Easter is antisemitic?

brightspark

Considering it is the "Roman" Catholic Church, it is unlikely that the early Romans (starting with Constantine the Great) would want themselves to have been seen as the villains and the Gospels were likely spun to deflect some of the blame to the Jews. (if someone has a copy of the Gospels predating Constantine that wold throw my theory out)

That isn't to say that the Jewish hierarchy at the time wouldn't have wanted what they perhaps saw as a "cult" wiped out, but the Romans ultimately were the ones in charge and would have just as much incentive in squashing any potential rebellion.

History is written (or at least spun a little) by the victors after all.

Thinkingaboutit

brightspark wrote: »

Considering it is the "Roman" Catholic Church, it is unlikely that the early Romans (starting with Constantine the Great) would want themselves to have been seen as the villains and the Gospels were likely spun to deflect some of the blame to the Jews. (if someone has a copy of the Gospels predating Constantine that wold throw my theory out)

That isn't to say that the Jewish hierarchy at the time wouldn't have wanted what they perhaps saw as a "cult" wiped out, but the Romans ultimately were the ones in charge and would have just as much incentive in squashing any potential rebellion.

History is written (or at least spun a little) by the victors after all.

That's just completely incorrect. There are many, many fragments predating Constantine I. There are at least eleven manuscripts, each parts of individual books, like St the Gospel of John or Acts, for the gathering of the entire biblical canon (OT and NT) in one book was rare until recent centuries. Dates start at c. 150 AD, and likely earlier will be located. All of these pseudo texts that some allege are the true feminist Gospel suppressed by evil Constantine, or other nonsense, are newer.

brightspark

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

That's just completely incorrect. There are many, many fragments predating Constantine I. There are at least eleven manuscripts, each parts of individual books, like St the Gospel of John or Acts, for the gathering of the entire biblical canon (OT and NT) in one book was rare until recent centuries. Dates start at c. 150 AD, and likely earlier will be located. All of these pseudo texts that some allege are the true feminist Gospel suppressed by evil Constantine, or other nonsense, are newer.

I know there are fragments...do any of those fragments deal with the events leading up to and including the Crucifixion? (i.e. include Pilates washing of his hands etc)


(and I am not referring to any of the "pseudo texts" just suggesting that the Romans may have changed a few words.

Thinkingaboutit

brightspark wrote: »

I know there are fragments...do any of those fragments deal with the events leading up to and including the Crucifixion? (i.e. include Pilates washing of his hands etc)


(and I am not referring to any of the "pseudo texts" just suggesting that the Romans may have changed a few words.

Yes.

The idea that the Romans 'added a few words' is just silly. There is no evidence of that. None. Moreover, the NT was a text in Koine Greek, a lingua franca of ordinary folk in the Roman East, not anything any literary Roman would use as a medium of literary expression. None of the papyri show any of sneaky editing. Later St Jerome, after Constantine was dead, carried out a professional translation to replace the private Latin efforts, the vetus Itala, although making use of the Hebrew texts used by Jews for the OT. We still have all these random parts of the Acts, Letters, Gospels, in the original koine Greek, which show no villainous Constantinian alterations.

Extraordinary claims require evidence that is equally extraordinary. You can provide none.

One example suffices:

John 18:31–33 is on the front of one and on the back verses 37–38 are on the back of one piece.

trial of Our Lord wrote:

ΟΙ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ ΗΜΙΝ ΟΥΚ ΕΞΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΠΟΚΤΕΙΝΑΙ
OYΔΕΝΑ ΙΝΑ Ο ΛΟΓΟΣ ΤΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΠΛΗΡΩΘΗ ΟΝ ΕΙ-
ΠΕΝ ΣHΜΑΙΝΩΝ ΠΟΙΩ ΘΑΝΑΤΩ ΗΜΕΛΛΕΝ ΑΠΟ-
ΘΝHΣΚΕΙΝ ΕΙΣΗΛΘΕΝ ΟΥΝ ΠΑΛΙΝ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΠΡΑΙΤΩ-
ΡΙΟΝ Ο ΠIΛΑΤΟΣ ΚΑΙ ΕΦΩΝΗΣΕΝ ΤΟΝ ΙΗΣΟΥΝ
ΚΑΙ ΕΙΠΕΝ ΑΥΤΩ ΣΥ ΕΙ O ΒΑΣΙΛΕΥΣ ΤΩΝ ΙΟΥ-
ΔAΙΩN


