Syndication
Jewish Jesus Conference Asks, ‘Who Invited You?’
Print this article
Email this article
Other articles by Gabriel Sanders
More in Arts & CultureThis past Sunday, the Web-based culture organization Nextbook sponsored a daylong New York conference devoted to a subject not often explored in Jewish circles: the life and legacy of Jesus Christ. The novelty of the choice came through already in the program’s impish title: “What’s He Doing Here? Jesus in Jewish Culture.” Sure, Jesus was a Jew, perhaps even history’s most famous one, but he nevertheless represents something else, too, something profoundly, essentially un-Jewish. And so, with an impressive roster of thinkers from disciplines ranging from literature and history to music and art, Nextbook set out to ask: Who was Jesus and what place, if any, does he have in the Jewish tradition?
The Jewish world has long harbored a kind of guilty fascination with Christ, but, as a number of conference participants pointed out, interest in the historical Jesus — in Jesus the Jew — is of relatively recent vintage. Dartmouth University historian Susannah Heschel, who was paired with the chief rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni, for a panel on “Jesus and the Rabbis,” described the birth of the historical Jesus as the work, in part, of 19th century German Jewish reformers looking to draw a contrast between Christianity and Christ’s own religion, with the latter being a kind of precursor to Reform Judaism. Boston University bible scholar Paula Fredriksen, as part of a panel on historical and anachronistic understandings of Jesus, identified the burgeoning of the field of Jewish studies as a new context for understanding early Christianity. And Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, though speaking more of Jewish messianism than of Jesus, nevertheless pointed to Zionism and the Holocaust as factors that have had a hand in changing perceptions of Jesus’ Judaism.
The program was enormously ambitious, chutzpadik almost. Would anyone think of devoting a one-day conference to the subject of, say, God (which, after all, is what Jesus is to many). What is more, in assessing Jesus’ legacy, we’re talking about 2,000 years of Western history. But, as Jonathan Rosen, editor of Nextbook’s Jewish Encounters book series, helped clarify in an interview with the Forward, Jesus, for Jews, is not a central figure. “He’s a marginal figure in Judaism,” Rosen said. “A one-day conference devoted to a marginal figure in Judaism who nevertheless is a central figure to much of the world had a kind of logic to it.”
The immediate impetus behind the conference, organizers said, was something quite recent: Nextbook’s publication, earlier this year, of a new biography of Marc Chagall by Tufts University professor Jonathan Wilson. Chagall, in Wilson’s telling, was ambivalent about his Jewishness and obsessed with the image of Christ, whom he sometimes depicted in Jewish garb. According to Wilson, who was interviewed at the conference by ARTnews executive editor Robin Cembalest, Chagall “lamented the schism that detached Jesus from the Jewish family” and “painted crucifixion scenes throughout his long life.”
Some of the day’s discussions had a chicken-and-egg quality to them. In a session on the subject of Jewish suffering, Nextbook’s Rosen asked his three co-panelists — journalists Judith Shulevitz and Ruth Franklin and Yale historian Ivan Marcus — whether the Jewish conception of suffering is a “reabsorption of things native to Judaism” or something that “has been absorbed from another religion.” Marcus’s answer was characteristic of the day’s heterodox spirit. “Both,” he said.
In taking Jesus and placing him in Jewish contexts, the conference was, in a sense, an attempt to take the foreign, the strange, and make it familiar. Ironically enough, though, the opposite was often the case. Mixing seemed to take the familiar and make it strange. In the eyes of some of the day’s speakers, this was a good thing. Fredriksen took pains to emphasize just how different Jesus’ Judaism was from even the Judaism of the fourth century, to say nothing of the Judaism of the 21st. “If we’re doing our job right,” she said, “we’ll hardly recognize the figure we’ve reconstructed.”
Wieseltier, who appeared with the author and onetime priest James Carroll, spoke in a similarly counterintuitive vein. Jewish messianism, he said, is not a radical idea. It’s not a form of utopianism. “It’s a correction, not a transformation,” he said. Messianism “was never as central as we think it was. What is central is living the present.”
The day’s purview was immense, perhaps dizzyingly so. At times one wondered if the day’s topic offered a common language, a lingua franca. Asked if he thought this was a problem, Rosen seemed unworried. “Trying to forge a lingua franca is what Nextbook is about,” he said. “Everything is the beginning of a conversation. Nothing is ever the last word. It’s only the first word.”
Gabriel Sanders is the associate editor of the Forward.
