The anguish of the jews

[angell1]

thank you, david philmer for the recommendation.

I found it easier than I thought and have been reading it.

while I understand that Christians aren’t exempt from sin, this anti-Semitism seems to be a deeper thing.

it’s almost like it became part of the church’s theology, due to certain views of early church fathers that took root.

how did the church not err in moral teaching while promoting these views of the jews, especially when it was in power in Christendom.

obviously, I understand, there wre other factors, but if this theology of the jews deserving God’s divine punishment didn’t exist, I think it would have diminished a lot of problems. i’m not sure how so many people thought that exile, humiliation, violence and restrictions was bringing Christ’s light to the world.

anydiscussion is welcome. not sure how many others have read the book

 

[DavidFilmer]

thank you, david philmer for the recommendation.

DavidFilmer says, “you’re welcome.” For the benefit of others who have not read the previous thread, angel1 refers to The Anguish of the Jews by the preeminent expert in the field of Catholic/Jewish relations, Fr. Edward Flannery (may he rest in peace).

while I understand that Christians aren’t exempt from sin, this anti-Semitism seems to be a deeper thing.

Deeper than sin? I didn’t know anything was deeper than sin.

it’s almost like it became part of the church’s theology, due to certain views of early church fathers that took root.

There’s no doubt that some Early Fathers were very influential in creating an anti-Jewish culture. But the Early Fathers are not the Magesterium of the Church. They don’t “teach” in the manner that the Church teaches. And they’re not always right. They were not unanimous in many areas, and all but one opposed the idea that baptism by heretics was valid (before it became a Doctrine of the Church). The Fathers are instructive (when they’re correct) but are not authoritative.

how did the church not err in moral teaching while promoting these views of the jews

You’ll have to cite the manner in which this teaching was promulgated. Did it come from a Pope? An Ecumenical Council? A Catechism? This is how the Church teaches. If you don’t have something like that then you don’t have a teaching of the Church. Catholics acting badly is not the same as Church teaching.

obviously, I understand, there were other factors, but if this theology of the jews deserving God’s divine punishment didn’t exist, I think it would have diminished a lot of problems.

Anti-sematism in general can be traced back to the Gospel of Matthew:

When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd. “I am innocent of this man’s blood,” he said. “It is your responsibility!”

All the people answered, “His blood is on us and on our children!” [Matt 27:24-25]

Christians historically have blamed the Jews for the execution of Jesus (and the Jews blamed themselves and their descendants, so that’s not a completely unreasonable position). Jews were viewed as agents of Satan (look at the way Shylock is portrayed in the Merchant of Venice - a viscous, bloodthirsty, merciless Jew who would use the legal system to murder a Christian).

 

[angell1]

DavidFilmer says, “you’re welcome.” For the benefit of others who have not read the previous thread, angel1 refers to The Anguish of the Jews by the preeminent expert in the field of Catholic/Jewish relations, Fr. Edward Flannery (may he rest in peace).

Deeper than sin? I didn’t know anything was deeper than sin.
well, I meant individual sin vs. church teaching

There’s no doubt that some Early Fathers were very influential in creating an anti-Jewish culture. But the Early Fathers are not the Magesterium of the Church. They don’t “teach” in the manner that the Church teaches. And they’re not always right. They were not unanimous in many areas, and all but one opposed the idea that baptism by heretics was valid (before it became a Doctrine of the Church). The Fathers are instructive (when they’re correct) but are not authoritative.
seems like some anti-jewish views were quire influential though

You’ll have to cite the manner in which this teaching was promulgated. Did it come from a Pope? An Ecumenical Council? A Catechism? This is how the Church teaches. If you don’t have something like that then you don’t have a teaching of the Church. Catholics acting badly is not the same as Church teaching.
there are many examples in the book

Anti-sematism in general can be traced back to the Gospel of Matthew:

Christians historically have blamed the Jews for the execution of Jesus (and the Jews blamed themselves and their descendants, so that’s not a completely unreasonable position). Jews were viewed as agents of Satan (look at the way Shylock is portrayed in the Merchant of Venice - a viscous, bloodthirsty, merciless Jew who would use the legal system to murder a Christian).

well the popes did promulgate bulls directing poor treatment of jews.

and like the author said, being anti-Judaism is not the same thing as being anti-Semitic.

there’s nothing bad in pointing out how the jewish religion differs or is perhaps wrong in certain regards, but it’s a whole other issue to restrict freedom, and relegate to the margins of society.

and it seemed to last a very long time and wasn’t just in one instance or one area

seems like this view did more damage than good throughout Christian history. which jew would want to convert if they’re being treated like that?

and even when the popes did say something, seems like people weren’t listening.

