Does the High Priesthood get a pass?

  • Thread starter Thread starter steve53
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

steve53

Guest
The Second Temple High Priesthood was pretty relentless in going after the early Christians, after crucifying Jesus, all the way up to the Jewish revolt.
Does the Catholic Church downplay this purposefully just to “get along” with their Hebrew brethren in a modern world?
 
As the Temple priesthood no longer exists, it would be pointless to rip on them.

ICXC NIKA
 
The Sanhedrin sent people like Saul (who of course later became Paul after his dramatic conversion experience) out to round up Jewish citizens who were believers. It was a religio-political act that affected only Jews. As most Christians are now gentile, it is also another reason to not place the Jewish religious authorities on the hot seat - that is really God’s place, anyway. There have been far more wide-sweeping persecutions of Christians from other sources (Roman emperors, Stalinist states, etc.) than the efforts of the Sanhedrin to squelch the early believers. We should be honest about church history, but we are in the 21st century … laying blame on groups of people that no longer are alive is kind of pointless. All we need to do is acknowledge events and understand their implications… no more and no less, IMHO.

Peace 🙂
 
Turning the other cheek?

What about accurate history- a non-issue?
 
I think my comment covered the historical issue.

What significance do the events in the NT time period regarding the Jewish religious authorities have in the 21st century?

It isn’t a case of cover-up. We can acknowledge historical facts w/o playing a blame game. What reason do you see for bringing this up in any context outside of discussing the events themselves?

The treatment of Jews throughout church history by professing Christians has been a great crime itself… do we want to go back to that?

Jesus said that he laid down his life willingly… anyone that follows Christ knows that they will be persecuted and perhaps even martyred. All men are to “blame” for Christ’s death. What purpose does laying blame on a specific group of people serve today when we are facing a hurting world that needs the gospel. We are to proclaim the Good News to those we meet, not pass sentences of judgment against people that are no longer living.
 
The Second Temple High Priesthood was pretty relentless in going after the early Christians, after crucifying Jesus, all the way up to the Jewish revolt.
Does the Catholic Church downplay this purposefully just to “get along” with their Hebrew brethren in a modern world?
I don’t exactly get what you mean here. Can you please elaborate?
 
First, there was Caiaphas, though to be politically correct Pontius and the Romans are blamed for Jesus’ crucifixion. Then the High Priest Jonathan unleashed thugs like Saul to kill and harass the early Christians. Paul the Apostle had a heck of a time- the High Priest Ananias, and then Ismael, wanted him killed. Then the High priest Ananus did authorize the killing of the brother of Jesus, and the Jerusalem Christian leadership. And Nero? He was all of 24 when he went after the Christians, but he was dominated by his wife Poppea, who was seven years older. And Poppea catered to the Jewish priesthood, even having the former High Priest Ismael in her salon, and she wanted the Jewish Priest future general Josephus to stay with her in Rome as well. A connection is probable.

But there is only one source I know of that goes into this, and it is not a Catholic one.

Don’t you think in two thousand years that ONE catholic heavyweight scholar would go into this aspect of the early Christians?
 
First, there was Caiaphas, though to be politically correct Pontius and the Romans are blamed for Jesus’ crucifixion. Then the High Priest Jonathan unleashed thugs like Saul to kill and harass the early Christians. Paul the Apostle had a heck of a time- the High Priest Ananias, and then Ismael, wanted him killed. Then the High priest Ananus did authorize the killing of the brother of Jesus, and the Jerusalem Christian leadership. And Nero? He was all of 24 when he went after the Christians, but he was dominated by his wife Poppea, who was seven years older. And Poppea catered to the Jewish priesthood, even having the former High Priest Ismael in her salon, and she wanted the Jewish Priest future general Josephus to stay with her in Rome as well. A connection is probable.

But there is only one source I know of that goes into this, and it is not a Catholic one.

Don’t you think in two thousand years that ONE catholic heavyweight scholar would go into this aspect of the early Christians?
Well, first off, I think that one problem is you’re using the very broad term ‘Catholic Church’ in the wrong sense. I’d rather that ‘Catholic scholars’ be used here. (Not that this is limited to Catholics; I dare say that a good deal of modern Biblical scholars, no matter what their faith tradition might be, has this supposed ‘problem’.)

