophets. Romans discusses how that frees us from the law. You don't keep paying on a mortgage once it has been fulfilled. It does not nullify it, it only completes it.

As for your observation of what I love more: you are completely ignorant.
 
In high school, it never occurred to me that there was some anti-semitism in the NT....I realized that the NT was very critical of the Pharisees, but I just assumed that such criticism was warranted. As far as I could tell, the Pharisees of Jesus' day were a bunch of backward, heartless hypocrites who cared more about Sabbath laws than the miraculous healing of a blind woman, and the Sadducees were a bunch of corrupt, money-lending, murderous power-mongers.

But is that an accurate representation? I'd be interested to see how historians describe the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Many of us only know these two groups from what we've read in the NT (the accuracy of which is in question).

What do the history books have to say about the Pharisees and the Sadducees of Jesus' time?
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
But is that an accurate representation? I'd be interested to see how historians describe the Pharisees and the Sadducees.
Exactly! And the Scriptures only refer to a specific group of them... not all Pharisees and not all Saducees. It definitely does not label ALL Jews as evil or even close. As for the historians, I would like to see what the secular historians have to say... not the biased ones.
 
From here
wikipedia said:
In contrast to other Jewish groups of the time, such as Sadducees, Pharisees held that the books of the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, also called the written law) have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. They pointed as proof to the text of the Torah itself, where they said many words were left undefined, and many procedures mentioned without explanation or instructions; the reader is assumed to be familiar with the details from other sources. This parallel set of material was originally transmitted orally, and came to be known as "the oral law". By the year 200 much of this material was edited together into the Mishnah, the core document of rabbinic Judaism. Thus, from the Saduccee and Essene point of view, the Pharisees were the liberal party, which allowed for flexibility in the interpretation of the law.

.....

For most of their history, Pharisees defined themselves in opposition to the Sadducees. Conflicts between the Sadducees and the Pharisees took place in the context of much broader conflicts among Jews in the Second Temple era that followed the Babylonian captivity of Judah. One conflict was class, between the wealthy and the poor. Another conflict was cultural, between those who favored hellenization and those who resisted it. A third was juridico-religious, between those who emphasized the importance of the Temple, and those who emphasized the importance of other Mosaic laws and prophetic values. This conflict practically defines the Second Temple Era, a time when the Temple had tremendous authority but questionable legitimacy, and a time when the sacred literature of the Torah and Bible were being edited and canonized. Fundamentally, Sadducees and Pharisees were divided concerning the third conflict, but at different times were influenced by the other conflicts. In general, whereas the Sadducees were conservative, aristocratic monarchists, the Pharisees were eclectic, popular, and more democratic. The Pharisaic position is exemplified by the assertion that "A learned mamzer takes precedence over an ignorant High Priest." (A mamzer is an outcast child born of a forbidden relationship, such as adultery or incest; the word is often, but incorrectly, translated as "illegitimate" or "*******.")

.....

The Pharisees were present in the days of Jesus. Christians have traditionally seen Jesus as an opponent of the Pharisees, accusing them of being only outwardly religious, rather than inwardly observant of the Law. Jesus was opposed to the Pharisees emphasis on observance of religious purity laws. Some modern day scholars argue that this reading is no longer tenable, and that when the New Testament is read in its historical context, Jesus's attitude towards the law was more like a liberal offshoot of Pharisee thought.

