"...the very presence of the Jewish people in the world ... puts a great question against Christian belief in a new covenant made through Christ. The presence of this question, often buried deep in the Christian mind, could not fail to cause profound and gnawing anxiety. Anxiety usually leads to hostility." (Episcopal minister Professor William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate)
"...we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus, since the early Christian sources show no interest in either, are moreover fragmentary and often legendary; and other sources about Jesus do not exist." (Rudolf Karl Bultmann, Lutheran theologian, professor of New Testament studies)
Scripture and anti-Judaism
The four gospels familiar today were selected soon after the Roman Empire adopted Christianity to replace paganism as official religion in the fourth century, At about this time the Vatican selected the four gospels familiar today as canon from among many and diverse gospels existing at the time. The basis for their selection may have reflected their general agreement regarding Jesus or possibly due to their origins in four important communities. As the four come down to us today they are in general agreement in describing the trial and execution of Jesus, and in blaming "the Jews" instead of the Romans responsible for Jesus' death. As regards their tone regarding Jesus' fate two stand out as particularly graphic and strident. "Mathew" not only blames “the Jews” but depicts then as having accepted blame not only for Jews present at the trial, or even alive at that time, but attributing blame upon all Jews and for all time: “His blood is on us, and on our children.” Over the centuries this became known as the Blood Curse, generally recognized as responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews over the centuries before the Holocaust.
As with "Matthew" the “John” gospel fans the flames of Judeophobia and persecution beyond its emotionally-charged description of the trial and crucifixion. In "John" Jesus is presented as describing Jews as “children of your father the devil." Particularly in the hyper-superstitious Middle Ages, a period of uncertainty brought on by rapid social change, crop-damaging weather and the Black Plague the identification of Jews with Satan, another force beyond their control, inspired frightening stereotypes of Jews which, one thousand years later, would be employed by the Nazis to justify the Holocaust. Those and other such scripture-inspired anti-Jewish stereotypes remain today as cultural stereotypes, a continuing threat to Jews across Christendom.
At about the time the four gospels were adopted as canon Augustine wrote his seminal Kingdom of God which many credit as providing for Jewish survival alongside Christianity. Not that he was overly concerned regarding the welfare of Jews. Augustine was aware that Christianity was entirely dependent on a "Christian" reading of those scriptures as "prophetic" regarding the coming of Jesus as messiah. Augustine conditionally insisted that Jews be allowed to live amidst Christians as witness to Jesus as messiah. By surviving they would preserve their scriptures which, he felt, would support Christian claims for Jesus messiahship. As he wrote in Kingdom of God, his intention was to prove "that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ.” Augustine also suggested that Jews en-masse would eventually convert to Christianity thereby providing absolute proof that Jesus was the prophesied messiah and son of God.
Why the concern over early Christian reading and understanding of Jewish scripture regarding prophesy for the future appearance of Jesus? Why would Augustine, giant of Christian theology and philosophy, have even raised the suggestion that the Christian reading of Jewish scripture might have been “forged”?
The Problem of Christ’s Second Coming
Across the decades of his ministry Paul, “father of Christianity,” assured his communities of faith that Jesus would return within their lifetime. This was important since with Jesus return the promises Paul made for the new religion would by fulfilled. Among those promises was “eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." At one point Paul promised that the Parousia was so close that the faithful should arrange their earthly affairs. As assurances passed unfilled Paul was forced to apologize:
“I beg you, my friends, not to be so easily confused in your thinking or upset by the claim that the Day of the Lord has come. Perhaps it is thought that we [Paul] said this while prophesying or preaching, or that we wrote it in a letter. Do not let anyone deceive you in any way. For the Day will not come until the final Rebellion takes place and the Wicked One appears, who is destined to hell.”Over the centuries Paul’s “prophesying or preaching” and the unfulfilled promises inspired periods of intense anticipation regarding Jesus' return at times considered to correspond with his birth and death. In the Middle Ages the years 1000 and 1033 (corresponding to dates attributed to the birth and death of Jesus) brought with them, according to the medieval monk Rodolfus Glaber, "the growth of heresy in Italy, the success of false miracles wrought by evil spirits, and another three years of famine and cannibalism… charismatic preachers traveled from town to town, preaching that before the Second Coming would occur that all unbelievers must first be removed from society.”