31 Pilate therefore said to them: Take him you, and judge him according to your law. The Jews therefore said to him: It is not lawful for us to put any man to death;

32 That the word of Jesus might be fulfilled, which he said, signifying what death he should die.

33 Pilate therefore went into the hall again, and called Jesus, and said to him: Art thou the king of the Jews?

brightspark

I wasn't aware that there were verified pre-Constantine texts to back up "Pilates washing his hands". But I am not going to doubt you if you say that there is.
(I wasn't suggesting any tampering with old texts, just that the later texts were slightly different)

I am still surprised that the presumably hated occupying Romans got such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels, with so much blame being placed on the Jewish authorities of the time, perhaps you have an explanation?

And it wasn't as if the early Christians weren't persecuted by the Romans up until Constantine. But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews.

Vestiapx

Easter is simply the celebration of the spring equinox and takes its name from the Pagan Goddess.
In Hebrew terms it's basically a repurposing of Passover amd therefore not anti anything.

Markus Antonius

brightspark wrote: »

I wasn't aware that there were verified pre-Constantine texts to back up "Pilates washing his hands". But I am not going to doubt you if you say that there is.
(I wasn't suggesting any tampering with old texts, just that the later texts were slightly different)

I am still surprised that the presumably hated occupying Romans got such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels, with so much blame being placed on the Jewish authorities of the time, perhaps you have an explanation?

And it wasn't as if the early Christians weren't persecuted by the Romans up until Constantine. But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews.

Yes, the Romans didn't care what religion anyone followed so long as your allegiances were to the Roman emperor and you paid your taxes.

Quantum Erasure

Vestiapx wrote: »

Easter is simply the celebration of the spring equinox and takes its name from the Pagan Goddess.
In Hebrew terms it's basically a repurposing of Passover amd therefore not anti anything.

Did you read past the title of the thread?

Thinkingaboutit

brightspark wrote: »

I wasn't aware that there were verified pre-Constantine texts to back up "Pilates washing his hands". But I am not going to doubt you if you say that there is.
(I wasn't suggesting any tampering with old texts, just that the later texts were slightly different)

I am still surprised that the presumably hated occupying Romans got such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels, with so much blame being placed on the Jewish authorities of the time, perhaps you have an explanation?

And it wasn't as if the early Christians weren't persecuted by the Romans up until Constantine. But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews.

So this specific thing thing of the Procurator washing his hands has to be there? That's a new one. None of these texts with portions of Gospels, Acts, Letter diverge in any notable way. Maybe you should try support your assertions. The Romans did not persecute everyone. They often persecuted Christians and were merciless to Manicheans. Earlier some Dionysian cults were repressed by republican magistrates and some eastern sects might see their shrines slighted at times. Jews were respected for the antiquity of their faith, and the Romans only persecuted them in the context of rebellion. Even after 79 AD and the destruction of Jerusalem, loyal Jews were left in peace. After another major Jewish rebellion which raged particularly in Egypt and much of the Roman East, Hadrian refounded Jerusalem as Aelia and forbade Jews to live there. 'But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews' is not factual, not remotely factual.

Vestiapx wrote: »

Easter is simply the celebration of the spring equinox and takes its name from the Pagan Goddess.
In Hebrew terms it's basically a repurposing of Passover amd therefore not anti anything.

That isn't clear at all. Venerable Bede suggested the world Easter was derived from a goddess Oestre, but there is no evidence whatsoever of this deity outside the writings of Bede. Medieval and Roman writers had a love of imaginative entomologies. That religions commemorated the passage of time and the coming of spring is hardly a surprise.

