The First Seder
Cidu Bill on Apr 1st 2010
Earlier this week, President Obama and his family had a seder in the White House.
Now, I could understand if Rahm Emanuel invited the Obama to his home for a Passover meal; but to have their own seder, just their immediate family… what was this, Act Like a Jew Day? There’s a religious significance to a seder — it’s not just a fun custom. Not to mention the tricky political implications of “Next year in Jerusalem.”
Now, as Joe Biden would say, “He’s the f****** president so he can do whatever the f*** he wants” — but still, it’s just weird.
Filed in Barack Obama, Bill Bickel, CIDU, Joe Biden, Passover, Rahm Emanuel, seders | 81 responses so far
Frank the curmudgeon Apr 1st 2010 at 11:56 pm 1
Far be it for me to defend our current president but the quasi reliable Wikipedia says
“Many Christians, and Evangelical Protestants in particular, have recently taken great interest in performing seders according to the ancient rubric. Many churches host Seders, usually adding a Christian (Messianic Passover) message, and many times inviting Messianic Jews to lead and teach on it. Many Christians cite the meal as a way to connect with the heritage of their own religion and to see how the practices of the ancient world are still relevant to Christianity today.[17] Because Jesus is as the brazen serpent (John 3:14-15), his association with the passing over of death is pertinent. This is also a day that Christians can accept the mission of Christ, to bring lost sheep (later to include Gentiles) to the One God.”
CIDU Bill Apr 1st 2010 at 11:59 pm 2
Just to clarify something: the proper term for “Messianic Jews” is “Christians.”
Strega Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:44 am 3
It wasn’t just immediate family; there were staff members & their families at the dinner as well.
Obama also hosted an iftar during Ramadan. As did Bush and Clinton.
Rammy M Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:01 am 4
here’s some background info
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/28/us/politics/28seder.html
WhitneyD Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:43 am 5
Yay! Rammy had the link I was looking for. My favorite part of them trying to figure out how to arrange it was that the White House ushers simply couldn’t let the First Family serve themselves. I can so easily see the look of shock on their faces.
Frank the curmudgeon Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:44 am 6
@ CIDU BILL How are the “Messianic Jews” any less Jews than atheistic Jews? From my perspective (more or less agnostic with Protestant perspective / biases) they are both Christians and Jews. How does Israel treat “Messianic Jews” if they claim the right to return?
Winter Wallaby Apr 2nd 2010 at 02:06 am 7
Frank, Israel treats them like Christians: http://wwrn.org/articles/21820/
In college, some friends heard about “Jews for Jesus” for the first time, and loved the idea so much that they formed a “Christians for Satan” group, and made up flyers to hand out at the local transit center.
Powers Apr 2nd 2010 at 07:15 am 8
Jesus participated in seders; I don’t see how it’s wrong for his followers to do so.
Ian Osmond Apr 2nd 2010 at 07:26 am 9
Frank, please, you don’t want to go there.
Let me just say that, as a Jew, I’m willing to accept any Jew as Jewish, no matter what their beliefs — be they practicing Wiccans, Buddhists, Taoists, atheists, whatever. . . . except Messianic “Jews.”
Christianity is an explicit rejection of Judaism. Emotionally, “Messianic Judaism” is far more disturbing than any other blending of Judaism. I can’t really explain why.
Czhorat Apr 2nd 2010 at 07:33 am 10
Well, I’m a Catholic atheist married to a Jewish atheist. We believe in traditions so we celebrated something we call “Eastover”. Colored eggs, found a secular Haggadah to read, and even ate the colored eggs at the seder. I think it worked, and we found it a way of honoring and teaching about different traditions even if we don’t actually believe anything supernatural about them. I see the First Family’s doing so as honoring the traditions of the people they are leading as heads of state, and think it a good thing.
Curious: did the Obama’s add an orange to their seder plate? I think that’s a nice new tradition.
Mark Dalrymple Apr 2nd 2010 at 07:38 am 11
It’s not uncommon for Christian churches to have a Seder on Maunday Thursday.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat Apr 2nd 2010 at 08:03 am 12
Czhorat- I can understand a Jewish atheist, as most Jewish people see Judiasm as their ethnic identity. But a Catholic atheist? There is no “Catholic” ethnic group; rather many different ethnic groups identify with Catholicism.
Czhorat Apr 2nd 2010 at 08:13 am 13
Blinky,
I was being a bit facestious. I was raised Catholic, so it’s the Catholic god in which I don’t believe.
Nicole Apr 2nd 2010 at 08:42 am 14
Czhorat #10
“I see the First Family’s doing so as honoring the traditions of the people they are leading as heads of state, and think it a good thing.”
I can’t wait for Obama to honor Wiccans by celebrating Beltaine — The Wiccan spring fertility celebration.