Among those "unbelievers" were, most notably, "the Jews". Possibly due to heightened emotionality, or in fulfillment of ridding society of "all unbelievers," during the decades before the year 1000, a new and deadly phenomenon swept Europe. Jews were collected in town centers and burned alive. The word holocaust derives from the words holos meaning whole, and kaustos meaning burned. One-thousand years before the twentieth century Europe had already set the precedent for the Holocaust, its Final Solution to the Jewish Problem.
The Search for the Historical Jesus
The most obvious indication of Christian insecurity is the academic need to prove the physical existence of Jesus, what today is known as the Search for the Historical Jesus. What inspires this need to prove Jesus walked the earth two thousand years ago? At least as far back as the late fourth century Augustine recognized that the only "evidence" for Jesus was provided by the four gospels and Paul's letters. Outside of Christian scripture there existed no independent and contemporary reference to Jesus, person or mission, alive in first century Judea. Augustine sought to put Jesus firmly in history, the Christian reading of Jewish Scripture as legitimate. He maintained that Christianity had "not forged the prophecies about Christ.” The only way to preserve Jewish Scripture as evidence was through the survival of Jews and their religion. A secondary benefit of providing for Jewish survival was Augustine's expectation that the Jewish people would eventually accept Jesus as their hoped for messiah, and convert. Jewish survival also describes Augustine's Witness theory which was adopted soon after as doctrine by the Vatican, the reason Jews were allowed to survive even as the church hunted down heresies to the faith, destroyed their gospels, and murdered their adherents.
But the specter of doubt was not so easily dispelled by Augustine's reasoning. Doubt was certainly what motivated that which, in the 18th century, emerged as the need to prove Jesus had lived as a man; that material evidence would prove his existence. And two centuries of sometimes intense effort has yet to provide any historical and confirmable evidence for Jesus corporeality. Most authorities refer to the gospels as legendary, as a form of literature. And even Paul, a person for whom historical evidence does exist, only claimed to encounter the central figure of Christianity in a vision.
Among those who early challenged the gospels as “historical” was Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States. He produced a version of the Bible purged of "miracles," considering their authors “untrustworthy correspondents,” their creations as “the corruption of schismatizing followers.”
In 1906 Albert Schweitzer, a Lutheran theologian and missionary wrote Von Riemarus su Vrede, which was translated into English as The Quest of the Historical Jesus. That volume is considered the beginning of the modern “scientific” Search for the Historical Jesus. Many works by serious scholars followed, and most share a common fault: nearly all started with the assumption that that which they set out to prove, the existence of Jesus, already existed!
According to the Science Council, scientific investigation begins with “objective investigation.” Assuming the investigation's outcome even before the investigation, as most authors of the Search, hardly satisfies that condition. The problem is clearly the distinction between religious acceptance of Jesus son of God on faith and the necessary skepticism of science reliant on material evidence to support the assumption. Faith is most immediately realized in accepting the inerrancy of Scripture as the "inerrant Word of God." Faith needs neither evidence or justification. As Augustine raised doubt by suggesting the possibility of a misreading of Jewish Scripture, so also does the need for historical evidence in support of a corporeal Jesus describe doubt. Both describe insecurity regarding the foundation of Christian religion.
