 |
| Rudolf Rocker |
As a point of contrast, we might note Rudolf Rocker (1873-1958) who, during the rise of German fascism, was a fierce critic of what was happening in the place of his birth. Rocker was not a New Testament scholar but was fiercely critical of one of the more notable advocates of an Aryan Jesus, Houston Stewart Chamberlain, and his now infamous book Foundations of the Nineteenth Century (1899). Despite being an anarchist writer who had little time for religion (he believed it underpinned state and political power), he was also critical of Chamberlain's understanding of Judaism decades ahead of much of New Testament scholarship.
The following was published by Rocker in 1937 and is dripping in sarcasm:
[According to Chamberlain] the German is the specially chosen minister of the Protestant mission, through which Christendom is first made aware of its true content. That the Christian had thoughtlessly chosen the Jew, Jesus, for his savior was surely a bitter pill; it was too late to undo that.
But was it not written in the Gospel that Christ first saw the light in Galilee? And immediately the "instinct of the race" came to Chamberlain's aid and informed him that in just this part of Palestine extensive crossing of races had occurred and, above all, that in Galilee Germanic stocks had settled. Must one not, then, admit that Christ had been a German? It was, in fact, unthinkable that out of "materialism drunken Jewry" a doctrine could come to whose spiritual content the Jewish mind is completely opposed.
Chamberlain revealed an utterly morbid hatred of everything Jewish. He even ventured to assure his credulous readers that a Germanic child, the keenness of whose senses had not yet been ruined or blunted by the prejudices of adults, could tell instinctively when a Jew was near him....To be sure, he based his preference for the Sephardim on the assumption that they were in reality Goths who had been converted to Judaism in large numbers--a recognition which came to the great master of unproved assertion rather tardily, as it first appears in the third edition of his book. How the Goths, those genuine branches of the noble tree of Germandom, in spite of their "mystic inclination" and their inborn sense of "religious profundity," which according to Chamberlain are the heritage of their race, could throw themselves into the arms of "materialistic Judaism" with its "dead ritualism," its slavish obedience," and its "despotic God" remains an unsolved mystery. In this case the "race in their own bosoms" must have failed outright; otherwise the wonder is not explained. There is hardly another work which reveals such unexampled unreliability in the material used and such reckless juggling with bare assumptions of the most daring type.
An expanded version of this is found at Harnessing Chaos.
James, you've pointed out elsewhere that Bruce Malina argues that European Jews do not have a genetic or geographical connection to the Jews living in Judea during the first century. Since you're the guru of all things theo-political, I should probably ask you: do you think that Malina is motivated by his distaste of zionists? After all, if modern American / European Jews have no genetic or geographical ties to Judea, it would certainly weaken the territorial claim of the State of Israel.
ReplyDelete-anthony
Yes, he's pretty open about what he thinks concerning Zionism and the state of Israel and I think there is a clear enough connection (that he himself makes) in his work. For some examples see e.g. http://www.bibleinterp.com/opeds/myl368013.shtml and http://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/difference-translation-makes-ideological-analysis-ioudaios-debate-james-crossley/
DeleteI think there is a suggestion of the argument that 'if modern American / European Jews have no genetic or geographical ties to Judea, it would certainly weaken the territorial claim of the State of Israel.' But I also think that even if we were to entertain such genetic conspiracy theories it makes no difference as far as the Palestinian issue goes. Would Israelis depart en masse? Would Jews suddenly stop claiming to be Jews? I suspect not. National and ethnic identity formation and geo-politics are much more complex than the old, outdated racial theories. Besides, by emphasising race and genetics so much merely replicates some of the most disturbing C19 legacies and is hardly the greatest help to Palestinian causes. An infinitely better progressive case would be to critique Israel on its treatment of Palestinians (the same logic applies to any other state) and not to single out Israel and Israelis on issues of race and genetics in making political claims.
That make sense?
Of course. I guess that I was just wondering if Malina's biases were as clear to others as they seem to me.