Markus Antonius wrote: »

Yes, the Romans didn't care what religion anyone followed so long as your allegiances were to the Roman emperor and you paid your taxes.

Provided someone was not Manichean or Christian, although the persecutions of either varied in intensity. Christianity only became a notable target in the third century AD as the Roman commonwealth strained under disease and invasion. St Augustine's early life suggests a Manichean community not in fear of its existence.

Words like anti-Semitism can really differ in meaning. William of Tyre, 12th century, Archbishop in the Crusader kingdom wrote and preached against Judaism and Jews, but had a Jew personal physician. Visceral, unrelenting hatred of Jews is more something of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Even incidents where renegade crusaders attacking German Jews trying to shelter in episcopal palaces or public fortresses have little of the unrelenting character of incidents within living memory.

Markus Antonius

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

Visceral, unrelenting hatred of Jews is more something of the nineteenth and twentieth century. Even incidents where renegade crusaders attacking German Jews trying to shelter in episcopal palaces or public fortresses have little of the unrelenting character of incidents within living memory.

Exactly, which makes the idea of Christ's crucifixion marking the beginning of antisemitism (and events such as the holocaust) as spurious and bizarre to say the least.

brightspark

Thinkingaboutit wrote: »

So this specific thing thing of the Procurator washing his hands has to be there? That's a new one. None of these texts with portions of Gospels, Acts, Letter diverge in any notable way. Maybe you should try support your assertions.

What about the writings of Josephus?

"When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross,"

vs an Arabic version

"Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die,"

https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-jesus/


Also if the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead (presumably from their viewpoint for blasphemy?) then why not by stoning? (Obviously tolerated by the Romans as Jesus had spared the adulterous woman).

Thinkingaboutit

brightspark wrote: »

What about the writings of Josephus?

"When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross,"

vs an Arabic version

"Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die,"

https://pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/josephus-jesus/


Also if the Jewish authorities wanted Jesus dead (presumably from their viewpoint for blasphemy?) then why not by stoning? (Obviously tolerated by the Romans as Jesus had spared the adulterous woman).

Papyrus P32 Titus Greek 2nd-3rd Century

Papyrus P46 Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians,

Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, Hebrews Greek 2nd-early 3rd Century

Papyrus P66 Gospel of John Greek 2nd-3rd Century

Papyrus P77 Gospel of Matthew Greek 2nd-3rd Century

Papyrus P103 Gospel of Matthew Greek 2nd-3rd Century

Majuscule GA0189 Acts of the Apostles Greek 2nd-3rd Century



A searchable selection of biblical papyri and parchment. Papyrus is not necessarily ancient for the Papal chancery used this material until the seventh to eight century, but the ones listed in the link have been dated. The fairly extensive survivals from the second century of writings kept by some usually marginal people should disprove this nonsense that Constantine added words. If an Emperor wanted to do that, he would have had violent rebellion in already heavily Christian Egypt. Its substantial Jewish population might have joined, for while they liked Christians little, they liked Romans less.

You are not particularly making a strong point regarding the different readings of Josephus. The Procurator did execute Jesus, but the Temple authorities and crowd did pressure Pilate, with the Gospel of John relating an implied threat from the crowd that Pilate could find himself considered 'not a friend of Caesar.' Provincials had a right to complain about an unjust governor with this sort of wording, which the Gospel relates. Pilate was later removed and disgraced over his slaughter of Samaritans close to their sacred mountain and Temple at Mount Gerizim (the Samaritan were an element not deported like many other wealthier Jews to Babylon in earlier centuries), the last of many incidents where the Procurator overreacted. An Arab version would usually be inferior to an earlier Greek text, for Greek continued as a lingua franca a substantial time after the Arab conquest, making an Arab text of Josephus quite irrelevantly, for present purposes, late.

Peregrinus

brightspark wrote: »

I am still surprised that the presumably hated occupying Romans got such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels, with so much blame being placed on the Jewish authorities of the time, perhaps you have an explanation?

And it wasn't as if the early Christians weren't persecuted by the Romans up until Constantine. But the Romans persecuted everyone including the Jews.

