the anti-semitism in the New Testament thread

[Scuba Pete]

1) Do you think that wikipedia's description of the Pharisees is accurate/relatively unbiased?

I have no issue with their description. However, just like us, I am certain that the Pharisees (and Sadducees) had some good days as well as bad days. They have a rich history, and started out rather well. Unfortunately, just because I think MOST soldiers in the Vietnam war acted with complete integrity, I cannot deny that the Mailai massacre took place. I do not hold any bitterness towards the German people, and yet I think that the Nazis were evil. Does that make me bigoted towards germanic peoples? Am I a veteran basher because I am critical of those few heinous crimes that were committed by American soldiers? I think not.

2) Are the Pharisees portrayed more or less negatively in the NT than in wikipedia?

The Wikipedia article discusses not just one group of Pharisees. Look at how they describe the Congress of the US... they number it! Just because Congress #48 was a do nothing Congress, does not mean that all of the individual Congresses were. So yes, the NT was quite critical of the Pharisees in power at the time it was written.

"I'm having a hard time finding any other than John 4:22 though--could you provide some other verses that cast "the Jews" in a positive light?"

The Apostles spoke quite highly of Gamaliel in the book of Acts. I cited the passage earlier in this discussion. Look at this passage

Acts 15:5 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." NIV

Apparently you could be a Christian AND a Pharisee at the same time. Go figure.

"I would like to know what you think of John 5: 7-18 and my comments regarding those verses."

I think that there are still some Jews who express open hostility towards Jesus and his followers. Hate, intolerance and bigotry will always be wrong, no matter who is doing it, Jew or Greek. We tend to gloss over the "faults" of our comrades and highlight those of the people we disagree with.

The Bible teaches us plainly: EVERYONE IS EQUAL.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. NIV

I would suggest that this was a HIGHLY controversial statement for the time. Any reasonable person would conclude that the NT does not condone bigotry after reading that passage.

I hope this answers your questions. Please feel free to ask any additional. If I have inadvertently answered questions other than you had asked, then please forgive me. I either didn't understand the question, or I was trying to make a point.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So yes, the NT was quite critical of the Pharisees in power at the time it was written.

So critical, in fact, that what we get is a one-sided caricature no different in quality than antisemitic pictures of greedy, large-nosed Jews. Furthermore, in power of what?

With the destruction of the Temple and, thereby, the relative weight of the priesthood, the Pharisees more than anything else defined normative Judaism. They were, for all intents and purposes, the rabbinate. Castigating the Pharisees as blind hypocrits is as bigotted a generalization as would be condemning the priesthood as pedophiles: certainly most Catholics would be furious if confronted by a doctrine bolstered by scriptural phrases such as "perverted as a priest".

What many recognize, and what some stubbornly resist, is that we are dealing, not with anything worthy of the term history, but with late 1st century stylized polemic written by those who were a witness to nothing. There is simply no basis for taking any of the anti-Pharisiac pericopes as credible. Some, such as the "cleansing of the Temple", are simply laughable. Others are mildly silly and self-serving. But all are aimed at stigmatizing Judaism with unsubstantiated story.

That this effort was almost immediately brought to the service of the most virulent anti-Judaism and, subsequently, antisemitism, should be clear to anyone who cares to study the matter. See, for example, ...

Anti-Judaic Modifications

37. A Christian living in the second century would find him or herself almost automatically embroiled in a situation of conflict with non-Christian Jews, a conflict that involved different understandings of the role that Jesus played in the divine plan for the world and of the meaning of the Jewish Scriptures. I should point out that by no means was this conflict an even match; by around the year 100, the Christian church was still only a tiny fraction of the population of the Empire, unheard of by most of its other inhabitants, outnumbered by non-Christian Jews something like ten to one.

38. It was perhaps their threatened and defensive position that led Christians of the second century to use such vitriolic polemic in their discussions of their Jewish opponents. From the first half of the century, for example, we find the epistle of Barnabas claiming that Judaism is and always has been a false religion. The author argues that Israel had irrevocably broken God's covenant, smashed it to bits, as shown, quite literally, by the story of the giving of the Law in the Old Testament itself, for when Moses comes down from Mount Sinai he sees the children of Israel engaged in wild and lawless activities and smashes to smithereens the two tablets of stone containing the ten commandments. And the covenant never was restored. That is why, he maintains, Israel misunderstood all of its own laws subsequently given to Moses. For in fact, the laws of circumcision and kosher foods and all the rest were never meant to be taken literally, but were symbolic expressions of God's will, as has now been revealed in Christ.

39. Later in the second and third centuries we find other authors moving along a similar anti-Judaic path, authors like Justin in Rome who maintained that God commanded Jewish males to be circumcised not as a sign of his special favor, but in order to mark them off from the rest of the human race for special punishment; and authors like Tertullian and Origen, who claimed that Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans at God's own initiative, as a punishment upon the Jews for rejecting their own messiah.

- The Historical Significance of the "Altered" Text

Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it is heartening to read the words of the Lutheran Minister quoted above and realize that some are both willing and able to honestly confront this tradition and, thereby, build a better one.

 

[Scuba Pete]

As you say. You win. I have nothing more to add. Have a great topic.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Whatever the outcome of this discussion, it is heartening to read the words of the Lutheran Minister quoted above and realize that some are both willing and able to honestly confront this tradition and, thereby, build a better one.

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Deut. 32.8 again.

 

[Pah]

You must spread some Karma around before giving it to Deut. 32.8 again.

