CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Tomk1 · 11-01-2009 5:54pm #1

Sun 11-Jan-09 Channel 4 19:00
CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Jesus the Jew: Howard Jacobson is the first presenter of this provocative eight-part personal series exploring the turbulent history and global impact of the world's biggest religion.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/christianity-a-history

Fanny Cradock · 11-01-2009 6:54pm

I do hope this doesn't turn out to be yet another C4 pot-shot at Christianity.

wolfsbane · 11-01-2009 7:05pm

Tomk1 wrote: »

Sun 11-Jan-09 Channel 4 19:00
CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Jesus the Jew: Howard Jacobson is the first presenter of this provocative eight-part personal series exploring the turbulent history and global impact of the world's biggest religion.
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/christianity-a-history

I watched the 2 clips. Looks like it's going to be just another mish-mash of 'experts' trying to outdo one another for any explanation other than the Biblical one. The first prat claims Judea was not part of the Roman empire, so was not subject to the Roman census the NT says caused Joseph and Mary to go to Bethelem.

no.1 · 11-01-2009 7:53pm

So the guy is a prat for pointing out some facts?

Fanny Cradock · 11-01-2009 8:18pm

That's not what he said. Now stop trying to bait people into an argument.

wolfsbane · 11-01-2009 8:26pm

no.1 wrote: »

So the guy is a prat for pointing out some facts?

Is it a fact that Judea was not part of the Roman empire and that a census would not be carried out there? I think not.

Josephus in fact says that such a census was a cause of the Jewish revolt in AD6. Judea was not an independant state, but ruled by Herod as a local king owing all to Rome. It even had local governors like Pilate, and large Roman garrisons.

no.1 · 11-01-2009 8:27pm

Why is the guy a prat though? I'm watching this program right now and he seems to know what he's talking about. To believe him 100% I'd have to research the facts myself but so far so good.

studiorat · 11-01-2009 9:26pm

Fascinating Captain. The history of Rome under Augustus and the 1st few hundred years of Christianity is really very interesting more so than the rise of the empire IMO.

I haven't watched the show yet but already I'm sure they mention the Biblical account there, if only to discredit it.

There was indeed a time when Judea was not part of the roman empire. It's debatable though whether or not Judea was under Roman rule at the time of Jesus birth. Herod the Great may have a been a "puppet" for the Romans but he was still the Ruler of Judea.

Matthew claims the birth of Jesus occurred during the reign of Herod the Great. Interestingly though Luke adds more by saying Jesus was born during the census under the Emperor Augustus at a time when Cyrenius was Roman governor of Syria.

1In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2(This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3And everyone went to his own town to register.

Like the Blue?
The purpose of this census was to collect tax in the roman manner where all citizens were counted as opposed to taxes collect by a ruler under Roman protectorate. Rome was willing to let the taxes be collected in whatever way that pleased the ruler, as long as the appropriate amount was sent on to Rome. When Rome became direct rulers the tax system changed.

Anyway the interesting point arises when we see Cyrenius was not governor of Syria and Judea during Herod's kingship. Direct Roman rule over the province of Judea, where Bethlehem was located, was not established until 6 A.D. ten years after Herod.

A common rebuttal would be that Cyrenius had in fact two terms, which is indeed true. The first of which coincided with Herod. However Luke's census under Augustus happened in Cyrenius' second term around 7 CE, when Jesus must have been around 11 years old.

Herod the Great ruled Judea as king during Cyrenius' first term, but he died in 4 BCE. This is the 'death of Herod' mentioned in Matthew. Between Cyrenius' first and second terms, Herod Archelaus (Herod the Greats son)* was governor of Judea; but he was deposed prior to Cyrenius' second term. The taxation Luke claims Joseph and Mary fled from happened in Cyrenius' second term, under the direct rule of Augustus Caesar.
*

Herod died in 4 B.C. and his son Archelaus reigned in his stead. Archelaus was deposed about 6 A.D. Cyrenius and Coponius were sent to Syria and Judea to rule. Cyrenius himself came into Judea to supervise the taxing and dispose of Archelaus' estate. The Jews this time mostly went along with the taxing, except for Judas of Galilee and those that followed him in their tax revolt.

Now there's an interesting Character! When do we get to discuss the similarities between Jesus and another first-century rabbi, Judas the Galilean? Leader of the Zealots even?

Josephus, wrote about the life of Judas the Galilean but doesn't mention the details of Judas' death. Conversely Josephus did not describe any action of Jesus save for his account of Jesus' crucifixion at the hands of Pilate. Some scholars have suggested a substitution of elements of accounts Judas' death for Jesus'.

