Further to this discussion:
Larry writes and I wholeheartedly agree: "Jesus was Jewish. It's high time we stopped acting like Jewish responsibility for the death of Jesus (if, indeed, there was any such responsibility) is a matter of something inflicted on Jesus by an outside agency."
Of course, we should see Rome as an outside agency. If we want to get literal: Rome killed Jesus.
But what if we want to get theological? I wonder what the heuristic value might be of this statement:
Jesus was the person most responsible for his death.
This would not let Rome off the hook in anyway. I am not suggesting that any action warrants a death penalty. But, according to my Gospels, Jesus saw the writing on the wall. Jesus walked right into the storm. Jesus prayfully accepted the necessity of his death in the garden. Indeed, theologically speaking, the God of Israel moves around political tyrants like pawns on a chessboard.
So both literally and theologically, assigning "the Jews" blame misses the mark.
-anthony
Anthony: "But, according to my Gospels, Jesus saw the writing on the wall. Jesus walked right into the storm."
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Jesus seems to have purposely created the storm, then waited for the storm to descend upon him. He may have calmed the storm for the sake of his disciples, but not for himself.
Saying that Romans (and not Jews) are historically responsible for the death of Jesus it's just shifting the blame from Jews to Romans who are currently happily living in Rome. The anachronism remains.
ReplyDeleteLollo, I'm missing your point.
DeleteThe Roman Empire was a bit bigger than the city limits of Rome.
-anthony
Yes Anthony, of course. But Rome boundaries simply depend on the historical period you/we consider. Rome is still there, and people born in Rome - either 2,000 years ago or yesterday - are Romans. So, if we affirm that Jesus wasn't killed by "the Jews" because in reality he was killed by "the Romans", or by "Rome", we still use generalizations that shift the blame from "the Jews" to "the Romans", where neither categories are appropriate in my opinion. Responsibilities should stay within the specific historical, cultural and geographical boundaries of Jesus' trial circumstances. And, of course, within specific people involved: Jesus, local Jews authorities, local Romans authorities (as reported by all gospels and Josephus).
DeleteAll of them (including Jesus) played their roles, taking a responsible decision driven by their interests, by the current circumstances, by the specific social-political situation, and probably all of them thought it was for the good of many..!
So this has nothing to deal with "the Jews" or "the Romans" of all times and places.. In order to answer the question "Who's responsible of Jesus' death" and avoid possible ambiguity/generalizations/anachronisms, prime suspects should be: Jesus himself, Caiaphas, and Pontius Pilatus "Praefectus Iudaeae". Of course the death penalty was applied by Pilatus, as reported by all gospels and Tacitus.
I don't care what you say. It was Colonel Mustard in the Billiard Room with a lead pipe.
ReplyDeleteI don't mean to stir the pot unnecessarily, but why not let Rome off the hook too? I can see Roman responsibility if we're viewing Jesus historically -- Jesus' death is then closely connected to politics, and empire. But from a theological point of view, if Jesus' death is "necessity", then why blame Rome?
ReplyDeleteWell, I suppose that you're making my point for me Larry. Shall we complicate matters further and discuss the hardness of Pharaoh's heart?
Delete-anthony
Hard as nails, Anthony. We discuss it every year. Would you like me to wrangle you an invite? We serve dinner afterwards, though we're gluten-intolerant for like 8 days.
DeleteThis small interaction made my afternoon.
DeleteAnthony, would you agree that some of Jesus' countrymen played some role in the complex of events that led to his death?
ReplyDeleteIn my view, assigning blame to "the Jews" (whoever they may be, and we should remember that John's Gospel assigns that moniker to Jesus himself) alone misses the mark, assigning blame to Rome alone misses the mark, and assigning blame to Jesus alone misses the mark . . . at least from the historical perspective.
I tend to agree with your line of thought here, Chris. From both a historical and theological perspective, the NT has diverse answers to the question of the cause and meaning of Jesus' death (and of course leaves some unanswered). Anthony's questions in the title of the post get at this, too.
DeleteFor what it's worth, the ADL responded to a question I had about the poll which I've included in an update to my critique of Moss. Interestingly, respondents were encouraged to either answer "probably true" or "probably false" which certainly makes a difference as far as the poll goes.
I agree with Chris. It seems that these discussions become very informed by current social matters, which, in light of the last century is understandable. However, to make the matter about the nationality of those responsible is unnecessary and ought to be irrelevant. Did some Jewish folk play a part? Sure. Does that make them all responsible? No shot. Did some Romans play a part? Yup. But are they all responsible? Again, no.