While during the 1st century and earlier, the Pharisees were faced with opposition from other Jewish groups such as the Essenes and the Sadducees, they were eventually triumphant; rabbinic Judaism as it is known today is descended from them.
[red color added ~Spinks]

I think wikipedia is a pretty cricical, unbiased source of information. This article seems to show that the ignorant and bigoted characters who represent the Pharisees in the NT are negative spins on what was an intellectually and morally thriving group.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
NetDoc said:
As for the historians, I would like to see what the secular historians have to say... not the biased ones.
Only true Scottsmen need apply! Now your requirement is that they be both 'not Jewish' and 'secular ... not biased'. :rolleyes:

It is clear that "the Pharisees" quickly became something of a stereotype for the opponents of Jesus: it is therefore hard to decide how much an incidental reference in the Gospels (especially when it appears to be a secondary addition in a Synoptic parallel) can tell us of specifically pharisaic attitudes. Luke's more positive approach suggests a particular concern for the Jewish leaders (see Mason 1995); though his precise concerns are still hotly debated. [emphasis added]

- see The Ecole Initiative
Of course, I still cannot guarantee that the author is 'not Jewish', and Mr_Spinkles' reference is anonymous - hardly sufficient to meet NetDoc's 'not Jewish' litmus test. I guess we can do nothng other than table the discussion until sometime, and somewhere, we stumble upon some acceptable history authored by someone named 'Secular Goy'.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I might point out that in the popular misinterpretation of Jesus' teachings the rich were unmercifully ridiculed as well.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
BTW Deut, there is a well documented confession by a Pharisee on how HE personally enjoyed persecuting Christians.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
NetDoc said:
BTW Deut, there is a well documented confession by a Pharisee on how HE personally enjoyed persecuting Christians.
Well, then I guess they all did. BTW Doc, doesn't the definition of prejudice have something to do with making unwarranted generalizations?
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Like the one YOU just made? No, I only made a statement for ONE. But I am sure you will twist my words however YOU see fit. But we do have that ONE confession. By a Pharisee. About himself. So we know that there was at least SOME injustice coming from your perfect Pharisees.
 

EnhancedSpirit

High Priestess
As far as I know, Jesus only taught of love and compassion, and forgiveness. Not persecution. He speaks of the Jews taking God's laws and corrupting them with tradition and dogma. But never speaks against the Jews, even after they chose for him to be put on the cross.

Many people have used the bible, both Old and New Testaments, to validate some sort of hatred. The KKK use the bible to validate what they do. Any anti-semitism that came out of the bible came out because man decided to use the bible to validate their actions. Not because it was the word of God.
 
ARRRRRGGHGH!! I just wrote out a post and I submitted it, and somehow it disappeared....my only consolation is that perhaps someday, intelligent beings in the Vega system will receive the data and reconstruct my post so that it may live again.... :banghead3

Well here we go again.... :bonk:

I think part of the problem here is with dualisms, i.e. the Bible is either right or wrong, good or bad, the NT authors/editors either loved the Jews or hated them. But we have to keep in mind that one does not have to support genocide or persecution of Jews to be anti-semitic. Like all prejudices, there can be degrees of anti-semitism. (I'm having a hard time remembering the other stuff I said, but trust me it was good.) ;)

Anyway, I think I summed it up by saying that when we look at
1) How many times the NT refers to "the Jews," (not one Jew, not some Jews, but simply "the Jews") doing something sinister
2) How the NT uses the Pharisees mainly as fictional devices to ridicule those who rejected Jesus
3) The historical context, e.g. the conflict between the Judaizers and the Gentile sect, and the subsequent anti-semitic writings of the Hellinistic [sp?] early church
....and when we look at the unbiased (i.m.o.) article from wikipedia, we can clearly see that the Pharisees, who later became modern (rabbinical) Judaism, are portrayed in an unfairly negative light in the NT. Does that make all the NT authors/editors vicious hate-mongers who would support genocide? Perhaps not. But it seems clear to me that prejudice is there. Whether one or one thousand Pharisees harbored prejudices of their own is irrelevant.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
First of all I am compiling this for number 1... so far I am underwhelmed at this contention. Their "alle

Secondly... Please prove the "fictional" contention.

Third... the Pharisees had issues with a BUNCH of people including the Saducees. Are the Saducees also anti-semitic???
 
NetDoc said:
First of all I am compiling this for number 1... so far I am underwhelmed at this contention. Their "alle
Huh? Could you clarify this for me, please? I'm afraid I don't know what you're saying here.

