The Jews were treated somewhat differently before Christianity, because they had a core identity that colonization couldn’t erase, and they took it with them wherever they went–in the form of their beliefs. They didn’t intermarry as much as other groups, and they often insisted (as Christians later would) that when they did intermarry, the children would be raised as Jews. They had a notion of themselves as a nation, even when they didn’t have their own nation, even when they were scattered across the known world. That was unique, and it would have created prejudice against them if Christianity had never existed or remained a marginal cult.
I fully agree that because Christianity became an important religion, particularly in the west, and people who had no knowledge of Jews other than the badly understood factional writings of the New Testament authors would come into contact with small communities of Jews settling near them, doing business with them, remaining separate from them, that anti-semitism was worse in some ways–not so much created by the New Testament writings, as exacerbated and justified by them. Of course, those who wished to defend the Jews–as many did–could point to the fact that Jesus was a Jew, that most of the holy books of Christendom were Jewish books, and that there would be no Christianity without Jews. Ultimately, the Christianized western world became safer for Jews than the part of the world they’d orginated in, or indeed most of the world.
Christianity developed a strong anti-semitic streak–but it was religious in nature. It took the Nazis, who rejected the bible as a corruption of ‘pure Aryan culture’, to say that they were corrupt AS A RACE, and therefore even converted and largely assimilated Jews, as loyal to Germany as any Christian, would be treated as enemies, deported and murdered. It was the intention of Hitler and his inner circle to utterly destroy Christianity. And it was, in the main, Christians who risked their lives to save Jews from the Holocaust. Protestants and Catholics. Not enough of them, to be sure. But still, quite a few. And many of them died for doing so.
So as is always the case with our species–a mixed bag. You’re free to only see the part that confirms your prejudice. That’s what most people do. That’s exactly how anti-semitism works. Accentuate the negative.
jtortori said
Since reading some of Bart Ehrman’s works, I find myself reading any of the Christian Bible critically, asking myself what were the intentions of the writers – what did they hope to accomplish?Are there any parts of the Bible that we can accept as simply a historical account of an extraordinary fully human (as divine as any of us) person of strong convictions, who had a particular message of love that he wanted to convey to improve people’s lives? Is any of it reliably reflective of what the historical Jesus said and did?
The Christian Bible has endured for so long, even though its messages have certainly been often used as a tool to advance hatred instead of love.
Is any of it useful at all?
I think one of the most important things I have learned is to stop thinking about “the bible” as if it is one book with one author. Even if you just mean the New Testament scriptures when you say “The Christian Bible” there were many different authors who wrote for different purposes.
Paul wrote several of his letters in order to address certain concerns of Churches he was helped found. Luke explains why he is writing. He says he has many different sources and he wants to take what he has and give an orderly account of what he thinks actually happened.
John says he tells us about Jesus’s miracles in order that we will believe in him.
Other letters in the New Testament seem to have been written to address various issues that would arise. So we really need to understand these different writings and ask that question for each.
jtortori said
Since reading some of Bart Ehrman’s works, I find myself reading any of the Christian Bible critically, asking myself what were the intentions of the writers – what did they hope to accomplish?Are there any parts of the Bible that we can accept as simply a historical account of an extraordinary fully human (as divine as any of us) person of strong convictions, who had a particular message of love that he wanted to convey to improve people’s lives? Is any of it reliably reflective of what the historical Jesus said and did?
The Christian Bible has endured for so long, even though its messages have certainly been often used as a tool to advance hatred instead of love.
Is any of it useful at all?
In answer to this, shall we try something relatively unfamiliar?
One way to explain why the well-known Gospels were written is this: there was an earlier — now lost — Hebrew book known as the ‘Gospel’/’al-injil’/’euangelion’/etc. Due to an internal dispute, certain followers of Christ lost access to this book. They then had to come up with a replacement — this led to the writing of many new ‘Gospels’ of different types, four of which were the narratives that eventually became canonical.
The Israeli scholar Shlomo Pines identified such a narrative in a new manuscript by the Persian rationalist apologist Qadi Abdul Jabbar:
‘After Christ’, his disciples (axhab) were with the Jews and the Children of Israel in the latter’s synagogues and observed the prayers and the feasts of (the Jews) in the same place as the latter. (However) there was a disagreement between them and the Jews with regard to Christ.