DeleteWhile I understand the need to be sensitive to anti-semitism, it seems that faithful history must acknowledge at least some role.
Why does the ethnicity/religion/civic identity/nationality/ideology of the people in question matter? This is the key question.
DeleteDoes it matter because we want to assign blame to a modern equivalent? Does it matter because we want to make an apology to a modern equivalent? Does it matter because we've been shoddy historians and we're attempting a corrective? Does it matter because our ideological counterparts have traditionally taken an opposite stance? There is no historiographical neutral place to stand while asking and answering this question.
It seems to me that making the bald statement "there was some 'Jewish' collaboration" can be rendered plausible on one level and be altogether misleading on another. Without some reflection and self-disclosure, bald statements like this should worry us.
What if I were to say "It wasn't the Jews at large; it was the Sadducees!" ? Won't that statement be heard one hundred different ways by a hundred different audiences? Moreover, why should I trust my own ideological motives with such a claim? Simply put, facts themselves are interpretations. The only responsible thing to do is to frame stated facts within plausible narratives.
Like Larry said, we might be justified one some level to say "Some Americans were involved in killing Martin Luther King Jr." How is this "fact" helpful to anyone interested in the history of MLK?
-anthony
Chris, if I go to the earliest material in the NT, presumed to be 1 Thessalonians, the accusation that the Jews killed Jesus is right there, in 2:14-15. If I want to think of this in terms of memory, then this is among the earliest Christian memories we know about, along with the parallel memory that the Jews displease God and oppose everyone (2:16). How much of this are you willing to accept as history?
ReplyDeleteMark's Gospel has Pilate offer to release Jesus, and a Jewish crowd cry for his crucifixion. Matthew's Gospel follows Mark, and adds that the crowd effectively called down a curse upon all Jews through all generations. John has Jesus tell Pilate that those who handed Jesus over to Pilate (read: the Jews) are guilty of the greater sin. How much of this are you willing to accept as history?
The tendency among present-day historians is to carve back the Gospel accounts to something that seems plausible to them. So, we discard Pilate's offer to release a prisoner, along with the notion that Pilate needed the urging of any crowd (Jewish or otherwise) to execute a Jewish troublemaker. We discard any notion that any group (Jewish or otherwise) calls curses down on itself. We debate whether there could have been a trial anything like that portrayed in the Gospels, whether the Sanhedrin met at night, and other Gospel details concerning Jewish involvement in the crucifixion. We pare it all down in our own ways until we find what we think is a plausible core. This core ends up resembling something like what Lollo noted in the prior post, when he quoted Josephus (if, indeed, Josephus really said this): Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst the Jews, had Jesus condemned to the cross.
I think that Anthony is right to suggest that the question here is as much theological as it is historical. I could go a step further, and say that the two questions are impossible to separate. Instead, I'll say that this "paring down" does not strike me as a responsible way of doing history. We don't do this in real life. If my neighbor Sam says that neighbor Joe killed the neighborhood cat, and I see the cat wandering around, I don't try to pare down Sam's statement to something "plausible" that Joe might have done to the cat. Instead, I dismiss Sam's statement and I move on.
I am aware that I am treading through someone else's sacred text. I am trying to be as polite as I can be and still make my meaning clear. Let's say that I put Matthew on the witness stand, and on cross-examination I showed that Matthew's testimony in 21:12 was wild exaggeration, that 26:51 could not have taken place without additional arrests, that 26:57-68 is disputable, that 27:11-14 is highly unlikely, that 27:15-25 certainly never happened, that 27:45 was never reported in any history, that even Michael Licona doubts the truth of 27:52-53, and that 27:58-60 flies in the face of the usual Roman practice of crucifixion. Would you then expect the jury to accept Matthew's testimony in 27:2, even if it is plausible?
It is a near certainty that Jesus was crucified, and as you argued, it is close to a near certainty that Jesus was crucified by the Romans. I don't know what else we can say with any certainty about the death of Jesus.
"If my neighbor Sam says that neighbor Joe killed the neighborhood cat, and I see the cat wandering around, I don't try to pare down Sam's statement to something "plausible" that Joe might have done to the cat. Instead, I dismiss Sam's statement and I move on."
DeleteLarry, I think that this statement is odd. First of all, I don't abide the killing of cats. They are evil - this cannot be doubted - but can't we use a scenario whereby cats are sent to a penal colony on a nice island somewhere? Second, I think that Sam's hypothetical "lie" suggests a mystery to be solved. Historians might decide to dismiss apologetics and fabrications and move on, but this is lazy historiography.