Here's an example of what I was talking about:
John 5: 7 said:
The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me. 8 Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk. 9 And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath. 10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed. 11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk. 12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk? 13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place. 14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee. 15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole. 16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. 17 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. 18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him...
[color added]

Of course, whether the harsh treatment of "the Jews" in this story is indicative of some prejudice on the part of the authors depends on historical context. However, I think that the following supports the idea that what we have here is a community of Pauline Christians (mainly Greek converts, very Hellenized) who simply don't like "the Jews" very much:
wikipedia said:
Almost all critical scholars place the writing of the final edition of John at some time in the late first or early second century. The text states only that the Fourth Gospel was written by an anonymous follower of Jesus referred to as the Beloved Disciple. Traditionally he was identified as John the Apostle, who was believed to have lived at the end of his life at Ephesus. The dating is important since John is agreed to be the last of the canonical Gospels to have been written and thus marks the end date of their composition.

Scholarly research since the 19th century has questioned the apostle John's authorship, however, and has presented internal evidence that the work was written many decades after the events it describes. The text provides strong evidence that it was written after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 and after the break between Christian Jews and Pauline Christianity.
[color added for emphasis]

These aren't Jews criticizing their own (I doubt self-critical Jews would refer to the target of their crticism as "the Jews"). These are Christians whose audience is other Christians. They broke with "the Jews" a while ago, and the anti-semitism that will be a characteristic of much of Christendom for centuries has already begun.

NetDoc said:
Secondly... Please prove the "fictional" contention.
Proof is overrated. You may have to settle for evidence instead. :) Let's just take a gander at the quote from John that I have up above. Now, let's assume for a moment that "the Jews" were not a bunch of vicious, merciless bigots, but that many of them were actually a fairly enlightened and ethical bunch who cared about the poor and the sick (yes, even the Jews who rejected Jesus' claim to divinity!) ;) . Do you think that's how "the Jews" would have acted in that situation? "Uh huh, you've been cured, it's a miracle--but put down that bed! The law says you can't carry a bed around on Sabbath! That's it, now we're going to go kill whoever cured you!" Heck, with such a large and diverse group as "the Jews," one would think that they wouldn't all act the same in any case. How would you characterize my use of "the blacks" if I wrote a story in which "the blacks tried to get O.J. Simpson, who was a murderer, off the hook, simply because he was black, like them" ? If you're anything like me, you would respond, "What do you mean, 'the blacks'??" :tsk:

NetDoc said:
Third... the Pharisees had issues with a BUNCH of people including the Saducees. Are the Saducees also anti-semitic???
My initial impression is that the Saducees viewed themselves as a sect of Judaism, unlike the gentile converts to Christianity who authored works like John's Gospel. (As wikipedia notes, by the time John's Gospel is edited and in its final form Pauline Christianity has split with Christian Jews and is no longer a fring sect of Judaism but a religion in its own right.) Still, provide some writings by Saducees that talk about "the Jews" and we'll discuss them.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I was in Dallas with the batteries running out on my laptop (the charger is defective) when I wrote my previous post.

Maybe we could get a Judaic historian in here to accept or reject this coming premise.

During the first century, every city had but one synagogue. Unlike today, where we have an abundance of synagogues and churches in every town. Most cities and towns were divided ethnically as well. In this type of situation, the elders represented the entire congregation and thus the entire Jewish population of that city. When the elders spoke, the entire ongregation/city spoke.

This is largely from inference on my part... for that's how the early churches were formed and run and they seemed to have used much of what they were already used to.

Now go read this excerpt on the Jewish Wars by Flavius Josephus. "the Jews" is used EXTENSIVELY, and he IS a Jew... not even a convert to Christianity. WAY more extensively than in John.

You are making inferences about a culture far removed from YOU that are based on modern data.

As for John, what is "bigoted" about this statement??

John 4:20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." 21 Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top