Jessica Price Profile picture
Jan 20 38 tweets 6 min read
I also think the tendency to demonize Jews this way stems from dissonance within Christian thought about how to view Jesus’s teachings. They’re trying to have it both ways:

-Jesus’s teachings are simple and self-evidently true

-Jesus’s teachings are radical and hard to follow
So on one hand, if Jesus’s teachings are simple teachings about compassion and they’re self-evident if you think about them and they all just boil down to the Golden Rule, you’d have to be either incredibly stupid or incredibly evil not to agree with them.
The problem with that, of course, is basic compassion and the golden rule are hardly unique to Jesus. So if you reduce it that much, he has nothing substantive to say.
So Christians also insist that what Jesus had to say was groundbreaking and radical and that it’s hard to accept and even harder to live by.
The problem with THAT is that if you accept that, you also have to accept that intelligent people acting in good faith might have disagreements with it, and there might be *substance* to those disagreements. They might be hard to refute. Those people might not be stupid or evil.
And of course this is related to but not quite the same as the theological problem the continued existence of Jews presents to Christianity.

So Jews become emblematic of those who disagree with Jesus. And we must be treated as either stupid, evil, or both for that disagreement.
The simplest and most straightforward solution to Christian antisemitism is probably the Nostra Aetate approach: Jews have their own covenant, which remains unbroken, so they don’t need to convert to Christianity.
That still, of course, creates an interpretive crux as far as the antisemitic passages in the NT, and it doesn’t resolve the easy/hard dissonance of how to understand Jesus’s teachings, but I’d still take it.
But I think there’s also an interpretive approach that doesn’t present those cruxes, and that’s to lean into Jesus’s teachings as authentically radical, and the *implementation* of them that he presented as specific to a time of crisis.
Like, Jesus was a Jew, and it is a very normal thing for Jews to say, ok, the principles in Torah are timeless—what do they look like put into *practice* here and now?
That’s our shtick. As the joke goes, Moshe comes down the mountain and says, “Ok, we’re not supposed to work on Saturdays,” and one Jew looks at another and says, “What counts as ‘work’?” and before you know it you’ve got two separate shuls.
But, joking aside, our tradition focuses on practice over belief, so any time someone proclaims a lofty moral principle, we’re not going to nod along—we’re going to ask what it looks like in practice.
Because as nice as “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” sounds in the abstract, as soon as you try to put it into practice, you start running into the problem of substituting your own judgment for others’, projecting your own needs and desires onto them, etc.
So talking about how it’s put into practice is really crucial.

And most importantly, what that practice looks like may not be the same in 27 CE as it is in 2022 CE.
Which is why the rhetoric of “It’s simple, just do unto others,” has always been, at best, naive.
So here’s the thing. I think Jesus, if he existed as portrayed (which for me is a BIG if, given that the gospel writers both postdated him by a lot and were pretty agenda-driven), was preaching mostly straight Torah, in principle, with highly specific implementation.
He was operating in the context of a Jewish community suffering under a brutal occupation, and I think a lot of his teaching was focused on the community surviving those circumstances.
I also think he was anticipating imminent world-shattering change, and his teachings also reflect that.
Where I think he got it wrong was that he seemed to be anticipating a messianic age, and that's not what we got.

So his teachings, to me, seem to be about radical communal responsibility. We get through this only *together*, and you've gotta give up things for each other.
And there's sort of the implication that it won't matter because it's temporary. We just have to survive this occupation long enough for the messianic age, and then things will be okay.
So looking at the story of the man with the withered hand, I think he IS actually saying that people should be working on Shabbat, at least in terms of healing.

And yeah, that's bad news for people whose job it is to heal--that they should be willing to work weekends--
but I think the idea is *we just need to get through this for a presumably short period of time, and then we'll get to the kingdom of God on earth and it'll be okay.*

That's a boundary violation, yes--or rather, it's asking people to give up boundaries--
but I think the assumption is that it's going to be temporary.

And I think that's an attitude, in this pandemic, we're familiar with. He's asking for radical prosocial helping behavior. Do whatever it takes to get people through the crisis.
And let's be clear:

Radical dissolution of personal boundaries, radical collectivism, radical individual sacrifice--that IS radical.

That's hard to accept, hard to hear, hard to live by.
And people of goodwill and intelligence might very well disagree. They might point out that it's not fair. They might believe that it's not healthy.

They might not believe the promised relief is coming soon enough for it to be sustainable.
They might believe that there are other strategies that are better.

And none of that makes them stupid or evil.

Intelligent, caring people disagree ALL THE TIME about how to handle crisis situations.
And the thing is, everyone kind of ended up being wrong about what was going to happen next.. What Jews got eventually wasn't exactly *relief* from the Roman occupation, even though they did get world-altering change.
The Pharisees did eventually back a rebellion, and it was a disastrous one.

The world didn't end, the kingdom of God wasn't instituted on earth, Judah didn't through off the Roman yoke, God didn't rescue the people.

The actual world-shattering events were much drearier.
So I think if you're a modern-day Christian, what's really there to grapple with is the understanding is that some of what Jesus was saying was geared toward trying to get a suffering community to take radical action to *get each other through it.*
And that what he's suggesting people need to do *is* radical, and is HARD.