According to one Author:

Josephus also disproves the stories of Judas Iscariot and Barabbas. According to this source, the High Priests paid Pilate 30 talents to arrest Jesus, and it was Jesus who was released to the crowd, not Barabbas (Judas the Galilean was released to the Jewish crowd in 4 BCE by the son of Herod the Great, Archelaus.)

I digress...

What I'd like to know is are there any extra biblical historical authors of the time that christians would agree with?

philologos · 11-01-2009 9:28pm

Watching this on C4+1 and I have to say I'm not surprised.

So far the following claims basically:

Luke was lying, but Matthew wasn't on the Nativity account
Jesus didn't start a new religion (I'd actually agree with this, he was reforming Judaism)
Jesus and the 12 Apostles weren't baptized into the Christian faith
The New Testament writers put forward anti-Semitism and wanted to diminish Jesus' role as a Jew

It emphasises the Jesus of humanity and the presenter says "The Son of Man was always a better image than the Son of God" or something along those lines.

Edit: They say that since Judas was called Judas and since his fate was suicide. That Judas was named Judas to sound like "Jew". They keep implying anti-Semitism. However, what is so big a deal, Judas = Yehuda in Hebrew. Just like Judas Maccabeus = Yehuda HaMaccabi.

Paul vilified the Jews for not accepting Jesus? Jews were welcomed constantly to be a part of the Christian movement. The equation of Christianity with anti-Semitism is just absurd to say the least.

R0ot · 11-01-2009 10:38pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I do hope this doesn't turn out to be yet another C4 pot-shot at Christianity.

I might not be a huge fan of mainstream christian religions but I have to agree with you Fanny, C4 do take the path of "easiest things to make fun of" at times, they still have some informative and interesting views on some matters of religion but when it comes to Christianity they take the easy pot-shots at it, lets hope this one is different.

Hope to catch this online somewhere as I missed it tonight.

Ruskie4Rent · 11-01-2009 10:47pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Watching this on C4+1 and I have to say I'm not surprised.

So far the following claims basically:

Luke was lying, but Matthew wasn't on the Nativity account
Jesus didn't start a new religion (I'd actually agree with this, he was reforming Judaism)
Jesus and the 12 Apostles weren't baptized into the Christian faith
The New Testament writers put forward anti-Semitism and wanted to diminish Jesus' role as a Jew

It emphasises the Jesus of humanity and the presenter says "The Son of Man was always a better image than the Son of God" or something along those lines.

Edit: They say that since Judas was called Judas and since his fate was suicide. That Judas was named Judas to sound like "Jew". They keep implying anti-Semitism. However, what is so big a deal, Judas = Yehuda in Hebrew. Just like Judas Maccabeus = Yehuda HaMaccabi.

Paul vilified the Jews for not accepting Jesus? Jews were welcomed constantly to be a part of the Christian movement. The equation of Christianity with anti-Semitism is just absurd to say the least.

It never said Judas was named to sound like 'Jew', it said that he was onlyunfortunately named. And it never said that Luke was lying, just that he came to the wrong conclusion due to a misunderstanding.

It was more of a history of christian anti-semitism more than christianity. Interesting none the less.

studiorat · 11-01-2009 10:48pm

Jakkass wrote: »

Jesus and the 12 Apostles weren't baptized into the Christian faith

Why was he baptized in the first place would seem like a likely question, considering he was God.

philologos · 11-01-2009 11:03pm

Ruskie4Rent wrote: »

It never said Judas was named to sound like 'Jew', it said that he was onlyunfortunately named. And it never said that Luke was lying, just that he came to the wrong conclusion due to a misunderstanding.

It was more of a history of christian anti-semitism more than christianity. Interesting none the less.

You can't deny that there was an attempt to equate Christianity with anti-Semitism though. They even said that the texts were written with anti-Semitism within. Such as passages of Jesus calling the Pharisees of Satan, however to get rid of the crux of the issue at hand which is that this was a Jew saying this to a Jew, they try the blame card on the writer of John's Gospel (who was probably Jewish as well). Again, they blame the authors of the Gospel for placing a curse on the Jews, which evidently according to the text they put on themselves. Washing your hands of a murder which Pilate did, was what was done in Jewish law when one did not know who the murderer of a victim was or when one wanted to absolve blood guilt. Seems perfectly consistent to me, in the actual context.

So they weren't just blaming the history of European anti-Semitism, but they were saying the New Testament texts in themselves were anti-Semitic, and were almost insinuating that Paul the Apostle was a self-hating Jew.

hivizman · 12-01-2009 12:02am

Jakkass wrote: »

So they weren't just blaming the history of European anti-Semitism, but they were saying the New Testament texts in themselves were anti-Semitic, and were almost insinuating that Paul the Apostle was a self-hating Jew.

Yes, the programme went overboard in suggesting that Christianity is inherently anti-Jewish.

