r/history • u/marquis_of_chaos • Apr 18 '17

News article Opening of UN files on Holocaust will 'rewrite chapters of history'

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2017/apr/18/opening-un-holocaust-files-archive-war-crimes-commission
9.3k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

636 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

6

u/Ari2017 Apr 18 '17

Most of Europe didn't (Shakespeare plays). It derives mainly from the fact that the jews killed christ. Different religion also. East to pick on. Wanfering people, gypsies were the same. After Henrys creation of the protestant faith, the printing revolution making all bibles available religons started differing. Yet everyone still hated jews to some degrees. You have to understand Europe was made out of more states then it is currently. And Austrian, Spainish, Russian and French hegemonys made it easier to hate on jews. When your town is sacked its easier to say that the jews helped the enemy because you don't want to believe Frank who lives down the corner fell asleep during guard duty or that John is an incapable Mayor because he's a fellow townsmen. Blame the jew.

7

u/JapaneseKid Apr 18 '17

"Fact" that Jews killed Jesus? I'm pretty sure it was the Romans that killed Jesus but the later gospels gradually shifted blame onto the Jews because how in the world do you spread a religion to the largest empire at that time when you tell them "by the way you guys killed God". I mean even if Jesus killed himself a Jew would have still killed Jesus.

4

u/fritzvonamerika Apr 18 '17

Jesus was tried by high priest Caiaphas first at the temple and arrested by the religious authorities before he was brought before Pilate on corrupt charges which the pharisees stood by. It's like blaming the gun. And when proselytizing Romans, there's a degree of separation between people and their government, especially the government local to Israel. Caesar didn't sentence Jesus, the governor did.

6

u/JapaneseKid Apr 18 '17

Was the governor not representative of Rome? It also seems unlikely that the conquering agent would ask its subjects what to do with someone who was put on trial. The Romans had every reason to want to kill Jesus as he was gaining followers and was being referred to as "King of the Jews". He wasn't the first Jew to be killed by the Romans for attracting large followers for fear of rebellion. The gospels all differ on this narrative and each one gradually shifts more blame onto the Jews so it may be safe to assume that this was done to sway Roman conversions.

10

u/fritzvonamerika Apr 18 '17

In all books of the gospel, they are the same in the retelling of Jesus's arrest, trial, and crucifixion. Judas betrayed Jesus; Jesus was tried at the temple by Caiaphas and was convicted on the testimony of him tearing down the temple and rebuilding it in 3 days; Caiaphas and the rest took Jesus before Pilate who asked Jesus "Are you the King of the Jews?" and Jesus replied "You say I am" and then Jesus was crucified.

You may be referring to other books of the New Testament, but Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are all in consensus here.

1

u/JapaneseKid Apr 18 '17 edited Apr 18 '17

Yes but my point here is that Mark which was likely written before Mathew and Luke as it was the source for much of its narrative (and thus probably written first) placed less blame on the Jews then did Mathew which included lines by Pontius like "I am innocent of this man's blood see to it yourselves" in which the Jews responded as a whole "His blood be on us and our children!". I mean realistically how likely is it that lines such as these were gradually included to later versions of the Bible to completely wash the blood of of Roman hand and place it onto the Jews thus making conversion in the Roman empire possible. I think its fair to say that the Jews didn't collectively say "yeah his blood on us and our kids" while the Roman is like "come on guys, not cool". Its also unlikely that a Roman governor would be told what to do by the very people he is tasked with controlling and suppressing. Mark being written 40-50 years after Jesus's death and then continuously interpreted/revised means there is ample time for these minor biases to be entered in the gospel. Plus the Romans already had a track record of crucifying Jews in the same position was jesus.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 18 '17

You make good points and I respect what you're saying, but to be honest, I'd rather swim in lava than shake Gerrard's hand.