Antisemitism and Christianity

[Darryl_B]

Anti-Semitic Christians have often used this Bible verse to argue that “the Jews killed Jesus”

“And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it.” “And the whole people answering, said: His blood be upon us and our children.” - Matthew 27:24-25

Anti-Semitic Christians argue that since Pontius Pilate washed himself clean of Jesus’ blood, the Romans didn’t kill Jesus but since the Jewish crowd said “let His blood be upon us and our children” that means Jews are guilty of Jesus’ death.

How can I as a Christian and as a Catholic respond to these people? What is this verse really mean?

His blood was on them and on their children. Jerusalem AD70 was the statement of God. Jesus told parables to that effect (they will listen to my Son), he prophesied to that effect, (where no stone would remain), and told the daughters of Jerusalem such during his passion.

However that does not excuse antisemitism (although that word is incorrect as it incorporates all Shemites). At the same time it does not grant the Jew special privileges as exceptions to Christian law simply by holding up the persecuted victim card. That too is an equally wrong judgment.

Balance is important on any side.

 

[steve53]

His blood was on them and on their children. Jerusalem AD70 was the statement of God. Jesus told parables to that effect (they will listen to my Son), he prophesied to that effect, (where no stone would remain), and told the daughters of Jerusalem such during his passion.

However that does not excuse antisemitism (although that word is incorrect as it incorporates all Shemites). At the same time it does not grant the Jew special privileges as exceptions to Christian law simply by holding up the persecuted victim card. That too is an equally wrong judgment.

Balance is important on any side.

Holocaust card?

 

[gracepoole]

At the same time it does not grant the Jew special privileges as exceptions to Christian law simply by holding up the persecuted victim card. That too is an equally wrong judgment.

Balance is important on any side.

The “persecuted victim card”? I’m not sure what that means.

BTW, for what it’s worth, many scholars are no longer using the term “anti-Semitism,” as it was created in the nineteenth-century in an attempt to offer a non-religious anti-Judaism argument.

 

[patrick457]

His blood was on them and on their children. Jerusalem AD70 was the statement of God. Jesus told parables to that effect (they will listen to my Son), he prophesied to that effect, (where no stone would remain), and told the daughters of Jerusalem such during his passion.

The key here is the word “children.” Some interpret it to mean “forever and ever,” that all the generations of Jews after that time have blood guilt. But as you infer, Matthew does not necessarily seem to understand the word in that sense; ‘children’ may also easily just refer to “the next generation” - the generation which experienced the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.

And that’s the thing about early Christians. Early Christians post-AD 70 have interpreted the horrors of those years as God’s vindication of Jesus; in their minds, the rejection and death of Jesus is correlated with the loss of the Temple and the capture of the city, the latter being portrayed as a direct result of the former. Once again, here’s the Gospel of Peter displaying this worldview:

And the Lord shouted, saying, “My Power, O Power, you have abandoned me!” And having said this, he was taken up. And in that hour the veil of the sanctuary of Jerusalem was torn in two. And then they drew the nails out of the hands of the Lord and laid him upon the earth; and the whole earth was shaken, and there came a great fear. Then the sun shone and it was found to be the ninth hour. But the Judaeans rejoiced and gave his body to Joseph that he might bury it, since he had seen what good things he did.

Now having taken the Lord, he washed and bound him with a linen shroud and brought him into his own burial-place called ‘Joseph’s Garden’. Then the Judaeans and the elders and the priests, knowing what evil they had done to themselves, began to beat in mourning and say, “Woe to our sins! The judgment and the end of Jerusalem are at hand!”

Also Melito:

Pay attention, all families of the nations, and observe! An extraordinary murder has taken place in the center of Jerusalem, in the city devoted to God’s law, in the city of the Hebrews, in the city of the prophets, in the city thought of as just. And who has been murdered? And who is the murderer? I am ashamed to give the answer, but give it I must. For if this murder had taken place at night, or if he had been slain in a desert place, it would be well to keep silent; but it was in the middle of the main street, even in the center of the city, while all were looking on, that the unjust murder of this just person took place. And thus he was lifted up upon the tree, and an inscription was affixed identifying the one who had been murdered. Who was he? It is painful to tell, but it is more dreadful not to tell. Therefore, hear and tremble because of him for whom the earth trembled.

