Saturday, October 24, 2009
TO BE OR NOT TO BE JEWISH
My sense of things is that most Christians, and this very much includes Christian scholars, see their religion as the inheritor of Greek and Roman civilization. It's not called the Roman Catholic Church for nothing. While there is some lip service to the idea that Hebrew scripture is a part of Christianity, it is still a serious problem that 1) they do not mean Hebrew scripture in and of itself, i.e., a part of Jewish/Hebrew culture, but Hebrew scripture as rewritten for Christian theology, 2) there is no realization of how much rabbinic and Pharisaic oral culture informs Christianity, not even lip service to this, and 3) it is certainly true that, on the Internet at least, Christians still frequently disparage Hebrew scripture in favor of the New Testament which they clearly regard as superior (they only reluctantly accept Hebrew scripture).
The fact that the NT is in Greek probably helps promote its identification with Greek civilization. But that obscures the fact that the NT, especially the Gospels, is essentially a Jewish document. The Gospels are really a translation from Hebrew and/or Aramaic. The underlying words of the oral tradition were in Hebrew or Aramaic. More important than the vocabulary, all the ideas, sayings, parables, and metaphors are from Jewish culture. Jesus and his disciples carried out their affairs and conversations entirely within Jewish culture.
Yet on the Internet, whenever I point out a parallel from rabbinic literature or the likely underlying Jewish words, what I usually get is the silent treatment or the occasional hostile response of Hey buddy, these are Greek words we are discussing here. Even the point that Greek and Jewish civilization have most in common — a love of debate and reasoning according to principles — is always ignored. We imagine Jesus proclaiming instead of reasoning and debating, which is what he was really doing.
Christians still depict the Talmud and Jewish culture generally as focused on picayune disputes rather than profoundly debating moral and spriritual questions. The result is that Judaism is understood as a tribal or ethnic culture and not as a great civilization. The latter category belongs solely to the Greeks and Romans in the opinion of many. NT scholars reinforce this opinion when they constantly reduce ancient Judaism to externals like Temple, rituals, purity concerns. Far more important than the Temple was the Constitution/Torah and the Pharisaic fight for constitutional government, justice, and peace. Christian scholars tend to ignore this and miss Jesus' participation in this part of the culture. Their choice has been to not be Jewish when they study the Gospels. So sad.
Leon Zitzer
My sense of things is that most Christians, and this very much includes Christian scholars, see their religion as the inheritor of Greek and Roman civilization. It's not called the Roman Catholic Church for nothing. While there is some lip service to the idea that Hebrew scripture is a part of Christianity, it is still a serious problem that 1) they do not mean Hebrew scripture in and of itself, i.e., a part of Jewish/Hebrew culture, but Hebrew scripture as rewritten for Christian theology, 2) there is no realization of how much rabbinic and Pharisaic oral culture informs Christianity, not even lip service to this, and 3) it is certainly true that, on the Internet at least, Christians still frequently disparage Hebrew scripture in favor of the New Testament which they clearly regard as superior (they only reluctantly accept Hebrew scripture).
The fact that the NT is in Greek probably helps promote its identification with Greek civilization. But that obscures the fact that the NT, especially the Gospels, is essentially a Jewish document. The Gospels are really a translation from Hebrew and/or Aramaic. The underlying words of the oral tradition were in Hebrew or Aramaic. More important than the vocabulary, all the ideas, sayings, parables, and metaphors are from Jewish culture. Jesus and his disciples carried out their affairs and conversations entirely within Jewish culture.
Yet on the Internet, whenever I point out a parallel from rabbinic literature or the likely underlying Jewish words, what I usually get is the silent treatment or the occasional hostile response of Hey buddy, these are Greek words we are discussing here. Even the point that Greek and Jewish civilization have most in common — a love of debate and reasoning according to principles — is always ignored. We imagine Jesus proclaiming instead of reasoning and debating, which is what he was really doing.
Christians still depict the Talmud and Jewish culture generally as focused on picayune disputes rather than profoundly debating moral and spriritual questions. The result is that Judaism is understood as a tribal or ethnic culture and not as a great civilization. The latter category belongs solely to the Greeks and Romans in the opinion of many. NT scholars reinforce this opinion when they constantly reduce ancient Judaism to externals like Temple, rituals, purity concerns. Far more important than the Temple was the Constitution/Torah and the Pharisaic fight for constitutional government, justice, and peace. Christian scholars tend to ignore this and miss Jesus' participation in this part of the culture. Their choice has been to not be Jewish when they study the Gospels. So sad.
Leon Zitzer
Saturday, September 12, 2009
THE DEVIL MADE HIM DO IT? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
Judas Iscariot is old news, some might say. But he is new everytime they do to someone else what they did and still do to him.
I comtinue to be shocked at how many scholars there are (and it's probably an overwhelming majority) who take the imputation of devlishness to Judas in Luke and John to be a valid piece of evidence that he had done something evil. It's not that they believe in the devil or the literal truth of the devil entering him. Bu they all — every man, woman, Jack, and Jill of them — believe it is a mark against Judas that he was remembered in this negative light, and therefore, that he likely did something bad to Jesus, namely betray him.
Are you kidding me? Are they serious? How is it possible that, in the 21st century, a majority of academics can still so badly misinterpret this evidence? What is wrong with everyone? The so-called argument for this is a good sign that theology and emotions have never ceased to dominate the field of historical Jesus studies. The historical Jesus debate and evidence (and everything connected to him, like Judas) is as emotionally skewed as it ever was.
Yes, from one point of view, the-devil-made-him-do-it is certainly evidence that Judas came to be vilified. But we know that already. That is not the issue. In fact, he was vilified more and more as time went by and that includes the passage of time from Mark and Matthew, which are relatively bland on the subject of Judas (they never demonize him as Luke and John do), to the later Gospels.
The isuue is not whether Judas was portrayed more negatively with each new generation. The issues are whether he was originally regarded as a traitor and whether there is good, solid evidence for this. Putting the devil in Judas, especially coming as late as it does, is pretty poor evidence. It could just as easily have been the result of slander. Like innocent people have never been demonzied in history?
Whoever first thought this up might have been trying to taint Judas with a label that would never go away, regardless of his guilt or innocence. You can easily see how and why this happened. Mark and Matthew, as I said, are reticent to paint Judas in such negative terms. They never really explain
the "betrayal". People who listened to these Gospels read out loud must have been asking questions. What is going on here? What is Judas doing? Why he is doing it? We don't understand what is happening. Instead of offering some facts, one day, someone said, The devil got into him. And people bought it. Okay, they said, that's an explanation we can live with.
But 2,000 years later, professional scholars are still buying it as serious evidence that he was guilty of something!? How could you not want to scream!?
I have to put in my own mea culpa here. Me too. I didn't see it for the longest time. It took me ten years to write The Ghost in the Gospels, and all that time, I thought the demonization was one slight point against Judas (though, I argued, the bulk of the evidence pointed to his innocence). It was another two years before it hit me that ascribing the devil to Judas only proves how hated he became. It doesn't prove the vilification was justified. It took me almost forever to see this. Prejudice is like wet seaweed. It is quite an effort to shake off every last piece.
If we had any evidence the other disciples cursed Judas out after Jesus was taken in, or demonized him in any way ("Bastard! Devil! How could you do this!?"), that would be an interesting detail. It would at least be a record that someone at the time thought Judas was demonically evil. But we don't have that. This crucial evidence is missing from all the Gospels.
Comments from the Gospel authors, like a news reporter's accounts of his insights, count for much less, perhaps nothing. And we don't even have the earliest Gospel writers waxing vitriolic against Judas. It is only the last two who make the nastiest remarks and even they do not quote anyone who knew Judas spewing such vitriol.
Judas was accused of being a traitor. This we know. Did it happen during his lifetime or only after he died? This we don't know. We haven't a clue. That no one who knew Judas accuses him of anything should make us think that maybe the accusations came much later. Whenever it came, we are obligated as rational investigators to ask: Was it true? Or was he falsely accused? The latter is a possibility — another theory, if you like, or even if you don't like.
Historians have to consider two theories: 1) Judas was a traitor, and 2) Judas was innocent and slandered as a traitor. Which theory better explains the evidence?
This is the logical way to proceed. This is how one thinks in any other discipline. We analyze the possibilities. We look at the clues from more than one angle. But there is an incredible arrogance in historical Jesus scholars that makes them believe they are above the rules of logic and evidence that are followed in any other field. They act like bullies. They put themselves above reason the way some politicians hold themselves to be above the law — with hostility galore towards anyone who objects and dissents.
Using accusations as evidence defies the rules of logic. Accusation can never be considered proof of guilt. Same goes for demonization. If anyone you loved was convicted of a crime on evidence like this, you would be horrified. Have I said that clearly enough? Horrified!
But we let New Testament scholars go on committing this kind of horror and we look the other way. They have the power to defame an ancient person because they believe he cannot defend himself. Would you look the other way if your loved one or family member was accused of a terrible crime and the prosecutor introduced newspaper reports making general accusations but giving no supporting facts as evidence?
