spiff, ned, et al
There is no standard "Jewish" line on the events of the life of Jesus, at least as far as i know. Many Talmud rabbis refer to him as a sorcerer - apparently trying to reconcile NT miracle stories with the denial that Jesus was Messiah - but those are not legal opinions and have no official force on Jews of that or any later times.
Of coruse Jews do not accept NT as scripture, and so the are in the same position of looking for the "historical Jesus" as any secularist, or any Christian who does not privelege the NT as a historical source.
I would note that there a currently fashionable theory of Jewish history of that period indicates that the Pharisees were NOT the dominant Jewish group of the time, the Sadducees were. This runs counter to both the NT and Josephus (most important Jewish historian writing in the 1st C CE, but an interested party and sometimes unreliable source) . Also Pharisees are not "hypocrites" in the Jewish sources.
Some question about whether Christianity would really have been seen as a major threat at the time. Difficult to ascertain without alternate sources to NT.
There was a theory about the historic Jesus a few years ago seeing Jesus as a political leader of the Jews, which would account for Romans crucifying him. Closer to then current Jewish messianic notions as well. Not sure of current academic status of this theory - certainly many jews still beleive it, i think.
Basically we DONT know what actually happened since there are no good alternate sources to NT, and parsing out historically reliable from the NT is not easy. There are clearly VERY STRONG motives the early christians would have had to blame Jews and thereby absolve the Roman state. I suppose this fact is one Jews tend to reflect on more than secular gentiles do.
However what is of greater concern is the historical resonance of the "upon us and upon our children" line in the history of Jewish-Christian relations, and its relation to antisemitic violence.
I dont know how the film really plays things. Until its more widely released that wont be clear, and reserving comment seems wise.
There is no standard "Jewish" line on the events of the life of Jesus, at least as far as i know. Many Talmud rabbis refer to him as a sorcerer - apparently trying to reconcile NT miracle stories with the denial that Jesus was Messiah - but those are not legal opinions and have no official force on Jews of that or any later times.
Of coruse Jews do not accept NT as scripture, and so the are in the same position of looking for the "historical Jesus" as any secularist, or any Christian who does not privelege the NT as a historical source.
I would note that there a currently fashionable theory of Jewish history of that period indicates that the Pharisees were NOT the dominant Jewish group of the time, the Sadducees were. This runs counter to both the NT and Josephus (most important Jewish historian writing in the 1st C CE, but an interested party and sometimes unreliable source) . Also Pharisees are not "hypocrites" in the Jewish sources.
Some question about whether Christianity would really have been seen as a major threat at the time. Difficult to ascertain without alternate sources to NT.
There was a theory about the historic Jesus a few years ago seeing Jesus as a political leader of the Jews, which would account for Romans crucifying him. Closer to then current Jewish messianic notions as well. Not sure of current academic status of this theory - certainly many jews still beleive it, i think.
Basically we DONT know what actually happened since there are no good alternate sources to NT, and parsing out historically reliable from the NT is not easy. There are clearly VERY STRONG motives the early christians would have had to blame Jews and thereby absolve the Roman state. I suppose this fact is one Jews tend to reflect on more than secular gentiles do.
However what is of greater concern is the historical resonance of the "upon us and upon our children" line in the history of Jewish-Christian relations, and its relation to antisemitic violence.
I dont know how the film really plays things. Until its more widely released that wont be clear, and reserving comment seems wise.
Comment