Comments
Your article states: "The Jewish world has long harbored a kind of guilty fascination with Christ." To which I say, not with "Christ" but with Jesus of Nazareth whose followers claimed he is the Mashiah, which in Greek is translated as Kristos, or Christ. Our fascination, guilty or otherwise, is in Jesus the man, not Jewsus the Christ. Otherwise, if the Jewish world recognized him as the Christ, we'd be Christians. Your reporter should be more careful with words, particularly on this subject.
The observation concerning the word "Christ" is of course correct, but it is also used as a name interchangeable with "Jesus," even as early as New Testament writings.
Friends, family, and others who know me should not confuse me with Gabriel Sanders - nor Gabriel Sanders with me. Thanks! Gavriel Aryeh Sanders
Is this statement for real? "how different Jesus’ Judaism was from even the Judaism of the fourth century" ? Four centuries difference, four centuries ago what was Judaism like -- now think sixteen centuries to get the that "Judaism of the fourth century". Is that which is called Judaism todat anything at all like it was back then?
Another thing not touched upon in the article: The Judasim of Jesus, as presented by surviving text, has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. Jesus based his teaching on a Judaic understanding 2000 years ago -- and echos Hillel.
Peter was to have been the "rock". But gee wiz, that kosher man was crushed by mysticism and superstition as represented by Paul and then canonized by the fourth, fifth and sixth century monarchs.
There is a lot of discussion to be had, but it is worth recalling that the is no Jesus in the religion which invokes him.
What's with the "The Jewish world has long harbored a kind of guilty fascination with Christ..."
Damnit! The dead man-god's last name was not "CHRIST" (or ANNOINTED).
AND no one has ever produced a shred of non-Chr'stian evidence that their dead man-god ever lived.
Nothing in the Chr'stian new testament reported to be historical is historical -- it was either invented or altered to fit Chr'stian theology.
Stop with this nonesense. Jews have let the Chr'stian dictate the terms of the srgument. Reject the premise of a historical Jesus! It is only fiction -- zombies rising from the graves and all.
Enough already!
And you Mr Saunders, should know better!
Get something straight! His name was not and is not "Christ"! "Christ" comes from the Greek translation of the Aramaic "Mashiach" or "annointed one". The use of that term is appropriate for Christian believers, not Jews. He is properly referred to by Jews as "Jesus of Nazereth".
Amen.
1)Jesus's views, as quoted in the Christian Scriptures, are often very close to those of Hillel. It sometimes seems that the closer two schools of Jewish thought are, the more virulent the argument is between them on any differences. 2)The Christian Scriptures were written mainly by Jews of the first Century CE, whilethe Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, also mainly wrtten by Jews, of the first century BCE were kept by the Christian Churches, and ignored by the Rabinical Sages. These books are very important for our knowledge of Judaism for the period between the closing of the Tanach and the Mishna. The Dead Sea Scrolls have shown us how much more varied was Jewish thinking than previously assumed.
Steve. According to Josephus, Yeshua ben Yoseph, HaMashiach, was a real person. Josephus tells us that during YY's crucifixion that a beam in the temple broke and fell just as the New Testament tells us that the Holy curtain tore from top to bottom. And the Talmud tells us that the Azazel lot was sellected by the wrong hand from YY's crucifixion onward. And the Zohar, commenting on the Shema's three mentions of God, tells us that God is three-in-one, a trinity. I hope that these three non-Christian sources are acceptable to you.
Thank you for this article. The material of the one-day conference sounds like material for an indepth and fascinating book. Interesting subject matter, especially during these times of rebirth and renaming, as we discover the new century.
Mark, even early church fathers such Origen mentioned that Josephus didn't accept Jesus as anything more than a person.
Bein that the Talmud doesn't discuss Jesus - either he didn't exist, or the Sages didn't care at all about him - the Talmud discussion in question , Yuma 39, deals with the Azazel issue conclusively. FAct is that if Azazel was an issue it's only because sin is an issue, and sin continued well after Jesus died. If it hadn't the second temple wouldn't have been destroyed. Zohar on Deuteronomy 6:4, contrary to what you maintain, says nothing of the sort, regardless of whatever apologetic you're quoting maintains.