Czhorat Apr 2nd 2010 at 08:44 am 15
Nicole,
That would be supergroovyneato — but I’m not holding my breath. Besides, could you imagine Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh the next day?
Sili Apr 2nd 2010 at 08:59 am 16
Catholicism isn’t an ethnicity, no, but it is most certainly a culture. Most atheists still aren’t brought up that way, they come to the realisation later in life when they’re allowed to think for themselves.
For one thing, look at the old joke about the Northern Irish Atheist held up in a dark alley. But you’ll find the divisions in Germany and Belgium as well.
As for Messianic Jews, in as much as Jewishness is an ethnicity they’re are certainly Christian Jews. And as I understand it Messianic Jews believe the (likely fictional) ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ to be the Messiah foretold in the Torah. If they do not think he is the son of God and God (”God of God, Light of Light, True God of True God”), they’re not Christians.
And finally to the point, yeah, it’s rather silly for the Obamas to do this. What’s next? They’re gonna have a roast baby with kitten sauce to pander to us atheists? From a political perspective I guess it’s pretty interesting that they’re in fact not invited to celebrate with the Emmanuels.
billytheskink Apr 2nd 2010 at 09:10 am 17
I don’t find this nearly as weird as I found a local Lutheran high school (whose mascot is the “Crusaders”) going by the “Saders”, using it in cheers and over the PA, printing t-shirts, etc.
At least when it’s printed you can tell the difference…
Daniel J. Drazen Apr 2nd 2010 at 09:49 am 18
I remember an SNL Weekend Update item from a few years back along these lines:
“President [George W.] Bush lit a menorah in the White House this week to mark the beginning Hanukkah. This was significant for two reasons: it was the first time that a menorah was set up in the White House, and it was the first time that George Bush had ever done anything even remotely Jewish.”
waferthinmint Apr 2nd 2010 at 09:52 am 19
feh.
MY OPINION (ignoring or agreeing are the only options because I won’t discuss further.):
‘Messianic Jews’ is a foul concept to me. just distasteful. I don’t CARE whom they identify as the Messiah, he ain’t Him. Christian is fine — I accept that others have found their G*d and meet weekly. But Jews are supposed to be waiting for G*dot. the process is the importance. without the wait you aren’t a Jew.
My definition of Jew follows the lines of ” it doesn’t matter how I identify myself, it matters how they [Nazis] identify me.
My heritage ethnically is Jewish. My name is Jewish. therefore i am a jew.
IRL I am a practicing Agnostic although I have considered converting to Ecumenical Apathism. Less glibly: I am as Henotheistic as the early Semites but MUCH more tolerant.
waferthinmint Apr 2nd 2010 at 09:53 am 20
Actually, If someone wants to discuss just txt me privately.
drdan Apr 2nd 2010 at 11:12 am 21
As a catholic I am bothered by the church having Passover Seder, I always found it a bit disrespectful, but the local has synagogue a Seder celebration for non Jews, which is well attended, (The Synagogue also celebrates Hanukkah Civic plaza). My long time GF is Jewish but doesn’t celebrate any of the Holy days, and I admit I would like to attend a traditional Seder, but I would never attend one at a Catholic Church, I think it would be similar to a Jew receiving communion and claiming it was to respect the church.
And I find anyone claiming to be a Messianic Jew, I don’t like to judge someone’s faith, but I find it euphuism for converting the world to Christianity. I college, I jokingly asked my GF if she was going to a “Jews for Jesus” rally and my ears were bleeding for 10 minutes
she eventually forgave me
Mel Apr 2nd 2010 at 11:15 am 22
Doesn’t seem odd to me… I went to Catholic school and every passover we had a Seder ceremony. If you’re going to worship a Jew than it makes sense to honor his traditions as well.
schleifnet Apr 2nd 2010 at 11:23 am 23
sorry frank but messianic Jews are christians pure and simple, you cannot believe in Christ and be Jewish it is contrary to the religion.
Bill, the cool thing about the seder if that Obama is the first president to hold one in the white house, ever.
To the rest of you, this isn’t some Christian message meal centered on reenacting Holy week pre-easter, it was a Jewish traditional seder (i used the same books at my house) lead by Jews with the first family as invitees who agreed to donate the location.
Makes me very proud to have voted for him.
Fnord Apr 2nd 2010 at 11:44 am 24
Yay, a religious debate! Gotta love people who say “You can’t possibly believe X, because that is contrary to your religion, because I say it is and you must practice your religion THE WAY I SAY SO!”
Morons.
Unless you’re the Pope, you don’t get to tell anyone else what to believe.
Rebecca Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:27 pm 25
So when the Messiah comes - will Jews no longer be Jewish? What will they be?