The Romans (al-Rum) reigned over them. The Christians (used to) complain to the Romans about the Jews, showed them their own weakness and appealed to their pity. And the Romans did pity them. This (used) to happen frequently. And the Romans said to the Christians: “Between us and the Jews there is a pact which (obliges us) not to change their religious laws (adyan). But if you would abandon their laws and separate yourselves from them, praying as we do (while facing) the East, eating (the things) we eat, and regarding as permissible that which we consider as such, we should help you and make you powerful, and the Jews would find no way (to harm you). On the contrary, you would be more powerful than they.”
The Christians answered: “We will do this.”
(And the Romans) said: “Go, fetch your companions, and bring your Book (kitab).” (The Christians) went to their companions, informed them of (what had taken place) between them and the Romans and said to them: “Bring the Gospel (al-injil), and stand up so that we should go to them.”
But these (companions) said to them: “You have done ill. We are not permitted (to let) the Romans pollute the Gospel. In giving a favourable answer to the Romans, you have accordingly departed from the religion. We are (therefore) no longer permitted to associate with you; on the contrary, we are obliged to declare that there is nothing in common between us and you;” and they prevented their (taking possession of) the Gospel or gaining access to it. In consequence a violent quarrel (broke out) between (the two groups). Those (mentioned in the first place) went back to the Romans and said to them: “Help us against these companions of ours before (helping us) against the Jews, and take away from them on our behalf our Book (kitab).” Thereupon (the companions of whom they had spoken) fled the country. And the Romans wrote concerning them to their governors in the districts of Mosul and in the Jazirat al-‘Arab. Accordingly, a search was made for them; some (qawm) were caught and burned, others (qawm) were killed.” (Pines S. The Jewish Christians of the Early Centuries of Christianity according to a New Source. Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Volume II, No.13; 1966. Jerusalem, pp. 14-15).
Let’s continue with the same story, as translated by Shlomo Pines:
(As for) those who had given a favourable answer to the Romans they
came together and took counsel as to how to replace the Gospel,
seeing that it was lost to them. (Thus) the opinion that a Gospel
should be composed {yunshVu) was established among them. They
said: “the Torah (consists) only of (narratives concerning) the births
of the prophets and of the histories (tawarikh) of their lives. We
are going to construct (nabni) a Gospel according to this (pattern).
The story of the writing of the Gospels (the ones we know, not the mysterious original that was lost) continues as follows:
Everyone among us is going to call to mind that which he remembers of the words (alfâz) of the Gospel and of (the things) about which the Christians talked among themselves (when speaking) of Christ.” Accordingly, some people (qawm46) wrote a Gospel. After (them) came others (qawm) (who) wrote (another) Gospel. (In this manner) a certain number of Gospels were written. (However) a great part of what was (contained) in the original was missing in them. There were among them (men), one after another, who knew many things that were contained in the true Gospel (al-injil al-sahlh), but with a view to establishing their dominion (ri’âsa), they refrained from communicating them. In all this there was no mention of the cross or of the crucifix. According to them there were eighty Gospels. However, their (number) constantly diminished and became less, until (only) four Gospels were left which are due to four individuals (nafar). Every one of them composed in his time a Gospel. Then another came after him, saw that (the Gospel composed by his predecessor) was imperfect, and composed another which according to him was more correct (a$ahh), nearer to correction (al-sihha) than the Gospel of the others.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Robert said
Omar6741 said
And one that explains a lot!
Of course, virtually none of the details strike me as being true or factual, but it does speak to a larger truth of the ‘Christian’ message being corrupted over time by association with empire. In the largest sense that is anachronistic, but one can already see the seeds of the evangelists being attuned to Flavian anti-Jewish propaganda, and before that the gentile churches striving for equality within the originally Jewish sect, and the Jewish authorities seeking to eliminate or contain that sect’s influence. It is fascinating to trace some remnants of Jewish Christianity in the Talmud and the Qur’an, but these are only traces.
A good source to read for general background on this is ** you do not have permission to see this link **
I have a strong hunch or intuition that something more or less along those lines actually happened. And I have about 100 pages of an academic paper (turning into a monograph, clearly) in which I explore the possibilities in detail.