I don’t know, just an average struggling catholic trying to understand it all. correct me if i’m wrong which, I most often am

 

[total_Catholic]

more anti-Semitism is now coming from the secular world and it is very hateful. The time may be sooner than we think for the Jews to finally accept Jesus as their Messiah.

 

[Petaro]

I went to a Catholic school in Australia and we were taught that we should judge no-one by their colour or their creed. We were also taught that the Jews were the chosen people of God and should be treated with the greatest respect for that reason. (A few of my Jewish friends wish they were not chosen just so often.)
Anti-semitism in attacks and boycotts on Israel is a child of the left in the secular world.Just the latte-sipping pseudo-intellectuals dipping their mental toes into a surrogate war. However they do much harm by continued media bias against Israel; something that has found its way to the White House.
I would have thought the world would have learnt from the last World War.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

(and the Jews blamed themselves and their descendants, so that’s not a completely unreasonable position).

I had never heard that before. Are there any references outside of the Bible where Jews blamed themselves for the death of Jesus? Thank you.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I had never heard that before. Are there any references outside of the Bible where Jews blamed themselves for the death of Jesus? Thank you.

I doubt it. But it’s not really relevant. angel1 asked about the mindset of early (and not-so-early) Christians. Christians accept the Gospels as accurate - we don’t discount something if we cannot find secondary sources. Christians would not have doubted the Gospel, so this helped form their mindset, which can help explain their actions, which is what the OP was asking about.

 

[DavidFilmer]

well the popes did promulgate bulls directing poor treatment of jews.

You’re gonna have to cite something. There are, literally, thousands of Papal bulls. We can’t respond to such a general statement. Which Pope directed this, in which bulla?

Which jew would want to convert if they’re being treated like that?

Sadly, I think it was the opinion of many Catholics (though not a teaching of the Church) that Jews (AKA “Christ killers”) were beyond redemption. Their conversion was not a subject of interest.

 

[angell1]

You’re gonna have to cite something. There are, literally, thousands of Papal bulls. We can’t respond to such a general statement. Which Pope directed this, in which bulla?

Sadly, I think it was the opinion of many Catholics (though not a teaching of the Church) that Jews (AKA “Christ killers”) were beyond redemption. Their conversion was not a subject of interest.

the book had a lot of examples, st. gregoty the great was rather tolerant, then some others came along and reversed his bull and placed more restrictions, it really depended on the pope.

so how should we understand this treatment? just a another great sin by many, even saints, to the seemingly neverending list, that was never actually church teaching?

it just seems like such a blurred line with theology precisely because of some of the language in the gospels, which I don’t think was advocating the kind of treatment that ended up being implemented in many cases, but was taken quite literally.

I feel like I wind up in positions where the sins of people have just made the church unthinkable for many people. jews, African americans with the whole complex issue of racism, first nations with their complex issues in history.

it’s a stumbling block to evangelization, that’s for sure. though I would say that not every papal bull is considered official church teaching, correct?

but still, the modern perception of the church is that it has done more bad than good, which sometimes can be hard to explain since we were supposed to be the light of Christ.

that’s why i’m trying to understand all these issues

 

[Exiled_Child]

I had never heard that before. Are there any references outside of the Bible where Jews blamed themselves for the death of Jesus? Thank you.

Yes, that is mentioned in the Talmud, but it’s a mistake to use the word blame.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_the_Talmud

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I doubt it. But it’s not really relevant. angel1 asked about the mindset of early (and not-so-early) Christians. Christians accept the Gospels as accurate - we don’t discount something if we cannot find secondary sources. Christians would not have doubted the Gospel, so this helped form their mindset, which can help explain their actions, which is what the OP was asking about.