John in Tronna Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:33 pm 26
@ Nicole #14
Yeah…but will they be skyclad?
waferthinmint Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:36 pm 27
Question: “So when the Messiah comes […] What will they [Jews] be?”
answer: Done
It’s Just as much a diaspora Jewish question as a Buddhist one. To be an observant Jew (I’m not) is to strive to follow G*d’s commands. Messiah will come when we are ready, at which point he is not needed.
Or something involving eating…
waferthinmint Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:37 pm 28
Oh Oh Oh! I’ve got a better answer!
Question: “So when the Messiah comes […] What will they [Jews] be?”
answer: F%(&!ng Surprised!
schleifnet Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:41 pm 29
Rebecca, they won’t be christians
schleifnet Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:45 pm 30
sorry forgot to add ‘zing’ to the end of that comment
lettucefactory Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:47 pm 31
Jews are Jews no matter what religion they do or do not practice. You can’t even really get out of the club if you want to.
But “Messianic Judaism” is not Judaism. Is it Christianity.
So. Jewish people who practice Messianic Judaism are still Jews. But the religion they practice is not Judaism. That is the distinction.
waferthinmint Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:49 pm 32
One way to see the question (for non-Jews) is to consider an analogous case or two:
Are Muslims Christian?
How about Mormons?
How about Unitarians?
waferthinmint Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:53 pm 33
lettuce factory is correct, but you say potato and I say latke
waferthinmint Apr 2nd 2010 at 12:56 pm 34
I hope that clown (Where is the link to that old photo?) who runs this site will block my posts and let me know if I cross the line.
Shah Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:03 pm 35
I don’t find it particularly odd, but then again I’m not Jewish by heritage or faith. I was raised in a United Methodist church that pretty much read the bible at us at let us make up our own minds. When I went through confirmation we had a Seder meal at passover, in order to better understand the traditions our faith grew out of.
Nowadays - well, consider me theist. My reaction is mostly that if it creates an attitude of curiosity rather than hostility towards other faiths, it is all to the good.
Nicole Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:19 pm 36
Fnord # 24 — sorry the pope doesn’t tell me what to believe either.
John in Tronna # 26 .. that WOULD be a photo op
For those of you saying that messianic Jews are christian — sorry you are wrong. There was a sect of hassidic jews in Brooklyn (I think) that believed their Rabbi was the messiah till he died, for all I know they still believe it. In anycase they are (were?) messianic jews and are not Christian.
From an atheist point of view this whole discussion seems rather silly. Obama had a seder for political reasons … not religious ones.
As for who believes what I will leave you with this quote from Stephen Roberts : “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
Rebecca Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:24 pm 37
waferthinmint : Mormons and Unitarians can be considered Christians. Mormons aren’t, though they do have Jesus in their beliefs; they all fall under “Abrahamic faiths,” as opposed to, say, Jainism.
But these are straight religions, not ethnic or racial groups. The question of who is a Jew is decidedly more complicated than who is a Christian.
Sili Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:25 pm 38
Bingo!
Well, what do Messianic Judaics believe? If they believe that Joshua ‘ben Joseph’ was God, Son of God, born of a Virgin, chrucified, dead, buried, on the third day risen from the dead, transfigured, ascended into Heaven, sitting at the right hand of the Father, whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead, then yes, they’re Christians.
If they ‘just’ think that Joshua ben Joseph was the secular Messiah as foretold in the prophesies, then no, they’re not Christians.
Rebecca Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:25 pm 39
I meant to write that Muslims are not considered Christian in the second sentence, not “Mormons.”
waferthinmint Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:27 pm 40
Nicole wrote: There was a sect of hassidic jews in Brooklyn (I think) that believed their Rabbi was the messiah till he died
that’s what I meant by “I don’t CARE whom they identify as the Messiah, he ain’t Him”
Dyfsunctional Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:31 pm 41
Speaking as someone who is neither Christian or Jewish, I always understood that, from a Christian point of view, Christianity is not a rejection of Judiasm, but the opposite: a continuation of it. The Jewish perspective is necessarily a little different. In fact, if you think about it, each faith can accuse the other of leaving the flock at exactly the same moment.
waferthinmint Apr 2nd 2010 at 01:32 pm 42
hmm…
Muslims believe that JC was a prophet of God but not divine as himself, the later Prophet’s revelations superceded his message
Mormons, Same thing but JC is still divine.
Unitarians, JC is not divine.
Why are they not ALL Christian? I think the answer is “because you have to draw the line somewhere” Messianic Meshugahim have crossed the line.
Rid Apr 2nd 2010 at 03:11 pm 43
I’m more concerned that he’s forcing his religion down our throats. Separation of Church and State means that religion should have NO part in government, and nobody who wokrs in government should be religious.
Nicole Apr 2nd 2010 at 03:17 pm 44
Rid #43 -
You would be hard pressed to find a more ardent supporter of church/state separation then I. However, there is a big difference between a public official practicing their religious beliefs and enforcing their religious beliefs.