Not that any of this is relevant to the question on the table, but I cannot abide laziness nor will I stand to hear cat slander.
-anthony
Larry, that's a wide-ranging set of comments, so I'll try to respond to the most important ones. First, though, let me say that I don't mind you dissecting the text one bit; I do it professionally. Second, I too tread lightly here. I condemn anti-Semitism and the unfortunate reception-history of these texts. Let that be said. Apart from all that, you're my friend, I respect you, and appreciate your contributions to this blog. The same goes for Anthony (as should be obvious) since I'm disagreeing with him here, too.
DeleteNow, I think the example with Sam and Joe the Cat Killer breaks down on any number of levels and isn't entirely relevant here. The example assumes that you can validate the reality of the claim independent of the testimony. That's very rarely the case in Biblical Studies, and especially the Gospels.
How much of the text I'm willing to take at face value is also irrelevant. Here you say that all we can say is that Rome crucified Jesus. But in your earlier post on the other blog post you acknowledged that Jewish collaboration is likely and said, "There are nothing but Jews here, and if we're to say that Jews are responsible for Jesus' death, then high on the list of those Jews is Simon Peter." My point is that you can't have it--historically--both ways. This is why it is further irrelevant how much of the Gospels or other NT texts I take to be historically reliable. The point is that every single one of those texts come from authors who either are Jewish or are strongly influenced by Jews. (I, for one, am willing to accept the historical connections between Peter and the Gospel of Mark that appear in the patristic literature, without wanting to define exactly those connections. I also find no good reason to deny that Luke, whatever ethnicity he may have been, was a companion of Paul.) In this entire period, "Christianity" continued to define itself as a Jewish religion, or more accurately as Judaism. In this sense, both "Christianity" and "Judaism" are anachronistic. So I can't really affirm, as a historian, your earlier comment that claiming Jewish contribution to the death of Jesus only makes sense by viewing Jesus as a Christian born of a Christian woman. The earliest people making those claims certainly didn't view Jesus as a Christian. They viewed him precisely as what he was, a Jew. The degree to which they didn't view him as something other than a Jew is clear by the fact that they seek to understand his life, ministry, and death almost solely through the lenses of the Jewish Scriptures. The theological significance that they attribute to his death is born entirely of the Jewish Scriptures as well.
I suspect that we may be talking past each other, so please let me instead ask a very honest question in this context of important interreligious dialogue. Why can it not be a socially, theologically, and historically appropriate position for modern Jews, Christians, and non-believers alike to say, "Anti-Semitism is all its faces should be condemned by all parties concerned as should the usage of any of these traditions to promote it . . . and the most likely historical scenario is that the complex of events that led to Jesus' death was a result of various actions by both first-century Romans (Pilate, etc.) and first-century Jews (Jesus, his disciples, Caiaphas and other leaders)"?
Let me add another comment about the MLK example you used, Larry, and Anthony affirmed. Of course it is nonsense to say that "Americans" killed MLK. It's also nonsense to say, or even imply, that the killing of an American by another American in America had nothing to do with Americans. I think we're here trading one form of simplicity for another; perhaps more socially responsible but nonetheless still simplistic. Anthony's question about what saying that "some Americans" killed MLK contributes to historians' knowledge is, in my opinion, a red herring. It contributes a lot. Knowing which Americans killed which other American and for what reasons tells us a lot about America at the time that it happened and helps us come to grips (historically and socially) with why one section of the in-group would approach another section of the in-group in the manners that it did. Furthermore, it helps us come to grips with the historical aftermath of that event. It's quite significant that MLK was assassinated on American turf by an American and in the midst of a particular vocation, and not shot in the wilderness in Siberia by a Tasmanian for stealing his sheep. The cultural force that an event generates (or fails to generate) is hardwired into some of these cultural factors, and so it's--in my opinion--important to get them right. I suppose on this last point we'd agree.
DeleteChris, that’s a terrific series of thoughtful comments you’ve posted here, and I don’t know whether I should be proud that I helped provoke them, or to apologize for doing so!
DeleteThere are many things I might say in response. I’ll say only a few. First, I agree with much of what you’ve written. For example, I think that the analogy to Sam and Joe the Cat Killer can be tossed aside, with no great loss to scholarship or dialog. (If I cannot try out a possibly faulty analogy in the comments section of someone else’s blog, where CAN I try it out?)