Second, this theory of a huge, far-reaching involvement by the Jewish high priesthood in Roman politics is, AFAIK, still relatively a minority theory. (At least Hagan - I assume you mean him - is the only writer I can name right now who proposes this; I’m sure there could be a few more.) So it isn’t really the ‘Church’s’ (or Catholic scholars’) fault if they don’t know of it or if it doesn’t get much publicity. The Church’s main concerns aren’t scholarly theories or debating historical details (and frankly, this issue is not a matter of doctrine, so I’d doubt we’ll see the pope discuss it on an official, formal capacity). Plus, as a truism goes, scholars in general tend to be lazy people, and much of academia doesn’t really look kindly on ideas with little publicity, if they ever look into them at all.

Third, ever since the atrocities the Nazis had perpetrated to Jews during World War II happened, there has been a sort of hesitancy in many circles to touch upon things that could be (and were) used to justify anti-Semitism or sentiments like “the Jewish people as a whole killed Jesus and thus are a condemned race”, as well as a call for a more balanced view of 1st century AD Judaism, in contrast to earlier views, which could - even if they don’t admit it - be rather unsympathetic towards Jews. (We can see this clearly in how pre- and post-Holocaust Jesus films and other media tend to portray the Jews of Jesus’ time: something I’ve been thinking to write about.)
 
As the Temple priesthood no longer exists, it would be pointless to rip on them.

ICXC NIKA
So is the Roman Empire. In other words, all the people and organizations involved are now dead (except One) or defunct.
 
Well, first off, I think that one problem is you’re using the very broad term ‘Catholic Church’ in the wrong sense. I’d rather that ‘Catholic scholars’ be used here. (Not that this is limited to Catholics; I dare say that a good deal of modern Biblical scholars, no matter what their faith tradition might be, has this supposed ‘problem’.)

Second, this theory of a huge, far-reaching involvement by the Jewish high priesthood in Roman politics is, AFAIK, still relatively a minority theory. (At least Hagan - I assume you mean him - is the only writer I can name right now who proposes this; I’m sure there could be a few more.) So it isn’t really the ‘Church’s’ (or Catholic scholars’) fault if they don’t know of it or if it doesn’t get much publicity. The Church’s main concerns aren’t scholarly theories or debating historical details (and frankly, this issue is not a matter of doctrine, so I’d doubt we’ll see the pope discuss it on an official, formal capacity). Plus, as a truism goes, scholars in general tend to be lazy people, and much of academia doesn’t really look kindly on ideas with little publicity, if they ever look into them at all.

Third, ever since the atrocities the Nazis had perpetrated to Jews during World War II happened, there has been a sort of hesitancy in many circles to touch upon things that could be (and were) used to justify anti-Semitism or sentiments like “the Jewish people as a whole killed Jesus and thus are a condemned race”, as well as a call for a more balanced view of 1st century AD Judaism, in contrast to earlier views, which could - even if they don’t admit it - be rather unsympathetic towards Jews. (We can see this clearly in how pre- and post-Holocaust Jesus films and other media tend to portray the Jews of Jesus’ time: something I’ve been thinking to write about.)
I agree.
Is there a value in accurate history, or for a topic as contentious as early Christianity, do we just let the various groups interpret things in a way to make them feel good?
Reminds me of the Afro-centric movement that moved into the highest echelons of academia, with tenured professors preaching it- though it was based on virtually nothing (the theory argued that much of what was considered Greek in origin came from Africa- with Socrates and Cleopatra being black).
I think this might extend into questioning Josephus as a reliable source, and might account for the Jesus seminarians trying to place the writing of the gospels decades after they were.
 
The Sanhedrin sent people like Saul (who of course later became Paul after his dramatic conversion experience)
Peace 🙂
As he belonged to the tribe of Benjamin he was given at the time of his circumcision the name of Saul, which must have been common in that tribe in memory of the first king of the Jews (Philippians 3:5). As a Roman citizen he also bore the Latin name of Paul. It was quite usual for the Jews of that time to have two names, one Hebrew, the other Latin or Greek, between which there was often a certain assonance and which were joined together exactly in the manner made use of by St. Luke (Acts 13:9: Saulos ho kai Paulos). See on this point Deissmann, “Bible Studies” (Edinburgh, 1903, 313-17.) It was natural that in inaugurating his apostolate among the Gentiles Paul should have adopted his Roman name, especially as the name Saul had a ludicrous meaning in Greek.