Obama has the right (like any other citizen) to proctice his religion as he sees fit, he does not have the right to legislate religion, nor does congress or any other legislative body.
Lihtox Apr 2nd 2010 at 03:52 pm 45
@43: Are you concerned about Obama’s theology (i.e. does he believe in a higher power or not), or about his morality (that is, what he thinks is right and wrong)? The two have often been blurred in our history, but atheists have been rightly arguing for years that they are distinct: one can be moral and ethical without being religious. Most liberals, including religious liberals, have come to accept this, and we’d ask atheists to return the favor: to accept that *our* morals, while inspired by our faith, are not dependent on it, and that whether someone believes in God or not should make no difference to you so long as s/he shares your morality.
@24: I was a liberal Catholic for a long time (Episcopal now), and while the Pope might try to tell Catholics what to believe, in general (American) Catholics form their own opinions about theology and morals regardless of what the Pope says. (e.g. American Catholics use contraception just as often as everyone else, despite the ban from the Vatican.) In fact, the notion of papal infallibility is a modern invention, claimed by (guess who?) 19th century popes with no particular justification other than their say-so. A power grab, pure and simple. It’s my belief, therefore, that one can be a good Catholic AND disagree with the Pope (as I hope most Catholics have done this past week!)
Mike Apr 2nd 2010 at 04:19 pm 46
messianic jews believe that jesus is the (divine) messiah. by any reasonable definition, that makes them christian. Given that belief in jesus as the messiah is essentially what divided the christians from the jews in the first place, it doesn’t really make sense to keep the label “jewish” while believing in jesus. It would be like saying you are a catholic who rejects the pope, the sacraments, and the other trappings of catholicism but that you are definitely not a protestant. and then going around to catholics and telling them “hey! I’m a catholic, just like you, and I wonder if you’d like to listen to a few arguments I want to make about the pope”. and then furthermore getting protestants well and truly confused by telling them it’s perfectly okay for catholics to reject the authority of the pope and not believe in transubstantiation. the problem isn’t so much what you believe as that you are using the words wrong.
I don’t care how they want to worship or whatever. I would be fine with them identifying as “ethnically jewish christians” or anything like that but feel that the self-identification as “jews who happen to believe in jesus” is a way of trying to have it both ways, basically a marketing scheme to get people (i.e. jews) to listen to them who would otherwise walk on by. messianic judaism is, like christianity and unlike judaism, an evangelical religion, in which a major goal is to convert others. thus the degree of offense by jews, for whom being evangelized at by someone who says “hey I’m jewish too and I wonder if you’ve considered accepting jesus as your personal savior” is just gut-level abhorrent.
Keera Apr 2nd 2010 at 04:30 pm 47
Ah, religious debate.
Today I took a lovely walk in the sunshine that finally appeared, and since it was Good Friday, I heard church bells at one point. That made me grateful for Christianity; it gives me extra days off work every year here in Norway.
Fnord Apr 2nd 2010 at 05:02 pm 48
Nicole #26 - I didn’t say the Pope gets to dictate to everybody. He only gets to dictate to Catholics, but it’s true to say that dictating policy and dogma is in his job description.
Lazlo H. Apr 2nd 2010 at 05:24 pm 49
Waiting for a messiah is not a definitive part of Judaism; It’s not part of ancient Judaism and won’t be found in the Torah. The word “messiah” (anointed one) is thrown around a lot in Torah, but it has no connotation of being an eternal savior, or even any suggestion that there will be only one messiah. Cyrus, king of Persia (for instance) is referred to as “messiah” (Isaiah 45:1) for Israel. The idea of a singular messiah arose in in the first few centuries BC, and it seen earliest in the writings of the Essenes (the Dead Sea Scrolls). So the term “Messianic Jew” is not synonymous with “Christian,” for that and many other reasons. Furthermore, the messianic expectation did not include any inherent notion that the messiah was going to be God incarnate. Read the Palm Sunday story– nobody is shocked by the claim that Jesus is messiah, but the concept that he is YHWH is nothing less than blasphemous.
On the idea of Christians practicing seder; why on earth wouldn’t they? The first Christians were Jews, Jesus’s last meal was a seder, and Christian gentiles have consider themselves to be “grafted onto the vine” of Israel since the very beginning of Christianity. Whether Christianity is a rejection of Judaism or not depends on what one considers Judaism (e.g. do you have to keep kosher to be a Jew?), but observing Passover is and always has been a something Christians and Jews can both claim as heritage.
Cidu Bill Apr 2nd 2010 at 07:48 pm 50
Nicole, what I meant was that messianic Jews who believe that Jesus Christ was the Messiah are Christians. Jews who believe that Rabbi Harry was the messiah are Harrians.
