quote:

---

Originally posted by leo
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:

Why is this verse so often left out, either in the actual hymnal, or as a starred verse the congregation is advised to leave out?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.

---

Doesn't that somewhat bastardize the lyrics? (Thanks, Doublethink!) The song contains three sets of personal pronouns. Instances of first person singular ("my", "I") refer to the singer (obviously), the third person singular ("He", "His", "Him") refer to Jesus (again somewhat obviously, at least in the written version which capitalizes these pronouns), and the third person plural ("they", "their", "themselves") are an external group that hates Jesus because He's so wonderful and conspires to kill Him. Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Croesos
Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

---

It may very well do so, but so what? That is not necessarily the purpose of art, is it? Good art always allows the hearer / viewer to make it his own in some way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Because along with healing the sick, Christ also convicted people of their sins, challenged their pride and self-righteousness, afflicted the comfortable, and, worst of all, was not prepared to rise up against the occupying power. He even gave tax collectors a break.

So there were plenty of reasons for people to hate Him (and I suppose some hymn compilers don't want to be reminded of the more challenging aspects of Christ's ministry).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
Calmdown! Its a wonderful song. Sing it and mean it.

Its also clearly a reference to the killing of king Charles (that man of blood) which causes me problems sometimes. But so what? Bring it out on Good Friday and sing it about Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.

---

Doesn't that somewhat bastardize the lyrics? (Thanks, Doublethink!) The song contains three sets of personal pronouns. Instances of first person singular ("my", "I") refer to the singer (obviously), the third person singular ("He", "His", "Him") refer to Jesus (again somewhat obviously, at least in the written version which capitalizes these pronouns), and the third person plural ("they", "their", "themselves") are an external group that hates Jesus because He's so wonderful and conspires to kill Him. Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That wasn't me, avatar notwithstanding!

---

So it wasn't. Oops.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
That isn't how poetry works. Authorial intent (which is next to useless anyway - what on earth do they know, how do we know, &c.) might very well have written these words seeking to provoke exactly KLB's reaction (which is exactly the appropriate one). Indeed, the deliberate use of "they" might indeed make it more painfully obvious that it should be "we", especially to a seventeenth century mind.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
The identification of "us" as "not them" is thus painful, because we know we are guilty of Our Lord's blood: it's like being given a prize for something we didn't do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vade Mecum:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ultracrepidarian:
I actually find the hymn very moving because, following the narrative of Holy Week, I always see myself in the place of 'Them', singing 'Hosanna' and then 'Crucify'. I am one of the loveless to whom God's love is shown.

---

Doesn't that somewhat bastardize the lyrics? (Thanks, Doublethink!) The song contains three sets of personal pronouns. Instances of first person singular ("my", "I") refer to the singer (obviously), the third person singular ("He", "His", "Him") refer to Jesus (again somewhat obviously, at least in the written version which capitalizes these pronouns), and the third person plural ("they", "their", "themselves") are an external group that hates Jesus because He's so wonderful and conspires to kill Him. Conflating "I" and "they" seems counter to authorial intent.

---

That isn't how poetry works. Authorial intent (which is next to useless anyway - what on earth do they know, how do we know, &c.) might very well have written these words seeking to provoke exactly KLB's reaction (which is exactly the appropriate one). Indeed, the deliberate use of "they" might indeed make it more painfully obvious that it should be "we", especially to a seventeenth century mind. The identification of "us" as "not them" is thus painful, because we know we are guilty of Our Lord's blood: it's like being given a prize for something we didn't do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

---

In what way exactly is it anti-Semitic ? Lyrics.

---

quote:

---

I now recognize that Jerusalem wasn't a small village, but a substantial city of perhaps 30,000 or people residents. During the Jewish holidays, such as Passover, the population would swell to as much as ten times this amount. This means that a tiny percentage of the Jews in Jerusalem were directly involved with or actually called for the crucifixion of Jesus. His death was surely engineered by the Jewish leaders in collusion with Pilate and his Roman cohort. As far as we know, the vast majority of Jews in Jerusalem were either horrified by or unaware of what was going on with Jesus.....Matthew and Luke refer less to the crowd and Luke does not mention any “crowd” or “crowds,” but speaks instead of “the whole multitude of the disciples.” That is a rather ambiguous expression that could refer to the Jerusalem crowd as disciples, but could also be simply a way of referring to those who came from Galilee with Jesus.