The Second Temple High Priesthood was pretty relentless in going after the early Christians, after crucifying Jesus, all the way up to the Jewish revolt.
Does the Catholic Church downplay this purposefully just to “get along” with their Hebrew brethren in a modern world?
I believe it is an overstatement to say that it was the Priesthood that went after Christian but that is just my opinion
 
I agree.
Is there a value in accurate history, or for a topic as contentious as early Christianity, do we just let the various groups interpret things in a way to make them feel good?
Reminds me of the Afro-centric movement that moved into the highest echelons of academia, with tenured professors preaching it- though it was based on virtually nothing (the theory argued that much of what was considered Greek in origin came from Africa- with Socrates and Cleopatra being black).
Afrocentrism as a phenomenon seems to be prevalent mostly in the US. If you ask me, I think Afrocentrism is about as good as Eurocentrism (Afrocentrism was originally developed as a response to Eurocentrism and its perceived minimalization of African cultures) or any other geographical or cultural -ism you could name: in theory quite laudable, but in practice goes too far.
I think this might extend into questioning Josephus as a reliable source,
The question is not whether Josephus is ‘reliable’ or not, since most folks do accept that Josephus is a valuable and generall reliable source of information for the period in question: the issue is, whether one should take all the information he presents in his writings uncritically at face value. This is not limited to Josephus, but applies to any author in general. For example, no one would deny that Herodotus’ work is of high value, although we could not consider him to be a fully credible writer.
and might account for the Jesus seminarians trying to place the writing of the gospels decades after they were.
The Jesus Seminar is really far off the left field, to the point that many NT scholars in the liberal spectrum themselves can’t help but point out the holes in their methods and conclusions.
 
“Afrocentrism as a phenomenon seems to be prevalent mostly in the US. If you ask me, I think Afrocentrism is about as good as Eurocentrism (Afrocentrism was originally developed as a response to Eurocentrism and its perceived minimalization of African cultures) or any other geographical or cultural -ism you could name: in theory quite laudable, but in practice goes too far.”

I am not sure that in theory it is laudable at all. Sad, really.
Read “Not out of Africa” by Lefkowitz for more info.
 
As the Temple priesthood no longer exists, it would be pointless to rip on them.

ICXC NIKA
I believe the OP is referring to two books by an amateur historian by the name of John Hagan. As I understand it, he claims that Jesus was born in 16 b.c.e and executed in 36 c.e. and that the Jewish High Priesthood conspired with the Roman empire to liquidate all the leaders of Christianity. Now as a senior member of the Council of the Elders of Zion, I can always appreciate a good conspiracy theory about Jews 🤷
 
I believe the OP is referring to two books by an amateur historian by the name of John Hagan. As I understand it, he claims that Jesus was born in 16 b.c.e and executed in 36 c.e. and that the Jewish High Priesthood conspired with the Roman empire to liquidate all the leaders of Christianity. Now as a senior member of the Council of the Elders of Zion, I can always appreciate a good conspiracy theory about Jews 🤷
Impressive credentials.
Then answer this: What the heck was a former Temple High Priest doing in Nero’s Imperial Court anyway? Kicking back and enjoying the chariot races?
 
Impressive credentials.
Then answer this: What the heck was a former Temple High Priest doing in Nero’s Imperial Court anyway? Kicking back and enjoying the chariot races?
Antiquities, Book 20.

About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice.

Now when Porcius Festus was sent as successor to Felix by Nero, the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Cesarea went up to Rome to accuse Felix; and he had certainly been brought to punishment, unless Nero had yielded to the importunate solicitations of his brother Pallas, who was at that time had in the greatest honor by him. Two of the principal Syrians in Cesarea persuaded Burrhus, who was Nero’s tutor, and secretary for his Greek epistles, by giving him a great sum of money, to disannul that equality of the Jewish privileges of citizens which they hitherto enjoyed. So Burrhus, by his solicitations, obtained leave of the emperor that an epistle should be written to that purpose. This epistle became the occasion of the following miseries that befell our nation; for when the Jews of Cesarea were informed of the contents of this epistle to the Syrians, they were more disorderly than before, till a war was kindled.

Upon Festus’s coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

About the same time king Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico. Now this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneus. and was situate upon an elevation, and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city, which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could lie down, and eat, and thence observe what was done in the temple; which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw they were very much displeased at it; for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west, which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals. At these doings both king Agrippa, and principally Festus the procurator, were much displeased; and Festus ordered them to pull the wall down again: but the Jews petitioned him to give them leave to send an embassage about this matter to Nero; for they said they could not endure to live if any part of the temple should be demolished; and when Festus had given them leave so to do, they sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael the high priest, and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure. And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero’s wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero, and who gave order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ismael as hostages with herself. As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest.
 
Aha!

Leave it to Patrick to set the record straight.

Poppea had an affair with Ismael! A year or so later, she went after Flavius Josephus himself.

This is scandalous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top