Passion Misplay: Yes, Jews probably really did kill Jesus.

Slate ^ | September 17, 2003 | Steven Waldman

[Coleus]

`

[Blzbba]

That kind of makes His death, who killed Him, why, when and so forth rather secondary.

Please reread my post. That was exactly my point.

[Blzbba]

Christians aren't the ones raising objections to the Gospels' descriptions of the Crucifixion as being at the hands of the Jews.

No Jew alive today had anything to do with the Crucifixtion.

[Blzbba]

Which people are those?

The ones still trying to blame Jews today for a Crucifixtion that occurred 2000 years ago. It's worse than the whole slavery reparation issue.

[freeangel]

So, exactly, what is your point? This is an historical movie. No one is blaming any living Jew today for their ancestors part in fulfilling Christs' mission. Get over it, it is history. As much as there are people that love to re-write history, it does not change facts.

[Blzbba]

no argument, re:changing history. But the whole "Jews killed Jesus" bitch has been used to persecute those folks long after the fact. Note: I have zero problems with the making of this movie and don't feel it should be edited. I just wish some people could view things as parts of history, instead of current-day fact. This goes to both the Jews criticizing this movie and the Christians who'll hate Jews as a result of seeing this flick.


"Get over it" indeed.

[Publius6961]

Passion Misplay: Yes, Jews probably really did kill Jesus.

D'OH!

Seeing that He was a Jew.
In the land of the Jews.
An activist...

[Remole]

Actually, the "evidence" presented in the article is just the sort of "evidence" (aligned with logical reasoning) that makes a good case.

For example, the "evidence" shows that there is a tendency in the Gospel tradition to implicate the Jewish population more and more broadly for the demand for Jesus' death as you read from Mark to Matthew/Luke and then John. Furthermore, the writer shows that the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus is an independent source for the same thing, namely, that in the original situation, the push for Jesus' execution was led by the priestly class that was closely in league with the Roman occupiers.

So, my point is that this writer lays out that "evidence." What he says there reflects the mainstream approach of NT scholars towards the New Testament. If you do not agree with his "evidence" and reasoning and conclusions, then the onus is on you to make the best case for your position, in light of all the "evidence."

It is far too easy to dismiss another's argument by saying that it is only "conjecture." Well, of course, yes it is--conjecture based on reasonable assessment of the evidence and drawing logical conclusions from it.

[Remole]

Just to adopt the voicepiece of the above author for a moment:

1. OK, I should have siad "a" source. And maybe (see the book by Marion Soards) Luke does use 2 sources for his account of the Passion--Mark and another. That still does not alter the author's main point, that the Gospel tradition gives evidence of a tendency to implicate more and more Jews for the demand for Jesus' death: in Mark, just the leadership of the temple precincts; but in Luke and Matthew and then John, virtually the entire population.

2. The author's point still stands, mutatis mutandis, even if one adopts the low chronology of the Gospels and Acts that you propose.

3. And your final point agrees with me: even if the lynching of Stephen is historically accurate, it still shows that such actions were propelled not by the whole population of Judea but by the temple authorities.

[Alouette]

The only ones whipping up a frenzy are the ADL.

Abe Foxman Please Shut Up!

[Remole]

You are exactly correct. Thanks for the voice of reason.

[TheCause]

"Who killed Him? Well, He is not dead. He sits at the right hand of the Father. And thank God that He did die, and rise again."

Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen my brother.

[TheCause]

"Who killed Him? Well, He is not dead. He sits at the right hand of the Father. And thank God that He did die, and rise again."

Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen my brother.

[Hostage]

Why doesn't Mel Gibson simply open the film with a narrative that it was God's purpose that Jesus die and be raised?

The sacrafice mirrors the events of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham after waiting long past the time of bearing a child by his wife Sarah, was finally "granted" a son, a miracle of conception in a barren woman. Isaac was treasured as a son by Abraham and God asked Abraham to sacafice his only son brought forth in a miracle of childbirth by Sarah.

John 3

16"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

The Jews through Abraham were chosen to bring forth Christ from the outset. That their leaders feared threatened by loss of earthly power by the followers of Christ is human nature. It is no different today among all peoples and is abhorrent even more so today as anyone can be educated and informed as to what the consequences are.

[muawiyah]

That was NOT your point. Yours was to argue that antinomianism is the sole and only standard for Christianity.

You're not going to go take your clothes off and stand around the shopping center are you? (Lots of antinomianists do that.)

[Blzbba]

Yours was to argue that antinomianism is the sole and only standard for Christianity.

No it was not. My point was that people like you need to get over the fact that people 2000 years ago killed Jesus, and that it's not the fault of anyone living today. What nudity has to do with this is something understood only by you.

[Snuffington]

Actually, the "evidence" presented in the article is just the sort of "evidence" (aligned with logical reasoning) that makes a good case.

Witness this line from the article, which seems to be the core of the evidence implicating the gospels' historical accuracy:

In arguing that the biblical accounts shouldn't be taken as history, liberal scholar John Dominic Crossan focuses on details found in Luke, Matthew, and John that are not found in the source document, Mark.

The picture here is that Mark was the original, and any other accounts must just be making stuff up if they're not verbatim. That is certainly not the opinion of Bible scholars, who see Mark as one of several sources for Mathew and Luke (though not John). In other words Mark in not THE source document. It might be A source document for 2 of the other 3 accounts. Mr. Crossan's notion that Mark is the only account a historian need take seriously suggests a scholar ignoring evidence contrary to his pre-formed conclusion.

Watch how approaching the texts from this pre-formed conclusion confuses conclusion with premise: "The Jewish leaders of the time may not have had entirely clean hands, but, at least in terms of historical accuracy, neither did the writers of the Gospels."

Let's summarize. The article, in search of a middle path, cites the historical case of Mr. Crossan to demostrate error in the Gospels. Yet all Mr. Crossan demonstrates is that the four Gospel accounts contain slightly different, yet non-conflicting, details. Biblical scholars throughout history have explained this by the Gospel authors drawing from different sources, and writing for different audiences. The author, not Mr. Crossan himself, then concludes that the Gospels are not historically accurate without even passing acknowledgement of the well established explanations for the same information Crossan finds damning.

Look, I appreciate the article's overall effort, which seems to be to tell Jews to stop insulting Christians, and Christians to stop insulting Jews. But in his effort to do this he has set up a false "believers versus facts" dichotomy. In this case, the believers have evidence and facts that build a stronger case than their counterparts. It isn't good scholarship to ignore this simply because it helps your rhetorical thrust.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

And people of both faiths can get back to disagreeing about more important things like whether you get more presents at Hanukkah or Christmas.

Disgusting.

[muawiyah]

You do know how to use www.google.com, right? I suggest you do so before commenting on my theology.

[Cacophonous]

What's that got to do with anything? That's like saying that no American today had anything to with the American Revolution. True, but so what?