You wrote that we might be talking past each other. There, I’ll disagree. You’re not talking past me. I think I’m getting all you’re saying. What I think IS true is that we’re talking from different points of view – there’s a difference in our perspectives, both religiously and professionally. You are an historian, with a doctorate and all the erudition that goes with those titles. I’m a reasonably well-read amateur, with no membership in or allegiance to any particular guild.
I think this difference is apparent in your very honest question: “Why can it not be a socially, theologically, and historically appropriate position for modern Jews, Christians, and non-believers alike to say, "Anti-Semitism is all its faces should be condemned by all parties concerned as should the usage of any of these traditions to promote it . . . and the most likely historical scenario is that the complex of events that led to Jesus' death was a result of various actions by both first-century Romans (Pilate, etc.) and first-century Jews (Jesus, his disciples, Caiaphas and other leaders)"?
When you ask this question, I imagine your donning your historian’s smock, using your historian’s key to enter your secure historian’s laboratory, and in the clean room of your laboratory using your historian’s high technology to investigate the most likely historical scenario for Jesus’ death.
You conclude in your clean room that the scenario was a result of various actions, including those taken by Jews, including Jesus’ so-called friends and opponents. So long as this information stays in the clean room, all is well. But once you announce your findings in the not-so-clean conditions of the wider world, all bets are off, regardless of your sincere and heartfelt denunciation of anti-Semitism (a denunciation that I know to be true, sincere and heartfelt). We have 2,000 years of Christian suspicion of Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus, and the vast portion of this history has not gone well for us, or for anyone else.
I’m not an historian. I don’t know how to advise you, once you leave your proverbial clean room. For my perspective as an ex-lawyer, it’s easier to look at the case of People v. Some First Century Jews, and dismiss the case for insufficient evidence. It’s not that there isn’t ANY evidence. There’s just not enough evidence to saddle Some First Century Jews with any moniker we might craft, no matter how carefully, that links them to the death of Jesus. I imagine this sort of thing is easier for lawyers to deal with than historians: the burden of proof in any case should match the consequences that would follow if the burden is deemed satisfied.
Maybe there’s a simpler way for me to answer your question. Anti-Semitism in all its faces has not been condemned by all parties concerned. More to the point, the usage of traditions associated with Christianity to promote anti-Semitism has not been condemned by all parties concerned. We have made huge progress on both fronts, to be sure, progress I find to be mind-blowing, even miraculous. But we do not live in a world where questions involving the death of Jesus can be treated like questions involving the death of Julius Caesar.
There’s so much more I might respond to in what you’ve written, but I’ve taken up enough space as is! Everything you’ve said is responsible and well-considered. Besides, you referred to me as a “friend”, and in my current “aw shucks” emotional state, I’m not as inclined as usual to argue with a friend.
Now he's having a go at the sheep!
DeleteChris, my point with the MLK example is somewhat similar to my point about Bill Clinton being a good teacher. On one level, these details are part of the story. But the statements "Bill Clinton is a good teacher" frames the issue in cockeyed way and serves to obscure the most important elements of Clinton's legacy. To say "some Americans killed Jesus" is absurd in this context. Nobody thinks that a Tasmanian did it. That statement tells me next to nothing about Dr. King's legacy.
You mentioned above the possibility of "talking past each other" - my guess is that something similar is going on with the ADL survey mentioned above. By the way, from 31% to 26% in two years is not an insignificant improvement.
-anthony
Anthony--I suppose we disagree because I simply think that the small amount that "some Americans killed MLK" may tell us is nevertheless important to know. It should never be confused with "the rest of the story" (HT Paul Harvey), which is of course substantially more important and where honest and thorough historical and sociological work needs to focus. But it's not "absurd" or worthless. I suppose this is really a minor point.
DeleteLarry--Thanks so much for this very thoughtful response. It's clear to me that you heard what I was saying. I understand entirely why it can, in the larger discourse, never be just that simple. I just don't want to sacrifice nuance in one part of the discourse for nuance in another part. The problem we all face is when this discussion proceeds without careful nuance, and I suppose we agree wholeheartedly here. But please don't imagine me making these decisions and coming to these positions in a so-called clean room with a smock. I think that would be the problem we all want to avoid. I make them, and articulate them here, in full awareness of how dangerous it is to get this wrong. That's what makes you and others so valuable of conversation partners.
Chris, the analogy to the clean room may not have been any better than my analogy involving the neighborhood cat. I DO get that your concerns go beyond the confines of the historian's "guild".