By John, that original emphasis on Jewish supporting crowd versus Jewish high-priestly authority diminishes significantly.

Josephus has the same distinction between the pro-Jesus Jewish crowd and the anti-Jesus Jewish authorities

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

---

In what way exactly is it anti-Semitic ? Lyrics.

---

But men made strange, and none
The longed-for Christ would know:
assumes that the Jews rejected their messiah when he patently did not fulfil messianic expectations

Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;....
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,

suggests Jews are turncoats whereas, in fact, the crowd on Palm Sunday would have been locals.
The crowd at pesach/passover would have been from all over the country, pilgrims for the festival and likely to have never seen Jesus before

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Vade mecum--a poet of the 17th century wouldn't play fast and loose with his (or her) pronouns. 'I' meant 'I'. 'We' meant 'we'. 'They' meant 'those others,' and so forth. If you think otherwise, you should give either another instance or a sentence on the matter from one of the contemporaneous manuals of rhetoric.
...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The whole hymn is so anti-Semitic that the whole of it should be left out.

---

In what way exactly is it anti-Semitic ? Lyrics.

---

But men made strange, and none
The longed-for Christ would know:
assumes that the Jews rejected their messiah when he patently did not fulfil messianic expectations

Sometimes they strew His way,
And His sweet praises sing;....
Then “Crucify!” is all their breath,

suggests Jews are turncoats whereas, in fact, the crowd on Palm Sunday would have been locals.
The crowd at pesach/passover would have been from all over the country, pilgrims for the festival and likely to have never seen Jesus before

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gwai:
I like Doublethink's answer to that, myself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't see that as a reference to the Jews, I see it as a reference to humanity. The Jews made strange, with the same scansion if he had wanted to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't see that as a reference to the Jews, I see it as a reference to humanity. The Jews made strange, with the same scansion if he had wanted to.

---

That doesn't track with the rest of the lyrics, unless we're to believe that the singer somehow stands outside of humanity. While not necessarily representing the Jews, the song is clearly referring to a group to which the singer does not belong, and who engineered (or at least advocated) the death of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

In the Evangelical Lutheran Worship (2006), only six of the original seven verses written by Crossman are published. The fourth verse is omitted because of the potential for the text to be inferred as suggesting that those in particular who had been healed are the ones who will rise against Christ. The hymn stays true to the original text with only a few minor changes, including the spelling of “strew,” instead of “strow.” There are, however, two major modifications that have been made. First, in Evangelical Lutheran Worship, the text is changed from “They,” to “We,” altogether who strew his way and have our dear Lord made away. Second, Crossman wrote
But men made strange, and none
The longed-for Christ would know.
But was changed to
The world that was his own
Would not its savior know.
Though it is clear that the paradox mentioned earlier is maintained with the change in text, it is a different way of saying estranged. By omitting “strange,” we lose the sense of Christ being estranged, or alienated, from the world.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't see that as a reference to the Jews, I see it as a reference to humanity. The Jews made strange, with the same scansion if he had wanted to.

---

That doesn't track with the rest of the lyrics, unless we're to believe that the singer somehow stands outside of humanity. While not necessarily representing the Jews, the song is clearly referring to a group to which the singer does not belong, and who engineered (or at least advocated) the death of Jesus.

---

But in that bit, the word used is 'man', which depending on use includes at least half of humanity and definitely includes the author.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay-Emm:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
Vade mecum--a poet of the 17th century wouldn't play fast and loose with his (or her) pronouns. 'I' meant 'I'. 'We' meant 'we'. 'They' meant 'those others,' and so forth. If you think otherwise, you should give either another instance or a sentence on the matter from one of the contemporaneous manuals of rhetoric.
...