The reason I ask is because your earlier post made it seem like the Jews themselves claimed blame for killing Jesus, and thus it was understandable that Christians would have the same opinion. I’ll quote what you wrote earlier:

Christians historically have blamed the Jews for the execution of Jesus (and the Jews blamed themselves and their descendants, so that’s not a completely unreasonable position).

I had never heard of Jews taking such blame apart from passages like the one quoted in Matthew. That passage in particular doesn’t sound like something that a mass of people would say, especially giving the circumstances leading up to it, and much more like words put into the people’s mouth by the author of Matthew.

What I’m getting at is are you saying that it was reasonable that Christians have historically blamed Jews for the execution of Jesus because there are Jews who have accepted that blame or because the Gospels say that Jews have accepted that blame? Because I think there is a significant difference there.

 

[DavidFilmer]

What I’m getting at is are you saying that it was reasonable that Christians have historically blamed Jews for the execution of Jesus because there are Jews who have accepted that blame or because the Gospels say that Jews have accepted that blame? Because I think there is a significant difference there.

Both. I don’t think that the crowds all chanted anything, but I believe that the Jewish leaders (who spoke for the people) accepted the responsibility that Pilate refused to accept, and I believe Pilate was fearful of mob action incited by the Jewish leaders. I believe this is historically accurate, regardless of whether secondary sources exist.

But, again, I say it is not relevant within the context of the OP’s question. The OP is asking why Christians behaved a certain way. It does not matter if the Jews REALLY accepted responsibility - the Christians BELIEVED they had accepted responsibility and acted accordingly.

If you FIRMLY BELIEVE that someone tortured and murdered your family, and you seek revenge, your desire for revenge is reasonable even if the person did not actually do it, and it is EQUALLY reasonable if he did. The truth of the charge is irrelevant as to the reasonableness of your desire for revenge. Either way, the desire for revenge can be sinful, but it is not irrational.

 

[DavidFilmer]

the book had a lot of examples, st. gregoty the great was rather tolerant, then some others came along and reversed his bull and placed more restrictions, it really depended on the pope.

I asked you to cite a Pope (and a bulla) that encourages anti-Semitism. You cite only a Pope that did NOT encourage this. I admit that it has been a few years since I read the book, but I don’t recall these Papal bulls that encouraged such practices. Since the book is more fresh in your mind, perhaps you will save me the trouble of re-reading it by simply citing just one Pope’s writings that encourage persecution of Jews.

Because the only Pope you mentioned did not do anything of the kind.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Both. I don’t think that the crowds all chanted anything, but I believe that the Jewish leaders (who spoke for the people) accepted the responsibility that Pilate refused to accept. I believe this is historically accurate, regardless of whether secondary sources exist.

Thank you, although even if it was just the Jewish leader(s) who said what was written it is completely misleading for the author of Matthew to make it seem like it was the people en masse. Personally I doubt it was said at all.

But, again, I say it is not relevant within the context of the OP’s question.

I agree. My question was purely tangential to what the OP’s question was, and I apologize if I made it seem like it was in direct reference to the OP’s question…

The reason I asked is often times in a dispute between two groups, one group will try to disparage the other group through inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. When you brought up that the Jews had accepted blame for death of Jesus I was curious if there was some information that I wasn’t aware of.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The reason I asked is often times in a dispute between two groups, one group will try to disparage the other group through inaccuracies and outright falsehoods. When you brought up that the Jews had accepted blame for death of Jesus I was curious if there was some information that I wasn’t aware of.

I understand what you are saying, but I dispute its basis. The Gospel of Matthew (which I cited) was certainly written by a Jew. It was probably NOT written by the Apostle named Matthew, but it is the ONLY Gospel that (according to the science of textual criticism) was originally written in Aramaic (and thus almost certainly written by a Jew).

Mark and Luke were Gentiles, and were NOT Apostles, and wrote their Gospels in Greek. Scholars largely agree that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John, but it was originally written in Greek, not Aramaic.

