Koyaanisqatsi

Just a few side questions regarding "all of the books of the NT" being written by Jews:

<ol type="1">[*] How do you know this? You state it as if it is a certainty.[*] How do you qualify this? If, as you claim, they were Jewish, they obviously were not orthodox Jews, so what kind of Jews were they?[*] Could you please define what is and what is not considered "anti-Semitic?"[/list=a]

You have flatly stated that the Gospels are not "anti-Semitic." I doubt seriously that any Jew would share your declaration (does the often heard Jewish slur Christkillers ring any bells), so perhaps your own definition would help to clarify such an authoritative statement on your behalf?

Since I'm probably still on Nomad's "pay no mind" list and he will most likely evade the issue by vaguaries such as:

which tells us nothing other than what all Jews in the region went through, and:

which doesn't tell us who orchestrated the crucifixion (the point in contention), and only brings into further question the length the synoptics go through to establish Pilate's thrice declared innocence of Jesus prior to him then contradicting his own decree that he will release Jesus just because a crowd of (presumably) Jews tells him to crucify a man he's just declared innocent, thereby painting himself (or ,more accurately, the "Jewish" authors painting him) in a comparatively sympathetic role and the unknown, faceless Jewish "crowd" as the ones who irrationally demanded an innocent man be murdered and a convicted murderer be set free (even though the alleged ritual was to free a criminal, which Jesus was not according to both Pilate and Herod), perhaps others could follow up on this should he choose to ignore me in his noble quest to set the historical record straight?

Thanks.

RyanS2

Doherty has an open challenge on his "Challenging the Verdict" to the ten scholars who helped Lee Strobel write the book, that any of them could present new evidence, in light of his cross-examination.

The only other person I know who has attempted a direct refutation is Robert Turkel or James Patrick Holding. I went through one subject on Turkel versus Till and I noted about 6 paragraphs of nothing but ad hominem's and cheap jokes, and absolutely no points to counter. If you ever read any of his work, copy and paste it, then start deleting the ad hominem's, the irrelevant gibing, and find out how much actual content there is in his arguments. I'm not currently aware of anyone else who has made a direct rebuttal against Doherty.

CX

I think that is debateable. GMk looks to have been written by a 2nd or 3rd generation Jewish Xian living outside Palestine and who had never lived in Palestine. Consequently I would be hard pressed to say that strictly speaking GMk was written by a Jew. GJn was written quite late probably in Ephesus. Unless we accept church tradition that this was written by John, Son of Zebedee, there is no reason to think that this gospel, along with 1,2&3 John weren't written by a Xian elder. A good candidate is Papias' "Presbyter John". The pseudo-Pauline and deutero-Pauline epistles were written by Xian converts of Paul. They could have been Jewish or Gentile. It is impossible to say.

All that notwithstanding early Xians were in pretty strong conflict with other Jews, so the point regarding anti-semitism and authorship of the NT text is somewhat moot, in my opinion. Early Xians were only Jewish in the same way Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses are Xian. Perhaps even less so. They could be considered more akin to Branch Davidians.

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

aikido7

Whatever the gospel accounts are, their interpretation has provided an excuse for an unbroken historical chain of hatred and hostility against the Jews. Intentions are great, Nomad--they may provide a direction or goal--but they don't really matter in the long run of human record.

As the early followers of Jesus were gradually assimilated into the wider Roman world, one can actually watch each successive evangelist move the goalposts closer through time. In the earliest gospel, Jesus is mocked by "the people," next it is "all the people' and finally--in John's account--it becomes "the Jews." And once Constantine forged by force his expedient marriage of power and faith, another scapegoat besides the empire had to be found.

The fourth gospel seems to be America's favorite Jesus and it is here we find the bitter, badgering Jesus. Instead of the compassionate paraboler of the poor, the oppressed and the outsider--whom he praises above the believers and the establishment--our Jesus seems to have suffered a major mental episode in John's account, for such themes are barely mentioned there. In fact, throughout the gospel of John "we" are good while the "Jews" and unbelievers are bad.

Nomad, John's intentions may have been good but you are seriously remiss in focusing on the good intentions rather than on the effect of those good intentions.

To my way of thinking, Gerd Ludemann is focusing on the larger picture of history. William Laine Craig--because he is an apologist--must necessarily avoid such an untidy view.