Consider as “scientific method” that employed by the Jesus Seminar. The Seminar studied the gospels with the intention of determining which sayings attributed to Jesus in the gospels were actually spoken by him. The Seminar summarized their findings in The Five Gospels, What did Jesus Really say? In their Introduction the authors provide a sound description of the problems facing any serious work of history:
“the alleged verbal inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible.[faces the difficulties that] we do not have original copies of any gospels… The oldest surviving copies of the gospels date from about one hundred and seventy-five years after the death of Jesus, and no two copies are precisely alike… And handmade manuscripts have almost always been ‘corrected’ here and there, often by more than one hand… Even careful copyists make some mistakes, as any proofreader knows. So we will never be able to claim certain knowledge of exactly what the original text of any biblical writing was.”The Seminar, usually consisting of 100+ scholars of various disciplines, was clearly not attempting to prove Jesus corporeality. That is explicit in their stated objective: to separate the wheat from the chaff and determine what Jesus actually said. The Seminar concluded that just 18% of gospel sayings attributed to him were actually spoken by him. But even if that agreed 18% does represent actual speech attributable to first century Judea, how conclude that it was spoken by a single individual from among ten million or so Jews alive at that time; to conclude that single individual was Crossan's “itinerant preacher”? (John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant)
Whether or not Jesus lived and died in the early first-century insecurity regarding Christian origins has haunted the scriptural narrative from its earliest beginnings. Paul, Christianity’s parent and primary theologian, only experienced Jesus in a vision. And while some of his writings are "historical" since attributed to his person, his writings regarding Jesus do not establish Jesus' historicity since Paul never experienced Jesus in the flesh so could not provide direct testimony necessary to historical record. Paul introduced another layer of doubt that would haunt the Christian project through the ages: his repeated promises regarding the timing of Jesus' Return, and their serial failure.
Doubt regarding a historical base for the central figure of Christianity was evident three centuries later in Augustine's effort to prove “that we have not forged the prophecies about Christ." And finally, what more clearly illustrates doubt and insecurity than the need to prove Jesus lived, to establish through scientific method that Jesus existed: The Search for the Historical Jesus.
I take no position regarding the corporeality of Jesus. My sole interest is to describe the sources for Christian insecurity as a major contributor explaining the continuing threat, both from religious and secular sources to Jewish survival. The Holocaust, the systematic and determined murder of six million Jews, was promulgated by a democratically elected western government supported by many, or most European governments. And throughout the massacre described in detail in Western media, non-European western states were content to mutely remain on the sidelines. Not even the United States who self-described as haven for those fleeing tyranny was willing to accept Jews facing certain death.
In the early 1930’s Germany's Reichstag passed a series of laws establishing the legal precedent for genocide. We live today in a period where populist, racist governments are no longer the exception. And even as most attention is today focused on Muslims and other non-white minorities, antisemitism continues to rise dramatically. Jewish leaders, not previously outspoken, are alarmed, describe antisemitism in Europe and the United States at levels not seen since the 1930's. In itself that should provide warning enough regarding Jewish security in the West.
The ideal solution to the Jewish Problem described by the Church in the fourth century was the disappearance of "the Jews" by conversion. The secular nation-state has no interest in religious conversion. But the original "solution" to the West's Jewish Problem remains unchanged: the "disappearance of the Jewish people." Under secularism supported by modern technology disappearance as solution to the Jewish Problem has taken on a wholly radical and final meaning.
Fancy David. I'll read more later. I'll be back.
ReplyDeleteNot JPost for certain.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I know this is an introduction. There is so much here to respond to that I am at a loss to know where is the appropriate place to start.
ReplyDelete2 things do jump out at me though.
1st it is impossible to generalize Christianity just as it is impossible to generalize Judaism. That is part of the problem. Even at the beginning of Christianity, Christians were dispersed. If everyone had stayed together in Jerusalem you might have had a chance at being able to describe both their beliefs and manner of life. Instead, with that dispersion there are great differences. You can see only the beginnings of this from the NT when Paul talks about the "Judaizers" (those Jewish converts to Christianity that wanted all new converts to 1st be converted to Judaism and then to Christianity and to keep all of the Law and feasts) who followed him from place to place. I read the references to Augustine and cringe. He was mixed up in a weird religion before he was pushed into becoming a "Christian". His statements make me think he was never really a Christian at all! I am sure you don't want me to list all the doctrinal reasons why I say that.
2nd There is a legitimate case to be made that Catholicism and her offspring have a horrible history of antisemitism that has contributed to irrational stereotyping of the Jewish people. I would agree there is jealousy there. The Catholic Church in particular is jealous of every group outside of their own and has proved that through the ages.
Secularism is also a "faith" group and needs to be addressed. That is where current antisemitism is finding its modern home.
