(13 votes, average: 4.92 out of 5)
Loading...
It is time for the weekly mailbag. This week there are only two questions, but the first has two parts: why (many) Christians are so pro-Israel and how can they be pro-Jewish and still worship Jesus. The second question involves how we know which letters of Paul were actually written by him. If you would like me to address any question you have, just add a comment here or at any other time on the blog, or send me an email
**********************************************************************
QUESTION: Why are Christians so Pro Israel? Seems like to me if they agree with Judaism they couldn’t be a Christian. Because of the first commandment.
RESPONSE: I’ll answer the second part of the question first. What the reader is saying (I think) is that since the first commandment is “You shall have no other gods before me,” then Christians cannot be pro-Jewish because they also worship Jesus – therefore two gods. I have two responses to that.
The first is that the commandment is *not* that: “You must believe that I am the only God.” The commandment instead is that: “Of all the Gods that exist, you cannot worship any of them ahead of me.” That was usually interpreted to mean “You cannot worship any of the other Gods.” It is not, in other words, a command to be monotheistic (to believe only one god exists). It is a command to be henotheistic (to worship only one of the gods). Jews eventually, of course, and then Christians after them, became monotheistic, as most are today, thinking that there are, in fact, no other gods other than the God who created the world and called Israel to by his people. But that’s not the commandment.
My second response: Christians do not think they are worshiping some other god ahead of God the Creator. When they are worshiping Jesus, they are worshiping the *same* God. The doctrine of the Trinity insists that Father, Son, and Spirit are One God, with one essence, one will, and one purpose. This one God is manifest in three persons, yes, and the persons are all distinct, in that there really are three of them. But the three are so wholly united in will, purpose, and essence, that they make up just *one* God, not three. And so worshiping Jesus does not, for traditional Christians, mean worshiping some other God. It is worshiping the same God. By worshiping Jesus one is in fact worshiping the Father; or rather it is *through* worshiping Jesus that one worships the Father.
So, on now to the other part of the question, the original one, “why are Christians so Pro-Israel?” It’s a complicated question and I’m not sure I have the definitive answer – or rather, I’m not sure that a definitive answer exists. But I do have two answers, one that should make sense to a lot of people and the other that most people would never have thought of.
First, most Christians who are pro-Israel are pro-Israel because…
The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN!!! Or you may never know! And remember, every dime goes to charity!
“Forged” is a terrific book and I highly recommend it to readers of this blog. I hope to become the seventh reader of the more complicated book.
Obviously, where, and into what family, one is born is the most important factor in determining what one believes.
I read all of the “Left Behind” novels and certainly realize that Christians support the Jews mainly because of something to do with eschatology, but the information about the importance of building another temple is new for me. Thanks
“My second response: Christians do not think they are worshiping some other god ahead of God the Creator. When they are worshiping Jesus, they are worshiping the *same* God. The doctrine of the Trinity insists that Father, Son, and Spirit are One God, with one essence, one will, and one purpose. This one God is manifest in three persons, yes, and the persons are all distinct, in that there really are three of them. But the three are so wholly united in will, purpose, and essence, that they make up just *one* God, not three. And so worshiping Jesus does not, for traditional Christians, mean worshiping some other God. It is worshiping the same God. By worshiping Jesus one is in fact worshiping the Father; or rather it is *through* worshiping Jesus that one worships the Father.”
sometimes they are using language in such a way that it is seen as if the father is looking at himself in a mirror. in order for their to be distinction the son must have properties the father lacks or the father must have properties the son lacks otherwise it becomes the same person, twins , triplets.
distinction itself requires separation otherwise it is like arguing that (sorry for sick example) two testicles are so wholly united that they are 1 testicle.
I was taught that the reason we’re pro Israel is because God promises to bless those that stand by his chosen people–the Jews. We’re the most blessed nation on earth because of our alliance with Israel. If we don’t support them, we’ll be cursed with famine, economic problems, sickness, etc…
Yes, that’s part of it too. Which makes it even more surprising how anti-Jewish (and even anti-semitic) so many Christians are!
How is it that the idea of God promising to bless those who stand by his chosen people, the Jews, didn’t occur to Christians till this century? After so many centuries of anti-Semitism and Judeophobia in Christian history — frequently erupting in mass killings and brutality — doesn’t it strike Christians as odd that it is only *now* that they have started to realize that they should stand by God’s chosen people?