The results have been astonishing to me, as I find myself able to explain, with great ease, matters scholars consider to be among the hardest and most intractable puzzles they are called to address. The price I pay for this illumination and explanatory power is that my hypothesis postulates an exilic proto-Christ who lived and worked miracles long before Yeshu’a or the Baptist appeared, and postulates a number of religious movements that were inspired by this forgotten Messiah; these remained small and exclusive, but they included the Essenes, and another movement (related to, yet distinct from, the Essenes) whose most prominent figues were the Baptist, and then Yeshu’a and his brothers.
Christianity, I think, is based on an unforeseen confusion between Yeshu’a bar Yosef, who was from Galilee and was crucified, and the exilic forgotten Messiah I mentioned above, so that doctrines first formulated in connection with the latter were easily and unconsciously transferred to the former.
And yes, I have detailed explanations of how all this happened, along with evidence which supports, while not quite proving, those explanations. And I have identified a number of archaeological sites that I expect to provide me with more evidence.
All of which is my lengthy way of saying: I may not be as completely disconnected from realty as some of these ideas make me seem! My ageing mother insists I am still quite sane, and why would she lie to me?
This is a great message board for people with wacky theories that will never be proven.
Btw, if Christianity was corrupted by empire–how about Islam, which began its empire-building while Muhammad was still alive?
Christianity had several centuries of relative powerlessness, where Christians simply tried to live as they believed Jesus had commanded. Yes, Constantine corrupted Christianity, even as he empowered it. Rome became more Christian and Christians became more Roman. That’s a fact.
It is not a fact that there was some proto-Messiah going around working miracles. And if there was, then Muhammad was wrong in his own beliefs about Jesus (well, he presumably was wrong about Jesus never being crucified).
People love to believe they have secret knowledge that most people don’t have. But this never leads to good history. It leads to silly conspiracy theories and the propagation of ignorance.
Been avoiding this one for a while, despite its eye appeal.
Why someone wrote the “Christian Bible” makes me wonder if the OP is just talking NT or the combination of the NT with the Hebrew Bible. Either way the comment has already been made that it is a collection of books written by individuals with sometimes competing views. So the evolution of a collection of books might be a great idea to explore.
While there are more ancient book collections, it seems to take on an increased importance in two of Israel’s neighbors as intertwined with the greatness of a people. Assurbanipal and then later Alexander the Great (Or was it Ptolemy that started the Library in Alexandria?). So we have earlier collection of literature and libraries, but we also have collections of books becoming associated with identity. Eventually we have histories being written by Virgil, Ptolemy of Mendes (possibly forging Manetho, wee wiki on Manetho), and Genesis as well. All of these histories seem to be sourced from earlier writings. I am not proposing that Genesis was invented whole cloth in the late Hellenistic era.
We can take the same tack for the law codes being created by a people and also creating a people. Look up Solon, Gorytn, Drakon, The Twelve Tables to compare notes of the beginning of law codes being written down in Mediterranean cultures. These law codes are being written down near the same time as the exile alluded to at the end of Deuteronomy. Coincidence, or is Judean culture a child of the many cultures surrounding it?
So we have a mythology, a history, and a law code (and the wisdom writings). We have a people. Judeans/Jews.
I wonder if the Christians thought of themselves as a people in much the same way. John rewrites creation by putting The Word (Jesus or the promise of Jesus) there. The book of Hebrews is a good example of Christians finding their roots in Judean culture, though most NT books have their own examples. In much the same way Virgil roots Roman culture in Greek mother culture, the NT writers seek to root their culture in a Judean mother culture. That is my best stab at it at any rate. It is a lot about identity.
Omar 6741, I found the link interesting. The occasional persecution of Christian is one example that I think puts a hole in the idea that early Romans encouraged Christians to abandon Jewish ideas in order to gain favor. What favor did they gain? It would be 300 years later that a Constantine would put Christianity side by side with Roman religion and probably converted to it as well.
On the other hand, it fits nicely with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD being a major lever in the creation of a separate Christian identity that would not be persecuted for the revolt or have to pay the Jewish tax. (Perhaps it was the source of Paul’s argument against the need to circumcise? “Let us see your tax records!”)
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)