BTW I put links to your blog on a couple of blogs I am on. :)
In my opinion, the heart of David's message, which is the purpose of his blog and book, is the danger of Christians or more generally societies in traditionally Christia-dominated nations with the inherited Christian antisemitism, to the survival of Jews. That nations may appear to prosper in religious tolerance, such liberty is finicky and it is obviously impossible to declare it safe from the possibility of being overthrown. What does it matter all Christians are different or even that the majority of Christians are free from antisemitism - as we know from history, a minority of antisemites determined to destroy can succeed over a majority unwilling to battle them.
DeleteAs a Jew whose intended target audience is Jews but whose primary responding audience consists of Christians, how my writings may easily be seen as "anti-Christian." On occasion, over the years of public blogging my first book, I have apologized for what may easily be read as biased. As John (welcome to the discussion John!) describes my intention is not to be critical but to survey a history that has severely harmed the Jewish People over the centuries. I do not write to tell Christians how to read their scripture since I do not expect of wish to change their beliefs, a privately held tradition which appears to serve their individual life well at many levels. And this is clear from the fact that even as Europe was rounding up our six-million, some Christians were willing to protect, to the point of death, Jews. But as John so correctly points out, "a minority of antisemites determined to destroy can succeed over a majority unwilling to battle them." And this goes also for whole communities who deviated from the literal acceptance of Christian scripture as "the inerrant Word of God" and likewise did not read those scriptures as demanding Jews be persecuted as gospel (and Paul in Corinthians, for example) might well encourage as deicides). Even to late 4th century Christians Christians and Jews lived in harmony side-by-side.
DeleteNor would I single out Catholicism. Certainly the starting point for most, if not all, present-day streams of Christian belief and practice. Was early Catholic Christianity "jealous," certainly in its zeal to eliminate the "heresies." And yet, thanks in no small part to Augustine, the newly-empowered Vatican made a provision for at least some Jews and their religion to survive as evidence for "Christian Truth." And clearly Christian-on-Jew persecution unto murder was and, as during the Holocaust is, limited to the Church. Martin Luther, the Great Reformer himself promoted persecution: "I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb …"as but a single example.
AS you write, "There is a legitimate case to be made that Catholicism and her offspring have a horrible history of antisemitism that has contributed to irrational stereotyping of the Jewish people." As John describes and you also know it is the living stereotypes at the heart of Western society and culture that, alongside two-thousand years history and tradition of persecution that were, are and will be for however long Jews survive in the Diaspora (includes those who "disappear" by choice through assimilation and intermarriage, and those who, either by faith or desire to avoid the inevitable, convert). If we have learned nothing more from the Holocaust, Jew and Christian, it is that Germany did not launch unlawfully into its attempt to solve the Jewish Problem but did so with the full authority of German Law as promulgated by the Third Reich. Any country can pass legislation modeled on the Reich's 1935 Nuremberg Laws. The model already exists. Constitutions and Bills of Rights notwithstanding.
Yes, even in "exceptional" democratic, liberal states as Germany was before Hitler, and the United States today it only takes one charismatic and populist leader to set the safeguards of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aside. And when that leader appears many will suffer their divergent views. But it will be the Jewish People, likely by existing model, defined as "Jewish" back to a "single Jewish grandparent" who will, as in Europe, be targeted for elimination in service of "solving" the West's Jewish Problem.
Apologies to all for the misspellings and run-on, sometimes convoluted sentences. I had much to respond and little time to write it.
DeleteHi John! Glad to see you here. Among the 3 of us we have tread this ground before. I write from my frame of reference in the hope that there might be some hope for a change in the systemic problem of antisemitism.
DeleteNo matter how pervasive the problem is, it is not monolithic. That is a big part of the issue! Yes a few people can do extreme harm and lead others down that horrific path. I get that, but I am not content with that outcome.
I would hope two things from this discussion. First, that the diaspora and Jewish world would be awake to the seeming growing danger. Second, that the Christian Church would awake to how perverted their part is in the atrocity. In the last instance, again a few can impact the whole. Those Christians who do not buy into the heresy of Replacement Theology or the "jealousy" that even today drives some to declare that Jerusalem also belongs to Christians must be confronted and encouraged to speak. That is really why I have been involved in this discussion. A supportive Christian view is needed to correct this evil intent.