India has an alliance with Israel as well, and they are “blessed” with extreme poverty and destabilizing Marxist movements in large areas of the country, along with an expensive occupation of Kashmir and an ongoing threat of nuclear war as a result.
Michael F. Bird posted a reply to one of James McGrath’s posts indicating that he will be debating you next month on the topic of Christology. Is this confirmed? Will it be filmed and uploaded anywhere?
Yup, we’re debating at New Orleans Baptist Seminary on “How Jesus Became God.” I’m sure it will be available, but I’m not sure in what format.
Lots of strongly pro-Israel Christians I know refer to some Old Testament passages about God blessing those who favor his chosen people.
Yes, that’s part of it too. Which makes it even more surprising how anti-Jewish (and even anti-semitic) so many Christians are!
You know, I find something deeply troubling about Christian Zionism.It seems to me that so many Fundamentalist Christians are so strongly pro-Israel that they ignore the plight of Palestinians. I think that many, if not most, Palestinians yearn for peace, and are victims of Israeli oppression. Of course, this is a complex issue with very very deep historical roots, and hard-liners on both sides of the issues involved prevent any kind of just resolution (if resolution indeed exists) I just don’t think that it is helpful for a bunch of religious fanatics who live in comparative luxury in the US to act as cheerleaders for a government that oppresses people as rigorously as do the Israelis. While I certainly support Israel’s right to exist as a nation, I don’t think that their actions in recent years have been all that productive in terms of managing conflict with Palestinian hard-liners. I, personally, don’t much care about the Eschatological issues mentioned above, mainly because Eschatology is steeped in metaphor and symbolism: everyone who has tried a “literal” approach to it has been sorely disappointed. What is even worse, now, in my view, is that Christian Zionists are making the conflict in Israel worse. I know my views are subject to being labeled “anti-semitic,” but I think that there are probably some Jewish people out there who share them. My only wish for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is some sort of peaceful and just resolution to end the violence. Let’s forget the silly Eschatology.
This modern support for Israel among evangelical Christians has a lot of angles to it, including a growing hatred for Islam, and a link-up with the now-fading neo-conservative movement that saw Israel as a crucial ally in the Middle East. It’s political as much as religious, and partly motivated by the desire to win Jewish votes for conservative candidates (in the main, that has proven to be a failed tactic).
Also, any Christian might want to visit the Holy Land, walk where Moses and Jesus walked, and good relations with the people who now control that territory makes sense. It’s also good for Israel’s tourism industry. One can imagine them rolling their eyes a bit at the things these people believe, but their money is still good.
But yes, the apocalyptic angle is very strong here, and not so new either. It’s a very old idea that in order for the Apocalypse to come, the Jews need to convert to Christianity. There’s a line in Andrew Marvell’s great poem “To His Coy Mistress” where he tells a young woman he’s trying to seduce that “And you should, if you please, refuse, till the conversion of the Jews”–meaning that if they were both immortal, he’d gladly wait until the end of the world for her, but since they’re both going to grow old and die, they’d better hop to it. All of his readers would have understood what he meant.
You can support Israel and still be anti-semitic, strange as that sounds. But I would say that a lot of the bigotry that used to be directed at Jewish people has now redirected towards Muslims. Jews are seen as the lesser evil. But as Ted Cruz’s attack on Donald Trump at the debate on Thursday shows, there’s still an underying current of dislike for the perceived values of American Jews in urban areas–liberalism, tolerance, education, cosmopolitanism, pluralism. Those bastards. 😉
Despite the purposeful anachronism, I wonder if anyone has ever discussed the forged letters of 1 and 2 Peter as the earliest examples of ‘papal encyclicals’ by someone thinking of himself as the successor of Peter. I know the papacy developed over many centuries, and the idea of the successor of Peter is largely a pious fraud, but maybe it started with one of these forgeries.
I think not so much, since no one who sees these letters as forgeries imagines that Peter was actually the first pope! (Or was thought to be that early)
It would only have been the original forger who might have thought of himself, or at least wanted others to think of his views, as having Petrine authority.