Jews have no doubt spurned the Christ of Christian theology over the centuries, as well they might (theology being little else than the politics of the churches). However, when it comes to the distinctive teachings of the figure of Jesus in the three synoptic gospels -- the idea of non-resistence to evil, self-sacrifice for the sake of a better world in future historical time, indeed the very idea of crucifixion itself as a metaphor for living through the last couple of thousand years: when it comes to this, the Jewish people (ironically) have shown themselves to be the best, truest, and greatest Christians un history; not in name, of course, but indeed. There is something strange about the phrase "Arbeiten macht Frei" over the gate at Auschwitz, and, in many ways (I hesitate to say) the Jewish experience of the Holocaust was emblematic of the human condition during the period we are talking about. By this I mean that if one delves deep enough into the annals of gentile history -- African slavery in the New World, for instance, or child labor in the early industrial revolution -- one finds many, perhaps all, of the same enormities being committed against innocent human beings as were done to Jews in the concentration camps. I know that is a terrible thing to say, but there is some value in it: let us never forget the Holocaust, Jews and gentiles alike, and let us never forget that larger and more diffuse suffering (out of which our modern world emerged) among humanity at large. As a rabbi remarked right after WWII (was his name Israel Isaacson or something like that? I can barely remember) there is something of the odor of Golgotha in the Holocaust.
I say this not as a Christian, nor a Jew, but as one who can look back over both of these traditions and the people who lived them and see the terrible commonalities. Sorry I am not more articulate. It is hard to be up to these terrible truths. Luke Lea luke.lea@gmail.com
I am a student, busy studying for an essay, only a freshman, not much of a person, but I stumbled across your web site and read all your queries and comments about Jesus. You surely have heard it before, but may God not allow His word to fail. For, not only is Jesus the Jewish Messiah prophesied about in Psalm 22 and in Isaiah 53, but He is also the coming Messiah, the King of the Jews in eternity. And in that Day, he will write the word of God on the hearts of His people the Jewish nation, still His very own people, He will do the keeping of the Almighty's promises to Israel, those governed by God. He is the King who will restore all the land belonging to Isreal to them, and it will blossom like a rose, and His people will know Him and look on Him and understand that He recieved His wounds by the hands of His friends, ...even his own people. And by a people who knew Him not, ...the gentiles, forever condemned without Him, and without you, the Jews. Jesus turned from the gentile nations pleas over and again, in New Testament writings saying He came to the Jews. Why? Because the Jews are his chosen people, even now, today. Have you read Isaiah 55 lately? How He beckons His beautiful people, the Jews to "Come, all who are thirsty... Listen diligently to Me, and eat what is good. And let your soul delight itself in abundance. Incline your ear, and come to Me. Hear, and your soul shall live; And I will make an everlasting covenant with you- the sure mercies of David. Indeed I have given Him as a witness to the people, A leader and commander for the people, Surely you shall call a nation you do not know, And nations who do not know you shall run to you. Because of the LORD your God. And the Holy One of Isreal; For He has glorified you." And as a gentile I am so very glad that God found and still finds favor in Isreal, for without His choosing you, where, oh where would I be? I have run to you, to find the Jew born man, who in my eyes is God's only begotton Son. I thank God for all His blessed people the Jews, and I pray for the peace of Jerusalem. May you not be offened at this small voice, one day I expect to see some of you in eternity, yes?
Jesus of whatever is and was a figment of someones imagination that grew increasingly out of hand. Certainly the people of ancient Rome suffered under the hands of the Caesars, many were crucified for little to no reason at all, but to say that this so called man was the son of God is truly stretching the imagination. A Political imagination at best. The people needed a hero and this poor crucified slob was picked. If indeed he existed, then at least let him rest in peace. There is nothing written about this so called messiah anywhere except in books written 50 to 150 years after he was supposed to have died. What rubbish
A few years ago, the original Hebrew text of the book of Matthew was re-discovered and published. What is stunning is the number of puns which elucidate the meaning, and which were lost in the Greek, pretty much proving that the original was in Hebrew. It's now available to anyone.
Jesus was an orthodox Jew, and nothing more or less. Believing he is god is a violation of the ten commandments. The Christian religion was not started by Jesus, but by Paul. It was taken over by Constantine, and now is an extension of the roman empire. The Idea that Jesus was anyting buy an observant jew is absurd on its face.
Had the Jews of the First Centuary(AD) embrased JESUS the Modern state of Isreal would be living in true peace and not on a kmife edge.
Kind of weird that Forward closes the comments on "controversial" articles and left 'em open on this one for the missionizers and nuts.