The one who hung the earth in space, is himself hanged; the one who fixed the heavens in place, is himself impaled; the one who firmly fixed all things, is himself firmly fixed to the tree. The Lord is insulted, God has been murdered, the King of Israel has been destroyed by the right hand of Israel. O frightful murder! O unheard of injustice! The Lord is disfigured and he is not deemed worthy of a cloak for his naked body, so that he might not be seen exposed. For this reason the stars turned and fled, and the day grew quite dark, in order to hide the naked person hanging on the tree, darkening not the body of the Lord, but the eyes of men. Yes, even though the people did not tremble, the earth trembled instead; although the people were not afraid, the heavens grew frightened; although the people did not tear their garments, the angels tore theirs; although the people did not lament, the Lord thundered from heaven, and the most high uttered his voice.

Why was it like this, O Israel? You did not tremble for the Lord. You did not fear for the Lord. You did not lament for the Lord, yet you lamented for your firstborn. You did not tear your garments at the crucifixion of the Lord, yet you tore your garments for your own who were murdered. You forsook the Lord; you were not found by him. You dashed the Lord to the ground; you, too, were dashed to the ground, and lie quite dead.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued)

There’s also Origen (Against Celsus 4.22):

But, according to Celsus, “the Christians, making certain additional statements to those of the Jews, assert that the Son of God has been already sent on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews having chastised Jesus, and given him gall to drink, have brought upon themselves the divine wrath.” And any one who likes may convict this statement of falsehood, if it be not the case that the whole Jewish nation was overthrown within one single generation after Jesus had undergone these sufferings at their hands. For forty and two years, I think, after the date of the crucifixion of Jesus, did the destruction of Jerusalem take place. Now it has never been recorded, since the Jewish nation began to exist, that they have been expelled for so long a period from their venerable temple-worship and service, and enslaved by more powerful nations; for if at any time they appeared to be abandoned because of their sins, they were notwithstanding visited (by God), and returned to their own country, and recovered their possessions, and performed unhindered the observances of their law.

One fact, then, which proves that Jesus was something divine and sacred, is this, that Jews should have suffered on His account now for a lengthened time calamities of such severity. And we say with confidence that they will never be restored to their former condition. For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind, in conspiring against the Saviour of the human race in that city where they offered up to God a worship containing the symbols of mighty mysteries. It accordingly behooved that city where Jesus underwent these sufferings to perish utterly, and the Jewish nation to be overthrown, and the invitation to happiness offered them by God to pass to others—the Christians, I mean, to whom has come the doctrine of a pure and holy worship, and who have obtained new laws, in harmony with the established constitution in all countries; seeing those which were formerly imposed, as on a single nation which was ruled by princes of its own race and of similar manners, could not now be observed in all their entireness.

There’s also a work known as the Testament of Levi which underwent Christian redaction. The redactor’s mark is clearly evident here:

Now, therefore, observe whatsoever I command you, children; for whatsoever things I have heard from my fathers I have made known to you. I am clear from all your ungodliness and transgression which you will do in the end of the ages against the Saviour of the world, acting ungodly, deceiving Israel, and raising up against it great evils from the Lord. And you will deal lawlessly with Israel, so that Jerusalem shall not endure your wickedness; but the veil of the temple shall be rent, so as not to cover your shame. And you shall be scattered as captives among the heathen, and shall be for a reproach and for a curse, and for a trampling under foot. For the house which the Lord shall choose shall be called Jerusalem, as is contained in the book of Enoch the righteous.

Also, I’ve already talked about the problem many Christians had trying to square Jesus’ words in Luke (“Father, forgive them…”) - interpreted universally back then as referring to Jews - with this idea, that the First Jewish-Roman War was divine punishment for the people’s rejection of their Messiah, which led to explanations which dilute the impact of these words or deleting them outright from the text.

 

[Country_Gal]

I think the Jews were mainly persecuted in Europe for economic reasons. They traditionally occupied a niche that including lending money, and the sons of the aristocracy would get heavily in debt. The Jewish businessmen would demand repayment. When these debts would pile up, the nobles would get the Bishops to back them with persecutions and even expulsions from districts and nations.