The gospels are clear that Pilate condemned Jesus to death, and that the sentence was implemented by the Roman forces — the scourging, the centurion at the foot of the cross, the notice placed on the cross by Pilate — all that stuff. It's absurd to say that "they get such little blame for the Crucifixion in the Gospels"; they are front and centre in the gospel accounts.

Of course, the gospels do also suggest that they did all this at the instigation of the Temple authorities, and I think the historical debate is over the extent to which this is true, versus the extent to which it is over-emphasised. There's no doubt that the gospel portrait of Pilate as weak, vacillating and averse to the infliction of unwarranted cruelty is very much at odds with what we know of him from non-gospel sources; it wouldn't be at all out of character for him to have executed Jesus as a troublemaker without bothering too much about the justice of the matter. On the other hand, that's not inconsistent with the Temple authorities also having been keen to see Jesus dealt with, and having encouraged or supported Pilate to do that.

But I think that, rather than presenting Christian antisemitism as something shaped by gospel texts that excuse Pilate, it might be more accurate to see antisemitism as the reason why Christian came to read the gospel in a way that focussed on the role of the Temple authorities and more or less ignored the role of the Roman administration in the crucifixion. As I point out above, the role they played is set out in the gospels, but perhaps it got little emphasis in the way people read the gospels.

Even the pre-Christian Roman world was quite anti-Semitic. Most of the religious cults in the Mediterranean were quite accepting of the other religious cults around them, often establishing correspondences between their various pantheons of gods (e.g. Greek Zeus is identified with Roman Jupiter), and membership of local religious traditions was generally compatible with participation in the Roman civic religion. The Jews, strict monotheists, were an exception; they would have absolutely nothing to do with any other gods. The Romans tolerated this but didn't really understand it, and it made them view the Jews as odd, hostile, uncooperative, unreliable and probably thinking they were better than everyone else.

Then came the Jewish wars, which I think the Romans say as reinforcing and confirming suspicions about Judaism and entrenching their hostility to and mistrust of Jews. This was a problem for Christians, who were seen essentially as a sect of Judaism; it gave the Christians a strong incentive to separate themselves from the Jews and to adopt and identify with the wider society's antipathy to Jews. And this, I suspect, is at the roots of Christian antisemitism. This lead Christians to embrace a reading of the gospel which glossed over the involvement of the Romans and focussed on that of the Temple authorities.

The issue is not whether certain Jewish leaders were responsible for the death of Christ - from the Gospel accounts they clearly had a great deal of responsibility - the issue which led to anti-Jewish discrimination was holding the Jewish people as a whole responsible for the actions of a small minority of their ancestors. It is this, coupled with the fact that many Jews rejected Jesus as being a false prophet, a liar, the worship of him as idolatry etc. that gave rise to anti-Jewish sentiment. Judaism, especially in the early days, forcefully rejected Christ. It should be clear to all that such fundamental disagreement would give rise to tension. Saying that the reason for tension between Christians and Jews rests on Christian efforts to 'fit in' with the Romans seems, to me, very odd indeed and an attempt to shove what is ultimately a theological issue, into a neat secular geo-political hole. We need to make reference, indeed it should be front and centre, to theology.

We need to reference the clear theological position on the crucifixion of Christ, which is that man, EVERYONE, as sinners, are responsible for Christ's suffering:

All sinners were the authors of Christ's Passion

598 In her Magisterial teaching of the faith and in the witness of her saints, the Church has never forgotten that "sinners were the authors and the ministers of all the sufferings that the divine Redeemer endured."389 Taking into account the fact that our sins affect Christ himself,390 the Church does not hesitate to impute to Christians the gravest responsibility for the torments inflicted upon Jesus, a responsibility with which they have all too often burdened the Jews alone:

We must regard as guilty all those who continue to relapse into their sins. Since our sins made the Lord Christ suffer the torment of the cross, those who plunge themselves into disorders and crimes crucify the Son of God anew in their hearts (for he is in them) and hold him up to contempt. And it can be seen that our crime in this case is greater in us than in the Jews. As for them, according to the witness of the Apostle, "None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." We, however, profess to know him. And when we deny him by our deeds, we in some way seem to lay violent hands on him.391

Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.392
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p122a4p2.htm

Of course, the correct position is not to hold an entire group of people responsible for the past actions of a small minority, and also to respect religious and theological differences.