Toto

Luedemann is focusing on the history of early Christianity. He has written a short book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0664257399/internetinfidelsA" target="_blank">The Unholy in Holy Scripture: The Dark Side of the Bible</a>, half of which concerns the anti-Judaism of the New Testament.

Luedemann does not find Paul to be anti-Semitic, despite one passage that appears to condemn the Jews. He does find a consistant thread of anti-Judaism in the Gospels, starting with Mark. I think he is concerned with more than the abuse of scripture by later Christians, although of course, any German has to be aware of the anti-Semitism of Martin Luther and later Germans.

lpetrich

Actually, Paul vs. the Gospels suggests some gradual evolution of Christian anti-Semitism.

Paul's letters are generally thought to precede the Gospels, and the early Christian movement may have been smaller and more obscure then. It would have coexisted with the rest of the Jewish community more easily -- to the extent that the rest of that community was aware of its existence.

But by the time of the writing of the Gospels, it must have become apparent to the early Christians that the rest of the Jewish community had not exactly been welcoming them with open arms. Thus, they wrote into the Gospels some venomous denunciations of scribes and Pharisees, and also their holding the mainstream Jewish community responsible for executing Jesus Christ -- even to the point of effectively exonerating Pontius Pilate.

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Nomad

Hello Cowboy

I have not said that the NT books were written by Palestinian Jews, and did not mean to leave such an impression if some have read my meaning in this way. In my view, a Jew is a Jew regardless of where he happens to live.

As to where Mark may have lived or written his account, this remains a contentious debating point with names from Rome and Caesaria to Alexandria to Antioch bandied about. Personally I think it was probably Rome, and like you, I am not convinced that he ever lived in Palestine, though some of his sources almost certainly did.

Well, I am becoming less and less convinced that John was written that late (c. 90 AD) as opposed to earlier (c. 65-75 AD), especially given his unique knowledge of geography in Jerusalem (places like the Stone Pavement/Gabbatha and pool of Bethesda, all of which were completely lost and destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD. Interestingly, until archaologists found these places in the latter part of the 20th Century, many ysed such names as evidence the John was a late 2nd Century Hellenistic fiction.). Also, he seems to be perfectly at home with many Jewish concepts not found elsewhere in the non-Johanine corpus (children of the light, the light/darkness contrasts, Logos, ect.). Finally, one can argue for the author being an eye witness to many of the events he reports, even if one rejects John, son of Zebedee as that witness (If you are interested, I went through this discussion with James still in the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000653&p=" target="_blank">John not author of fourth gospel</a>, with my own response found on <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000653&p=2" target="_blank">page 2</a> of this thread. In any event, taken together, the evidence is very good that the author of John was a Jew himself.

Since I reject non-Pauline authorship of the pseudo-Paulines, and am in the middle of my arguments on this exact subject, I would obviously disagree with you here. If you are interested in examining my current arguments, regarding in particular the Pastorals, I will refer you to my two part essay:

<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8874" target="_blank">The Pastorals, Part I</a>
<a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/8929" target="_blank">The Pastorals, Part II</a>

The third part of my essay is still in progress.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this for me please. In what way were early Christians like Peter, Paul, James, ect. like Branch Davidians?

Nomad

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Nomad

Aikido, rather than speaking in genralities, perhaps you could offer actual arguments for anti-Semitism found in the Gospels, as that is the question that is before us. We can then address these pieces of evidence, rather than your propaganda and anti-Christian opinions (to which you have every right to hold, of course, but which are not really matters for debate or discussion).

Since John's gospel also has the Jewish people responding in at least two ways (some for, and some against) in vertually every pericope found in his Gospel, I hope you are not suggesting that John was simply an anti-Semite. A more nuanced approach would appear to be in order.

This is a separate argument, and has some merit. Without question many early Christians, and some up to the present day are anti-Semites. Much evil has been done against the Jews in the name of Christianity and Jesus, but this does not mean that the Gospels themselves are anti-Semitical.

Do you honestly expect people to take your prejudiced and misguided readings of the Gospel of John as evidence, or even as an argument?

Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus, a Jew. And perhaps you could reread John 13 to 15, and do so with your prejudices set aside.