Imagine a relation of yours accused of something heinous and, fifty years later, a newspaper columnist says he or she was demonic (or using some other epithet). It gets picked up and repeated, and then "historians" use this to "prove" his or her guilt for the original crime. You would move heaven and earth to undo this injustice. But it will be an uphill struggle because they already did it to Judas Iscariot and you let them get away with it.
Will it make the world a better place if we finally release Judas — on a sound, rational basis — from the false charges against him? Does it matter after 2,000 years? I don't know. But I don't believe the world will be a better place if we continue to cover up this injustice. Not just the injustice of the final result for Judas, but the injustice of letting scholarly bullies rewrite and misinterpret the evidence in history.
Why is 2,000 years of bullying us into accepting bad arguments considered perfectly acceptable? Can someone answer that for me?
Leon Zitzer
Judas Iscariot is old news, some might say. But he is new everytime they do to someone else what they did and still do to him.
I comtinue to be shocked at how many scholars there are (and it's probably an overwhelming majority) who take the imputation of devlishness to Judas in Luke and John to be a valid piece of evidence that he had done something evil. It's not that they believe in the devil or the literal truth of the devil entering him. Bu they all — every man, woman, Jack, and Jill of them — believe it is a mark against Judas that he was remembered in this negative light, and therefore, that he likely did something bad to Jesus, namely betray him.
Are you kidding me? Are they serious? How is it possible that, in the 21st century, a majority of academics can still so badly misinterpret this evidence? What is wrong with everyone? The so-called argument for this is a good sign that theology and emotions have never ceased to dominate the field of historical Jesus studies. The historical Jesus debate and evidence (and everything connected to him, like Judas) is as emotionally skewed as it ever was.
Yes, from one point of view, the-devil-made-him-do-it is certainly evidence that Judas came to be vilified. But we know that already. That is not the issue. In fact, he was vilified more and more as time went by and that includes the passage of time from Mark and Matthew, which are relatively bland on the subject of Judas (they never demonize him as Luke and John do), to the later Gospels.
The isuue is not whether Judas was portrayed more negatively with each new generation. The issues are whether he was originally regarded as a traitor and whether there is good, solid evidence for this. Putting the devil in Judas, especially coming as late as it does, is pretty poor evidence. It could just as easily have been the result of slander. Like innocent people have never been demonzied in history?
Whoever first thought this up might have been trying to taint Judas with a label that would never go away, regardless of his guilt or innocence. You can easily see how and why this happened. Mark and Matthew, as I said, are reticent to paint Judas in such negative terms. They never really explain
the "betrayal". People who listened to these Gospels read out loud must have been asking questions. What is going on here? What is Judas doing? Why he is doing it? We don't understand what is happening. Instead of offering some facts, one day, someone said, The devil got into him. And people bought it. Okay, they said, that's an explanation we can live with.But 2,000 years later, professional scholars are still buying it as serious evidence that he was guilty of something!? How could you not want to scream!?
I have to put in my own mea culpa here. Me too. I didn't see it for the longest time. It took me ten years to write The Ghost in the Gospels, and all that time, I thought the demonization was one slight point against Judas (though, I argued, the bulk of the evidence pointed to his innocence). It was another two years before it hit me that ascribing the devil to Judas only proves how hated he became. It doesn't prove the vilification was justified. It took me almost forever to see this. Prejudice is like wet seaweed. It is quite an effort to shake off every last piece.
If we had any evidence the other disciples cursed Judas out after Jesus was taken in, or demonized him in any way ("Bastard! Devil! How could you do this!?"), that would be an interesting detail. It would at least be a record that someone at the time thought Judas was demonically evil. But we don't have that. This crucial evidence is missing from all the Gospels.
Comments from the Gospel authors, like a news reporter's accounts of his insights, count for much less, perhaps nothing. And we don't even have the earliest Gospel writers waxing vitriolic against Judas. It is only the last two who make the nastiest remarks and even they do not quote anyone who knew Judas spewing such vitriol.
Judas was accused of being a traitor. This we know. Did it happen during his lifetime or only after he died? This we don't know. We haven't a clue. That no one who knew Judas accuses him of anything should make us think that maybe the accusations came much later. Whenever it came, we are obligated as rational investigators to ask: Was it true? Or was he falsely accused? The latter is a possibility — another theory, if you like, or even if you don't like.
Historians have to consider two theories: 1) Judas was a traitor, and 2) Judas was innocent and slandered as a traitor. Which theory better explains the evidence?
This is the logical way to proceed. This is how one thinks in any other discipline. We analyze the possibilities. We look at the clues from more than one angle. But there is an incredible arrogance in historical Jesus scholars that makes them believe they are above the rules of logic and evidence that are followed in any other field. They act like bullies. They put themselves above reason the way some politicians hold themselves to be above the law — with hostility galore towards anyone who objects and dissents.
Using accusations as evidence defies the rules of logic. Accusation can never be considered proof of guilt. Same goes for demonization. If anyone you loved was convicted of a crime on evidence like this, you would be horrified. Have I said that clearly enough? Horrified!
But we let New Testament scholars go on committing this kind of horror and we look the other way. They have the power to defame an ancient person because they believe he cannot defend himself. Would you look the other way if your loved one or family member was accused of a terrible crime and the prosecutor introduced newspaper reports making general accusations but giving no supporting facts as evidence?
Imagine a relation of yours accused of something heinous and, fifty years later, a newspaper columnist says he or she was demonic (or using some other epithet). It gets picked up and repeated, and then "historians" use this to "prove" his or her guilt for the original crime. You would move heaven and earth to undo this injustice. But it will be an uphill struggle because they already did it to Judas Iscariot and you let them get away with it.
Will it make the world a better place if we finally release Judas — on a sound, rational basis — from the false charges against him? Does it matter after 2,000 years? I don't know. But I don't believe the world will be a better place if we continue to cover up this injustice. Not just the injustice of the final result for Judas, but the injustice of letting scholarly bullies rewrite and misinterpret the evidence in history.
Why is 2,000 years of bullying us into accepting bad arguments considered perfectly acceptable? Can someone answer that for me?
Leon Zitzer
Saturday, August 15, 2009
WILL THE REAL HISTORICAL JESUS PLEASE GO AWAY — AND STAY AWAY!
Whether it's the Crossan historical Jesus or the Borg historical Jesus or the EP Sanders historical Jesus, they all have one thing in common: Not only are they not very Jewish, they are rather anti-Jewish. Crossan expresses this in the strongest way. His Jesus is "lethally against" his contemporary Judaism and seeks the "absolute destruction" of the Temple system and all it stands for. These are Crossan's words.
Sanders is milder in his choice of vocabulary, but not much. There is no debate about this. No debate about the historical Jesus. They are all agreed this is the right way to describe him. "Fundamental conflict" is the way Sanders characterizes Jesus' relationship to Judaism and other Jews. They all employ adjectives like offensive, subversive, dangerous, or threatenting to say the same thing.
They may also take a moment to say something nice about Judaism — as if to say, oh by the way, we don't mean to encourage prejudice against Judaism — but when they are talking about the historical Jesus, they never say anything good about the religion he was raised in. With respect to all their arguments about the historical Jesus, they always present Jewish culture in the worst possible light — ritualistic, rigid, conventional, paranoid about threats to the power of Jewish leaders, and utterly subservient to Rome. Despite the occasional aside to say something good about Judaism, you will never walk away from their books with a positive impression of Jewish society (a point I have made over and over in my work). It is all relentlessly negative to make Jesus look better.
Historically, this is distinctly odd. There is a lot about 1st century Judaism these writers have left out — like the fight for justice, due process, and peace; the belief that love of peace is what makes you Jewish; the atmosphere of open debate in which you were required to give reasons for your opinions; and the belief that God continued to reveal himself in the Constitution/Torah and, most importantly, that everyone had access to this revelation and could debate about it.
This is a lot of vital information about Judaism that scholars have willfully jettisoned. Small wonder. They cannot acknowledge these things because they would then be forced to present their anti-Jewish Jesus as anti-due process, anti-justice, anti-revelation, etc. Nobody wants that. So these things have to be conveniently erased. And, of course, none of them want to present a pro-Jewish Jesus. We all know how absurd that would be.
What such writers give us is a deficient and hollow historical Judaism and a deficient and hollow historical Jesus. None of it bears any relation to historical reality. Will the real historical Jesus stand up, the real pro-Jewish Jesus? Not in the world of fictional scholarship.
Leon Zitzer
Whether it's the Crossan historical Jesus or the Borg historical Jesus or the EP Sanders historical Jesus, they all have one thing in common: Not only are they not very Jewish, they are rather anti-Jewish. Crossan expresses this in the strongest way. His Jesus is "lethally against" his contemporary Judaism and seeks the "absolute destruction" of the Temple system and all it stands for. These are Crossan's words.