The point must also be stressed that antipathy, or even sometimes discrimination or persecution, (as reprehensible and wrong as it is) is a far cry from an Aryan racial ideology that views one race as superior to others, and that 'lesser' races (or the disabled etc.) can or should be culled like animals. This is not a position born from theology, rather it stems from an outright rejection of theology, a rejection of God. So-called scientific racism stems from post enlightenment thought.

Any attempt to pin or blame the Holocaust on Christianity is extremely dangerous, particularly in the modern world where group identity, nationalism, and 'othering' is rocketing and indeed fast becoming the basis on which society is run in the West. Blaming the Holocaust on religion is not only wrong, it is borderline excusing Nazism. Imagine if a Nazi said to you that that Christianity was really responsible for the holocaust, (the implication of course being that if a 'purer' form of fascism were attempted in a post-christian world it would work - you might think this unlikely but communists make similar claims in response to atrocities under communist systems) would you accept that? Of course not. We have to be careful here.

looksee

The issue is not whether certain Jewish leaders were responsible for the death of Christ - from the Gospel accounts they clearly had a great deal of responsibility - the issue which led to anti-Jewish discrimination was holding the Jewish people as a whole responsible for the actions of a small minority of their ancestors.

This is hardly surprising or unusual?!

brightspark

Yes it is fundamentally wrong to blame the Holocaust on Christianity



It should also be remembered that all the Apostles and most of the early Christians were Jewish.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

This is hardly surprising or unusual?!

I'm not sure what you mean?

smacl

Ali Billions Spectacle wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean?

Blaming the actions of a few on anyone sharing the same creed or racial origin is very common, e.g. ISIS and Islamophobia or anti-Irish sentiment in the UK following bombings in the troubles.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

Blaming the actions of a few on anyone sharing the same creed or racial origin is very common, e.g. ISIS and Islamophobia or anti-Irish sentiment in the UK following bombings in the troubles.

Oh yes, very common, and of course very wrong.

Peregrinus

Well, in this context we have to remember this rather awkward verse:

Mt 27:25 wrote:

And the whole people said in reply, “His blood be upon us and upon our children.”

It's what the people cry when Pilate, in the preceding verse, says that he thinks Jesus is innocent, but is afraid there will be a riot if he doesn't have him executed. And there's no doubt that this verse was used by Christian leaders in the Middle Ages and later to whip up antisemitic fervour; we have abundant records of that happening on repeated occasions.

Was this, as ex loco says, very wrong? Of course. But did it happen? Yes. So did the Christian movement promote and foster antisemitism? Yes, systematically, for centuries. And did this play a significant role in creating the social and cultural climate in which the Holocaust could play out? Yes. And any attempt by Christians to reckon with and atone for our own communal and institutional history of antisemitism has to confront this.

So, there's two dimensions to this. One I have already referred to; the way Christians have tended to understand this verse, and the use they have made of it, in the past 1900 years. The other is the question of why this verse is there at all. Or, rather, the questions, since you can ask this as a historical question ("Did this happen?") or as a theological question ("What does this verse signify?")

On the historical question, none of the other evangelists, whether writing before Matthew or after him, mention this. Plus, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the behaviour of Pilate described by Matthew is, based on what we know of Pilate from other sources, improbable. So what's going on here?

We note that Matthew includes a great amount of often very colourful details that other evangelists omit. It's Matthew, for example, who tells us that at the moment of Jesus' death . . .

Mt 27:51-53 wrote:

. . . behold, the veil of the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. The earth quaked, rocks were split, tombs were opened, and the bodies of many saints who had fallen asleep were raised. And coming forth from their tombs after his resurrection, they entered the holy city and appeared to many.