The basic "Jesus the Jew" idea is a very old one. In the last generation, key books discussing the idea are:

Geza Vermes Jesus the Jew: A Historian's Readings of the Gospel (1973)
E P Sanders Jesus and Judaism (1985)
John P. Meier A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (Vol. 1, 1991, Vol. 2, 1994, Vol. 3, 2001)

Still, some nice scenery!

Fanny Cradock · 12-01-2009 12:15am

R0ot wrote: »

I might not be a huge fan of mainstream christian religions but I have to agree with you Fanny, C4 do take the path of "easiest things to make fun of" at times, they still have some informative and interesting views on some matters of religion but when it comes to Christianity they take the easy pot-shots at it, lets hope this one is different.

Hope to catch this online somewhere as I missed it tonight.

Yeah, while I don't mind critical analysis, it does seem that the majority of C4's religious based programming is not balanced. This is why I gave Robert Beckford's annual Christmas eve drumming of Christianity a miss this year. Possibly this one falls into the same category.

Zombrex · 12-01-2009 12:20am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, while I don't mind critical analysis, it does seem that the majority of C4's religious based programming is not balanced.

Well in fairness to Channel 4 they have a mandate to present alternative programming. They probably feel the rest of television put forward a pretty pro-Christianity stance already. Its not often you get a discussion about Christian anti-Semitism on Songs of Praise.

I didn't watch the programming so I have no idea if it is crap or not, but at least it sparks debate.

Fanny Cradock · 12-01-2009 12:38am

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in fairness to Channel 4 they have a mandate to present alternative programming. They probably feel the rest of television put forward a pretty pro-Christianity stance already. Its not often you get a discussion about Christian anti-Semitism on Songs of Praise.

I didn't watch the programming so I have no idea if it is crap or not, but at least it sparks debate.

I can't recall the Last time C4 has a balanced religious documentary; it's certainly been a number of years. Even their non-religious documentaries have gone down the pan in recent years. So it would be nice if they surprised us just once with something that didn't seek to coddle either Christians or non-Christians. This way 'alternative' wouldn't be a byword for 'unbalanced' or 'sensationalist'.

As an aside, in what form does TV take a pro-Christian stance? I struggle to think of other religious programming bar Songs of Praise and the lamentable Vicar of Dibley (which is really clutching at straws). Any other ideas?

hivizman · 12-01-2009 12:59am

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yeah, while I don't mind critical analysis, it does seem that the majority of C4's religious based programming is not balanced. This is why I gave Robert Beckford's annual Christmas eve drumming of Christianity a miss this year. Possibly this one falls into the same category.

It may be a bit early to write the series off, though I see that some of the future presenters are critical of Christianity, or of certain groups within Christianity. Robert Beckford is down for number 3, on the Dark Ages, and Rageh Omaar for number 4, on the Crusades (interesting to compare his angle with that of Boris Johnson a few weeks ago). Anne Widdecombe, who of course went over to Rome a few years ago, is doing number 5, on the Reformation, and Cherie Blair is rounding things up in number 8 on the future of Christianity.

Further details here.

Fanny Cradock · 12-01-2009 1:02am

Point taken. I didn't realise it was in such a format. Sounds interesting!

studiorat · 12-01-2009 1:13am

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/bible.html

Their website has a microsite devoted to religion and its study. Also "Who wrote the bible?" was a good docu. presented by a Christian from a Christian perspective.

Cherie Blair's is going to be fun...

Oh yeah I've been enjoying this http://www.bbc.co.uk/80faiths/

robindch · 12-01-2009 1:16am

hivizman wrote: »

Anne Widdecombe, who of course went over to Rome a few years ago, is doing number 5, on the Reformation, and Cherie Blair is rounding things up in number 8 on the future of Christianity.

At least Widdecombe is entertaining if batty, but Cherie Blair?

Credibility = 0

Fanny Cradock · 12-01-2009 1:25am

studiorat wrote: »

http://www.channel4.com/culture/microsites/C/can_you_believe_it/debates/bible.html

Their website has a microsite devoted to religion and its study. Also "Who wrote the bible?" was a good docu. presented by a Christian from a Christian perspective.

Cherie Blair's is going to be fun...

Oh yeah I've been enjoying this http://www.bbc.co.uk/80faiths/

I assume you are taking about the afore mentioned Robert Beckford. He is hardly without controversy!

studiorat · 12-01-2009 1:37am

He's got a good documentary coming up on the slave trade and the British Empire soon.
The controversy surrounding Beckford is unwarranted IMO.

PDN · 12-01-2009 10:27am

studiorat wrote: »

The controversy surrounding Beckford is unwarranted IMO.