Delete-anthony
I don't think that genes have a stronger claim to a territory than people who feel themselves historically tied to a land, a nation and a culture. If that was the case, as genetic studies in my country shown that lots of Spaniards have Jewish ascentry, they'd have a claim too.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as far as I know European and American Jews have semitic genes too.
Semitic genes.. Is there really someone who still think that human races exist? Besides the progresses of the modern science, that dismantled those old-fashioned arguments based on "folk genetics", I think it's worth mentioning Shlomo Sand to appreciate social implications: "Once, to say Jews were a race was anti-Semitic, now to say they’re not a race is anti-Semitic. It’s crazy how history plays with us."
ReplyDeleteLollo, good point. Who are you quoting at the end?
DeleteSome day I'll tell you how genetic testing helped confirm my status as Kohanim.
As a Jewish-surnamed American, I find I can't entirely embrace the popular notion that Jesus was entirely, wholly Jewish. The idea that he was a real historical person; but one without any other influences from ANE culture; especially Greek and Roman culture. I'm aware that this began as popular convention in theology around the time of Albert Schweitzer. And this strange neo-orthodox Judaism in Christianity theologias was also driven by revulsion to the excessive de-Judaising efforts of the Nazis. Yet there are problems with this.
ReplyDeleteFirst 1) most Jews themselves, including their scholars, believe that Jesus was not entirely Jewish.
2) At the same time too, anyone who knows the field, knows that there are tens of thousands of academic papers that find Greco-Roman influence in the Bible and Christianity.
3) Third, picturing Jesus as wholly Jewish, looks suspiciously like it serves a theo-political aim in Gentile theology currently. By insisting that Jesus was Jewish and not Christian, a liberal Gentile theologian a) can seek to embarrass conservative Christians, who are tying to remain loyal to Jesus. At b) the same time as they somehow appear loyal to the "real" - i.e. Jewish - Jesus.
And yet to be sure, if the liberal commitment to fullblown conservative Christianity is thus being circumvented, we might also question the commitment of theologians and religious scholars to Judaism.
Are we really looking at a new explosion of genuine Judaism in scholars? Are they really as loyal to Jesus - now seen as a Jew - as they might like to imply? At best the new pseudo-Judaism of Christian liberalism still looks like a political device.
One at odds with ten thousand scholarly articles moreover.
Are we Jews allowed to question the neo-jewish orthodoxy in Christian scholarship of the last 100 years?
Anonymous, you seem to be rendering an unhelpful dichotomy between Jewish and Roman/Hellenistic cultures during the first century. All Jews during the first century navigated foreign cultural influences. The notion that being "entirely" Jewish means the complete absence of foreign influence is a misunderstanding. I would recommend reading the supplementary essays of the Jewish Annotated New Testament for an introduction (authored by "entirely" Jewish scholars).
DeleteIf Jesus was in some way Christian, he was so without his knowledge. The word "Christian" was not yet coined during his lifetime.
Whatever political traction might be gained or lost in the designation, Jesus was indeed Jewish.
-anthony
So are you reading all the references to a "new covenant" and so forth, as later interpolations? Jesus for example telling us that a non-Jewish Samaritan could be a better person than a priest; Jesus telling us that he had never seen such faith in Jews, as in the Roman centurion?
DeleteJewish tradition today, does not consider Jesus to be Jewish. Possibly because of these and other passages that suggest some kind of adoption even in the character of Jesus, of non-Jewish traditions.
Possibly Jews negotiated between a traditional - or suppose we here specify Zionist - Jewish background, vs. Greek and Roman occupiers and so forth. But at some point, many crossed that line, to the point that we could typify one or the other, as "wholly Jewish" or Zionist. Vs. say more "Hellenized."
This is not to sow division; but to try to arrive at an historically accurate designation. Insisting on seeing Jesus was "Wholly Jewish," tends to discriminate against a vast mass of scholarship acknowledging Greco-Roman influences.