Elyrest Apr 2nd 2010 at 07:56 pm 51
Rastaharrians?
drdan Apr 2nd 2010 at 07:57 pm 52
CIDU Bill
I was talking to my GF and she reminded me that on Easter, they didn’t look for Easter eggs; they looked for the hidden Matzo, I never heard of this, but have you ever heard of this or did any Jews contributing to this blog take part
Mark in Boston Apr 2nd 2010 at 10:27 pm 53
I suppose anyone who lived as the apostles did shortly after Jesus’ death could be considered a Jew for Jesus. They considered themselves Jews and they followed the teachings of Jesus.
Paul changed Christianity considerably (just compare his epistles with the Gospels). Then at some point what had been a branch of Judaism set itself up in opposition to Judaism.
As Mr. Dooley said of the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland: If only they were all heathens so they could live together like Christians.
Sili Apr 3rd 2010 at 08:19 am 54
Do keep in mind, though, that the epistles are significantly older than the gospels. If anything, Paul is the better source to the earliest Christianity.
Powers Apr 3rd 2010 at 08:43 am 55
Bill #50 - Are they Christians even if they don’t believe that Jesus was the son of God and the savior of mankind?
Cidu Bill Apr 3rd 2010 at 09:42 am 56
Powers, that would be for a Christian to say. My instinct would be to say no, but it’s not something I know enough about and, honestly, not something that would bother me either way.
L. Hollyfeld Apr 3rd 2010 at 10:00 am 57
@Mark: “Just compare his epistles with the Gospels”
There are theological tensions among all the early Christian writings, but I don’t see any significant differences between the theology of Paul and any of the gospel writers. According to both Paul and Acts, Paul was insistent (against Peter) that gentiles could be Christians without conforming to Jewish law such as circumcision, but in terms of christology or other theological content the harmony of Paul and the gospels is quite remarkable.
Rammy M Apr 3rd 2010 at 10:09 am 58
@ #10 (and anyone else)
> something we call “Eastover”
In the winter, we (my family) celebrate SCHRON, an acronym for Solstice, Christmas, Hanukkah, Ramadan, Other, None-of-the-above
Help spread the tradition (or whatever)
R
paperboy Apr 3rd 2010 at 12:10 pm 59
Cidu Bill, it IS weird, but very little politicians do surprises me.
Keera Apr 3rd 2010 at 01:33 pm 60
L. Hollyfield #57, there are many discrepancies between Paul and the gospels, in part because the gospels themselves contradict each other and in part because Bible historians believe Paul did not write everything attributed to him because some of that is self-contradictory. Read any book on the Bible itself (i.e. Bible history) and you’ll discover that what the average Christian believes the Bible says and what it actually says are quite different. The various churches know this (that’s one reason there are several) and sweep a lot under the rug. This is why I always try to make the distinction between religion and faith.
To answer Powers #55: No. One reason I read Bible history was to find out who Jesus was. It’s not enough to simply follow his teachings to be a Christian. You must also believe he was divine and the (only) savior of mankind. Too bad. Jesus said a lot of valuable things but I’d rather not pray to him.
Lola Apr 3rd 2010 at 04:20 pm 61
Though I think Keera brings up a good point, self-contradictory writing doesn’t necessarily rule out a single author. I wouldn’t want to be held to a few of the things I wrote/believed 20 years ago.
Rammy, I LIKE that concept and just might steal it. It’ll go perfectly with the Festivus pole.
Keera Apr 3rd 2010 at 04:38 pm 62
Lola, self-contradiction is not my point or conclusion. It is something Bible historians have deduced using the same techniques in analyzing a writing style that today’s forensic scientists use. Based on this, Paul most likely was not the one who said women should not speak in public, but rather someone borrowing his good name. I was actually rather relieved to learn that because up until then, the man had really been pissing me off.
Winter Wallaby Apr 4th 2010 at 02:23 am 63
The reasons to think the epistles had multiple authors aren’t just that they’re contradictory. Partially, it’s because they’re contradictory even within a single epistle in a way that’s difficult to understand - e.g. a letter (1 Corinthians?) that both says that women should be silent in the church, and also praises specific women for their leadership in the church. It’s also because some epistles (e.g. the Pastorals) have different writing styles from the genuine Pauline ones, use vocabulary more consistent with that of the second century, and address problems of church organization that probably weren’t actual problems until the second century.
Keera Apr 4th 2010 at 06:02 am 64
What Winter @63 said. That’s what Bible history uncovers. It uncovers all the errors, intentions and decisions made over several centuries before the final book became as we know it today. And we are still tweaking what the book says, as evidenced by all the translations, many for political reasons reflecting the times people were in.