Dr. Ehrman, as an Israeli myself, I often get the sense from conservative christians that I’m like a duckbill platypus–that is, a very odd, very rare creature that evokes wonder and curiosity. It seems like evangelical christians are so invested in the tales of the Bible that when they meet an actual Israelite it’s as if they’re like an ancient Athenian seeing an actual Trojan. To an evangelical christian an Israeli is like a character popping out of the pages of the Bible, just as to the Athenian the Trojan is a character popping out of the pages of the Illiad.
In regard to the matter of why many fundamentalists are pro- Israel, isn’t there some notion that Christ will not come again until 144,000 Jews are converted to Christianity (144,000 comes up several times in Biblical contexts)? Therefore, the more Jews there are the larger the pool for converts to be drawn from. Isn’t this one of the ideas behind “Jews for Jesus”?
Are you referring to the 144,000 virgins in the book of Revelation? I’m not familiar with the idea that 144,000 Jews would convert.
Are the 144,000 in Rev 7,4 14,1 virgins?
Ha! I must have been thinking of something else! Serves me right for not looking it up!
Oh how the mighty have fallen from their fundamentalist days!
Dr. Ehrman,
An unabashed discussion of method! There are those of us who really are interested in the historiogarphy.
Thanks.
Re: Christian support for the state of Israel: I think the Holocaust photos that were put in the public domain at the end of WWII explains this for many, if not most, Christians. The horror of these images were enough to trigger support for Israel. A smaller subset of Christians, who took an interest in the history of anti-Semitism ( a filthy doctrine based on 19th century racial nonsense) and Christian anti-Jewishness (starting with Paul, the Gospel of John, and early churchmen such as John Chrysostom, Melito of Sardis, Augustine, and later ones like Thomas Aquinas, and a host of others too numerous to mention), came to realize the culpability of Christianity for the horrors of the Holocaust. They would have learned that pre-war anti-Semitism was endemic to Catholic Christian countries (Poland, Austria, Croatia) and in Orthodox Christian Russia. This burden of guilt produced more Christian support for Israel.
I’ve been waiting for the moment where this question could have at least some remote connection – and today’s question #1 might just be that moment. Prof Jodi Magnus in her “Jesus and His Jewish Influences” Great Course mentions that Galilee had been Judaized by the Hasmoneans about a century before Jesus’ birth. That would imply that by Jesus’ time, the population of Galilee was made up of people of natural Judean descent along with people whose ancestors were forcibly converted to Judaism by the Hasmoneans.
Is it possible then, that Jesus’ family might not even have been actual descendants of Judah, but possibly were descendants of those who were forcibly converted to Judaism sometime during the century prior to his birth? (Maybe gospel writers Matt and/or Luke were trying to establish two fronts; that Jesus was *both* a descendant of Judah and more specifically of Davidic lineage?).
And if it ever did turn out that Jesus wasn’t an actual descendant of Judah (although I don’t know how we could ever know that, but …), would that affect the pro-Israelite stance of Christians? Again, both questions are mega-speculatory, but without speculating, life sometimes becomes … well … non-speculatory and orthodox.
I’m afraid there is simply no way ever to know!
I stopped being any kind of Christian a long time ago. But I was very favorably impressed when a group of Catholic bishops visited Israel *and* the Palestinian region last year, and the representative from my area (a Bishop Emeritus who’d been required to retire because of his age) spoke very sympathetically about the plight of the Palestinians. I think the Pope also shows equal concern for the Israelis and the Palestinians – though these religious figures tend to urge “peace” without acknowledging the need for *justice*.
Would that my state’s Catholic *Governor* were so even-handed! I have no objection to his *personally* supporting Israel. But when he seemed to be pledging the *state’s* alliance with Israel, I decided I’ll never vote for him again.
Bart, has that Mark MS been published? Do you have any update on that?
Nope! Latest word I heard it was to be published in 2017.
Bart, the idea that Christians are pro-Israel because of the Christian end-time considerations you mentioned (the need to have the Temple rebuilt) may be true for some Christians. But for many who are pro-Israel, it is because they truly believe that God will bless those who bless the Jews (Genesis 12:3), and that the Jewish people are the apple of God’s eye, and that Christians owe to the Jews a debt of gratitude for bringing God’s word into the world, and reasons such as that. Pastor John Hagee and the group he founded, Christians United For Israel (CUFI) are examples of that. And that latter group of Christians would protest furiously if it were claimed that their motives are related to Christian end-time theology.