And, there was so much to respond to in the article, I just listed the two that jumped at me.
John, I am Suddyday/Reya. Just going by my name on David's blog.
DeleteThank you Sue - after writing a bit I suspected it was you. I read your comment thinking it was from David - you sound just like him in it. It is good to hear from you.
DeleteThank you David for your welcome to the blog. I was glad to see you organized it. I would like to see the great audience like the previous blog had. When t ended I was disappointed because I thought a blog was a great vehicle for the message.
DeleteYour words, "it only takes one charismatic and populist leader to set the safeguards of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness aside," are hauntingly prophetic.
What I am doing, John, is returning to blogging as a vehicle to develop ideas regarding the working title of the blog. I hope to add a "prequel" to my previous manuscript b developing something I know annoys Sue, my suggestion of "insecurity" (psychotherapy is my profession after all, Sue) as emotive force inspiring "the Jew" as victim. My first book brushed the concept while focusing instead on the more obvious scriptural references, particularly Matthew and John which are picked up by Augustine for his Witness theory. My interest now is the implications of Augustine's reference to "forged." And particularly the problem, really the Jewish Problem itself, of the "replaced" Jews in the Christian Age.
DeleteAs to my reference to "one charismatic and populist leader," John. That was Hitler in the 1930's. America's outside the Beltway president, certainly a "populist" but one whose only agenda seems "change," but without an ideological focus. Neither have I ever suggested him particularly antisemitic. So clearly, while providing evidence of a future more desperate to the electorate, the possibility of turning to another, a more ideological populist as president is now no longer off the US compass.
Sue, you still entice with addressing only the "2 things do jump out at me..." Beyond our starting points you and I do fundamentally agree in focus. Do raise other issues.
Yes, I agree with the focus thus value of the blog. I agree with the vast majority of what you write and much of what Sue writes.
DeleteRegarding to "one charismatic and populist leader," - that being Hitler, and your take on "outside the beltway," "populist," un-ideological president whose only agenda seems "change," I had concluded his election provides evidence of both good and bad: "good" being his positive positions I agree with, but "bad" in that he is not an idealistic conservative. The big issue is the large number of American voters, particularly democrats and republicans (democrats being the worse) that do not hold to the governmental principles taught to be of most value by the founders - principles that are prerequisite to a free society. And far too many consider the office of president akin to the office of king (I reviewed the divine warning of kings in 1 Samuel this morning). So I agree we are becoming more and more susceptible to tyranny.
Hopefully this goes out to Sue (John)? Not yet clear on how responding work.
DeleteThank you for your sage response, something I have benefited from much over the years as a "collaborator/critic" for my first book, The Jewish Question and its Final Solution (Amazon). I fully agree that secularism is also a "faith" also I use the term "nationalism." Not exact, but same general idea. I don't think I heard the term "Judaizers" used in quite the way you have but will give it more study.
ReplyDeleteYou have provided much to think about and after some reflection I will provide the more detailed response your comments deserve.
David, here is a link about Judaizers. This is a good source for all sorts of questions. Format is easy to navigate with lots of good source. At the end of each response you will see other references too.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.gotquestions.org/Judaizers.html
Sorry, haven't had time to fully respond to your comment. Regarding Judaizing, As I have referred to it in previous writings it describes Chrysostum's use of the term to describe Christians too cozy with their Jewish neighbors: having rabbis bless their fields for abundant yield; intermarrying with Jews; adopting Saturday as Sabbath, etc. For these crimes he proposed excommunication and even death.
ReplyDeleteand David I can't respond yet either!!! And yes, I am just as worried about Trump.
DeleteNot a problem. I know from the past we see it differently. I don't think we ever discussed it very deeply though. Many think that hiding from persecution was a major motivation. Until Constantine, the Christian community suffer greatly while the Jewish community not as much. With Constantine, everything flipped on its head. That said, even within the current Christian community there is a push toward observing the feasts and the law. You see that with Messianic Christian congregations vs. other Christian groups. It just once again shows how diverse we can be.