Sanders is milder in his choice of vocabulary, but not much. There is no debate about this. No debate about the historical Jesus. They are all agreed this is the right way to describe him. "Fundamental conflict" is the way Sanders characterizes Jesus' relationship to Judaism and other Jews. They all employ adjectives like offensive, subversive, dangerous, or threatenting to say the same thing.
They may also take a moment to say something nice about Judaism — as if to say, oh by the way, we don't mean to encourage prejudice against Judaism — but when they are talking about the historical Jesus, they never say anything good about the religion he was raised in. With respect to all their arguments about the historical Jesus, they always present Jewish culture in the worst possible light — ritualistic, rigid, conventional, paranoid about threats to the power of Jewish leaders, and utterly subservient to Rome. Despite the occasional aside to say something good about Judaism, you will never walk away from their books with a positive impression of Jewish society (a point I have made over and over in my work). It is all relentlessly negative to make Jesus look better.
Historically, this is distinctly odd. There is a lot about 1st century Judaism these writers have left out — like the fight for justice, due process, and peace; the belief that love of peace is what makes you Jewish; the atmosphere of open debate in which you were required to give reasons for your opinions; and the belief that God continued to reveal himself in the Constitution/Torah and, most importantly, that everyone had access to this revelation and could debate about it.
This is a lot of vital information about Judaism that scholars have willfully jettisoned. Small wonder. They cannot acknowledge these things because they would then be forced to present their anti-Jewish Jesus as anti-due process, anti-justice, anti-revelation, etc. Nobody wants that. So these things have to be conveniently erased. And, of course, none of them want to present a pro-Jewish Jesus. We all know how absurd that would be.
What such writers give us is a deficient and hollow historical Judaism and a deficient and hollow historical Jesus. None of it bears any relation to historical reality. Will the real historical Jesus stand up, the real pro-Jewish Jesus? Not in the world of fictional scholarship.
Leon Zitzer
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
"WHEN I DIE, I WILL GET STRONGER"
(The following is a short story under 600 words. If there was an honest historical Jesus debate, such a story would not be necessary. But scholars have very cleverly used their power to suppress debate and close examination of the evidence. Hence, the need for a story like this.)
He was born too soon. It was still the dark ages. He had been happy once. He had licked up the labors of love with his wife more times than he could count. And when you’re eating chicken with mango, pizza from another world, ice cream to curl your toes, all on a regular basis … well, life was golden. Truly.
Then he met a Jehovah Witness. Read the New Testament! Just to humor him, he asked for a Bible with English in one column, Greek in the other. He liked to do things right. He really got into it. That’s when his life went to hell. The Bible titillated his intellect.
Ten years later, he looked in the mirror. “I used to be a man who wore clean underwear. I wasn’t sleeping in paint chips peeling from the ceiling.” Ah, sad. His wife left him three years into it. The thing is, it was a fascinating story. What a Jew this guy Jesus was. Like a Baal Shem Tov spouting Jewish wisdom and miracles. Only the schmaltz, the lox and bagels, the spoken Yiddish was missing. Otherwise, a Yid from his tassels to his Yiddishe kup. Who wouldn’t love a Jew like that?
That’s when he started to notice things. He did not know seeing was dangerous and asking questions even more. Where did it say Judas was a traitor? Only once in Luke’s Gospel. Everywhere else you looked, it was all ambiguity, equivocations. Only one word clearly spoken. That lone accusation proved nothing, except that once upon a time the accusation had been made. But was it true or was it slander? Things would get uglier and uglier for Judas, but looking back at the beginning, there was no record that anyone who knew Judas had ever said a bad word about him or cursed him out. Now wasn’t that something?
He started telling people Judas was likely innocent. He had more evidence besides. The evidence said so, not him, the evidence. If the last two Gospel authors said the devil made Judas do it, they meant his act was a mystery to them. They had nothing, only the devil, to pin on him. Isn’t demonization more a sign of innocence than guilt? Who but the innocent get demonized? Professors burned with shame when he said this, then called him an idiot. "Can’t we have an honest debate about this?" No!, they said. The guilt of Judas serves a purpose!
At a conference, one scholar almost punched him. Another spit at him. No almost about it. A nun spun on her heels and walked away from him. That hurt. That went deep. No argument moved them. No evidence made them think again. They would convict a man on nothing but their arrogance. It was meeting these hateful people who called themselves scholars that he learned about poison for the first time.
It took all his strength to work alone. “When I die, I will get stronger.” He would send missives to future generations who might listen. He had hitched his wagon to a man who had been maligned for two millennia. He never found love again. Or is it love to care for an innocent man whom everyone was bent on disappearing? Where would a love like that get you? Might as well try to change the world with postcards.
SO — that's it. End of story. Some people may realize that the last line was inspired by Otto and Elise Hampel, a couple who rebelled against the Nazi regime by writing postcards to inspire resistance and dropping them all over Berlin. They kept it up for three years before they were caught and executed. Hans Fallada memorialized them in a novel, Every Man Dies Alone, written a couple of years after the war. One of the questions that haunted him was whether their effort was worth anything, considering that most of the postcards were turned in immediately by the frightened people who found them and who did not want to be involved in any subversive activities.
This is always a difficult question to answer. It may seem like they did not inspire any rebellion, but who knows? And they have not been forgotten, as Fallada's novel proves. Who might be encouraged to act against some injustice when they read about the Hampels? Who knows what the Hampels' actions might bring forth now or in the generations to come? It caused me to write this story. And what if someone reads it and gets — I mean, really gets —what the story is about. It may never happen, but if it does, chalk it up to the Hampels' amazing courage in the face of constant danger over sixty years ago.
Leon Zitzer
(The following is a short story under 600 words. If there was an honest historical Jesus debate, such a story would not be necessary. But scholars have very cleverly used their power to suppress debate and close examination of the evidence. Hence, the need for a story like this.)
He was born too soon. It was still the dark ages. He had been happy once. He had licked up the labors of love with his wife more times than he could count. And when you’re eating chicken with mango, pizza from another world, ice cream to curl your toes, all on a regular basis … well, life was golden. Truly.
Then he met a Jehovah Witness. Read the New Testament! Just to humor him, he asked for a Bible with English in one column, Greek in the other. He liked to do things right. He really got into it. That’s when his life went to hell. The Bible titillated his intellect.
Ten years later, he looked in the mirror. “I used to be a man who wore clean underwear. I wasn’t sleeping in paint chips peeling from the ceiling.” Ah, sad. His wife left him three years into it. The thing is, it was a fascinating story. What a Jew this guy Jesus was. Like a Baal Shem Tov spouting Jewish wisdom and miracles. Only the schmaltz, the lox and bagels, the spoken Yiddish was missing. Otherwise, a Yid from his tassels to his Yiddishe kup. Who wouldn’t love a Jew like that?
That’s when he started to notice things. He did not know seeing was dangerous and asking questions even more. Where did it say Judas was a traitor? Only once in Luke’s Gospel. Everywhere else you looked, it was all ambiguity, equivocations. Only one word clearly spoken. That lone accusation proved nothing, except that once upon a time the accusation had been made. But was it true or was it slander? Things would get uglier and uglier for Judas, but looking back at the beginning, there was no record that anyone who knew Judas had ever said a bad word about him or cursed him out. Now wasn’t that something?
He started telling people Judas was likely innocent. He had more evidence besides. The evidence said so, not him, the evidence. If the last two Gospel authors said the devil made Judas do it, they meant his act was a mystery to them. They had nothing, only the devil, to pin on him. Isn’t demonization more a sign of innocence than guilt? Who but the innocent get demonized? Professors burned with shame when he said this, then called him an idiot. "Can’t we have an honest debate about this?" No!, they said. The guilt of Judas serves a purpose!
At a conference, one scholar almost punched him. Another spit at him. No almost about it. A nun spun on her heels and walked away from him. That hurt. That went deep. No argument moved them. No evidence made them think again. They would convict a man on nothing but their arrogance. It was meeting these hateful people who called themselves scholars that he learned about poison for the first time.
It took all his strength to work alone. “When I die, I will get stronger.” He would send missives to future generations who might listen. He had hitched his wagon to a man who had been maligned for two millennia. He never found love again. Or is it love to care for an innocent man whom everyone was bent on disappearing? Where would a love like that get you? Might as well try to change the world with postcards.
SO — that's it. End of story. Some people may realize that the last line was inspired by Otto and Elise Hampel, a couple who rebelled against the Nazi regime by writing postcards to inspire resistance and dropping them all over Berlin. They kept it up for three years before they were caught and executed. Hans Fallada memorialized them in a novel, Every Man Dies Alone, written a couple of years after the war. One of the questions that haunted him was whether their effort was worth anything, considering that most of the postcards were turned in immediately by the frightened people who found them and who did not want to be involved in any subversive activities.
This is always a difficult question to answer. It may seem like they did not inspire any rebellion, but who knows? And they have not been forgotten, as Fallada's novel proves. Who might be encouraged to act against some injustice when they read about the Hampels? Who knows what the Hampels' actions might bring forth now or in the generations to come? It caused me to write this story. And what if someone reads it and gets — I mean, really gets —what the story is about. It may never happen, but if it does, chalk it up to the Hampels' amazing courage in the face of constant danger over sixty years ago.