---

I know it's not quite the same (no linguist), but "Ask not for whom the bell tolls" has elements of a switch. In fact looking at context it seems even stronger.

Actually on the surface the (linguists'?) Charles 1 opinion makes a lot of sense, with what we know of the author of the time-and therefore intent, in which case renouncing (in which case having the we/they switch) or denying (in which case not) a different 'them'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
And, please, at a time when it was dangerous for Royalist clergy to publish coded tributes to their cause, so that, for instance, Herrick put his in the form of a lament for the short-lived daffodils, you are not going to find a supporter of Parliament, a Puritan divine, as Crossman was, writing something in which the code is 'for Jesus, read Charles, King and Martyr.' [/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So who are the 'they' who shouted hosannah and crucify?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
I don't see that as a reference to the Jews, I see it as a reference to humanity. The Jews made strange, with the same scansion if he had wanted to.

---

That doesn't track with the rest of the lyrics, unless we're to believe that the singer somehow stands outside of humanity. While not necessarily representing the Jews, the song is clearly referring to a group to which the singer does not belong, and who engineered (or at least advocated) the death of Jesus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The British Journal of RE did a research article some time back (not online - a long time ago) about children singing hymns in assembly and adults who took things literally - it suggested we need to keep a tight control of what is sung and how it can be distorted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The British Journal of RE did a research article some time back (not online - a long time ago) about children singing hymns in assembly and adults who took things literally - it suggested we need to keep a tight control of what is sung and how it can be distorted.

---

You could use the exact same line of argument to prevent people reading the Bible unsupervised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
the "them" for me is not specifically Jewish. It is anyone to whom an external law trumps the law of love,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by FooloftheShip:
the "them" for me is not specifically Jewish. It is anyone to whom an external law trumps the law of love,

---

Ah, now there's the nub of the matter IF I read you to imply that Jews exalted 'external laws' and that some other people do as well - because the very heart of Judaism, then as now, is OPPOSED to exalting any laws above love.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Which is precisely why we need to avoid such hymns that give people this perception.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
But that doesn't stop the continued spread of anti-semitism.

Those who choose hymns are responsible for the theology they are imparting.

The RCC, which has done most work on this, says that biblical texts are a given and need to be preached about rather than censored. But when it comes to hymnody and dramatisation, then anti-semitism should not be promulgated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
But it doesn't give the perception you descrbe to many who sing it. I think you would have to actually explain that as a view to most people, in order to get them to see it like that in the first place.

Question how would you write a hymn referencing the crowd saying crucify - telling the narrative of the passion - that you, leo, would not see as anti-semitic ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
But that doesn't stop the continued spread of anti-semitism.

Those who choose hymns are responsible for the theology they are imparting.

The RCC, which has done most work on this, says that biblical texts are a given and need to be preached about rather than censored. But when it comes to hymnody and dramatisation, then anti-semitism should not be promulgated.

---

Considering you're the only person most of us have ever encountered who regards the hymn as anti semitic, I really don't think there'll be a rush of anti semitic feeling in the church when we sing it next Good Friday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Well it's based on a lie isn't it?

It says that the crowd sometimes greeted him with palms and hosannas and later shouted for him to be crucified.

This isn't what happened.

Different crowds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
But it doesn't give the perception you descrbe to many who sing it. I think you would have to actually explain that as a view to most people, in order to get them to see it like that in the first place.

Question how would you write a hymn referencing the crowd saying crucify - telling the narrative of the passion - that you, leo, would not see as anti-semitic ?

---

I wouldn't write anything like that in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
See:

The Second Vatican Council in Nostra Aetate said: ‘True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ’ but this is not to place any blame on the Jewish people as such, whether in that time or thereafter. Rather the contrary, because the Council went on to say: ‘still, what happened in his passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today’.

Nostra Aetate states that, "Christ in his boundless love freely underwent his passion and death because of the sins of all, so that all might attain salvation" (cf. Notes IV, 30). So any presentations that seek to shift responsibility from human sin onto this or that historical group, such as the Jews, can only be said to obscure a core gospel truth. (Statement of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, November 20, 1975).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Well it's based on a lie isn't it?

