Comments on: Was Jesus Christ a Palestinian insurgent?

By: Assistant Village Idiot

Assistant Village Idiot — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:04:08 +0000

Josh SN – that interpretation of Matthew 15 is just nuts, playing with words and willfully misunderstanding them to make a rhetorical point.

The simplest explanation is that when criticised for a breach of the law, Jesus responded to the Pharisees by reversing the question in hyperbole (very usual for him). “Do you care so much about the Law, then? Do you really? I think not. There are places in the Law Pharisees won’t go. You have other reasons for criticising me that you will not admit to yourselves.”

As to the “revolutionary” appellation, there is a failure of simple logic there. To say that Jesus was a type of revolutionary, therefore other revolutionaries are like Jesus is logically equivalent to saying “Jesus was persecuted, I am persecuted, therefore I am like Jesus.” In fact, my psychotic patients do say exactly that.

Josh’s point that there isn’t much in this essay that refers back to its titular purpose is spot on, though.

By: Maggie's Farm

Maggie's Farm — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 15:42:05 +0000

QQQ

There have always been elements of ironic comedy about the spectacle of Marxist academics fervently proclaiming their revolutionary message while safely ensconced in Western institutions of higher education. Roger Kimball, in Was Jesus Christ a Palestinia

By: Josh SN

Josh SN — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 11:45:55 +0000

Elizabeth,

Matthew 15:1-11.

Jesus is criticized by the Pharisees for not washing his hands. Jesus defends himself by attacking them for not killing disobedient children according to the commandment: “He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (See Ex.21:15, Lev.20:9, Dt.21:18-21).

Jesus tells them they are nullifying god’s law by accepting children who do not honor their parents here:

15:6 And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

Then Jesus calls them hypocrites, and says people with nice words but whose hearts are far from god are people whose words defile them.

At no point does Jesus bring up anything other than the Pharisees not killing their children in this section.

By: Brit Lit Guy

Brit Lit Guy — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:51:08 +0000

You don’t want to give Eagleton too much credit for his hertetical dissent from postmodernist attacks on the “notion of truth.” He is cagey enough to know that he (reluctantly, I imagine) must preserve the notion of truth (and its philosophical sibling, value) in order to preserve the viability of political action—by preserving the viability of subjectivity and agency. Else, what’s a Marxist for . . .?

By: Phila

Phila — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:32:48 +0000

As Roger’s piece demonstrates, Eagleton’s portrait of Jesus needs little direct response, considering the source.

Marvelous how that works, isn’t it? Saves one the trouble of having to read the book.

By: Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:31:38 +0000

Josh,
Where is it that Jesus criticizes parents for not killing their children? This is frankly something I’ve never heard before in all my years of church attendance and Bible reading.

By: Chris DC

Chris DC — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 15:32:23 +0000

Revolutionary, yes, but not some proto-Marxist insurgent, no. As Roger’s piece demonstrates, Eagleton’s portrait of Jesus needs little direct response, considering the source. As Joseph Ratzinger wrote in his introduction to Jesus of Nazareth, contemporary re-imaginings of Jesus typically say much more about the authors of these portraits than about Jesus himself and Eagleton’s portrayal doesn’t disappoint in this respect and probably only picks up where the disciples of liberation theology left off.

By: Sean Casey

Sean Casey — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 14:58:12 +0000

Roger–

I’d be interested, seeing how you end the post here, on your take of Eagleton’s recent AFTER THEORY, which furthers the arguments you commend him for taking at the end of IDEOLOGY OF THE AESTHETIC.

Best,
Sean Casey

By: MBM1916

MBM1916 — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:38:02 +0000

Jesus was certainly a revolutionary, but it would seem like the author is suggesting that this is a new idea, or counter-cultural idea. It is not, every Christian church in the world recognizes Christ’s revolutionary message and his revolutionary acts. Lest we not forget, as well, that Jesus was as much a revolutionary against turn-of-the-millenium Jewish culture (”Take this and eat it, this is my body…” We can’t imagine the reaction or the significance today because we’re aenestetized to the words, but these are arguably the most *revolutionary* commandments in the Gospels, given Jesus’ persona and his audience).

The suggestion seems to be, though, that Christ is an “insurgent” in the same way that some radical Palestinians are insurgents today — using missiles, suicide bombs, and guns to spread a message. Something tells me that if Jesus were advocating his message in the 21st century, he would not be going about it in contemporary Palestinian fashion. Needless to say, there is something unpalatable between “Love Thy Neighbor” and indiscriminate civilian murder.

[Additionally, I agree with Josh. Paragraph and title rather misleading, and I'm basing my comments purely on speculation of the author's argument. If I misinterpreted it, then I apologize]

By: Josh SN

Josh SN — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 11:52:17 +0000

Not one substantive word arguing against anything Eagleton said about Jesus, despite the title and the opening paragraph.

Jesus lived in world of absolute Roman control, and a Rome ruled by heredity. More locally, he faced the Pharisees and Sadducees (i.e. the Maccabee descendants and the earlier Cohanim/Levinim priestly class, pardon my unprofessional terminology), both hereditary.

Jesus said the local rulers were a bunch of hypocrites. In particular, he criticized parents for not killing their children (I didn’t bring up the abortion debate).

Even if he didn’t mean it, he was a revolutionary in the world of religious belief.