Seriously? This happened? And neither Mark nor Luke nor John thought it worth mentioning? And there are lots of other "flourishes" in Matthew that have no parallel in other gospels.

A common account for this is that Matthew's flourishes are a literary device; they're not necessarily things that actually happened, or they may be things that happened that Matthew embroiders with spectacular detail. Either way, he does this in order to call attention to, or help the reader understand, the theological significance of the things that did actually happen. (And, no, he's not trying to mislead his readers; he expects they will understand that he's doing this.) So, if Mt 27:25 is one of these flourishes, the question becomes, why does Matthew tell us that the crowd accepted responsibility for the death of Jesus?

I'm pretty sure that we would all answer "well, not so as to pave the way for the Holocaust, anyway". But that theological answer has to sit with the uncomfortable fact that, from a historical point of view, it did play its part in paving the way for the Holocaust. Whether that's Matthew's fault, or the fault of later generations of Christians who read and interpreted Matthew in a particular way, is perhaps not, from the perspective of countless millions of murdered Jews, an important question; either way, it's Christianity's fault.

Are you claiming that fascism, and Nazism, were an inevitable outcome from Christianity?

You are making insufficient (or rather, none) reference to the central role of post enlightenment thought, specifically so called "scientific racism" and racial theory. This was, and is, decidedly contrary to religious thought. This is reflected in the fact that the Nazi regime persecuted millions of other people who were deemed undesirable, including the disabled as well as many Catholics and clergy. This is not explained by historic christian discrimination or apathy towards Jews. It is explained by twisted racial and post enlightenment theory - Nazism.

The Catholic position on man's collective responsibility for the death of Christ had been clearly outlined for centuries prior to the holocaust, albeit the likes of Luther seemed to differ from this, certainly regarding the treatment of Jews.

If you are saying that ill treatment of a group of people for one reason can make it easier (culturally, in society) for more virulent and evil treatment (for a different reason) to occur then I agree. If you are saying that one inevitably leads to the other I disagree.

We must not let Nazism, twisted nationalism, racial ideology, so called scientific rascism, and so on, off the hook. These are all contrary to the christian position. In the "post-christian" society we live in today this is beyond dangerous, and is reflected in the rise of what St. Pope John Paul II described as the "culture of death."

Of course, if everyone were good Christians we would not have had World Wars in the first place, it is correct that a collective failure the abide by the rules of God leads to unnecessary suffering and wars, and will continue to do so. It is a lack of Christianity, not Christianity itself, that leads to horrors like the holocaust.

The reference to the "blood curse" is interesting, but necessitates further reference to the later destruction of Jerusalem and indeed the nature of Christ's blood itself...

smacl

Ali Billions Spectacle wrote: »

If you are saying that ill treatment of a group of people for one reason can make it easier (culturally, in society) for more virulent and evil treatment (for a different reason) to occur then I agree. If you are saying that one inevitably leads to the other I disagree.

We must not let Nazism, twisted nationalism, racial ideology, so called scientific rascism, and so on, off the hook. These are all contrary to the christian position. In the "post-christian" society we live in today this is beyond dangerous, and is reflected in the rise of what St. Pope John Paul II described as the "culture of death."

Of course, if everyone were good Christians we would not have had World Wars in the first place, it is correct that a collective failure the abide by the rules of God leads to unnecessary suffering and wars, and will continue to do so. It is a lack of Christianity, not Christianity itself, that leads to horrors like the holocaust.

I think the question here is whether Christianity is prone to ethnocentrism, or more specifically perhaps, religiocentrism. I doubt many would argue that it has been in the past and to a lesser extent still is.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

I think the question here is whether Christianity is prone to ethnocentrism, or more specifically perhaps, religiocentrism. I doubt many would argue that it has been in the past and to a lesser extent still is.

Why is this the question? What do you believe is the implication of its answer, with reference to the holocaust? Please, play this out for us and tell us what you think.

(The Catholic position is basically that every religion contains parts of the Truth, but that the entirety of Truth is contained within the Church.)

looksee

Are you claiming that fascism, and Nazism, were an inevitable outcome from Christianity?