It says that the crowd sometimes greeted him with palms and hosannas and later shouted for him to be crucified.

This isn't what happened.

Different crowds.

---

Or so we're told by Crossan and Borg, right?

---

Actually, the evangelical scholar Dick France, an expert on Matthew's gospel, said exactly the same thing ... that they were different crowds.


But I also love this hymn. Or, at least, most of it.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 
What difference does it make if they were different crowds? They would still be crowds predominantly of people of Jewish faith. Who else exactly does one expect to flood into Jerusalem at Passover time?
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Well it's based on a lie isn't it?

It says that the crowd sometimes greeted him with palms and hosannas and later shouted for him to be crucified.

This isn't what happened.

Different crowds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So who are the 'they' who shouted hosannah and crucify?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So who are the 'they' who shouted hosannah and crucify?

---

I am. Every day of my life, I sing his sweet praises and crucify him. Crossman is accusing me, and in Holy Week when I sing this hymn I accept his accusation, and am profoundly sorry for all those crucifixions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
One might just as well criticise Chapter 53 of Isaiah for failing to specify exactly who it was despised the suffering servant, pierced him and crushed him. Because frankly I think the tone of the hymn is based just as much on that passage as it is on the Gospel accounts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
What difference does it make if they were different crowds? They would still be crowds predominantly of people of Jewish faith. Who else exactly does one expect to flood into Jerusalem at Passover time?

---

quote:

---

it grieves my spirit deeply; that the cheering crowd that lauded Jesus with sweet “Hosannas,” later cried “Crucify him!” Such is the fickle nature of man it is said.
I say it is not true. The people were not fickle. Apart from the fact that the word “crowd” is used in both contexts, there is no evidence to assert that it is the same crowd and lots of evidence that it is not. The evidence suggests that the crowd shouting “Crucify him!” was a crowd of chief priests, scribes, elders, Pharisees, Sadducees and “conscripted” false witnesses (by threat or bribe most likely). ...

[significant cut to avoid any possible copyright issue - please do not copy and paste such significant section, leo - the reference to a text elsewhere is more than sufficient! djo]

…….When we read in 27:20, “Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus.” All the indications are that this refers to the crowd of fellow elders, priests, scribes, and Pharisees that the narrative indicates had been gathering and assembling and moving about all night. “They all said, ‘Let him be crucified!’” (27:22).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So if you don't see that the hymn is anti-semetic, you might realise it is unscriptural.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So if you don't see that the hymn is anti-semetic, you might realise it is unscriptural.

---

Unscriptural, if you subscribe to an understanding of Holy Scripture that is at odds with the way that the Church has traditionally understood it, popularized by people like Crossan, who also believes that Our Lord's corpse was eaten by dogs!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
One interesting aspect of the hymn is how it seems to fit in with RC devotion to the Sacred Heart. St Margaret Mary's vision were in 1673, contemporary with Crossman. There is a similar appeal to us from a suffering Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
So if you don't see that the hymn is anti-semetic, you might realise it is unscriptural.

---

Unscriptural, if you subscribe to an understanding of Holy Scripture that is at odds with the way that the Church has traditionally understood it, popularized by people like Crossan, who also believes that Our Lord's corpse was eaten by dogs!

---

The Church has been deeply anti-semetic for centuries, right up to the Shoah at least so i wouldn't set much store by 'traditional understanding'.

If you pay close attention to the text, as outlined in my above post, you'll see that the text specifically says that they were different 'crowds'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
...for which read, I fear, 'I still can't get anybody else to share my ability to detect anti-Semitism absolutely everywhere'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I must admit that I can't find any hint of anti-semitism in that hymn.

The most serious argument I could see would be against the lines 'But men made strange, and none
/The longed-for Christ would know' as it is clear that there was a minority that WOULD know the longed-for Christ. At the very least there were his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene, and also 'the disciple whom he loved' (traditionally thought to be S. John the Evangelist), and then Joseph of Arimathea as well.