Leon Zitzer
Monday, June 29, 2009
WHAT DID JESUS LIKE ABOUT BEING JEWISH?
Most scholars could not answer this question correctly. That's because most scholars never even think about it. I'll take it further: Most scholars could not even describe what it meant to be Jewish in the 1st century — that is, the sheer variety of this culture's aspects. The typical historical Jesus scholar reduces Jewish culture to Temple, rituals, and purity concerns. That is a trivialization of ancient Judaism.
There is no debate about the richness of Jewish culture in Jesus' time and there is no debate about how deeply immersed the historical Jesus was in all this. You cannot debate what has been erased from everyone's consciousness.
If all this sounds very negative, that is because it is negative, the state of affairs is negative. Historical Jesus scholarship is in a very backward state. Facts are irrelevant. The facts of Jewish history hardly exist. Only preconceptions about Jesus matter in this field.
I am not going to answer the question posed above in the title of this blog. The question alone — or rather, the complete lack of interest in this question — suffices to indict the disaster that is called historical Jesus studies. Just think about your own culture. What goes into it? What do you get out of it? Think about food, music, entertainment, humor, politics, education, stories, celebrities, values, work opportunities, customs, laws, family life, and more. These are the things that make up a culture — yours, that of Jesus, anyone's.
How much of any of these things comes up when scholars write about Jesus and his context? Very little. And often, even that little bit is wrong. What were some of Jesus' favorite things? No one ever thinks about this. No one debates it. We may not be able to answer it adequately (because so much of the historical record is incomplete on these details), but that does not mean we should not think about this question. It is very important to consider how a man embraced his own culture and what about it gave him deep pleasure.
Leon Zitzer
Most scholars could not answer this question correctly. That's because most scholars never even think about it. I'll take it further: Most scholars could not even describe what it meant to be Jewish in the 1st century — that is, the sheer variety of this culture's aspects. The typical historical Jesus scholar reduces Jewish culture to Temple, rituals, and purity concerns. That is a trivialization of ancient Judaism.
There is no debate about the richness of Jewish culture in Jesus' time and there is no debate about how deeply immersed the historical Jesus was in all this. You cannot debate what has been erased from everyone's consciousness.
If all this sounds very negative, that is because it is negative, the state of affairs is negative. Historical Jesus scholarship is in a very backward state. Facts are irrelevant. The facts of Jewish history hardly exist. Only preconceptions about Jesus matter in this field.
I am not going to answer the question posed above in the title of this blog. The question alone — or rather, the complete lack of interest in this question — suffices to indict the disaster that is called historical Jesus studies. Just think about your own culture. What goes into it? What do you get out of it? Think about food, music, entertainment, humor, politics, education, stories, celebrities, values, work opportunities, customs, laws, family life, and more. These are the things that make up a culture — yours, that of Jesus, anyone's.
How much of any of these things comes up when scholars write about Jesus and his context? Very little. And often, even that little bit is wrong. What were some of Jesus' favorite things? No one ever thinks about this. No one debates it. We may not be able to answer it adequately (because so much of the historical record is incomplete on these details), but that does not mean we should not think about this question. It is very important to consider how a man embraced his own culture and what about it gave him deep pleasure.
Leon Zitzer
Sunday, May 31, 2009
IS THE BIBLE THE ONE EXCEPTION TO OUR SEACRH FOR TRUTH?
Most of us would say we have a deep faith in the truth. We believe that the truth is good to know and that lies are harmful. We believe this in practically all areas of life from the personal to the political. We will fight for the truth — for our right to know it — and we harshly criticize anyone who tries to hide it from us and offer us a lie instead.
Occasionally, we make an exception to this general rule, but rarely. We want the truth even when it seems it won't do anyone any good. Think of when a soldier is killed by friendly fire. Even here we want to know what happened. The family members want to know. And why? What good does it do exactly? If we let ourselves live with the lie that he died under enemey fire, we can keep the illusion that he died a hero in combat against the enemy. But we don't want that illusion, do we? We want the truth. There may be more than one reason for this, but I think it is mainly because we want to honor the dead. It would be dishonorable to bury them with a lie. What a disgrace that would be, most of us feel. It's also a question of justice.
But we have the exact opposite attitude for the Bible. With the Bible, we feel that lies are better than the truth. We built parts of our society on these stories. To overturn any of them now would cause too much of an earthquake. Lies are better than truth. Truth and reconciliation in almost every aspect of our society. But not with the Bible. Here, the truth is trouble, we believe.
When I speak of the Bible, what I mainly have in mind is the New Testament and not even all of the New Testament, but particularly the story of how Jesus died. We would like to honor people who died yesterday or last year, even a soldier who was killed by friendly fire. But we have a different rule if they died thousands of years ago. We owe the long dead no honor. Lies are a better deal for them, but we mean for us.
I think we owe ancient Jewish leaders, Judas, and Jesus too quite a bit of honor. We owe them a thoughtful and deep investigation into the truth. That does not serve powerful interests. But who said the truth ever did? We don't want to offend long-entrenched power and that is our biggest reason for fearing the truth. But if we want to deal with the ancients in anything but a disgraceful way, then we will have to take a hard look at our fears, swallow even harder, and not get so upset when we realize that the evidence tells us something different from what we have always been told.
Leon Zitzer
Most of us would say we have a deep faith in the truth. We believe that the truth is good to know and that lies are harmful. We believe this in practically all areas of life from the personal to the political. We will fight for the truth — for our right to know it — and we harshly criticize anyone who tries to hide it from us and offer us a lie instead.
Occasionally, we make an exception to this general rule, but rarely. We want the truth even when it seems it won't do anyone any good. Think of when a soldier is killed by friendly fire. Even here we want to know what happened. The family members want to know. And why? What good does it do exactly? If we let ourselves live with the lie that he died under enemey fire, we can keep the illusion that he died a hero in combat against the enemy. But we don't want that illusion, do we? We want the truth. There may be more than one reason for this, but I think it is mainly because we want to honor the dead. It would be dishonorable to bury them with a lie. What a disgrace that would be, most of us feel. It's also a question of justice.
But we have the exact opposite attitude for the Bible. With the Bible, we feel that lies are better than the truth. We built parts of our society on these stories. To overturn any of them now would cause too much of an earthquake. Lies are better than truth. Truth and reconciliation in almost every aspect of our society. But not with the Bible. Here, the truth is trouble, we believe.
When I speak of the Bible, what I mainly have in mind is the New Testament and not even all of the New Testament, but particularly the story of how Jesus died. We would like to honor people who died yesterday or last year, even a soldier who was killed by friendly fire. But we have a different rule if they died thousands of years ago. We owe the long dead no honor. Lies are a better deal for them, but we mean for us.
I think we owe ancient Jewish leaders, Judas, and Jesus too quite a bit of honor. We owe them a thoughtful and deep investigation into the truth. That does not serve powerful interests. But who said the truth ever did? We don't want to offend long-entrenched power and that is our biggest reason for fearing the truth. But if we want to deal with the ancients in anything but a disgraceful way, then we will have to take a hard look at our fears, swallow even harder, and not get so upset when we realize that the evidence tells us something different from what we have always been told.
Leon Zitzer
Sunday, April 26, 2009
SITTING AT THE FEET OF RABBI JESUS
This is the title of a brand-new book by Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg, published by Zondervan. As a book on Jesus' Jewishness, giving more detail than most books do, it deserves to be addressed in a careful, detailed way, which I will do in this essay. I am not a book reviewer, so don't look for a broad review here. However, I will tell you one thing that any reviewer would tell you: the importance of the sub-title, "How the Jewishness of Jesus Can Transform Your Faith".
This is a book written from the point of view of Christian faith for Christians of faith. The authors make no bones about it. Each chapter ends with some suggestions as to what a Christian might do to consolidate the lessons learned therein. This book does not pretend to be a pure scholarly study. And yet, the authors do a far better job explaining some important things abouit Jesus' Jewishness than the typical historical Jesus scholar does. You won't learn one-tenth of what can be found in this book from mainstream scholarship — despite the fact that these authors bring a definite bias to the subject!
So what is the first thing we learn from the sub-title? If you are honest about your agenda or prejudices, you will do a much better job at discussing the evidence. Most scholars will not acknowledge they have any prejudices, which really means their biases operate in secret and therefore control the so-called objective analysis. At the end of the book, Tverberg honestly admits the prejudices she once harbored about Judaism, and both admit that it is their faith as Christians that guide this study. This produces more objective results than you will get from other scholars. It will also introduce a problem or two. I'll get to that further on.
First, here is a sampling of some of the more interesting things you will learn either about Jesus' Jewishness or about his historical Jewish culture (I will give page references throughout):
— Jewish women had a good role to play in Judaism and could be educated (12, 80). This is in stark contrast to what most historical Jesus scholars say, who claim that Jewish women had second-class status and that Jesus elevated them against the strictures of his own culture. At the end of the book (199), Tverberg explains that she once shared this prejudiced idea.
