|Originally posted by tracymom
OR they were writing for a Roman audience in a Roman culture and it wouldn't have been too wise to make the Romans too culpable.
It's true that Mark was a Roman, writing in Rome, for a Roman audience. But Matthew, Luke and John weren't. Matthew in particular -- where the "His blood be on us" verse is found -- was a Jewish writer, writing for a Jewish audience, in Jerusalem. Of all the Gospels, his is the most chock-full of quotes from and references to Jewish scripture, which would have been lost on Gentile readers. (Even the "His blood be on us" line is probably a reference to Jeremiah 26:15.) So if he had any incentive to cater to his audience, it would have been the other way, to emphasize, not minimize, Roman villainy. (You could reply that it was still a "Roman culture" he was writing for, inasmuch as Israel was under the rule of Rome; but from what I gather, the Roman occupation wasn't much appreciated by his audience.)
|Originally posted by kama'aina mama
Everything written is viewed through the lens of the writers experience, feelings about the events, etc. I feel that to refuse to acknowledge that is perhaps more dangerous than anything.
You're right, of course! Even a thoroughly detailed completely factual account must of necessity leave some details out while including others. And those decisions are always conscious and deliberate.
But I thought Dado was arguing not just that the details were included to reflect a particular point of view, but that the details were demonstrably false
, which is a very different thing. I sure didn't mean to misstate your position, Dado, and if I did, I withdraw it.
|Originally posted by dado
"The guilt of the Jews only grows deeper with successive generations, entailing perpetual slavery." - Gregory XIII, 1581
Well, you were right, Google turned up the document in question.http://www.menorah.it/articoli/letto...i/dce/djud.htm
It's called "Antiqua Judaeorum improbitas." Only it's in Latin. I know some Latin, but it's hard slogging, and I can't find an English translation anywhere. Furthermore the one Latin text I found was only on one Italian website that might have an axe to grind (though my Italian's worse than my Latin!), so I can't be sure it's authentic. And even if the Latin's authentic, I can't seem to find that sentence you quoted anywhere. The first sentence, which is 134 words long (!), does contain the phrase "perpetuae mancipati," which for all I know can mean perpetual slavery, but the document, near as I can figure, is about prohibiting
slavery, and outlawing heresies. It will be an interesting project to tackle when I have time to translate it. It's a bit off our topic, but thanks for the citation. And I'll grant at least that whatever it says about Jews, it doesn't seem to be at all complimentary. It looks like it says Judaism is a form of heresy, but that can't be right, because only Christians can be heretics. Maybe it says Jews are causing
heresy? Beats me. I'll try to figure out what it says and get back to you, probably on a different thread.
|not sure what you're getting at there...a Jew could never properly be convicted of being Moschiach since Moschiach wouldn't be Moschiach if he was convictable. it's a proof in the pudding kind of thing.
Well, yeah. Similarly, nobody could literally be convicted of being
the King of the Jews. How could being a king be against the law? No the treasonous charge was that He claimed
to be the king, when of course the empire already had a king. On His cross the placard said "King of the Jews." When Pilate was informed that it would have been more correct to write "He said
He was King of the Jews," he replied, "Quod scripsi scripsi." I wrote what I wrote! More of a brush-off than an answer.
|if you're saying he was killed for a secular - ie, Roman - crime, that's my current opinion and it makes a lot of sense to me.
Yup, that's what I'm saying. I'm glad we agree!