The rest of the hymn seems to me to stick very closely to the narrative of Our Lord's Passion.

---

That's two men*. Not enough to save Sodom, as the Lord said to Abraham.

Mary, Mary Magdalene, and Mary Cleophas weren't men.

 

---

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :
 
The only person who tried actively to save Jesus was Pilate's wife, and she presumably wasn't Jewish.
 

---

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by S. Bacchus:
I must admit that I can't find any hint of anti-semitism in that hymn.

The most serious argument I could see would be against the lines 'But men made strange, and none
/The longed-for Christ would know' as it is clear that there was a minority that WOULD know the longed-for Christ.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NatDogg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
...for which read, I fear, 'I still can't get anybody else to share my ability to detect anti-Semitism absolutely everywhere'

---

Exactly.

---

As super powers go, it's not really up there with flight or being invisible.

Whilst I accept that the church hasn't got the best track record in this area and more work needs to be done, I'm not entirely convinced that a McCarthy style crusade against perfectly blameless hymns and the Passion are going to have quite the effect Leo hopes for.

Tubbs
 

---

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
The only person who tried actively to save Jesus was Pilate's wife, and she presumably wasn't Jewish.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by NatDogg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
...for which read, I fear, 'I still can't get anybody else to share my ability to detect anti-Semitism absolutely everywhere'

---

Exactly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
]Which text? The biblical text or Crossan/Borg's?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NatDogg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
...for which read, I fear, 'I still can't get anybody else to share my ability to detect anti-Semitism absolutely everywhere'

---

Exactly.

---

Doesn't mean I am wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
The Church has been deeply anti-semetic for centuries,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Which text? The biblical text or Crossan/Borg's?

---

The Bible - and evangelical scholar Dick Francis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NatDogg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
...for which read, I fear, 'I still can't get anybody else to share my ability to detect anti-Semitism absolutely everywhere'

---

Exactly.

---

Doesn't mean I am wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Which text? The biblical text or Crossan/Borg's?

---

The Bible - and evangelical scholar Dick Francis.

---

Where in Holy Writ does it specify that the two crowds were composed of entirely different groups of persons?

Dr Francis may well say that, but his is only one interpretation among many.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Which text? The biblical text or Crossan/Borg's?

---

The Bible - and evangelical scholar Dick Francis.

---

Where in Holy Writ does it specify that the two crowds were composed of entirely different groups of persons?

Dr Francis may well say that, but his is only one interpretation among many.

---

Luke has the chief priests NOT in the crowd but telling Jesus to stop the crowd from acclaiming him. (21:16).

In 26:4-5 they want to arrest Jesus by stealth because the crowd would object.

In Mt 26:47 Judas arrived and “with him a great crowd with swords and clubs, from the chief priests and the elders of the people.” THIS is the crowed who later shouted 'crucufy' - see 27:12.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Read the whole article that I linked to - it goes into all the detail.

I think a lot of people are in denial here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
]Which text? The biblical text or Crossan/Borg's?

---

The Bible - and evangelical scholar Dick Francis.

---

quote:

---

often called "the Jewish trial of Jesus" before "the high priest" and "the whole council" resulting in Jesus's condemnation to death. As narrated in Mark and the other gospels it has led most Christians throughout the centuries to assign primary responsibility for the death of Jesus to the highest-ranking members of the Jewish nation and thus, uncritically, to "the Jews". (p127-128)

---

quote:

---

Almost certainly, this is not the same crowd that heard Jesus in delight during the week; Mark gives us no reason to think that crowd has turned against Jesus. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the crowd from earlier in the week would be allowed into Herod's palace, where this scene is set. This crowd, the crowd stirred up by the chief priests, must have been much smaller and is best understood as provided by the authorities (somebody had to let them into the palace).(p144)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
...
I think a lot of people are in denial here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Read the whole article that I linked to - it goes into all the detail.

I think a lot of people are in denial here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
Maybe I'm just hopelessly anti-Semitic, but I still don't see how there not being separate crowds is a slur on all Jews.