No-one made that claim - it was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity but it is arguable that it might have been an outcome of people who regarded themselves as Christians but who were as corrupt in those beliefs as they were in beliefs of racial superiority and nationalism.

looksee

looksee wrote: »

No-one made that claim - it was not an inevitable outcome of Christianity but it is arguable that it might have been an outcome of people who regarded themselves as Christians but who were as corrupt in those beliefs as they were in beliefs of racial superiority and nationalism.

Well, yes, but a corrupt view of Christianity (it is worth remembering that Nazism was hostile to Christianity from the start, as it was contrary to the twisted, post enlightenment, Darwinian, "racial science" philosophy that underpinned Nazism) on its own was not the cause, or even a main cause, of the holocaust. It was the aforementioned twisted philosophy of Nazism that spawned it.

Nazism, and its underpinning philosophy (more pagan than Christian) did not depend on Christianity, it could have happened without it, and indeed, may happen again. After all, in another atheistic society elimination of entire classes of people was deemed desirable...

My point is, if we go down the road of blaming a religion for the horrors of Nazism we run the risk of taking our eye off the ball when it comes to the resurgence of the culture of death that underpinned Nazism, which has nothing to do with Christianity. If we, that is, society, adopt some sort of position akin to "well that was enabled by Christian thought, in a post christian society we needn't worry about that" it would be disastrous. In fact, I think we need to worry now more than ever.

Of course, everyone should be treated with due respect and in a Christian manner, in fact this would serve to essentially "inoculate" the world against poisonous contagions like Nazism. Having a poor immune system, or living an unhealthy lifestyle, is not the cause of infection from a virus, but obviously it facilitates it in doing more damage. This is the challenge to all humanity, to live as God intended - a challenge that is rarely lived up to, which is why Christ suffered so, upon the cross.

Markus Antonius

Peregrinus wrote: »

Was this, as ex loco says, very wrong? Of course. But did it happen? Yes. So did the Christian movement promote and foster antisemitism? Yes, systematically, for centuries. And did this play a significant role in creating the social and cultural climate in which the Holocaust could play out? Yes. And any attempt by Christians to reckon with and atone for our own communal and institutional history of antisemitism has to confront this.

So, there's two dimensions to this. One I have already referred to; the way Christians have tended to understand this verse, and the use they have made of it, in the past 1900 years. The other is the question of why this verse is there at all. Or, rather, the questions, since you can ask this as a historical question ("Did this happen?") or as a theological question ("What does this verse signify?")

On the historical question, none of the other evangelists, whether writing before Matthew or after him, mention this. Plus, as mentioned earlier in the thread, the behaviour of Pilate described by Matthew is, based on what we know of Pilate from other sources, improbable. So what's going on here?

We note that Matthew includes a great amount of often very colourful details that other evangelists omit. It's Matthew, for example, who tells us that at the moment of Jesus' death . . .


Seriously? This happened? And neither Mark nor Luke nor John thought it worth mentioning? And there are lots of other "flourishes" in Matthew that have no parallel in other gospels.

A common account for this is that Matthew's flourishes are a literary device; they're not necessarily things that actually happened, or they may be things that happened that Matthew embroiders with spectacular detail. Either way, he does this in order to call attention to, or help the reader understand, the theological significance of the things that did actually happen. (And, no, he's not trying to mislead his readers; he expects they will understand that he's doing this.) So, if Mt 27:25 is one of these flourishes, the question becomes, why does Matthew tell us that the crowd accepted responsibility for the death of Jesus?

I'm pretty sure that we would all answer "well, not so as to pave the way for the Holocaust, anyway". But that theological answer has to sit with the uncomfortable fact that, from a historical point of view, it did play its part in paving the way for the Holocaust. Whether that's Matthew's fault, or the fault of later generations of Christians who read and interpreted Matthew in a particular way, is perhaps not, from the perspective of countless millions of murdered Jews, an important question; either way, it's Christianity's fault.

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Such a slap in the face to all the Christians who were killed in the holocaust.