And some of the actual implementation of it might have been specific to that time and place.
You can draw some parallels between first-century Judah and the modern-day US, certainly, but they're not the same political situation at all. We're not being occupied. Christians aren't a tiny, oppressed people.
At the same time, I do think you can lean into those parallels.

The economic hardship is familiar. The sense of "how much longer is this going to go on?" is DEEPLY familiar.
And the question of "how responsible are we for getting each other through this? what is the responsibility of the individual to the community right now?" and even "who is my community right now?" is extremely timely.
As I read it, Jesus's answers to those questions were animated by a radical selflessness.

I don't agree with all of his answers, but then, I'm not a Christian.
But I think the real interpretive crux for Christians isn't "why didn't Jews accept Jesus's teachings?"

I think that's actually pretty self-evident, and it has nothing to do with being stupid, evil, or selfish.
I think the real interpretive crux, if you take the gospels seriously, is "what here is a timeless principle, and what is a time-specific implementation, and what does implementing the principles look like here and now?"

I think the answers suggested by the text *are* hard.
And again, this is me, a Jew who believes Jesus was a completely human first-century Pharisee with no more or less connection to the Eternal than anyone else, who cared deeply about his community and didn't want to see their suffering warp them into becoming like their oppressors
So I have the luxury of not needing the text--or Jesus--to be perfect.

But that's what I get reading the words on the page.

It would be a hard philosophy to follow, if I take it seriously. It's a *hard* implementation of familiar principles.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jessica Price

Jessica Price Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Delafina777

Jan 20
American Jews: wow we would like to not have gunmen attacking synagogues in Texas
gentiles: fuck you, Israel is an apartheid state

Christians: lol we made a caucus with no Jews on it to support Israel
gentiles: this is somehow the Jews' fault
just a gentle reminder that:

1) cheering on gunmen attacking US synagogues actually feeds INTO Israeli propaganda that they're the only safe place for Jews, so if your anti-Zionism doesn't include making the diaspora safer for Jews, it's not really about Palestinian rights
and just another gentle reminder that:

2) American Christians are FAR more likely to unquestioningly support the actions of Israel than American Jews, so if the only Zionism you focus on is what you *assume* is coming from Jews, helping Palestinians is probably not your priority
Read 5 tweets
Jan 19
So, this story is actually a prime example of how the gospels demonize--or get used to demonize--completely normal behavior from Jews.

(Thread.)
The readings of this tend to be either:

-oh, the Pharisees have a problem with Jesus healing on Shabbat? they value following a meaningless religious law over saving someone's life

OR

-they value following a meaningless religious law over alleviating suffering
And Jewish pushback on this story has generally focused on pikuach nefesh, the principle that almost any Jewish law can be trumped by the need to save a life.
Read 22 tweets
Jan 18
Like at some point we’re going to have to talk about the talent of the actors who made Whedon’s dialogue in a lot of his shows entertaining rather than just hours of insufferable
Like I read a lot of screenplays, and one thing that always fascinates me is how often Whedon’s characters read really different from how they come across on screen
It’s similar to Sorkin, in a way, although I’m put off less by Sorkin on the page and more just bored.

They both write patter, and while I don’t want to undersell the role of the writer in writing patter that works, it lives or does in delivery.
Read 11 tweets
Jan 18
the $150,000 security costs he's talking about are I think, roughly the same as our total operating budget, most of which goes to rent and the rabbi's salary

smaller synagogues often don't own buildings and can't institute permanent security measures like these
our doors usually stay open if it's warm enough

late this summer, when we'd all been vaxxed and it looked like maybe COVID was winding down, for a few weeks we met in the courtyard

I sat on the steps up to the second floor in a sundress

the neighborhood could hear us singing
Even if we had all those security measures and closed and locked our doors during services, I think if someone came to the door and said they needed shelter, we would let them in
Read 12 tweets
Jan 17
Me: I would like this color paint

Sherwin Williams: cool, we can make that in an enamel, you’ll want this primer

Me: cool, I’ll get the primer today. Can I get a sample of the paint?

SW: No, you have to go to Lowes to get samples of Sherwin Williams colors

Me: ok…?
Lowes: we don’t have samples in that base, but we can sell you a quart of satin enamel in that color

Me: fine, let’s do it

- - 1 week later - -

Me: ok, I am here to buy a gallon of paint in this color

SW: we can’t make that color

Me: in enamel?

SW: in any base
Me: …what?

SW: the closest base we have will make a very different color

Me: so you just don’t have the right base in stock?

SW: no, we don’t make a base that will make that color

Me: then why am I holding a Sherwin Williams paint chip in this color?
Read 11 tweets
Jan 16
Also, a few years back I wrote a Tu Bishvat haggadah on the theme of learning about both interconnectedness and vulnerability from forests.

If you'd like to use it, feel free (there are probably typos--I was in a hurry):

dropbox.com/s/kzgntv5whm3a…
I'll post some pages from the intro, winter, and spring sections here:
Read 11 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(