And can someone quote the unambiguously anti-Semitic lines in the hymn?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by venbede:
Maybe I'm just hopelessly anti-Semitic, but I still don't see how there not being separate crowds is a slur on all Jews.

And can someone quote the unambiguously anti-Semitic lines in the hymn?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Which text? The biblical text or Crossan/Borg's?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Well it's based on a lie isn't it?

It says that the crowd sometimes greeted him with palms and hosannas and later shouted for him to be crucified.

This isn't what happened.

Different crowds.

---

Or so we're told by Crossan and Borg, right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
Do you sing 'Lo, he comes with clouds descending,' in your shack?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by NatDogg:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Albertus:
...for which read, I fear, 'I still can't get anybody else to share my ability to detect anti-Semitism absolutely everywhere'

---

Exactly.

---

Doesn't mean I am wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Leo, it is very telling that when asked for the unambiguously anti- Semitic lines, you quote just a couple of words and tell us what they 'suggest'. Because the truth is the lines make no mention of Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Leo, it is very telling that when asked for the unambiguously anti- Semitic lines, you quote just a couple of words and tell us what they 'suggest'. Because the truth is the lines make no mention of Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have one final thing to say about this, otherwise it will continue to go round and round in circles.

That is to ask how many on this thread have ever quoted this hymn to nay Jewish people.

I did, at a meeting of CCJ, and the uniform response was one of horror: 'It's as if you Christians have learned nothing from the Shoah.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
There is one Jewish person to my knowledge posting on this thread who doesn't seem to find it offensive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
There is one Jewish person to my knowledge posting on this thread who doesn't seem to find it offensive.

---

Would that be a religious Jew or one who has converted to Christianity/messianic Jew/Jew for Jesus?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have one final thing to say about this, otherwise it will continue to go round and round in circles.

That is to ask how many on this thread have ever quoted this hymn to nay Jewish people.

I did, at a meeting of CCJ, and the uniform response was one of horror: 'It's as if you Christians have learned nothing from the Shoah.'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spike:
There is one Jewish person to my knowledge posting on this thread who doesn't seem to find it offensive.

---

Would that be a religious Jew or one who has converted to Christianity/messianic Jew/Jew for Jesus?

---

And what difference does that make exactly?

Tubbs

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have one final thing to say about this, otherwise it will continue to go round and round in circles.

That is to ask how many on this thread have ever quoted this hymn to nay Jewish people.

I did, at a meeting of CCJ, and the uniform response was one of horror: 'It's as if you Christians have learned nothing from the Shoah.'

---

Okay, so if your criteria is the reaction of Jews today, then what do we do with the New Testament on the whole? Because I don't at all doubt that I could find modern religious Jews who sincerely believe that in light of the Holocaust certain parts of the New Testament are best excised.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
The CCJ (and why it resists becoming the CCJ&M) really deserves a thread of its own in Purgatory. I certainly wouldn't give that Society the last word on anything.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
leo, how can you support the traditional teachings of the Church on women down in Dead Horses, and then fulminate up here against what is, for the Church, a very mild allusion to the Church's traditional teachings about the Jews in Samuel Crossman's lyric? Your inconsistency is mind-boggling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Jewish converts might be anti-Jewish in a way. Their views are not those of authentic Judaism because they will be seen as traitors.

So what is the answer to my question>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Doesn't mean I am wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have one final thing to say about this, otherwise it will continue to go round and round in circles.

That is to ask how many on this thread have ever quoted this hymn to nay Jewish people.

I did, at a meeting of CCJ, and the uniform response was one of horror: 'It's as if you Christians have learned nothing from the Shoah.'

---

Did you do this with or without glossing it as anti-semitic ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Jewish converts might be anti-Jewish in a way. Their views are not those of authentic Judaism because they will be seen as traitors.

So what is the answer to my question>

---

Seriously? You're trying the "self-hating Jew" line?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
'Seen as traitors' by whom, leo?
The CCJ?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have one final thing to say about this, otherwise it will continue to go round and round in circles.