— study and debate were extremely important in Jewish culture, more important than worship, so that Jews practiced their religion in a thoughtful way, and Jesus participated in this (25-29).
— rabbinic teaching contains many surprises (26, 31), not unlike Jesus' capacity to surprise.
— a good description of what the rabbis meant by devotion to Torah, and how Jesus shared this belief (57).
— favorably comparing a rabbinic teaching and Jesus on how to pray (85).
— Jesus blessed food like a Jewish father, which means he thanked God for providing it (94).
— Jewish tradition sanctifies time more than space (124).
— Jesus is placed in Jewish tradition when he tells his disciples to travel light and depend on the hospitality of others (131). As with the first example I gave, this is quite a contrast to all those scholars who try to put Jesus in the Greek Cynic tradition.
— Jesus and Pharisees had much in common concerning the things they criticized, such as hypocrisy (168).
— throughout the book, the authors offer many rabbinic parallels to Jesus' teachings. One example is how strongly rabbinic tradition and Jesus condemned humiliating another person(170). I will return to this one further below.
That's not bad. It's rather good, and I have not listed everything you will find in this book. Read works by John Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Meier, Raymond Brown, E.P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, and more, and you will be much less informed about what makes Jesus so Jewish. Even Amy-Jill Levine's The Misunderstoof Jew, which is a good book, does not tell you anywhere near as much as Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus.
The very few mistakes Spangler and Tverberg make stem from the old and still prevailing Christian attitude that Jesus must be superior and Judaism inferior, though scholars these days strain themselves to express this as subtly as possible. There seems to be a deep need in almost all Christian scholars to make Jesus at some point better than what rabbis and Pharisees taught.
Spangler and Tverberg too feel compelled to put distance between Jesus and the Pharisees, describing the latter as only close to the truth (168-69). They do the same when they talk about rabbinic interpretation of Passover (105). How often they use the language of Jesus fulfilling Jewish traditions. Much as they admire and understand Jewish culture, for them only Jesus gets all the way to the ultimate truth. Traditionally, Christian scholars have played this up to the hilt, whereas Spangler and Tverberg limit the moments they contrast Jesus to Jewish teaching.
German scholar Wolfgang Stegemann calls this playing a game of one-upmanship in which Jesus is always declared to be one up from or one better than Jewish culture. Stegemann has a good point, but I think it is more like a game of one-downmanship. After all, it is not as if the scholars who play this game start out with an accurate idea of Judaism and then make Jesus one better. Rather, what they do is start with an idea about Jesus and then downgrade Judaism from there, regardless of what the actual facts about Judaism are.
This is standard practice in mainstream historical Jesus scholarship. Yes, it's that bad. They assert that Jesus is anti-Torah, anti-Temple, anti-purity, anti-rituals, anti-tribal, anti-inequality, etc., and then thoughtlessly make Judaism pro- all these things in order to make Judaism appear to be legalistic and obsessed with externals.
Thankfully, Spangler and Tverberg do not do this as much as most scholars do. They are too respectful and knowledgeable, for the most part, about ancient Judaism to denigrate Judaism willy-nilly on so many points. In fact, they occasionally criticize this kind of thinking. Also, thankfully, when they do make a mistake, they do not stick to it consistently and will actually give information that contradicts their mistake. I will give a few examples to explain what I mean. But they do sometimes play the game of one-downmanship and get both Judaism and Jesus wrong as a result. I will get to that too.
At one point, they seem to be headed in the standard theological direction which says that ancient Jews had a materialistic understanding of the kingdom of God, while Jesus had a more spiritual idea of it. But then they do a complete about-face and say that both Jesus and the rabbis understood the kingdom of God in an internal way, as something within you. "So for both Jesus and the rabbis, to 'receive' or to 'enter the kingdom of heaven' could describe making a personal commitment to loving God with all your heart" (193). And further on, "Jesus' message of the kingdom is Jewish to the core" (195).
But then they make the following misstatements in relation to the rabbis, which they do not consciously correct, as in the above example, though they do provide evidence to undermine their own statements: "Unlike other rabbis, this rabbi [Jesus] spoke with great authority, as though he knew the mind of God — and this was the essential difference [between Jesus and the other rabbis] ... The rabbis lacked the authority to say, 'This is what God really meant when he told us to keep the Sabbath holy'" (171).
This is not just false, it is blatantly false. They miss the historical context for one thing. This whole business about speaking with authority was an issue because the Sadducees and high priests objected to all the Pharisees and rabbis claiming authority to interpret Torah and the mind of God. By the 1st century, the Sadducees had lost this battle, but they were still shocked by this temerity which they would have seen in Jesus as much as in any Pharisee or rabbi. The Pharisees cultivated the art of strong personalities teaching their views and would have been delighted by Rabbi Jesus who was only doing what they believed a good rabbi should do.
I could give thousands of examples from rabbinic literature of the rabbis seeing into the heart and mind of God. They quote him rebuking the angels who had burst into song when the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea by telling them, "My children are drowning and you are singing!?" They also depict God praying to himself that his compassion should overcome his anger. There are so many examples like these. As for Shabbat or Sabbath, not only does the Talmud make the point that Jesus makes, that man rules over Shabbat and not the other way around, but it also offers what the rabbis ultimately considered a more profound point, namely that, God gave his ordinances, like Shabbat, to live by and not to suffer and die by, so that healing is of course allowed on Shabbat.
All religions which have some intimacy with God know something about God because you cannot be intimate with a stranger. I do not mind Spangler and Tverberg saying that, for them, Jesus is the greatest rabbi and reveals the mind of God better than anyone else. That's okay. What I strongly object to is any misrepresentations made about Judaism in order to promote their beliefs about Jesus. In this case, these authors should know better. They themselves talk about Jewish intimacy with God (e.g., 121). They even give the rabbinic comment about God giving his rain to benefit both the righteous and the unrighteous (which actually appears a number of times in rabbinic literature) and naturally the parallel in Jesus' remark at Matthew 5:45 (192).
So does it matter that they make an occasional error about Judaism? Yes, because it is a serious error which denigrates Judaism and because it leads them to miss important evidence from a page of the Talmud which they themselves just previously cited (170). In the last example I gave in the list above, I noted their comparison between Jesus and the rabbis on the way both strongly condemned the humiliation of another (causing blood to drain from the person's face) which was compared to murder. They cited Baba Metzia 59a. But they missed something equally important there.
The rabbis tell us that sometimes the gate of prayer to God is locked. God will not always hear your prayer. But there is one gate that is never locked — the gate of tears or the gate of wounded feelings. God will always listen to a broken heart, especially one who has been humiliated by his fellows and cries out in terrible pain. They tell us this twice on 59a and repeat it on 59b because it is an important part of the story they are telling there. How is that for an insight into what God cares most deeply about?
If you start with a preconception that only Jesus had the authority to see into the mind and heart of God, you will miss so much in rabbinic literature and you may miss some important elements in Jesus' teachings. Jesus was raised in a culture that was always wrestling to gain an intimate understanding of God. This is where he gets it from. He was not unique this way. All the Pharisees and rabbis, which includes Jesus, struggled mightily to accomplish this and they all enjoyed debating with each other and telling each other stories to make their points. Does Jesus also talk about the gate of tears always being open? I won't answer that here, but keep in mind that there is so much more to learn once all prejudices about Judaism are abandoned.
That brings me to what Spangler and Tverberg have to say about Hillel and Jesus. Unfortunately, they take the old, standard Christian line of putting Hillel down and making Jesus look better. I am sure they will say that this was not their intention and that they merely wanted to point to certain differences between them. But they go seriously awry when they talk this way. Recall my previous criticism of the way they occasionally describe the Pharisees and rabbis as being close to the truth, while Jesus reveals all.
For example, they say the rabbis were so close to understanding the true significance of Passover and the near sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham (105). That is so very, very wrong. The rabbis did not just come close. They got it exactly right. For Jews. It is demeaning and condescending to say otherwise.
Since time immemorial, Christians have been rewriting and re-interpreting Hebrew scripture to find some Christology in it. This is pure imperialism, a naked grab for power over another culture. It is unacceptable. I would say that Christians can borrow Hebrew scripture, but they cannot own it.
Think of it like music. Music has no respect for borders. It travels all over the world, crossing borders, inspiring musicians in other lands to create something new. But no good musician would ever say that his or her music is better than, or a fulfillment of, or more sophisticated than the music from some native source.
Culture (religious or any other kind) is like that. I don't think God meant for any culture to be restricted by borders. Cultures spread out and go a-travellin'. Christians have a right to say that the Hebrew Bible inspires something different in them and that God is speaking to them in a special way through this book. But they have absolutely no right to disrespect the original culture it comes from and say they have perceived the true or ultimate meaning of this text. They must continue to respect the original source on its own terms just as musicians do with music. I don't think Jesus would like any hint of spiritual imperialism towards his own culture.