I got him for ya.

This poster (me) appreciates the spirit of the posts from both these gentlemen.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I have an incredibly difficult time with this thread. The anti-Christian lies and bigotry that are behind it I find quite disturbing.

Look at what the first century Christians went through. They were beaten, threatened, whipped, and even crucified. But, you have modern day people taking exception with these victims exposing the first century bigotry perpetrated against them. It's absolutely amazing that some have the gaul to blame the victims for the atrocities committed against them. Go figure!

It's revisionist history at it's worst. Like the Russian Politburo, it's easier for those with an anti-Chritian agenda to re-write the history of the gospels in the worst possible light. Why? Because some are uncomfortable with some of their ancestors being seen as BIGOTS. It's much, much easier to BLAME THE VICTIM. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the truth.

But if one were to read the NT with any sense of trying to find the truth, rather than trying to prove their agenda, then you can see that being Jewish was a HUGE PLUS. Check out Paul here:

II Corinthians 11:18 Since many are boasting in the way the world does, I too will boast. 19 You gladly put up with fools since you are so wise! 20 In fact, you even put up with anyone who enslaves you or exploits you or takes advantage of you or pushes himself forward or slaps you in the face. 21 To my shame I admit that we were too weak for that! What anyone else dares to boast about--I am speaking as a fool--I also dare to boast about. 22 Are they Hebrews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's descendants? So am I. 23 Are they servants of Christ? (I am out of my mind to talk like this.) I am more. I have worked much harder, been in prison more frequently, been flogged more severely, and been exposed to death again and again. 24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was stoned, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my own countrymen, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false brothers.

Unfortunately, we have no control over our ancestors. It is with great shame that I admit that my great, great grandfather was the captain of a slave ship. I could blame the slaves for writing the history. They are obviously anti-Dutch. But in reality, it's better for me to accept my shame, and acknowledge the human rights abuse so that it doesn't happen again!

No. You don't blame the victim. Inspite of this trendy anti-Christian bigotry, the CHRISTIANS were the victims in the first century. Instead of dodging the blame, maybe an apology is in order.

 

[Pah]

I certinaly can divorce the Early Church theogolgy from the persecution and, even though both are not favored in my view, I find the persecution, like all persecutions, ugly and atrocious.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You're so right Pah... bigotry is always obscene: no matter WHO it is against. Bigotry against any race or creed is really bigotry against all of mankind. It needs to be eradicated completely from our society.

We just need to take care that we don't replace one type of bigotry (real or imagined) for yet another. It's a vicious cycle that needs to be stopped.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I have an incredibly difficult time with this thread. The anti-Christian lies and bigotry that are behind it I find quite disturbing.

The word anti-Christian appears three times in your post, and yet you do not address the references Deut provided from Christian authors. Why do you ignore them?

Unfortunately, we have no control over our ancestors. It is with great shame that I admit that my great, great grandfather was the captain of a slave ship. I could blame the slaves for writing the history. They are obviously anti-Dutch. But in reality, it's better for me to accept my shame, and acknowledge the human rights abuse so that it doesn't happen again!

The problem is that you are assuming what is written in the Bible actually happened. I know you believe it happened, but the Bible is not a history book, NetDoc. Not even the crucifiction and resurrection of Jesus--the main events in the NT--are treated as historical events in history books. I searched wikipedia and found this , but unfortunately it does not offer any non-Biblical sources of Pharisee persecution of Christians (or even Jewish persecution of Christians, for that matter). I did find this of interest, though:

Historians dispute the picture of Pilate painted in the New Testament. Sources outside the New Testament state that Pilate was known for callous disregard toward public opinion, crucifixions of hundreds of Jews, and brutal suppression of Jewish revolts. Some that the New Testament account may have been purposely distorted by its authors to curry favour with Rome, by switching primary responsibility for Jesus' execution from the Roman authorities to the Jews. However, other historians point out that Pilate's earlier brutalities were committed while he still enjoyed the protection of his patron Sejanus. Following Sejanus's execution in AD 31, Pilate would have been more likely to keep the peace with local leaders, rather than risk civil unrest.

[red added] Speaking of revisionist history...

I also found this interesting: on the talk page, the author adds the following....

I have added material about the persecution of Christians by Jews, and I've noticed that this subject ties in with that of Christian antisemitism, but I'm having trouble thinking of how to word the link. One question is to what extent was the persecution of Christians by Jews exagerrated to justify Christian antisemitism? Many of the passages people have attacked in the NT as being antisemtic recount persecution of Christians by Jews. Also, the ancient accounts of persecution of Christians by Jews obviously laid the groundwork in some ways for the blood libel -- in fact people such as Julian of Norwich and Anderl von Rinn, supposed medieveal victims of Jews, were celebrated as Christian martyrs, in the same way as Stephen, Peter and Paul.

[red added]

Like the Russian Politburo, it's easier for those with an anti-Chritian agenda to re-write the history of the gospels in the worst possible light. Why? Because some are uncomfortable with some of their ancestors being seen as BIGOTS. It's much, much easier to BLAME THE VICTIM. Unfortunately, that doesn't change the truth.

And yet here you are, blaming the Jews for bringing anti-judaism upon themselves, citing NT texts that only Christians regard as historical.

Instead of dodging the blame, maybe an apology is in order.

But you just said we have no control over our ancestors. Perhaps the Jews should apologize for killing Jesus, too?

 

[Pah]

This thread is closed due to complaints about participating members. Hopefully, everyone will re-assess the manner in which they post.