Matthew was a Jew, who wrote about Jews. There were not “two groups” in his writing.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Matthew was a Jew, who wrote about Jews. There were not “two groups” in his writing.

Just because the author of Matthew was likely a Jew doesn’t mean he couldn’t have falsely reported that the group of Jews all claimed blame for an act. He could have been separating those Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah and those that didn’t. He could have been self-loathing, feeling guilt by association. It could be both of the above.

The things is we both agree that what was written about the crowd in that passage in Matthew was not accurate, and therefore (along with no secondary evidence) it is speculative at absolute best to say that the Jews claimed blame for the death of Jesus.

 

[angell1]

I asked you to cite a Pope (and a bulla) that encourages anti-Semitism. You cite only a Pope that did NOT encourage this. I admit that it has been a few years since I read the book, but I don’t recall these Papal bulls that encouraged such practices. Since the book is more fresh in your mind, perhaps you will save me the trouble of re-reading it by simply citing just one Pope’s writings that encourage persecution of Jews.

Because the only Pope you mentioned did not do anything of the kind.

ok fair enough.

well, Gregory’s successor, sebianin (probably spelled that wrong), placed heavy restrictions on jews, basically reversed anything his predecessor did.

either way, I just want to know what this all means in the grand schemes of things.

how did so many people caught up in this sin? I mean, you would literally have hatred of the jews preached from the pulpit on many more than one occasion.

jesus said we would be persecuted for being Christian, not do the persecuting. and I wold say the church faces a lot of persecution today based on things her members have done wrong not because of Christianity. the bad seems to be overshadowing any good

 

[DavidFilmer]

The things is we both agree that what was written about the crowd in that passage in Matthew was not accurate, and therefore (along with no secondary evidence) it is speculative at absolute best to say that the Jews claimed blame for the death of Jesus.

But it doesn’t matter whether it happened or not. It would have been unjust to persecute Jews even if it did happen. Why do you think it matters? Do you think it would have been OK to mistreat Jews if Matthew’s passage was historically accurate? NO! It doesn’t matter. It’s never OK to mistreat a whole race of people, no matter what their ancestors did (or did not do). The truth of Matthew’s account is entirely irrelevant.

These Christians believed Matthew’s account. While it does not justify their bad behavior, it helps us understand it, which is what the OP was trying to do.

 

[DavidFilmer]

well, Gregory’s successor, sebianin (probably spelled that wrong), placed heavy restrictions on jews, basically reversed anything his predecessor did.

Again, you’re gonna have to cite something if you want us to respond. That means a Pope AND a document (or, really, just a document - we can work out the Pope by knowing that alone).

Not everything a Pope does is doctrinal. We would need to know specifics in order to comment.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

But it doesn’t matter whether it happened or not. It would have been unjust to persecute Jews even if it did happen. Why do you think it matters? Do you think it would have been OK to mistreat Jews if Matthew’s passage was historically accurate? NO! It doesn’t matter. It’s never OK to mistreat a whole race of people, no matter what their ancestors did (or did not do). The truth of Matthew’s account is entirely irrelevant.

These Christians believed Matthew’s account. While it does not justify their bad behavior, it helps us understand it, which is what the OP was trying to do.

I’ve written it several times now, my questions to you were not regarding the OP’s question, but arose out of your response to the OP. Your response outright stated that the Jews claimed blame for the death of Jesus. I asked you for a non-Biblical citation of that, since the only such citations I’ve seen come from the Bible and are incredibly suspicious. You answered me that as it’s written (where the whole crowd said they were to blame) was likely untrue but that the leaders in the crowd may have said it. It was then a question as to whether the author of Matthew (quite possibly a Jew) could have invented such a story about the crowd of Jews and of Jews as a whole.

I agree with you that Christians took the passage in Matthew as accurate, and biases against Jews throughout history stem at least partially from that and other passages in the bible (also see John). Again, that was not my point. Please do not suggest that in any way I am for or even neutral as to whether it is ok to show a bias against a race of people.

My whole point in being in this thread was to see if a blanket statement you made was accurate (which it was not) and if I had missed some piece of history (which I did not).