Uzi Weingarten
Yes, that’s part of it too. WHich makes it even more surprising how anti-Jewish (and even anti-semitic) so many Christians are!
Genesis 12:3 is God speaking to Abraham who, like Job, was not a Jew and who became the father of Israel and of Arabs. So which is the great nation? Israel since only it is referred to as a nation? Or the much more numerous Arab people?
I suppose it depends on whom you ask!!
“But for many who are pro-Israel, it is because they truly believe that God will bless those who bless the Jews (Genesis 12:3), and that the Jewish people are the apple of God’s eye,”
Why do you think this idea was ignored by Christians until *this* century? They hadn’t read Genesis 12:3 till now?
Well, I wouldn’t say it was *universally* ignored (any more than it is universally followed today)! But yup, I get your point!
Hi Bart, I have a question about sources outside of the new testament that contradict the gospels. For example the census that takes place in Luke. One of the reasons that scholars doubt that that census took place is because it contradicts what Josephus says about it. I have heard some responses that say maybe Josephus may have gotten some of the details wrong so the apparent contradictions are not really a contradiction. I think they are opening a whole can of worms that they are not prepared to deal with. Should we take the gospels and Paul as more reliable sources since they are closer to the events than later sources such as Josephus and other historians?
Yes, this is an important point. Historians don’t trust Josephus any more than any other ancient source — he too needs to be used critically. The Gospels are not given special treatment in this way. (But there are other sources besides Josphus that also confirm that Quirinius was not the governor of Syria when Herod was the King of Israel)
Could you elaborate on that last sentence, or show where you have elaborated on it in the past?
Tacitus and Josephus also give us grounds for dating Quirinius’s governorship to 6 CE.
My partner has told me some stories about what she learnt as a child in sunday school. How you get to go to heaven when you die (or when Jesus comes back, which ever happens first) is, as you would expect, you pray some prayer and ask Jesus into your heart. But what I found interesting is there were extra loopholes. If your spouse is saved, you are automatically saved too. And the strange one is that the Jews are automatically saved. I’ve never heard that idea from a christian (or anyone) before. I’d be interested to know if anyone else has.
Hi Bart, are you familiar with Richard Bauckham and his book “Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”? Are any of his views those of mainstream Biblical scholarship? What do you make of his arguments?
Yes, I deal with it in my next book Jesus Before the Gospels. I wholeheartedly disagree with Bauckham on lots of issues!
Prof Ehrman
Do you think the Israelis who welcome the support of the Religious Right in this country realize that in the “End Times” they expect the vast majority of Jews to be murdered and the remnant converted to Christianity?
thx
Probably not! I’m not sure.
Whether-or-not those Israelis realize it, that’s what would happen.
“Conservative Christians are ultimately pro-Israel because they only way for the Christian eschatology to work out is if Israel overcomes its enemies and establishes itself as dominant in the Middle East.” I have heard this argument many times, mainly from right-wing Republicans. In fact, Paul Broun, the former Congressman from my district in Athens, Georgia (to my embarrassment) said that the US should support Israel because God promised Abraham that he would curse Abraham’s enemies. Athens is a liberal college town, but because of gerrymandering, Athens was split in half, absorbed into two conservative districts.
And what happens to the Jews after all the end time events triggered by the building of the Temple with the support of fundamentalist Christendom?
Oh, they’ll all be doomed to eternal torment!
In my area of Kentucky, it is somewhat common when traveling in rural areas to see yard signs: “I stand with Israel” I would suspect that many have been led to display these due to pastoral influence. I have long been aware of the temple issue, and I heard it in “revivial sermons” years ago while growing up in the baptist chuch. In the 1960s, it seemed that this was one of those religious dogmas that didn’t get much special concern. However, the notion has persisted and morphed in the political arena of the religious right. It has the potential to become a dangerous threat to world peace if it becomes part of United States foreign policy. It has interested me how many of these folks tend to be pro-Israel while being anti-Jewish
When was 2 thess written? For some reason I thought it was later than 70ce.
I date it toward the end of the first century.