ReplyDeleteWhat is it, Sue, that troubles you about Trump? Appears I was wrong, but thought you might have been among those who voted for him?
ReplyDeleteHave had so little time this week David. We put new windows in the house and nothing goes simply but I am going to love my windows!
ReplyDeleteI voted for Trump because I had promised myself I would never vote for another Clinton. I could not, cannot get over Benghazi.
I would have voted for Rubio. He supports Israel and seemed more rational to me. I was disappointed he wasn't tough enough. I didn't really like or trust Cruz either. Just rubs me wrong.
Trump was a default vote and then you hope for the best. The promise of the embassy move, Ivanka and Jared were encouraging, and then the economy were motivating factors to me. What has changed? Simply one by one he is walking back his promises. Healthcare you can understand complications. His mouth opening before thought --- we knew that before he was elected. However, the promise to move the embassy was a deliberate enticement he used to simply get Jewish votes. His playing with it and failure to execute does it for me. And then his acceptance by the Saudis sends off warning bells off the chart. I also believe that Russia will never be a friend to Israel. In fact, I believe they are the exact opposite.
Evangelical Christians who support Israel were also lured into voting for him. When Rubio and Cruz were eliminated that ultimately gave him the evangelical vote. What a mistake.
Israel should trust no deal negotiated by Trump with the Palestinians. It is too murky now with the Russian angle and the Sunni element. Turkey is not a friend either. Just everything within me says don't trust him. He broke his word. Someone doesn't have to do it more than once to pay attention to.
In our election we had bad choice vs. bad choice. We all lose.
I agree with a lot said in this article. It explains my thinking, too.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Analysis-Why-a-photo-op-of-PM-and-Trump-at-the-Western-Wall-matters-492477
I failed to even address the manipulation of the Christian community by selecting Pence as VP. He is so well respected it ensured the evangelical vote. Now you see that there is evidence that they circumvent him when necessary by keeping him out of the loop. Flynn. Reince Priebus maybe experiencing the same. He is the brother in law for a pastor friend of ours. It will be interesting to see how long he keeps his job.
ReplyDelete20/20 hindsight, Sue. Regarding the Wall, always a hot button issue in an election, but since legislated no executive willing to outright align with Israel. In part this is traditional antisemitism withing the State Sept and general bureaucracy. In part, possibly, fear of response by the oil monarchies. This time around... Clearly the Saudis appreciate Israel is their best bet in a showdown with Iran. The US, Bush a great example (and Reagan's Irangate) US has limited understanding of region and its true risks. Having failed to commit sufficient military/diplomatic muscle to Iraq/Afghanistan so lost two wars, US military fears yet another failure due to insufficient political backing so reluctant to test Iran. May stumble into confrontation from misjudging present situation.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Trump and Ryancare (I meant Trumpcare) no accident there, and no forgiveness through loose-lips. Trump has failed his constituents from appointing his cabinet (billionaires and social misanthropes (minus the military appointees, who seem to be providing the only glimmer of "hope" bt then, he still wants his own "loyal" people, and these officers turned politicians are very independent (Comey, not military but independent). No, Trumpcare fits too neatly into the overall social program of enrich the wealthy on the backs of the poor (to which the shrinking Middle Class is fast descending in to thanks to poor jobs and increased taxation to pay for the "tax cuts." And Pence? He was a sop to the party as reassurance. Never fit, never will.
At least Pence is there...... It will be interesting to see if he lasts more than the 1st term.
ReplyDeleteFollowing Trump's discussions with the EU Angela Merkel concluded something I have been describing for some years: the US "special relationship" with Israel is nearly always based on its service to American interests. As clearly visible in Trump's trip to the region, Netanyahu has gone out of his deferential way short of outright obeisance to please the American president. Israeli interests are always secondary to serving those of the superpower. In such a disproportionate relationship the Israel appears and, often acts as, a dependency of the US.
DeleteThere is some evidence that Netanyahu is aware of the problem and has been expanding relationships with other states previously blocked by the US: Russia, most immediately; and China, the future superpower. India also, clearly, but far less controversial, and the Muslim states on Iran's northern border(the "middle periphery."