Jews today are still resented for their economic prowess.

Also, the Jewish laws were essentially health laws in many ways. Cleanliness, handwashing, dietary codes, all protected the Jewish communities. They were not hit as hard with plagues and epidemics. This added fuel to a superstitious and uneducated population that was easily manipulated by unscrupulous leaders, who could blame it all on a few Bible verses.

 

[patrick457]

(Continued; last post of the series)

An apocryphal work dating from the 8th century known as the Vindicta Salvatoris (The Avenging of the Savior) is one of the most famous expressions of the idea. There AD 30 and AD 70 are literally conflated into a single time period. Two ‘kings’ are crucial to the plot of Vindicta, Tiberius and Titus/Tirus/Tyrus, “a court official (regulus) of Tiberius in the kingdom of Aquitania (southwest France), for a city of Libia which is called Burdigala (modern Bordeaux, obviously not in ancient or modern Libya!)” The Vindicta’s Tiberius is based obviously on the emperor who reigned during the time of Jesus’ adulthood (ca. AD 14-37); Titus/Tyrus on the other hand is based on the military commander who besieged and captured Jerusalem in AD 70 and who later became emperor (reigned 79-81).

In the work, both kings are sick with some sort of disease and are cured via miraculous means. But let’s focus on Titus/Tyrus. Titus/Tyrus, afflicted by a sort of malignant wound (‘the sore called “cancer”’) in his face, learns about a miracle worker named Jesus from an envoy called Nathan, who had visited Palestine and who was now on his way back to Rome. Deeply moved by what he had heard about Him and offended that the Jewish people had treated their Savior so cruelly, vows to avenge Jesus (hey, just like it says in the tin: ‘Avenging of the Savior’), threatening violent reprisals against the Jews. And this is the curious part: it is only after Titus/Tyrus vows to do horrible things to the Jews in retaliation for the death of Jesus that the cancer which afflicts his face is miraculously cured.

After being healed, Titus is then baptized by Nathan. In some versions, Titus takes on the name ‘Titus’ at this point apparently as a baptismal name; prior to this his name is given as ‘Tirus’/‘Tyrus’. We can see here the pattern of co-opting figures into the Christian cause: since Christians thought that the Romans were God’s instruments in dealing punishment to the Jewish people in AD 70, wouldn’t it be nice if the general who conquered Jerusalem be a Christian himself?

The newly converted Titus and his colleague Vespasian (now based on the eponymous general who is the real-life Titus’ father and predecessor who reigned from 69 to 79) then immediately begin to launch a violent assault on the Jews in Judaea. King Herod - another historical anachronism here; the figure is a conflation of King Herod the Great (37-4 BC) and the tetrarch Herod Antipas (reign 4 BC-AD 39) - becomes disturbed (“and all Jerusalem with him;” cf. Matthew 2:3), and after appointing his son Archelaus (reigned 4 BC-AD 6!) to be his successor, commits suicide by falling on his spear/sword a la King Saul. (In some late versions of the Vindicta, it is Archelaus who appoints an unnamed son to be his successor; Archelaus kills himself to avoid being captured by Titus and Vespasian.)

Archelaus (or the unnamed son) shuts himself in Jerusalem along with other kings (!) and nobles in fear, while Titus and Vespasian lay siege to the city for seven to eight years. By the seventh/eighth year of the siege, a severe famine hits the land to the point that people had to eat dirt for lack of bread. The eleven thousand soldiers guarding Jerusalem (!) then agree to commit mass suicide rather than be captured by the Romans. (Obvious overtones of the AD 73 siege of Masada here.)

The kings holed up within the city were frightened further, not knowing what to do with the rotting bodies, which were left unburied and so stinks a lot. They finally decide to surrender (realizing that punishment has come upon them for putting Jesus to death ) and hand the keys to the city over to Titus and Vespasian. The survivors were then captured and put to death in various ways (being stoned, hanged, speared, etc.) or sold into slavery: because Jesus was sold for thirty pieces of silver, Titus decides to sell thirty people for one denarius!

So all in all, the author of the Vindicta attempts to express the concept of the fall of Jerusalem being the result of Jesus’ death, even if it meant engaging in extreme artistic license/historical inaccuracies and telescoping two separate events.