AKMA’s Random Thoughts: PC or AD?

March 08, 2004

PC or AD?

Joe, in the comments to Saturday’s post, observes, “Much of what I've read here and elsewhere complain that Gibson squarely places most of the blame on the Jews but nobody ever says how much, if any, responsiblity should be attributed to them. If I recall correctly, it's pretty much a biblical fact that the local Jewish populace played a signficiant role in dooming Jesus to his fate.”

Scholars disagree about the extent of Judean complicity with the crucifixion. Some pertinent facts include the following:

Crucifixion was a Roman punishment; if Jesus was crucified, it was at the behest of Pontius Pilate (whatever his motivation).
Contemporary sources characterize Pilate as a scornful, ruthless political manipulator — not a lonely, philosophical quester after truth, or a timorous puppet of the Temple hierarchy
The Gospels have a demonstrable interest in distinguishing their leadership, their movement, from the leaders and movement that eventually became what we recognize as “Judaism.” That interest comes partly from the similarity of the two movements (especially to a Gentile observer — observers who didn’t adhere to either movement seem to have had a hard time telling them apart for centuries), partly from the discomfort of being associated with Judaism after the two Judean uprisings of the 60’s and 130’s, partly from in-group hostilities, and no doubt from other causes as well. But one is well-advised to read early accounts that identify Pharisees and the Temple authorities as part of a massive conspiracy against Jesus with attention to spin.

On the other hand, it seems peculiar to suppose that no one among Jesus’ rivals and adversaries was involved in the affairs that led to his crucifixion. I know of no plausible basis for disputing that the gospel claims that Jesus was handed over to Pilate by way of some aggrieved prominent Judean citizens; that account fits the general tenor of the times and of the behavior that Josephus, for instance, describes among the factions of citizens in first-century Jerusalem and Judea.

The point, in this context, is not that Gibson should have removed any suggestion that Judeans were involved, but that after millennia of persecutions (ostensibly grounded in the notion that Jews are “Christ-killers”), and especially after the Holocaust, it behooves Gentiles to be particularly careful about what they allege about Judaic involvement in the crucifixion. Gibson in some ways heightens the degree of involvement we can see in the gospel accounts.

The problem, then, isn’t that he includes Jews in the responsibility for the crucifixion, but that he extends and the emphasizes their involvement. (But now my faculty meeting is beginning, so I have to go.)

Posted by AKMA at March 8, 2004 08:29 AM | TrackBack

Comments

While I have only browsed the book and, so, am not 100% sure how useful a study it is in relation to this topic, "Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil", by Hyam Maccoby does make cases for why / how the portrait of the Judeans might exaggerate (and/or exaggerate the negativity of) the Judeans' role in relation to the disappearance of Jesus.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0029195551

Posted by: Jay Fienberg at March 8, 2004 06:30 PM

Jay, I’m not 100% comfortable with Maccoby as an interpreter, but (a) it’s certainly true that Judeans’ role in the detainment and crucifixion of Jesus has been exaggerated in the tradition, (b) it’s almost certainly true that the gospels put the worst possible face on Judean participation, and (c) I’m still inclined to think that some Judeans were involved (heck, who else was around?

I’m among a small but growing group who argue that the word conventionally translated from first-century Greek as “Jew” ought more precisely to be translated “Judean,” if for no other reason than that there’s no other word for “Judean,” and (barring circumstances that oblige us to separate religion from social structure in an exceptionally peculiar way) there’s no reason to think that someone identified as a (cultural) Judean would not be a (religious) Jew. If one reads many NT texts with this starting-point, some of the conflicts that look awkwardly anti-Judaic under the present translation look more like intra-religious regional conflict between inhabitants of Galilee and those of Judea.

But that’s more than anyone asked.

Posted by: AKMA at March 9, 2004 09:29 AM

Actually, I had noticed and appreciated your use of the terms Judean and Judiac, and I feel the distinction you make is very important.

In general, I think it very important to acknowledge that the cultures of these ancient traditions were vastly different than our own--especially if or when we wish to assume some shared identity between them and any more contemporary traditions or values.

For me personally, I found it very difficult to "picture" the world of the Judeans (i.e., coming from concepts of modern Judiasm and Christianity) until I approached it more like a totally foreign culture.

I have found it useful to approach the ancient religions / cultures of the Middle East more from a context like Navaho religion than from a context like contemporary Judaism or Christianity. (And, of course, I think it is essential to look at Egyptian, Helenistic, Mythraic, etc., traditions as well).

Posted by: Jay Fienberg at March 9, 2004 12:44 PM

Since it's a relatively neutral question (at least within this context), I'll go ahead and say that I read Bruce Malina's case for Judean (within the gospel of John) and found it thoroughly convincing. I'm not sure if this helps out with any other issues or not, or even if Judean could be interpreted as synecdoche. Just wanted you to feel some love on this one :)

Posted by: Paul Baxter at March 10, 2004 07:49 AM