DeleteYou've used a phrase here, "reception history", that resonates with me in interesting ways, and that might be useful in our ongoing conversation. What we are dealing with here is an awful reception history (this may sound ironic or intentionally understated, but I don't know any other simple way to put it).
I think at its heart your argument is that the production or performance of good historical work is the single best way to counter or correct a bad reception history. I agree in substantial part. But this doesn't end the discussion for me. For reasons I'm sure you understand, I care more about the reception history than I do about the history itself (and as I think I've proven here, I DO care a great deal about the history itself). So I don't think that the only danger is in getting the history wrong. I think it's also dangerous to get the history right, but in a way that fails to articulate and undermine what is wrong with the reception history.
If we say that Jesus died as a result of various actions, including those taken by Jews ... will this correct or improve the reception history that is of concern to both of us? We might disagree here, but I think not. If we adopt Aslan's line of thinking, that the fact that Jesus was crucified settles that Jesus' death was purely a Roman matter, this might better address the reception history, but it's such a transparently terrible argument from an historical standpoint that I'm concerned it might backfire, be seen as a lie motivated by “political correctness” and ultimately worsen the reception history.
The thing I’m most interested in is getting the history right, and in a way that also impacts the reception history in the right way. Here, we should both acknowledge (in our mutual concern for nuance) that the idea of getting the history “right” is just as misleading as my analogy to lab coats and clean rooms. The job of the historian is much more creative and interpretative than merely getting it “right”. (See, I AM listening to you and Anthony!)
You’ve already noted that I’ve offered up two interpretations here: that all we can say is that Rome crucified Jesus, and that Jewish collaboration in Jesus’ death is likely. In my defense and to preserve the nuance, what I said was that (1) alluding to what we’d conclude in the context of a modern criminal trial, all we can say with any certainty is that Jesus was crucified by the Romans, and (2) it's not implausible to imagine Jewish collaboration in a process that led to the crucifixion. These statements differ because of the different standards of proof I brought to them. I was thinking like an ex-lawyer here. But if I try to think instead like an historian, and if I nuance these statements in the right way, we’d have two historical interpretations of the same event, both (I think) defensible from an historical standpoint. For statement no. 1, we’d focus on the intra-Jewish polemic in the Gospels and the NT in general, and how many of the details in the passion narratives have no historical plausibility. For statement no. 2, we’d focus on the question of empire, and how Rome depended on the collaboration of Jewish elites to run the Judean corner of its empire. Both approaches strike me as being historically sound. Which is best for the reception history? That question is always going to lurk behind everything I do here. As I think it should.
Anthony, next time I'll write that no animals were harmed in the making of my comment. I really don't need PETA on my case. Thanks for the heads-up.
ReplyDeleteRegarding lazy historiography: it is certainly within bounds for an historian to question why Sam lied about Joe and the cat. Perhaps Sam and Joe have a "history". Perhaps Sam has other issues. My point is, there's no reason to suspect that Joe did anything to the cat.
Ditto Matthew. Folks can and have made careers on speculating why Matthew wrote what he did. The prevailing theory as I understand it is that Matthew wrote for a community of Jewish Christians who had an ax to grind with Jewish non-Christians. Makes sense.
The question remaining is whether the solution to the mystery of Matthew can provide us with any reliable information on the possible responsibility of Jews for the death of Jesus. I understand the temptation to argue that there must be something to Matthew's accusations against the Jews, as they're made so vehemently, and as they are repeated by others throughout the New Testament. (I know that you do not fall prey to this temptation, nor am I accusing anyone else of doing so.) But from my side of the table, I see an unfortunate history of assuming that the Jews must have done something to bring all this tsuris on their heads. That's not necessarily so.
BTW, there could be a graphic novel in that idea about a penal colony for cats.
Larry, I didn't see this comment in the "pending" group (that has to be released to be public) until after I wrote my response above. Regarding what you say here, though, there's undoubtedly an unfortunate history of assuming that Jews brought this on their own heads, and the Gospels themselves helped create it. There's no doubt about that. But in light of this history, is it not all the more important to note that what's in the NT is accusations of some Jews (or very Jewish Gentiles) against other Jews on the basis of what happened to Jesus specifically, and not accusations on the basis of ethnicity generally? These things have inappropriately and tragically been intertwined in the reception-history of these texts, but surely that's why it's an important distinction to make. Would you agree? I can't help but wonder whether "anti-Semitism" is, in the final analysis, the right word for what's happening in first-century texts, though it remains the right word for what later peoples would do with those texts.
Delete