That is to ask how many on this thread have ever quoted this hymn to nay Jewish people.

I did, at a meeting of CCJ, and the uniform response was one of horror: 'It's as if you Christians have learned nothing from the Shoah.'

---

Did you do this with or without glossing it as anti-semitic ?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
'Seen as traitors' by whom, leo?
The CCJ?.

---

by Orthodox Jews - Jews who have become Christians are likely to agree with the portrayal of Jews in the gospels because they are no longer orthodox Jews.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have one final thing to say about this, otherwise it will continue to go round and round in circles.

That is to ask how many on this thread have ever quoted this hymn to nay Jewish people.

I did, at a meeting of CCJ, and the uniform response was one of horror: 'It's as if you Christians have learned nothing from the Shoah.'

---

Did you do this with or without glossing it as anti-semitic ?

---

Leading questions <snip>

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amos:
but its Jewish leadership unreflectively supports the government of Israel in any and all adventures, and its Christian leadership follows suit, and is reminded of the Shoah when it doesn't. This, and not any nonsense about 'cousins' and 'siblings' is why Muslims have never been invited to join.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
I have one final thing to say about this, otherwise it will continue to go round and round in circles.

That is to ask how many on this thread have ever quoted this hymn to nay Jewish people.

I did, at a meeting of CCJ, and the uniform response was one of horror: 'It's as if you Christians have learned nothing from the Shoah.'

---

Did you do this with or without glossing it as anti-semitic ?

---

Leading questions <snip>

---

Technical point I know, but that was not a leading question. "Do you think glossing it as anti-semitic affected their response ?" Would have been a leading question.

Allow me to rephrase - why were you presenting bits of hymn texts in a seminar / plenary ? What was it about ?

I assume it was not because you were giving a presentation on poetic composition and had no other examples to hand.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
some are surprised that we use the Hebrew scriptures and the psalms.

---

Many Christians - Anglicans - would be surprised to encounter them at the parish eucharist. There seems to be a closet Marcionite tendency restricting the readings to NT + gospel and replacing the psalm with a hymn.
 

---

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :
 
Leo

I suppose you think that the whore in Revelation is Babylon?

If not, there is a far more obvious candidate for these lines to be aimed at.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Angloid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
some are surprised that we use the Hebrew scriptures and the psalms.

---

Many Christians - Anglicans - would be surprised to encounter them at the parish eucharist. There seems to be a closet Marcionite tendency restricting the readings to NT + gospel and replacing the psalm with a hymn.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Leo

I suppose you think that the whore in Revelation is Babylon?

If not, there is a far more obvious candidate for these lines to be aimed at.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Leo

I suppose you think that the whore in Revelation is Babylon?

If not, there is a far more obvious candidate for these lines to be aimed at.

Jengie

---

Don't understand the relevance - or is it a joke?

It's Rome - the empire, not the church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Leo

I suppose you think that the whore in Revelation is Babylon?

If not, there is a far more obvious candidate for these lines to be aimed at.

Jengie

---

Don't understand the relevance - or is it a joke?

It's Rome - the empire, not the church.

---

Nope.

First of all I have to blow the cover of another hymn. You know the hymn "O God, our help in Ages Past" a paraphrase, well it is not coincidental that it in Year 1714. What you do not know is Queen Anne was going to sign legislation that would make life difficult for Dissenters. This is Watts response to her death which means that legislation did not make the statue books. So a paraphrase of Psalm 90 is actually a comment of political events at the time.

Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Now go back to the notes on this hymn and you will see that in 1663, the author was in poverty having been forced out of his living by the clemency of the Anglican supporters of King Charles II. So political comment on the time by someone under persecution. The memory of the vindictiveness of the Anglican party in 1662 remains a folk memory in Dissent. Of course a Dissenter could not say that openly just as Isaac Watts did not dare give his message openly, so they used the same technique as the writer of Revelation. The rage and spite is therefore that of authorities that use it against Christ's body in the current day (or authors days).

Basically,it is your party in the CofE and not the Jews it is aimed at.

Jengie

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0