Pilates wife

[patrick457]

The Catechism says “Jews are not collectively responsible for Jesus’ death. All sinners were the authors of Christ’s Passion ( CCC 597-598)” That would include me:blush:

Amen! That’s certainly true. “Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.”

However, we cannot deny that historically, there were Christians who unfortunately held the idea that the Jewish people as a whole were cursed for their ‘deicide’ and used it as a pretext for the persecution of Jews. (In fact, the Nazis took advantage of this perception to justify the atrocities they perpetrated.)

The ironic thing is, early Christian anti-Judaism (I’m distinguishing anti-Judaism here from anti-Semitism: the former denotes opposition to Judaism or/and Jews based on religious beliefs and practices, while the latter is based upon racial or ethnic prejudice) sprung from a Jewish context; as we’ve noted earlier it is based on the traditional biblical pattern of calling Israel for its disobedience and/or the rejection of its prophets. In fact, the two most Jewish gospels, the gospels of Matthew and John, are at the same time the most ‘anti-Jewish’. While Matthew is very keen to emphasize Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures, he repeatedly slams “the scribes and the Pharisees” - his gospel is the one which has the infamous line “His blood on us and on our children.” John, while he records Jesus saying, “Salvation is from the Jews,” often (but not always, note) casts “the Jews” as antagonistic to Jesus. In the historical context, Jewish followers of Jesus were treated by their fellow Jews as apostates and heretics who deviated from Jewish orthodoxy; in return, they answered that no, it wasn’t us who deviated from the right path, but you, because you do not accept Jesus as Messiah.

Now as the Church expanded over the Empire and became more ‘international’, the original Jewish context of this became more and more obscured, to the point that in a post-Constantinian world, where Jews have become a minority and Christians have dominated Europe, anti-Judaism had oftentimes segued into full-blown anti-Semitism. When these people read, say, Matthew and hear about how the crowd shouts “His blood is on us and on our children,” they’re gonna say, “See? Them nasty Jews and their children (which they somehow always interpret to mean ‘each and every one of their descendants’) are cursed from then on - it’s all right here in Scripture. It’s okay to mistreat them; I mean, they murdered our Lord, they’re just getting what’s coming to 'em.” (Incidentally, the Passion narratives from Matthew and John are the ones read on Palm Sunday and Good Friday before we came to use the three-year cycle of readings.) Now that line of thinking is only a small step away from spreading rumors about Jews murdering and eating babies and thinking that they’re dirty money-grubbers or something and actively calling for their extermination.

Of course, that’s a very touchy issue for both camps (especially more so for Jews, who were usually on the receiving end), but we can’t cover up the fact that such things happened - in fact, if we want to solve the problem, we shouldn’t deny that the problem existed, and still exists to a degree.

 

[LegoGE1947]

Amen! That’s certainly true. “Nor did demons crucify him; it is you who have crucified him and crucify him still, when you delight in your vices and sins.”

However, we cannot deny that historically, there were Christians who unfortunately held the idea that the Jewish people as a whole were cursed for their ‘deicide’ and used it as a pretext for the persecution of Jews. (In fact, the Nazis took advantage of this perception to justify the atrocities they perpetrated.)

The ironic thing is, early Christian anti-Judaism (I’m distinguishing anti-Judaism here from anti-Semitism: the former denotes opposition to Judaism or/and Jews based on religious beliefs and practices, while the latter is based upon racial or ethnic prejudice) sprung from a Jewish context; as we’ve noted earlier it is based on the traditional biblical pattern of calling Israel for its disobedience and/or the rejection of its prophets. In fact, the two most Jewish gospels, the gospels of Matthew and John, are at the same time the most ‘anti-Jewish’. While Matthew is very keen to emphasize Jesus as the Jewish Messiah who fulfilled the Jewish Scriptures, he repeatedly slams “the scribes and the Pharisees” - his gospel is the one which has the infamous line “His blood on us and on our children.” John, while he records Jesus saying, “Salvation is from the Jews,” often (but not always, note) casts “the Jews” as antagonistic to Jesus. In the historical context, Jewish followers of Jesus were treated by their fellow Jews as apostates and heretics who deviated from Jewish orthodoxy; in return, they answered that no, it wasn’t us who deviated from the right path, but you, because you do not accept Jesus as Messiah.

Now as the Church expanded over the Empire and became more ‘international’, the original Jewish context of this became more and more obscured, to the point that in a post-Constantinian world, where Jews have become a minority and Christians have dominated Europe, anti-Judaism had oftentimes segued into full-blown anti-Semitism. Of course, that’s a very touchy issue for both camps (especially more so for Jews, who were usually on the receiving end), but we can’t cover up the fact that such things happened - in fact, if we want to solve the problem, we shouldn’t deny that the problem existed, and still exists to a degree.

To deny this would be like having a serious disease and deny it by placing a Band Aid on it rather than taking it to an MD and letting him/ her fix it.

 

[patrick457]

To deny this would be like having a serious disease and deny it by placing a Band Aid on it rather than taking it to an MD and letting him/ her fix it.

Exactly. Denying that the problem exists is living in denial.

Going back to the topic, Pilate’s wife is almost always named Claudia Procula or Procla. This stems from the apocryphal Acts of Pilate, which has her as the granddaughter of Caesar Augustus and the illegitimate daughter of Tiberius and his third wife (Augustus’ daughter).

 

[steve53]

Exactly. Denying that the problem exists is living in denial.

Going back to the topic, Pilate’s wife is almost always named Claudia Procula or Procla. This stems from the apocryphal Acts of Pilate, which has her as the granddaughter of Caesar Augustus and the illegitimate daughter of Tiberius and his third wife (Augustus’ daughter).

Of course, Tiberius had only two wives. But you know that already, Patrick.

 

[steve53]

Patrick, the Church is correct in that the Jews as a whole were not responsible for Jesus’ death. But the Second Temple High Priesthood certainly was. And their intensity increases through the early Christian era through to the execution of James the Just and Roman persecutions started by Nero, with strong High Priesthood influence.

The only thing that stopped them was the Jewish revolt.

Pilate wanted Jesus out of the way-not as badly as did Caiaphas, but with General Vitellius coming no sense in taking a chance on a violent Passover. But many later Roman officials are definitely protective of the Christians simply on moral grounds-knowing that the priests felt threatened. Those officials, like Nero, who worked against the Christians were fed a false picture of the Christians- such as them consuming real flesh and blood during their ceremonies (thanks to the High Priesthood!).

This is all corroborated by secular sources.

If this interests you, Hagan’s Fires of Rome traces key New Testament characters in Tacitus and Josephus to make the case.

Happy Easter.