L. Hollyfeld Apr 4th 2010 at 08:42 am 65
@Keera: As I said, there are theological tensions among the gospels and Pauline (and pseudo-Pauline) writings, but the harmony is far greater than any tensions. Paul’s letters are intended for specific occasions and are not really intended to systematically lay out his theology — with the exception of Romans, which is somewhat systematic. The gospels are the same way; each has a separate rhetorical purpose and none of them attempts to describe in detail any Christian theology. Granted, many churches fail to educate lay members about the Bible, which has led to much ignorance about it, including a lot of post-biblical theology that people attempt to “find” in the Bible. However, the core of the faith– the divinity of Jesus, his death and resurrection for forgiveness of sins and redemption of the people of God– are all well-attested from the epistles to the gospels, and in elements of older traditions embedded in those writings (such as the Christ hymn in Philippians 2, which may be the oldest Christian work we have evidence of). Focusing on historical details in the narratives does a disservice to the purpose of the texts and shows a deep misunderstanding of the 1st- and 2nd-century concept of history and narrative. On the other hand, pretending that the gospels and epistles are in complete harmony shows an ignorance of the texts themselves (see Acts 15, in which Paul and Peter argue over circumcision), and nobody who has read the Bible with any attention whatsoever could possibly miss that.
Now, what discrepancies exactly do you think have been swept under the rug? I agree that some churches may do that, but mainline (non-fundamentalist) Christians have a much more complex and nuanced view of the Bible than you seem to suppose.
Keera Apr 4th 2010 at 09:45 am 66
L. Hollyfield @65, I can’t answer your question as there are too many discrepancies and I can’t remember them all. From what I’ve read (and the latest I’ve read is “Jesus, Interrupted” by Bart D. Ehrman), there is quite a lot of disharmony in the Bible and the core, as you call it, is one of the many discrepancies. I am curious about the Bible’s history and origins, but I don’t bother reading it myself; its language has never appealed to me, regardless of the translation. I simply cannot relate to “Our Lord and Savior” speak. I do, however, acknowledge that modern western civilization owes a huge debt to the church after the Roman empire fizzled out, and this is one reason why the religion interests me.
L. Hollyfeld Apr 4th 2010 at 11:20 am 67
@Keera: Bart Ehrman is well respected as text critic (meaning someone who attempts to discern which variants of the biblical text are “original”) but his popular books delve into far deeper theological waters than text criticism alone can handle, and aren’t (generally) taken seriously by other theologians. (The whole idea of modern textual criticism is even being called into question by critics like Richard Horsley, who point out the fruitlessness of poring over textual variants in texts meant to be told aloud as stories.) Marcus Borg’s “Reading the Bible Again for the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously but Not Literally” is a much better popular-level book on biblical criticism, offering a holistic take on the Bible from a liberal perspective; you might find it interesting. A harder but extremely worthwhile read would be the “Marginal Jew” series by John Meier, which goes into great detail about the historical information we have about Jesus and early Christianity, and historical methods best used by modern scholars of historical faith.
Winter Wallaby Apr 4th 2010 at 01:09 pm 68
Hollyfield, I know Ehrman is controversial, and I’m not familiar with the theology in his popular books. But the conclusions that some of the Pauline epistles are not actually by Paul, and that some of the ones that are mostly by Paul, are not entirely by Paul, seem to fall out from standard textual critical analysis, and be agreed on by most scholars who analyze the Bible as they would any other historical text.
Whether the differences between the different New Testament sources are greater than the “tensions,” as you put it, is a bit more of a judgment call since, as you point out, none of the authors attempt to systemtically describe their theology. However, different authors and books seems to have such clearly different emphases, that I would describe them as having different visions of Christianity, rather than just being in “tension.” For example, you say that the divinity of Jesus is at the core of Christianity, and well-attested to in the gospels, but I only see that in John, not in the Synoptics (in the synoptics, he’s the Messiah, and the son of Man/God, but that doesn’t make him divine, and coequal to God). And I’d add to your comments about circumcision that Matthew seems to want to emphasize that the entirety of Mosaic Law is still binding on Christian, which is hardly a minor theological point.
Keera Apr 4th 2010 at 02:43 pm 69
L. Hollyfield @67, Amazon says Borg’s book is for frustrated Christians. I am not and have never been Christian; I have only been frustrated with Christians. As for liberal interpretations, have you read Emmett Fox’s metaphysical interpretations of the Bible? His best-known book is “The Sermon on the Mount”. That’s a pretty liberal take, I think.
John Meier seems to believe Jesus really lived, divine or not. I’ve read about the archaeological hunt for Jesus. For the most part, I’m still agnostic about whether or not Jesus actually existed.
Winter @68, what you say about the divinity of Jesus being only in John is exactly one of those discrepancies Ehrman points out.
I like my religion straightforward, clean, to the point. If the book the religion is based on is full of contradictions and what you are told to believe is just someone’s else’s a la carte preferences, I’m not interested. I’d rather go do my own picking.
