Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XTalk] "Anti-Jewish"?

Expand Messages
  • Karel Hanhart
    Forgive me for taking up the unresolved, sensitive question which Rikk Watts and Steve Black and others discussed a year ago. The question was whether or not
    Message 1 of 32 , Mar 7, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Forgive me for taking up the unresolved, sensitive question which Rikk Watts
      and Steve Black and others discussed a year ago. The question was whether or
      not the NT
      could be termed anti-Jewish. The impasse is due to many factors the most
      important of which are 1) the huge gap between the first and the twenty
      first century, which can hardly be bridged and 2) Josephus articulate and
      complete silence on the rapidly expanding Jesus' movement between the trauma
      of Jesus' followers because of the crucifixion circa 30 CE and the trauma of
      the fall of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction in 70 CE that befell the
      Judean nation.

      There is a third related element which hinders an objective exegesis of the
      Gospel. The existential relation of the exegete with the text. This dilemma
      may be illustrated by the words of Institution of the Last Supper. One
      remembers the exhaustive scholarly study by J.J. Jeremias to uncover the
      'ípsissima verba Jesu', the precise words of Jesus.

      If one compares his efforts with Burton L. Mack's scholarly discussion of
      the same texts the dilemma becomes crystal clear.He writes (Who wrote the
      NT, pg 88): "Astonishment may well be the first response of any modern
      reader of this text

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Steve Black" <sdblack@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:26 PM
      Subject: [XTalk] "Anti-Jewish"?


      >
      > On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 12:02 PM, Dr. Rikk E. Watts (Cantab)
      > wrote:
      >>
      >> The problem, understandably perhaps but still unjust nevertheless, is
      >> that
      >> some folk insist on saddling the gospel writers with the actions of
      >> people
      >> many, many centuries later. This, I think, is as unfair as saddling
      >> modern
      >> Jewish people with the actions of a small coterie of some Jewish
      >> leaders and
      >> a smallish mob, at one particular time, in one particular place. A link
      >> unfortunately that those who insist on employing anachronistic
      >> categories
      >> ironically strengthen.
      >>
      >> Rikk
      >>
      >
      > Hi Rikk,
      >
      > You are of course correct that terms like anti-Jewish (and certainly
      > anti-Semitic) are not good ones to designate the animosity expressed in
      > the NT towards the Pharisees (& co.) - (with the possible exception of
      > Luke, as one would have to identify one self as a non-Jew to have one's
      > polemic truly to be anti-Jewish, as thus Luke might fall into this
      > category).
      >
      > Yet there is a connection (and an important one) between Matthew's
      > hostility towards the Pharisees (& John's) and the church's later
      > hostility towards the Jews. This latter hostility may not be Mt's
      > direct doing, but had he (and others) not written as he did it likely
      > would not have occurred - so there is *some form* of responsibility
      > even if it is not a direct one.
      >
      > In other words, although I think it inaccurate to call the NT
      > anti-Jewish (with the possible exception of Luke) - nevertheless, I
      > don't think that that ought to prompt us to let the NT authors "off the
      > hook" is an easy fashion. They often expressed themselves in hostile
      > (and sometimes even hateful) terms and this hostility was later taken
      > up in new and more sinister ways.
      >
      > The NT can't be held responsible for the holocaust, but it is as least
      > arguable that the holocaust might not have happened if the NT (a
      > foundational cultural text for countries like Germany) had not been
      > written with this hostility embedded within it.
      >
      > Steve Black
      > Vancouver School of Theology
      > Vancouver, BC
      > Canada
      >
      >
      >
      > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
      >
      > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
      > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      > List managers may be contacted directly at:
      > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Karel Hanhart
      Forgive me for taking up the unresolved, sensitive question which Rikk Watts and Steve Black and others discussed a year ago. The question was whether or not
      Message 32 of 32 , Mar 7, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Forgive me for taking up the unresolved, sensitive question which Rikk Watts
        and Steve Black and others discussed a year ago. The question was whether or
        not the NT
        could be termed anti-Jewish. The impasse is due to many factors the most
        important of which are 1) the huge gap between the first and the twenty
        first century, which can hardly be bridged and 2) Josephus articulate and
        complete silence on the rapidly expanding Jesus' movement between the trauma
        of Jesus' followers because of the crucifixion circa 30 CE and the trauma of
        the fall of Jerusalem and the temple's destruction in 70 CE that befell the
        Judean nation.

        There is a third related element which hinders an objective exegesis of the
        Gospel. The existential relation of the exegete with the text. This dilemma
        may be illustrated by the words of Institution of the Last Supper. One
        remembers the exhaustive scholarly study by J.J. Jeremias to uncover the
        'ípsissima verba Jesu', the precise words of Jesus.

        If one compares his efforts with Burton L. Mack's scholarly discussion of
        the same texts the dilemma becomes crystal clear.He writes (Who wrote the
        NT, pg 88): "Astonishment may well be the first response of any modern
        reader of this text

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Steve Black" <sdblack@...>
        To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
        Sent: Friday, March 12, 2004 9:26 PM
        Subject: [XTalk] "Anti-Jewish"?


        >
        > On Friday, March 12, 2004, at 12:02 PM, Dr. Rikk E. Watts (Cantab)
        > wrote:
        >>
        >> The problem, understandably perhaps but still unjust nevertheless, is
        >> that
        >> some folk insist on saddling the gospel writers with the actions of
        >> people
        >> many, many centuries later. This, I think, is as unfair as saddling
        >> modern
        >> Jewish people with the actions of a small coterie of some Jewish
        >> leaders and
        >> a smallish mob, at one particular time, in one particular place. A link
        >> unfortunately that those who insist on employing anachronistic
        >> categories
        >> ironically strengthen.
        >>
        >> Rikk
        >>
        >
        > Hi Rikk,
        >
        > You are of course correct that terms like anti-Jewish (and certainly
        > anti-Semitic) are not good ones to designate the animosity expressed in
        > the NT towards the Pharisees (& co.) - (with the possible exception of
        > Luke, as one would have to identify one self as a non-Jew to have one's
        > polemic truly to be anti-Jewish, as thus Luke might fall into this
        > category).
        >
        > Yet there is a connection (and an important one) between Matthew's
        > hostility towards the Pharisees (& John's) and the church's later
        > hostility towards the Jews. This latter hostility may not be Mt's
        > direct doing, but had he (and others) not written as he did it likely
        > would not have occurred - so there is *some form* of responsibility
        > even if it is not a direct one.
        >
        > In other words, although I think it inaccurate to call the NT
        > anti-Jewish (with the possible exception of Luke) - nevertheless, I
        > don't think that that ought to prompt us to let the NT authors "off the
        > hook" is an easy fashion. They often expressed themselves in hostile
        > (and sometimes even hateful) terms and this hostility was later taken
        > up in new and more sinister ways.
        >
        > The NT can't be held responsible for the holocaust, but it is as least
        > arguable that the holocaust might not have happened if the NT (a
        > foundational cultural text for countries like Germany) had not been
        > written with this hostility embedded within it.
        >
        > Steve Black
        > Vancouver School of Theology
        > Vancouver, BC
        > Canada
        >
        >
        >
        > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
        >
        > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
        > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > List managers may be contacted directly at:
        > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
        >
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.