That brings me back to Hillel and Jesus. Spangler and Tverberg state (again, as Christian scholars have done since forever) that Jesus' positive formulation of the golden rule is a greater expression of the meaning of Torah than Hillel's negative formulation of it (171-72). This is nonsense. For two reasons. First, as far as I know, the ancients did not distinguish between, or make a big deal of, the negative and positive statements of an idea. The negative way of putting something can often be a powerful rhetorical device. Jesus does this too on occasion. Which brings me to my second point.
If you are really going to argue consistently that positive is better than negative, then you would have to agree that when Jesus offers a negative insight which a Pharisee or rabbi expresses in a positive way, then Jesus has given the lesser or inferior point of view. Do any Christians want to concede this? I doubt it.
Jesus says that God as a good parent will not give his children bad things to eat (Matt 7:9-11; Luke 11:11-13). A couple of generations before, Shimon ben Shetach compared God to a father who gives his children only delicious things to eat. Is Shimon's formulation superior or more of a fulfillment of Torah? I would never say so. In the vineyard parable (Matt 20:1-16), there is a touch of bitterness in the workers who are paid last because they've been working all day. But in a similar rabbinic parable, there is only pure joy. Is the rabbinic parable spiritually better? I don't think so.
Or look at what Hillel and Jesus have to say about peace. Jesus says blessed are the peacemakers (Matt 5:9). Hillel bids people to love peace and pursue peace, and adds, to love all mankind (not just Jews) and bring them near to Torah (Pirke Avoth 1:12). Is Hillel's exhortation superior to that of Jesus because he connects love of peace and love of mankind? Of course not. And the same is true of their versions of the golden rule. No one is any better.
Not to mention, by the way, that it is silly to imagine that all these single quotations are the only way any of these ancient figures ever expressed themselves. Jesus quite likely put it Hillel's way on other occasions and Hillel probably expressed the golden rule differently at different times. We make too much of this or that quote. Does anyone believe that Jesus or any rabbi told each parable the exact same way every time? To harp on one expression of it is a disservice to all of them.
Spangler and Tverberg go on to offer a series of contrasts between Hillel and Jesus (172), making Jesus look better. They don't even present quotations. They merely sum up what they think each one stood for and apply it to modern life. To say they've been unfair to Hillel is an understatement. For example, they say that when you are pinched financially, Hillel would tell you "don't steal" and Jesus would say "look around to see who's worse off than you and find a way to help." May I say how odious this is to Jews? How demeaning to Hillel. Jesus would not like it.
I don't know what Hillel would say in each and every situation in life. But I do know that Christians often pick out Hillel as the best that Judaism has to offer, so if they can demonstrate that Hillel does not measure up to Jesus' standards, then obviously all of Judaism falls short of Jesus. In general, ancient Pharisees and rabbis advocated helping those in need, including gentiles. They would never advocate that you hurt yourself or your family in the process, and I doubt that Jesus would either, but they would always ask you to do whatever you can in each situation. Never close yourself off from the community and others. And while they were big about charity, they would point out that charity is often humiliating for the person in need, so a better way to help might be to provide a loan. In this way, the person can feel better about themselves and not feel so utterly dependent.
I'm not going to defend Judaism or Hillel on each and every point. Suffice it to say that this is all very belittling of Hillel. Jesus would hardly approve. He would be very embarrassed that anyone spoke this way about Hillel (and in Jesus' name yet!) to make it appear that Hillel practiced his Judaism in a lesser way. I think Jesus would actually be cringing.
I could offer a list of comparisons too, one that might make Hillel look better. I would include their comments on peace, as noted above. And how about Hillel's thought that man getting his daily bread is as wonderful a miracle as the parting of the Red Sea? Is this greater than, less than, or about the same as something Jesus said about daily bread? Answer: Who cares? It does not matter. There is greatness in both of them. Comparisons, especially those that demean, are out of order. Hillel would have been someone Jesus revered very much. It is not impossible that he studied with him (their dates of birth and death are uncertain, but Hillel could have died anywhere from a few years before Jesus was born to when Jesus was about fourteen).
I would suggest to Christians that if you really want to be a disciple of Jesus, then do not diminish Jewish sages out of fear that Jesus might be diminished if Jewish figures are not made to look smaller. If it makes Jesus cringe to hear his fellow Jews and Judaism undervalued in any way, it should make you feel that way too.
But another thing Spangler and Tverberg do very well is to explain where Jesus is alluding to the written Torah. They use this to give a fuller understanding of what he meant. They do this occasionally with oral Torah, but much more could be done here. There are places where you can hear Jesus tapping into stories about Hillel, Shimon ben Shetach, Shemaiah and Avtalyon, and probably many more.
In the Talmud, a rabbi comments that chutzpah (an Aramaic word) can be very useful with heaven. Jesus too talks a lot (and I do mean a lot) about approaching God with chutzpah and getting results. It is one of the most important aspects of his Jewishness, yet almost everyone misses it. I suspect that chutzpah towards God makes Jesus too Jewish for most people, so they would rather not hear it. But the evidence, and plenty of it, is there.
Jesus also occasionally uses the qal va-homer argument, known in Latin as the a fortiori argument, which was a very popular technique with Pharisees and rabbis. There is also some evidence that, like his compatriots, Jesus believed in due process, Torah as Constitution, and rational debate as to its meaning.
So what's the hold-up? Why haven't we made more progress learning about Jesus' Jewishness? I think there are two main reasons. One is a combination of prejudice against Judaism and a fear that a Jewish Jesus will be a lesser Jesus. Spangler and Tverberg seem to recognize this, which is why they put so much effort into convincing their Christian audience that Rabbi Jesus is no less a Jesus than the one they have always known. His specific rabbinic teachings make him more wonderful in their eyes, not less. That's why they also remind their readers from time to time that, though Jesus was a rabbi, he is the greatest rabbi of all and ultimately different.
They understand that Jesus cannot be diminished or else Christians will not listen. In a way, it may help their case to get Christians to pay attention to some of Jesus' Jewishness, if they reinforce the idea that Jesus transcends them all and is the fulfillment of Torah. My problem is that this means there will still be a continuation of misrepresentations about ancient Judaism, a failure to see all that Judaism accomplished, and, in the end, a disrespect for this culture and the sages who helped to create it.
The second reason we are so slow to get to an appreciation of Jesus' full Jewishness is that people have an intuition that if we ever understand Jesus' complete immersion in his own culture, then the traditional story of his death, in which Jewish leaders are the chief instigators with a little help from Judas Iscariot, will no longer hold up. The more Jesus is seen in harmony with his fellow Jews, including Jewish leaders, all happily sharing in the same culture, the more likely it is that he will lose the lethal Jewish enemies he has always been surrounded with.
This intuition is correct. And it is good news for Christianity, not bad news. The first thing that has to be done is to study Jewish history completely on its own terms. Christian theology has absolutely no place in this. Christian theology has nothing to do with who the Pharisees and priests were. And yet every Christian scholar brings some theological baggage with them into this Jewish history (and some bring a lot).
To reduce the Pharisees to being obsessed with Temple, rituals, and purity is a falsification and trivialization of their culture. The Pharisees fought for constitutional government, due process, reason, open debate with God, justice, peace. Of course, I am just listing general qualities. When you see the Pharisees in action against KIng Alexander Yannai (Jannaeus), Herod, and others, including the Sadducees, these words gain greater meaning. The priests were not the Pharisees, but Josephus makes it very clear that they would never cooperate with Romans in the arrest and prosecution of those Rome considered troublemakers charged with a capital crime.
My point is that just as Spangler and Tverberg hear things in the Gospels, now that they are more familiar with the Jewish context, so too you can hear the evidence in the Gospels in a different way, once you have a firmer grasp of real Jewish history. Did you know that a high priest ripping this robes before someone was not an act of condemnation, but an act of persuasion, an act of pleading? And this is merely the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
It is hard for people to accept this, but the traditional (and scholarly) version of Jesus' death is not the same as the Gospel version. The Gospel version is so much richer than anything you can imagine. What scholars have done is to erase any evidence that is in favor of Jewish leaders and Judas. They misstate the evidence to make it appear worse for them.
Scholars have a tendency to present both Judas' betrayal and the so-called Jewish trial of Jesus as if they were stated facts in the Gospels. They are not. They are theories or interpretations of the facts and quite bad ones at that. Did you know that Mark does not contain one definite feature of a story of betrayal? He does not use the word that definitely means betray, also no motive, no conflict with Jesus or other disciples, and not even anyone denouncing Judas after the deed is done (if anyone who knew Judas ever said a bad word about him, all four Gospels failed to record it). Mark's entire story is ambiguous to the nth degree. We read betrayal into it. We put betrayal in the text and then claim we found it there. Shame, shame.
This might seem to be taking us far afield from Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus. But not really. It's all about getting to the Jewish roots of the story. Recall that Spangler and Tverberg said, "Jesus' message of the kingdom is Jewish to the core" (195). So is the original story of what happened to Jesus, in which Judas never betrayed him and Jewish leaders tried to save him from a Roman execution. The clues are all there. We just have to listen.