John 13:34-35 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another."

John 15:15 I no longer call you servants, because a servant does not know his master's business. Instead, I have called you friends, for everything that I learned from my Father I have made known to you.

Jesus calls His disciples and followers "friends." How much closer and more intimate can God be with His people? Quite honestly I do not understand your hostility to the Gospel of John, but perhaps you could elaborate and show me what troubles you specifically, rather than these vague attacks.

Do you mean like the episode of Jesus washing the feet of His disciples (John 13:3-17)? As you know, this action was a demonstration of humble service to His friends, as well as an example to them that they too should serve one another humbly. Interestingly, this is an episode found no where else in the NT. So is this a sign of mental breakdown on Jesus' part as you claim? Or are you simply so hateful of the things you find terrible in Christianity that you swallow any line handed to you by Spong and company?

Please try tp think for yourself, and to present your own arguments and evidence, rather than parrotting propanda you have read elsewhere.

Since both groups (the "we" being Jesus' Jewish followers) are Jewish, how do you find this to be anti-Semitic words? Quick questions if I may:

Was Lazarus a Jew? Was the man born blind from birth? Were the Twelve? How about Mary Magdeline?

Aikido, your intentions may be good, but your insistence on making anachronistic readings of of the Gospels is indicative of poor critical thinking skills. Try to do so without imposing the baggage of Christian history on the texts, and you may be astounded by what you learn that you had never considered before.

Perhaps, but in doing so he is refusing to read the texts for what they say simply and plainly, and instead, imposes the same distortions you have bought into from the likes of John Shelby Spong and similar thinking individuals.

You honestly do not see your own prejudices do you Aikido? Reread what you have just written here. Next, remember that I am an apologist. Finally, tell me that you have evidence that I "avoid such an untidy view" of history, then produce it.

Thank you,

Nomad

[ February 02, 2002: Message edited by: Nomad ]</p>

Toto

Luedemann's writings are quite nuanced and complex, in spite of what you might conclude from the short quote from the debate. He describes anti-Judaism as the dark left hand of christology.

He does not see Paul as anti-Semitic, in spite of I Thessalonians 14-16 (which I recall may be an interpolation).

He does see several of the parables of Jesus as containing anti-Judaism: the wicked husbandman in Mark 12:1-12, and others which can be interpreted to say that the Jews will be punished for rejecting Jesus. He sees anti-Judaism throughout the passion narrative, in which the Jews - not just the leadership, but the Jewish crowd - are blamed for Jesus' death. There is that strange way the Jews curse themselves, like a Greek chorus, in Matt. 27:25 - "His blood be on us and on our children!"

I am not taking the time now to type out all of his citations. I refer you to his book, The Unholy in Holy Scripture.

Luedemann believes that Jesus existed, and was killed by Pontius Pilate, and was not raised from the dead, and that Jesus was a Jew who saw himself with a mission to the Jews, and would not have told parables about the Jews being punished for murdering him. So he assumes that the anti-Semitic elements were added later, after the Christians split off from the Jews, after 70 CE.

{edited to fix Matt 27}

[ February 03, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

lpetrich

As to how Jews could hate themselves and their fellow Jews, a reasonable hypothesis is that the early Christian movement was a heretical sect of Jews that eventually felt very wronged when the rest of the Jewish community did not quite welcome them with open arms.

Thus, Jesus Christ is pictured as being very angry with those who were unwilling to listen to him; according to Bertrand Russell in "Why I am Not a Christian", neither Socrates nor the Buddha had engaged in such vituperation.

And JC's fulminations against the scribes and Pharisees ought to be well-known.

Finally, that famous self-indictment by a lynch mob is Matthew 27:25 (not 25:25) -- and I agree that it's grossly out of character for lynch mobs. Consider those who demonstrated against Salman Rushdie; did they ever say that SR's fate will be a black mark on Islam? And consider those Iranians who chanted "Death to America!" "Death to Carter!" back in 1979; they never said "This is a black mark on Iran!"

Yes, I think that "lynch mob" is a reasonable term; reading Matthew 27, I have this picture of a mob chanting

"Death to Jesus the Messiah!"
"Death to the Temple defiler!"
"Death to the blasphemer!"
"Death to the pretender!"