Was the author predicting that in the last days the antichrist would enter the temple that he knew no longer existed?
Apparently so!
Ive often think about how hard it is to reconcile belief in Christianity and the anonymity of books of the bible. We are supposed to worship a person whose life is detailed in four gospels that dont agree on details and are written without definitive authorship; and get the rest of our information from a guy (Paul) who never met this person and who is only responsible for maybe 7/13 letters attributed to him.
We can debate later additions and which manuscript is correct all day long, but that simple concensus above boggles the mind. How does this make it any different from Mormonism? At least we know which person was FOS for that religion (J. Smith).
You often use phrases like “most critical scholars” in both your books, your blog posts, and your lectures. I wonder if we can do some textual criticism on this…
What exactly does “critical” mean? Is this a normative qualifier (“people who scrutinise critically rather than just assume inerrancy”), or does it mean something technical, like “scholars who publish in the professional journals of textual criticism”?
In discussions where I have cited you, I have sometimes been contradicted on the matter of what is or is not a mainstream view in biblical scholarship. I don’t suppose there’s anything quite so wonderful in New Testament studies as the philpapers survey [http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl], but are there any actual quantitative data on the positions on main points (like, say, deutero-Pauline authorship), or is this just a “vibe” that one has to be enmeshed in the field to sense?
Speaking of data, are there any good examples of empirical verification of textual criticism? E.g., reconstructions of ‘originals’ later vindicated by very early copies, or similar. Is this stuff tested on texts where the originals *are* preserved?
Great questions! I’ll add them to my mailbag list of things to address (a list getting increasingly long, for good or ill)
Professor Ehrman,
Did anyone ever actually consecrate his or her child to the lifelong service of the Jerusalem Temple in the Second Temple period?
Could the mother of Jesus have been a consecrated virgin in the Temple?
Thanks!
No, this is a purtely literary trope.
You’re wonderfully informative and entertaining, particularly for such complicated topics. You make them vivid and relatable. I have a question the Jesus section of Josephus. Do most scholars now believe that most of that section was original? Something about it having strong parallels to wording a section in Luke. The theory about Josephus plagiarizing it from an early Christian proselytizing document, and it was the same source Luke used for his gospel.
It’s usually thought that *most* of the passage is original to Josephus, but there are some scholars (including a student doing a PhD dissertation at Duke on the questoin) who think it is a Christian composition.
Bart, just in regards to the commandment you mentioned i was watching a documentary called “the history of God” few months back. They were saying that old Jewish archaeology describes the jews as actually following an old Canaanite religion in which they worshiped El eyon, baal and bashera….El eyon later became yahweh (God of armies) and by 2nd Isaiah Israelis became monotheistic. Have you heard of this? It would make sense of the commandment and why the Israelis kept going back and forth with who they chose to serve.
Yup, it’s a view that’s been around a long while.
doc
i quote
But as I have argued above, in the earliest strata of evidence, we do not see the Torah’s recognition of other deities’ activities but that everything is contingent on that One God whom they were commanded to serve. Though the Torah recognises rival factions and even mentions the names of their deities, it does not in fact recognise the reality of their actual existence. And as I have mentioned, Bejamin Sommers departs from the prevailing scholarly view and makes a rather strong case for his position that basically agrees with what I have been saying thus far.
end quote
your thoughts on this?
is it true that in the earliest writings there is no recognition of other powers beside yhwh?
i notice that even the polythiests used to attribute uniqueness to their gods
I pray to thee, O Lady of ladies, goddess of goddesses.
O Ishtar, queen of all peoples, who guides mankind aright,
O Irnini ever exalted, greatest of the Igigi,
O most mighty of princesses, exalted is thy name.
Thou art indeed the light of heaven and earth,
O valiant daughter of Sin.
O supporter of arms, who determines battles,
O possessor of all divine power, who wears the crown of dominion,
O Lady, glorious is thy greatness; over all the gods it is exalted.
Anu, Enlil and Ea have made thee high; among the gods they have caused thy dominion to be great.
They have made thee high among all the Igigi; they have made thy position pre-eminent.