Mark in Boston Apr 4th 2010 at 04:37 pm 70
A large number of people believe that everything in the Bible is literally true, and that the Bible is meant to be an absolute moral standard for all people and all times. In all the comments I don’t see a single one that comes from that point of view.
Personally, it seems to me that any true religion WOULD have an instruction manual designed for all time and all people. Engineers try to design buildings and bridges that will withstand all weather conditions and patterns of use. An all-knowing omnipotent deity can certainly succeed where humans fail, and write a book that tells people born 2,000 years later whether Twinkies will be Kosher or not, or how Muslims living above the Arctic Circle can fast during the holy month of Ramadan when it happens to occur in June and you have perhaps ten minutes of darkness to eat all the food you need for one day.
As for cryptic prophecies, what sort of loving God would set puzzles and tricks and traps to send good people to Hell?
paperboy Apr 4th 2010 at 05:08 pm 71
” ‘What sort of loving God would set puzzles and tricks and traps to send good people to Hell?’, Mark in Boston#70? Who told you God set those puzzles and traps?? BWAH-Hah-hah-ha!!!”
Winter Wallaby Apr 4th 2010 at 05:33 pm 72
MiB #70, maybe God just likes puzzles.
Tim Apr 4th 2010 at 08:19 pm 73
Part of the confusion in all this is that “Jewish” can refer to a religious choice or an ethnicity. Consider Whoopi Goldberg, Jewish by religion but not ancestry. “Italian” and “Catholic” usually go together, but not always. “Messianic Jew” normally refers to somebody who is “Jewish” by ancestry, but “Christian” by religion. While Israel might consider them “Christian” because they believe in Jesus, some religious groups hold that “Messianic Jews” have some special position as the fulfillment of prophecy because they have converted from Judaism.
L. Hollyfeld Apr 5th 2010 at 07:18 pm 74
@Winter Wallaby: The idea that Paul didn’t write all the Pauline epistles is no longer controversial. Very few scholars today believe Paul wrote all the letters traditionally attributed to him. 1 and 2 Timothy, for instance, have been widely accepted as pseudo-Pauline since the early 1800s. Regarding tensions vs. contradictions, you’re right that it’s a subjective judgment, but again, the vast majority of scholars see a variety of theological streams present in the new testament writings that all affirm a basic belief in the divinity of Jesus. (A good book on the topic would be Raymond Brown’s “The Churches the Apostles Left Behind”). The synoptics take this divinity as given, with the most direct evidence of the belief being in tanakh citations — wherein Jesus’s name is substituted for YHWH. Acts, written by the author of Luke, makes the claim more directly, which should tell you something about the rhetorical aims of the synoptic gospels. The epistles, of course, generally leave no question as to the belief in Jesus’s divinity, and most of them were written before the gospels, so it’s not the case that newer documents have higher christologies.
@Keera: I’m not a spiritual person, so I don’t tend to take much stock in metaphysical interpretations of anything. As for whether or not Jesus actually existed, you’d be hard-pressed to find a scholar who would claim he didn’t. I think the new testament was extremely straightforward– to its original audiences. The message is clear: Jesus is Lord and King, Caesar is not, and if you want to be part of God’s kingdom, you have to love everyone, even your enemies– and this love is a practical thing, not a religious posture. It would be awesome if anybody (especially Christians) actually did that, but I’m certainly going to do my best to try.
Winter Wallaby Apr 5th 2010 at 11:21 pm 75
Whoops, L. Hollyfeld, I thought you were saying the idea of pseduo-Pauline epistles was a crazy Ehrman idea, but I see that I misread. I agree that very few scholars believe that the Pastorals are truly Pauline, but I would point out that that doesn’t mean it’s “no longer controversial” or “widely accepted.” Most people aren’t scholars, and I don’t know your country, but here in the U.S. we have a lot of fundmanentalists who do not accept any modern Biblical scholarship.
When I read the synoptics vs. John, the descriptions of Jesus are so significantly different that I’m suspicious of a claim they’re basically the same theology. And I’ve read two New Testament textbooks (admittedly, one by the ever-controversial Ehrman), that seem to back me up on this. Also, given the number of sects and disputes about the nature of Christ that went on well past the 1st century A.D., it doesn’t make sense to me that the synoptics would think that Jesus=Father, yet paint the portrait of Jesus that they do (”My lord, my lord, why have you forsaken me”???). They never state that Jesus=Father, and yet have many elements that would seem to make such an equivalence difficult (certainly not “extremely straightforward”) for a naive listener (of whom there must have been many at the time).