In the kingdom of God, will we still condone lies and injustice because they make us feel comfortable? Are Jews and Christians that far apart here? A Jew is called upon to listen in the prayer of the Shema. So is a disciple of Jesus. Do we kowtow to the powers that would silence the evidence? Or do we listen to the silenced voices of the past and fight for the truth?
I wish Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus all the success in the world. I doubt that the authors will have much effect on academic scholars because historical Jesus scholarship has shown itself to be impervious to change. But then scholars are not their intended audience and that's probably a good thing. Despite my misgivngs about some of the false turns in this book, Spangler and Tverberg give enough good information about Jesus' Jewishness that it may help to wake some people up. I hope Christians will open themselves up to even more dialogue as I have suggested here. Just don't be surprised if Jews object to any unjust statements about what Judaism was and is. Learning to see the whole truth and achieving full justice must continue.
Leon Zitzer
This is the title of a brand-new book by Ann Spangler and Lois Tverberg, published by Zondervan. As a book on Jesus' Jewishness, giving more detail than most books do, it deserves to be addressed in a careful, detailed way, which I will do in this essay. I am not a book reviewer, so don't look for a broad review here. However, I will tell you one thing that any reviewer would tell you: the importance of the sub-title, "How the Jewishness of Jesus Can Transform Your Faith".
This is a book written from the point of view of Christian faith for Christians of faith. The authors make no bones about it. Each chapter ends with some suggestions as to what a Christian might do to consolidate the lessons learned therein. This book does not pretend to be a pure scholarly study. And yet, the authors do a far better job explaining some important things abouit Jesus' Jewishness than the typical historical Jesus scholar does. You won't learn one-tenth of what can be found in this book from mainstream scholarship — despite the fact that these authors bring a definite bias to the subject!
So what is the first thing we learn from the sub-title? If you are honest about your agenda or prejudices, you will do a much better job at discussing the evidence. Most scholars will not acknowledge they have any prejudices, which really means their biases operate in secret and therefore control the so-called objective analysis. At the end of the book, Tverberg honestly admits the prejudices she once harbored about Judaism, and both admit that it is their faith as Christians that guide this study. This produces more objective results than you will get from other scholars. It will also introduce a problem or two. I'll get to that further on.
First, here is a sampling of some of the more interesting things you will learn either about Jesus' Jewishness or about his historical Jewish culture (I will give page references throughout):
— Jewish women had a good role to play in Judaism and could be educated (12, 80). This is in stark contrast to what most historical Jesus scholars say, who claim that Jewish women had second-class status and that Jesus elevated them against the strictures of his own culture. At the end of the book (199), Tverberg explains that she once shared this prejudiced idea.
— study and debate were extremely important in Jewish culture, more important than worship, so that Jews practiced their religion in a thoughtful way, and Jesus participated in this (25-29).
— rabbinic teaching contains many surprises (26, 31), not unlike Jesus' capacity to surprise.
— a good description of what the rabbis meant by devotion to Torah, and how Jesus shared this belief (57).
— favorably comparing a rabbinic teaching and Jesus on how to pray (85).
— Jesus blessed food like a Jewish father, which means he thanked God for providing it (94).
— Jewish tradition sanctifies time more than space (124).
— Jesus is placed in Jewish tradition when he tells his disciples to travel light and depend on the hospitality of others (131). As with the first example I gave, this is quite a contrast to all those scholars who try to put Jesus in the Greek Cynic tradition.
— Jesus and Pharisees had much in common concerning the things they criticized, such as hypocrisy (168).
— throughout the book, the authors offer many rabbinic parallels to Jesus' teachings. One example is how strongly rabbinic tradition and Jesus condemned humiliating another person(170). I will return to this one further below.
That's not bad. It's rather good, and I have not listed everything you will find in this book. Read works by John Crossan, Marcus Borg, John Meier, Raymond Brown, E.P. Sanders, Paula Fredriksen, and more, and you will be much less informed about what makes Jesus so Jewish. Even Amy-Jill Levine's The Misunderstoof Jew, which is a good book, does not tell you anywhere near as much as Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus.
The very few mistakes Spangler and Tverberg make stem from the old and still prevailing Christian attitude that Jesus must be superior and Judaism inferior, though scholars these days strain themselves to express this as subtly as possible. There seems to be a deep need in almost all Christian scholars to make Jesus at some point better than what rabbis and Pharisees taught.
Spangler and Tverberg too feel compelled to put distance between Jesus and the Pharisees, describing the latter as only close to the truth (168-69). They do the same when they talk about rabbinic interpretation of Passover (105). How often they use the language of Jesus fulfilling Jewish traditions. Much as they admire and understand Jewish culture, for them only Jesus gets all the way to the ultimate truth. Traditionally, Christian scholars have played this up to the hilt, whereas Spangler and Tverberg limit the moments they contrast Jesus to Jewish teaching.
German scholar Wolfgang Stegemann calls this playing a game of one-upmanship in which Jesus is always declared to be one up from or one better than Jewish culture. Stegemann has a good point, but I think it is more like a game of one-downmanship. After all, it is not as if the scholars who play this game start out with an accurate idea of Judaism and then make Jesus one better. Rather, what they do is start with an idea about Jesus and then downgrade Judaism from there, regardless of what the actual facts about Judaism are.
This is standard practice in mainstream historical Jesus scholarship. Yes, it's that bad. They assert that Jesus is anti-Torah, anti-Temple, anti-purity, anti-rituals, anti-tribal, anti-inequality, etc., and then thoughtlessly make Judaism pro- all these things in order to make Judaism appear to be legalistic and obsessed with externals.
Thankfully, Spangler and Tverberg do not do this as much as most scholars do. They are too respectful and knowledgeable, for the most part, about ancient Judaism to denigrate Judaism willy-nilly on so many points. In fact, they occasionally criticize this kind of thinking. Also, thankfully, when they do make a mistake, they do not stick to it consistently and will actually give information that contradicts their mistake. I will give a few examples to explain what I mean. But they do sometimes play the game of one-downmanship and get both Judaism and Jesus wrong as a result. I will get to that too.
At one point, they seem to be headed in the standard theological direction which says that ancient Jews had a materialistic understanding of the kingdom of God, while Jesus had a more spiritual idea of it. But then they do a complete about-face and say that both Jesus and the rabbis understood the kingdom of God in an internal way, as something within you. "So for both Jesus and the rabbis, to 'receive' or to 'enter the kingdom of heaven' could describe making a personal commitment to loving God with all your heart" (193). And further on, "Jesus' message of the kingdom is Jewish to the core" (195).
But then they make the following misstatements in relation to the rabbis, which they do not consciously correct, as in the above example, though they do provide evidence to undermine their own statements: "Unlike other rabbis, this rabbi [Jesus] spoke with great authority, as though he knew the mind of God — and this was the essential difference [between Jesus and the other rabbis] ... The rabbis lacked the authority to say, 'This is what God really meant when he told us to keep the Sabbath holy'" (171).
This is not just false, it is blatantly false. They miss the historical context for one thing. This whole business about speaking with authority was an issue because the Sadducees and high priests objected to all the Pharisees and rabbis claiming authority to interpret Torah and the mind of God. By the 1st century, the Sadducees had lost this battle, but they were still shocked by this temerity which they would have seen in Jesus as much as in any Pharisee or rabbi. The Pharisees cultivated the art of strong personalities teaching their views and would have been delighted by Rabbi Jesus who was only doing what they believed a good rabbi should do.
I could give thousands of examples from rabbinic literature of the rabbis seeing into the heart and mind of God. They quote him rebuking the angels who had burst into song when the Egyptians were drowning in the Red Sea by telling them, "My children are drowning and you are singing!?" They also depict God praying to himself that his compassion should overcome his anger. There are so many examples like these. As for Shabbat or Sabbath, not only does the Talmud make the point that Jesus makes, that man rules over Shabbat and not the other way around, but it also offers what the rabbis ultimately considered a more profound point, namely that, God gave his ordinances, like Shabbat, to live by and not to suffer and die by, so that healing is of course allowed on Shabbat.
All religions which have some intimacy with God know something about God because you cannot be intimate with a stranger. I do not mind Spangler and Tverberg saying that, for them, Jesus is the greatest rabbi and reveals the mind of God better than anyone else. That's okay. What I strongly object to is any misrepresentations made about Judaism in order to promote their beliefs about Jesus. In this case, these authors should know better. They themselves talk about Jewish intimacy with God (e.g., 121). They even give the rabbinic comment about God giving his rain to benefit both the righteous and the unrighteous (which actually appears a number of times in rabbinic literature) and naturally the parallel in Jesus' remark at Matthew 5:45 (192).
So does it matter that they make an occasional error about Judaism? Yes, because it is a serious error which denigrates Judaism and because it leads them to miss important evidence from a page of the Talmud which they themselves just previously cited (170). In the last example I gave in the list above, I noted their comparison between Jesus and the rabbis on the way both strongly condemned the humiliation of another (causing blood to drain from the person's face) which was compared to murder. They cited Baba Metzia 59a. But they missed something equally important there.