I don't see Judaism as being as much a RACIAL group; I see it more as a social-cultural phenomenon. Anthropologists might all it a "belief system." Or simply a "culture."
DeleteIt's about Culture, more than Biology.
Anonymous, allow me to jump in. I'm a Jew who participates widely here.
DeleteYou wrote earlier that you can’t embrace the notion that Jesus was wholly Jewish. I think many Jews have a similar difficulty. How could a Jew have inspired a religion that has caused so many problems for later Jews? But the evidence is that Jesus was thoroughly, 100% Jewish, whether you define this by being born of a Jewish mother, being circumcised on the 8th day, participating in synagogue life, learning and teaching Torah, wearing fringes, making pilgrimages to the Temple, living and being accepted in communities that were largely or wholly Jewish, and finally, dying like a convicted Jew on a Roman cross. This is the opinion of every important Jewish scholar of Christianity over the last 100 years, from Joseph Klausner to Amy-Jill Levine. This is regardless of Jewish denomination: it is confirmed by Orthodox scholars like Lawrence Schiffman, and Reform Jewish scholars like Michael Cook.
We can, if you like, nuance the above statement in two ways: by asking (1) who is a Jew, and (2) what does it mean to say that Jesus was wholly Jewish? The conventional wisdom (and here, I think there’s room to question the conventional wisdom) is that Jewish life circa 30 CE was significantly sectarian, with considerable variation in belief and practice (Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, etc.). If you want to view one of these groups as “normative,” then you can try to argue that Jesus’ practices and beliefs were close to the norm, or far from the norm. But viewing any single Jewish group as “normative” in Jesus’ day will take you far from the current scholarly mainstream. In any event, I think many scholars today would tell you that the statement “Jesus was wholly Jewish” may tell us more about what was Jewish than who Jesus was! We don’t know nearly as much about late Second Temple Judaism as we wish we knew, and one reason for my personal Jewish interest in Jesus is how much he has to tell me about what it meant to be Jewish back then.
I agree with what Anthony said about the Greco-Roman stuff. The truth is, Judaism is a more syncretic religion than many Jews (myself included!) like to admit. On many Saturdays, I attend a place called a “synagogue,” where a number of men go by the first name of “Alexander,” and where we might discuss people and things by their names as found in the Greek Septuagint: “Moses,” “Aaron,” “Manna,” and so forth. Our Passover Seder is said to be based in part on the form of the Greek symposium. Even the Hasmoneans, whose anti-Hellenism gave the Jews 80 years of independence (and 2150 years of Hanukkah), adopted Greek practices once they took power. And so on. So it doesn’t exactly work to point to Greco-Roman influences in the New Testament or early Christianity and say, aha, Jesus wasn’t really Jewish.
Yes, for certain, the early Christians probably brought additional Greek-Roman material into the New Testament as the early Christian movement became more Gentile. Yes, for certain, the New Testament stressed those stories and traditions that highlighted the participation of non-Jews, in order to provide material of interest to its (growing) Gentile membership – this is just as natural as my reading the history of baseball for the stories of Jewish ballplayers like Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax. This may help explain the NT material you mentioned about Samaritans and centurions.
Are we Jews allowed to question the “neo-Jewish orthodoxy” in Christian scholarship? Of course! But keep in mind, we Jews are responsible for the creation of a not-inconsiderable part of this orthodoxy.
I thought it was obvious what I tried to say. Let's try again. There are human groups with specific genes, that's all. Race? I never told about that
ReplyDeleteHuman groups can be race, ethnics, populations, geographic, biology etc. Pick up yours, it's a subjective social/cultural/political matter. You talked about "semitic genes" (that's what my reply was about), so you actually defined a human group, that is, "semitic". What kind of group is it? Is it a matter of language? Culture? Is it supposed to be represented by the descendants of Sem? That's what I tried to address in my reply, because - to be clear - I fully agree with the rest of your post.. :D
DeleteFurthermore, I told in my first comment that grnes are nothing more than accident. You can show that human groups are genetically more related than others, but this is not relevant.
ReplyDelete