But the thing is, the Christology is vague and amorphous enough, that it’s not a good point of comparison. If we want to see whether the theology is the same throughout the New Testament, it makes more sense to look at things that are more fact-based and straightforward. Matthew thinks all Mosaic law is still binding on Christians (albeit with some surprising reinterpretations), and others disagree (as you’ve pointed out, in a couple of ways). Paul thinks some women are doing great in leadership positions in their local churches, while Pseudo-Paul thinks women should STFU. These are pretty significant differences.
Winter Wallaby Apr 5th 2010 at 11:23 pm 76
Incidentally, Keera, have you by any chance read the Poetic Edda or Prose Edda?
3D Apr 6th 2010 at 11:07 pm 77
I’m most offended by the fact that the President of the United States actually engages in any of these ridiculous ancient bizarro rituals; more that, than which particular one he chooses to engage in.
Best thing to do is hope he’s just doing it for show and for political points, and move on.
Meryl A Apr 7th 2010 at 01:49 am 78
Last year the publicity/news on this was that Mrs. Obama had Jewish relatives and that was why they were having a sedar. So, the story has changed.
L. Hollyfeld Apr 7th 2010 at 11:35 am 79
@Winter Wallaby: I’m in the US, so I’m all too aware of Christian fundamentalists; I’m primarily concerned with people who make an attempt to understand the Bible in a rational way, which I don’t believe most fundamentalists do. That being said, even Dallas Theological Seminary — which is the closest you’ll come to a respectable fundamentalist school — has scholars who acknowledge pseudo-Pauline epistles. (I’m not familiar enough with Dallas to say that it’s a majority or minority opinion, but it’s there.)
I guess I’m not entirely clear on what you’re suggesting, or where we disagree — I’m not saying that any of the gospel-writers have a fully fleshed-out doctrine of the trinity. I -am- saying that all of them assume the view that Jesus is coequal with God the Father. (The strongest case against this claim could be made from Mark, but I believe even Mark’s author assumes this view but couches it within his own rhetorical aims.) In all the synoptics, Jesus is either coequal with God or the world’s worst blasphemer; he is “worshipped” in numerous places and allows it to happen. Further, he implies that he has control of “his” angels, dictates Sabbath law, and says that tempting him is equivalent to putting God to the test. To me, reading anything but divinity into the synoptics is seriously against the grain. (Mind you, I have no problem with against-the-grain readings as a tool for getting new meaning out of a text for modern application, as in feminist and liberationist readings, but I draw the line at making anachronistic claims about the original author, compiler, or audience.)
So, I guess our main point of disagreement is what level of theological diversity in the new testament would support a view of the writings as representing entirely different faiths. I will gladly admit that many Christians have been very poorly educated about the Bible, and are therefore surprised by or very resistant to the idea of -any- theological diversity. This is a huge failing of the church in general, and especially the American church; as Duke ethicist Stanley Hauerwas famously said, “the worst thing the Reformation did was to put the Bible in the hands of individual Christians.” However, I believe the historical evidence doesn’t support a paranoid hermeneutic which would see rival factions at one another’s throats. What I see is a series of writings by people who are extremely diverse geographically, ethnically, and in worldview and philosophy — so it follows naturally that their theological conclusions would appear to be at odds with one another. All of them adhere to an essential “rule of faith.” Paul is clearly aware of the tensions, and his rule seems to be unity at almost any cost, but he won’t allow anything that would deny Jesus’s lordship. This is why the same collection of writings that boldly proclaims that there is neither slave nor free, Jew nor gentile, male nor female in Christ can accommodate writings that appear to be anti-female (in leadership) or anti-gay — although I would disagree with those interpretations, I’ll admit that they’ve were/have been the dominant interpretations for hundreds of years.
Anyway, sorry to be the longwinded comments guy, but I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you and Keera.
Keera Apr 7th 2010 at 01:34 pm 80
Winter @76, I don’t think I’ve ever read any of Snorre Sturlason’s writings, no. The material is usually a specialty for Norwegian lit or history majors.
Winter Wallaby Apr 8th 2010 at 12:42 am 81
Hollyfeld, it seems to me the gospels often have Jesus putting himself in a clearly subordinate, rather than coequal, position with respect to the Father - e.g. “My lord, my lord, why have you forsaken me?” or “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone,” or “my Father is greater than I.” Regarding your examples: (1) My recollection is that Jesus doesn’t have control of “his” own angels, but rather says that he could call on his Father to send angels. (2) What you call “dictating” Sabbath law could just as reasonably be called “interpreting” Sabbath law, which puts him in good, non-divine, Jewish company. (3) I’ve always understood his response to Satan as saying that Satan is asking him (Jesus) to put God to the test, and Jesus is not going to do that. So, actually, I read the relevant texts for (1) and (3) as also putting Jesus in a subordinate position with respect to the Father.
Probably this is not something that we can settle through blog comments, and we’ll have to agree to disagree. But I’ve enjoyed talking to you too, I’ll have to reread the gospels some time with your comments in mind.