He would be very disappointed to hear that. Without the controversy his income would return to that of any other academic in the field of theology.

PDN · 12-01-2009 11:05am

Jakkass wrote: »

You can't deny that there was an attempt to equate Christianity with anti-Semitism though. They even said that the texts were written with anti-Semitism within. Such as passages of Jesus calling the Pharisees of Satan, however to get rid of the crux of the issue at hand which is that this was a Jew saying this to a Jew, they try the blame card on the writer of John's Gospel (who was probably Jewish as well). Again, they blame the authors of the Gospel for placing a curse on the Jews, which evidently according to the text they put on themselves. Washing your hands of a murder which Pilate did, was what was done in Jewish law when one did not know who the murderer of a victim was or when one wanted to absolve blood guilt. Seems perfectly consistent to me, in the actual context.

So they weren't just blaming the history of European anti-Semitism, but they were saying the New Testament texts in themselves were anti-Semitic, and were almost insinuating that Paul the Apostle was a self-hating Jew.

I didn't see the programme in question - on a Sunday evening after 3 two-hour services of non-stop talking and singing about Jesus and Christianity I was happy to watch Law and Order and think about something else for a change!

But if they made such a claim about the New Testament texts then that would be a bit of a blooper since all of the NT (with the possible exception of Luke/Acts) was written by Jews.

In discussions of anti-Semitism there is often confusion between Judaism as a religion and the Jews as an ethnic or racial group. How can a Jew criticising his own religion be classed as an anti-Semite since he is still a Semite (as are Palestinians and other non-Jewish Semitic peoples)?

Some later versions of Christianity were, of course, shamefully anti-Semitic. Today many Christians try to compensate for that by being so pro-Israel that they turn a blind eye to any wrongdoing on the part of the modern State of Israel and demonise the Palestinians.

philologos · 12-01-2009 11:33am

hivizman wrote: »

It may be a bit early to write the series off, though I see that some of the future presenters are critical of Christianity, or of certain groups within Christianity. Robert Beckford is down for number 3, on the Dark Ages, and Rageh Omaar for number 4, on the Crusades (interesting to compare his angle with that of Boris Johnson a few weeks ago). Anne Widdecombe, who of course went over to Rome a few years ago, is doing number 5, on the Reformation, and Cherie Blair is rounding things up in number 8 on the future of Christianity.

Further details here.

I've a lot of respect for Rageh Omaar though after watching his documentary about Islam in the USA. I hope he will be as courteous when looking to Christianity, but heres to being hopeful.

studiorat · 12-01-2009 1:39pm

PDN wrote: »

He would be very disappointed to hear that. Without the controversy his income would return to that of any other academic in the field of theology.

I'm sure he'll get over it.

studiorat · 12-01-2009 1:51pm

PDN wrote: »

But if they made such a claim about the New Testament texts then that would be a bit of a blooper since all of the NT (with the possible exception of Luke/Acts) was written by Jews.

Christian Jews even.

Antisemitism in the bible is wrongly called so IMO. But I do believe there was a certain amount of propaganda used. Certain scholars would doubt for example Saul/Pauls absolute U-turn from zealous Jew to Christanity.

R0ot · 12-01-2009 2:40pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Well in fairness to Channel 4 they have a mandate to present alternative programming. They probably feel the rest of television put forward a pretty pro-Christianity stance already. Its not often you get a discussion about Christian anti-Semitism on Songs of Praise.

I didn't watch the programming so I have no idea if it is crap or not, but at least it sparks debate.

Yeah but when is it right to answer an un-balanced analysis with another un-balanced analysis? As a media outlet they should be trying to bring both sides of a story not choosing only one and exhausting all arguments to do with that one side.

philologos · 12-01-2009 2:46pm

Indeed, there were very few Christian figures actually interviewed, I think the only one was that Catholic priest at the start who doubted the authenticity of the beginning of Luke. However, there was scenes of a Jewish rabbi teaching Jewish kids about how the Messianic prophesies weren't fulfilled, and about Christian tactics. Which is fair enough, and that side of the story should be shown, however there are many great theologians out there who show it from the other side of the fence and give a different light to it.

Zombrex · 12-01-2009 2:55pm

R0ot wrote: »

Yeah but when is it right to answer an un-balanced analysis with another un-balanced analysis? As a media outlet they should be trying to bring both sides of a story not choosing only one and exhausting all arguments to do with that one side.

Well as someone else pointed out this was the first episode in a series. I didn't see it, but it seems clear that this episode took a look at Christianity from a particular position, the position of Jews, which I think is a valid thing to do as it is a position that one often doesn't hear. Channel 4 could have run another program with Christians disputing everything that was in the first program, and maybe they will.

CHRISTIANITY: A HISTORY

Comments