When are people going to learn that the holocaust wasn't exclusively an attack on the Jews? The irony too that it took a visit to Auschwitz for me to learn of how indiscriminately cruel the Nazis were to cohorts from many different backgrounds.

brightspark

Markus Antonius wrote: »

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Such a slap in the face to all the Christians who were killed in the holocaust.

When are people going to learn that the holocaust wasn't exclusively an attack on the Jews? The irony too that it took a visit to Auschwitz for me to learn of how indiscriminately cruel the Nazis were to cohorts from many different backgrounds.

I am not sure why you think that people don't know that others besides Jewish people were murdered by the Nazi regime? It's well known that many others were also sent to and killed in concentration camps, but the majority were Jewish.

I don't think that the Nazis killed Jews because of the Crucifixion, The Nazis killed Jews because the Jewish people were blamed (wrongly) for Germany's defeat in WWI (It's easy to blame people who don't share your own culture)


As regards RTEs coverage? Passover occurs around the same time as Easter, why shouldn't RTE show programs that show a Jewish perspective?
(Christian masses are broadcast every Sunday, Angelus played...etc., so it isn't as if Christians are ignored by RTE.

It is also too simplistic to blame the Crucifixion on the Jews, a view that some older people were taught (while not highlighting the fact that early Christians were Jewish). It is certainly wrong to hate contemporary Jewish people for the events 2000 years ago and it could even be argued that they were unwittingly facilitating God's plan. But without the Romans there would not have been a Crucifixion either.

Peregrinus

Markus Antonius wrote: »

I can't believe what I'm reading here. Such a slap in the face to all the Christians who were killed in the holocaust.

When are people going to learn that the holocaust wasn't exclusively an attack on the Jews? The irony too that it took a visit to Auschwitz for me to learn of how indiscriminately cruel the Nazis were to cohorts from many different backgrounds.

How in God's name is this "a slap in the face to all the Christians who were killed in the Holocaust"? Seriously, how can you possibly think that?

The antisemitic nature of the holocaust is undeniable. The fact that it was also directed at other groups does not detract in any way from its profoundly antisemitic nature. To mention its antisemitic nature is not to deny that it was also directed at other groups. To mention its direction at other groups is not to deny its antisemitic nature. No intelligent person can possibly believe otherwise.

Now that we've got this clear, can we please never mention it again?

smacl

Ali Billions Spectacle wrote: »

Why is this the question? What do you believe is the implication of its answer, with reference to the holocaust? Please, play this out for us and tell us what you think.

The holocaust is an example of a very extreme from of ethnocentric behaviour. It is certainly not alone in this regard and is a phenomenon that can be observed in various groups and cultures throughout the course of history, e.g. the numerous examples of ethnic cleansing. When this is carried out in the name of given religion, we can consider it religiocentrism. From the previously linked Wikipedia article

The three great monotheistic religions of the Middle East and the West, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are the foremost theistic religions and the dominant faiths of about one half of mankind. Common to all theistic religions is a pronounced religiocentrism, expressed most poignantly in the conviction that one's own religion is the one and only true one, and that all the other faiths are erroneous and hence depreciable. In this conviction were rooted the great religious wars which pitted, not only Muslims against Christians, but also various Muslim sects against one another, and likewise made various Christian denominations bitter enemies.

Did Christianity have any influence on later antisemitic behaviour? I'd tend to agree with Peregrinus' post that yes, it did. Do we point the finger at all Christians as a result? Most certainly not, that is simply falling into the same kind of ethnocentric behaviour with a different target. I think we're better looking at who is raising divisive arguments in the first instance, why they are doing so, and how we can avoid being drawn into increasingly polarised positions that leave little room for debate. I consider the opening post somewhat divisive in this regard.

(The Catholic position is basically that every religion contains parts of the Truth, but that the entirety of Truth is contained within the Church.)

This tends towards the pluralist secular position, that while we are a society with many different and often conflicting beliefs and traditions, there can be space for them all in a coherent society. Similarly ecumenism within Christianity. This is in stark contrast to religiocentrism in that it is building bridges rather than burning them.