My lady, your divine powers are mighty powers, surpassing all other divine powers; Nanshe, there are no divine powers matching your powers. An, the king, looks joyfully at you, as you sit with Enlil on the throne-dais where the fates are to be determined. Father Enki determined a fate for you. Nanshe, child born in Eridug, sweet is your praise.
but all these gods are dependant on higher gods and it seems yhwh the son of el elyon was dependent on el elyon.
to further quote:
That is why scholars like Stark and others (I say this in humor; really we should be citing Cross, Smith, Rollston, etc.) argue that there is no clear evidence for anything like “species uniqueness” until Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 44 (seventh and sixth centuries respectively). In these texts, other national deities are ridiculed as being merely the products of human woodworkers, and not real deities at all. This may or may not be an intentionally hyperbolic polemic, but regardless, not until these texts do we get any indication that Yahweh is in a category all to himself. This kind of language does not appear in any of the earlier texts. Pointing to the standard ancient Near Eastern “incomparability” rhetoric as evidence for early species uniqueness in Israel is nothing more than special pleading.
so doc, what do you think?
Yes, I pretty much agree.
Bart, I’m having some trouble following the point that Kazibwe Edris was trying to make. Is it that up until the times of Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 44, the general tendency in Judaism was monolatry but was then becoming truly monotheism?
That’s how I’m reading him.
I think what you’re saying here is that up until the times of Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 44, the general view of the divine in Judaism could be described as monolatry but that by the times of Jeremiah 10 and Isaiah 44, it was becoming truly monotheism. Is that correct? I asked Bart if he thought that’s what you meant and he does.
My sense is that different sources of both Jewish and Christian literature have different views on this topic. Some authors thought that other gods did not exist (Isaiah); others thought they existed but were inferior to the one true God (“you shall have no other gods before me”); others thought they were evil divinities. There’s simply not one view.
dr ehrman
are you of the opinion that the other gods in the earliest parts of the torah had similar powers to el/yhwh?
quote:
ut regardless, not until these texts do we get any indication that Yahweh is in a category all to himself. This kind of language does not appear in any of the earlier texts. Pointing to the standard ancient Near Eastern “incomparability” rhetoric as evidence for early species uniqueness in Israel is nothing more than special pleading.
Are you asking whether the worshipers of other gods thought they were as powerful as YHWH? yes, of course.
i am asking if the writers of early parts of torah believed that the other gods were as powerful as yhwh
No, the authors of these books did not. Decidedly not.
thanks doc
H Bart, hope you are well. you say this:
“Based on these considerations, most critical scholars doubt that Paul actually wrote the letters of Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Thessalonians (I give the detailed reasons and arguments in the two books I mentioned); and even more scholars are even more convinced that he really did not write the Pastoral epistles of 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus.”
I keep running across Christians who disagree with with this and say the majority of scholars do think Paul did write all the letters. Is there a straightforward way to show that you view is correct, i.e. MOST scholars do think this, without spending weeks and months researching this?
Is there a website that summarises the views or a book or paper that outlines this.
Just to be clear, I am NOT looking for evidence that Paul did or didn’t write them but that the majority of scholars think that he only wrote the seven.
I normally qualify my statements by saying specifically “critical” scholars; when I simply say “scholars” it is a shorthand for that. By “critical scholar” I mean scholars who are applying critical methods of logic and evidence to decide their views completely independently of their personal religious commitments. A scholar who comes into the task of interpreting the New Testament with the view that there cannot be any mistakes or errors in the Bible and who will not come to a historical conclusion that is at odds wth that view is not a “critical” scholar, though they may be a “fundamentalist” scholar or an “evangelical” scholar. When someone says “most” scholars agree Paul wrote all the letters, they are including the fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals in their count. Without those scholars, the vast majority of “critical” scholars agree, e.g., that Paul did not write the Pastorals….
That’s great, thanks for that clarification.
So going back to the original question, is there a source of any sort that would confirm that the majority of critical scholars think that or is more more your opinion (accurate though it may be) based on having met and talked with them over the years?
No, there are no surveys or anything.
So if someone asked what your basis for saying that was, how would you reply?
Massive reading in the field and a knowledge of hundreds of critical scholars. In most instances it’s not really a disputable point (for example that “most critical scholars acknowledge that the Gospel of John includes discourses Jesus did not way” or “most critical scholars agree Paul did not write 1 Timothy”)
Many thanks once again.