Does anyone know if this conference was taped or recorded? I would love to get a copy. In response to the postings, as far as I can tell, there is no original text for any other gospels including that of Matthew. I would like to know where Kristof gets his information from? In terms of the Talmud, it was censored so many times by Christian authorities that we can't be sure there were no references to Jesus in it originally. Jesus was not rejected by the rabbis at the time. This story of rejection comes from a misunderstanding of Jesus' life and teaching. The gospels were written purposely to defame Judaism and to separate Judaism from Christianity. We really don't know who wrote the gospels, since all original copies are gone/destroyed? It is unlikely that Jews wrote them because of the virulent hatred of Jews and the Jewish law that permeates them. Jews have not "spurned" Christ or Jesus for that matter over the centures. Jews have just wanted to practise their own religion without harrassment. Since the harrassment came from Christian authorities, in the name of Christ, it is understandable that Jews would not feel all warm and fuzzy at his name. The passages in Josephus that refer to Jesus are pretty well recognized by scholars to be forgeries, that is they were either changed from what was there originally, or added by Christian scribes much later. I feel very sorry for the young girl who wrote and I address this to her -- you are young and you know little of the world. Please try to think for yourself and be open to new ideas. Read outside of the materials that have been forced onto you. Your evangelism is showing. This is a fascinating discussion!
One of the (many) peculiar things about my co-religionists, is how many of them are entirely blind to the fact that Jesus (assuming that you believe such a man existed, and I do!) was a Jew.
Many of the more bizarre and objectionable words and actions of Christians (anti-semitism, particularity, forced conversions, the Spanish Inquisition, f'rinstance) are only possible if the individual ignores this basic and undeniable fact about the Christ he ostensibly worships.
I am of the view that *any* approach to Christian belief that does not take into account this basic fact is off the rails before it starts. My personal take on it is that while this would seem to be a side issue for Judaism, it is a necessary part of any intelligible Christian theology.
The nearly complete disregard of Jewish thought on the subject is one of the great mysteries (not *those* Great Mysteries) of the Christian church.
One has to ponder whether or not all the monotheistic religions are nothing but one big con game.
When you examine any of these religions with a rational mind using the evidence that we have, there is only one conclusion: It is BS.
Also, I think that if there was a God, why would he choose these idiotic ways to reveal himself to the world?
The Bible stories are filled with contradictions and have been proven to be historically inaccurate. You'd think God would want the authors of his so-called word to be reliable and consistent with the cold hard empirical evidence.
Also, the stories are really lame, especially in the Old Testament. Most of the time, I'm thinking, "What's the point?" or "So what?" or "Why the redundancy?" or "Why is God so cruel and manipulative?" or "Why doesn't God take responsibility for all this nonsense instead of playing stupid political games with humans as if they are toy dolls?" Even after Abe, Moses, the kings, and the prophets, nobody seems to learn anything. What a waste!
The Gospels are a bit more interesting, however, because if you read them as philosophy or literature, there is something to teach us about ourselves.
And, The Koran, fuggeddaboutit. It tries to scare you into believing in God, which, again, I find to be unconvincing and stupid. Why would God want to scare you into believing in him? "Hey, people, if you don't believe in me and do what I say, then I am going to roast you in hell, he he he." Pretty sick, if you ask me.
But when you look at the world today, in the context of the way propaganda, politics, the media, marketing and sales, then religion really does make sense at some level, because the one thing religion and modern media have in common is the manipulation of human emotion by rich and powerful people to get the ignorant masses to step in line.
Jesus, of course, was without question Jewish.Christianity was not even a word. For at least until Saul of Tarsus (Paul), several centuries later, invented a new dogma that expressed a new religious vision.There are too many reasons to go over Paul's invention of what came to be called "Christianity". The Jews who became the earliest followers of Christ, were "Gnostics".When the Emperor Constantine, for political reasons, ordered that Christianity be proclamed the official state religion in the early 4th century. This event was the turning point for Christianity. Christianity was destined to survive and florish.During its embrionic developement, it began to subsume other pagan myths.The real question, still being debated, is: was the person identified as "Jesus" a real person who existed in human history?
To Isreal, I understand that the Temple is to be rebuilt soon. Is the Curtain between the Holy Place and the Holies of Holies in the process of being made. Question: Does the Curtain (Vail) represend the Universe to the Jews and will it be rolled up as a scroll, or has it been rolled up as a scroll in 70 A. D. Thank you, Max Rogers-Layman Writer of Christian Books
Of course Jesus was a Jew; but perhaps he wanted to emphasize a different aspect of Judaism. Maybe that is why he was rejected by the rabbis of the time. But there were perhaps others like him. But just because others turned him into a god shouldn't keep us from looking at Jesus as a Jewish man living 2,000 years ago who had some very interesting things to say. Matter of fact, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach - an Orthodox Rabbi - has taked about this very thing.