The rabbis tell us that sometimes the gate of prayer to God is locked. God will not always hear your prayer. But there is one gate that is never locked — the gate of tears or the gate of wounded feelings. God will always listen to a broken heart, especially one who has been humiliated by his fellows and cries out in terrible pain. They tell us this twice on 59a and repeat it on 59b because it is an important part of the story they are telling there. How is that for an insight into what God cares most deeply about?
If you start with a preconception that only Jesus had the authority to see into the mind and heart of God, you will miss so much in rabbinic literature and you may miss some important elements in Jesus' teachings. Jesus was raised in a culture that was always wrestling to gain an intimate understanding of God. This is where he gets it from. He was not unique this way. All the Pharisees and rabbis, which includes Jesus, struggled mightily to accomplish this and they all enjoyed debating with each other and telling each other stories to make their points. Does Jesus also talk about the gate of tears always being open? I won't answer that here, but keep in mind that there is so much more to learn once all prejudices about Judaism are abandoned.
That brings me to what Spangler and Tverberg have to say about Hillel and Jesus. Unfortunately, they take the old, standard Christian line of putting Hillel down and making Jesus look better. I am sure they will say that this was not their intention and that they merely wanted to point to certain differences between them. But they go seriously awry when they talk this way. Recall my previous criticism of the way they occasionally describe the Pharisees and rabbis as being close to the truth, while Jesus reveals all.
For example, they say the rabbis were so close to understanding the true significance of Passover and the near sacrifice of Isaac by his father Abraham (105). That is so very, very wrong. The rabbis did not just come close. They got it exactly right. For Jews. It is demeaning and condescending to say otherwise.
Since time immemorial, Christians have been rewriting and re-interpreting Hebrew scripture to find some Christology in it. This is pure imperialism, a naked grab for power over another culture. It is unacceptable. I would say that Christians can borrow Hebrew scripture, but they cannot own it.
Think of it like music. Music has no respect for borders. It travels all over the world, crossing borders, inspiring musicians in other lands to create something new. But no good musician would ever say that his or her music is better than, or a fulfillment of, or more sophisticated than the music from some native source.
Culture (religious or any other kind) is like that. I don't think God meant for any culture to be restricted by borders. Cultures spread out and go a-travellin'. Christians have a right to say that the Hebrew Bible inspires something different in them and that God is speaking to them in a special way through this book. But they have absolutely no right to disrespect the original culture it comes from and say they have perceived the true or ultimate meaning of this text. They must continue to respect the original source on its own terms just as musicians do with music. I don't think Jesus would like any hint of spiritual imperialism towards his own culture.
That brings me back to Hillel and Jesus. Spangler and Tverberg state (again, as Christian scholars have done since forever) that Jesus' positive formulation of the golden rule is a greater expression of the meaning of Torah than Hillel's negative formulation of it (171-72). This is nonsense. For two reasons. First, as far as I know, the ancients did not distinguish between, or make a big deal of, the negative and positive statements of an idea. The negative way of putting something can often be a powerful rhetorical device. Jesus does this too on occasion. Which brings me to my second point.
If you are really going to argue consistently that positive is better than negative, then you would have to agree that when Jesus offers a negative insight which a Pharisee or rabbi expresses in a positive way, then Jesus has given the lesser or inferior point of view. Do any Christians want to concede this? I doubt it.
Jesus says that God as a good parent will not give his children bad things to eat (Matt 7:9-11; Luke 11:11-13). A couple of generations before, Shimon ben Shetach compared God to a father who gives his children only delicious things to eat. Is Shimon's formulation superior or more of a fulfillment of Torah? I would never say so. In the vineyard parable (Matt 20:1-16), there is a touch of bitterness in the workers who are paid last because they've been working all day. But in a similar rabbinic parable, there is only pure joy. Is the rabbinic parable spiritually better? I don't think so.
Or look at what Hillel and Jesus have to say about peace. Jesus says blessed are the peacemakers (Matt 5:9). Hillel bids people to love peace and pursue peace, and adds, to love all mankind (not just Jews) and bring them near to Torah (Pirke Avoth 1:12). Is Hillel's exhortation superior to that of Jesus because he connects love of peace and love of mankind? Of course not. And the same is true of their versions of the golden rule. No one is any better.
Not to mention, by the way, that it is silly to imagine that all these single quotations are the only way any of these ancient figures ever expressed themselves. Jesus quite likely put it Hillel's way on other occasions and Hillel probably expressed the golden rule differently at different times. We make too much of this or that quote. Does anyone believe that Jesus or any rabbi told each parable the exact same way every time? To harp on one expression of it is a disservice to all of them.
Spangler and Tverberg go on to offer a series of contrasts between Hillel and Jesus (172), making Jesus look better. They don't even present quotations. They merely sum up what they think each one stood for and apply it to modern life. To say they've been unfair to Hillel is an understatement. For example, they say that when you are pinched financially, Hillel would tell you "don't steal" and Jesus would say "look around to see who's worse off than you and find a way to help." May I say how odious this is to Jews? How demeaning to Hillel. Jesus would not like it.
I don't know what Hillel would say in each and every situation in life. But I do know that Christians often pick out Hillel as the best that Judaism has to offer, so if they can demonstrate that Hillel does not measure up to Jesus' standards, then obviously all of Judaism falls short of Jesus. In general, ancient Pharisees and rabbis advocated helping those in need, including gentiles. They would never advocate that you hurt yourself or your family in the process, and I doubt that Jesus would either, but they would always ask you to do whatever you can in each situation. Never close yourself off from the community and others. And while they were big about charity, they would point out that charity is often humiliating for the person in need, so a better way to help might be to provide a loan. In this way, the person can feel better about themselves and not feel so utterly dependent.
I'm not going to defend Judaism or Hillel on each and every point. Suffice it to say that this is all very belittling of Hillel. Jesus would hardly approve. He would be very embarrassed that anyone spoke this way about Hillel (and in Jesus' name yet!) to make it appear that Hillel practiced his Judaism in a lesser way. I think Jesus would actually be cringing.
I could offer a list of comparisons too, one that might make Hillel look better. I would include their comments on peace, as noted above. And how about Hillel's thought that man getting his daily bread is as wonderful a miracle as the parting of the Red Sea? Is this greater than, less than, or about the same as something Jesus said about daily bread? Answer: Who cares? It does not matter. There is greatness in both of them. Comparisons, especially those that demean, are out of order. Hillel would have been someone Jesus revered very much. It is not impossible that he studied with him (their dates of birth and death are uncertain, but Hillel could have died anywhere from a few years before Jesus was born to when Jesus was about fourteen).
I would suggest to Christians that if you really want to be a disciple of Jesus, then do not diminish Jewish sages out of fear that Jesus might be diminished if Jewish figures are not made to look smaller. If it makes Jesus cringe to hear his fellow Jews and Judaism undervalued in any way, it should make you feel that way too.
But another thing Spangler and Tverberg do very well is to explain where Jesus is alluding to the written Torah. They use this to give a fuller understanding of what he meant. They do this occasionally with oral Torah, but much more could be done here. There are places where you can hear Jesus tapping into stories about Hillel, Shimon ben Shetach, Shemaiah and Avtalyon, and probably many more.
In the Talmud, a rabbi comments that chutzpah (an Aramaic word) can be very useful with heaven. Jesus too talks a lot (and I do mean a lot) about approaching God with chutzpah and getting results. It is one of the most important aspects of his Jewishness, yet almost everyone misses it. I suspect that chutzpah towards God makes Jesus too Jewish for most people, so they would rather not hear it. But the evidence, and plenty of it, is there.
Jesus also occasionally uses the qal va-homer argument, known in Latin as the a fortiori argument, which was a very popular technique with Pharisees and rabbis. There is also some evidence that, like his compatriots, Jesus believed in due process, Torah as Constitution, and rational debate as to its meaning.
So what's the hold-up? Why haven't we made more progress learning about Jesus' Jewishness? I think there are two main reasons. One is a combination of prejudice against Judaism and a fear that a Jewish Jesus will be a lesser Jesus. Spangler and Tverberg seem to recognize this, which is why they put so much effort into convincing their Christian audience that Rabbi Jesus is no less a Jesus than the one they have always known. His specific rabbinic teachings make him more wonderful in their eyes, not less. That's why they also remind their readers from time to time that, though Jesus was a rabbi, he is the greatest rabbi of all and ultimately different.
They understand that Jesus cannot be diminished or else Christians will not listen. In a way, it may help their case to get Christians to pay attention to some of Jesus' Jewishness, if they reinforce the idea that Jesus transcends them all and is the fulfillment of Torah. My problem is that this means there will still be a continuation of misrepresentations about ancient Judaism, a failure to see all that Judaism accomplished, and, in the end, a disrespect for this culture and the sages who helped to create it.
The second reason we are so slow to get to an appreciation of Jesus' full Jewishness is that people have an intuition that if we ever understand Jesus' complete immersion in his own culture, then the traditional story of his death, in which Jewish leaders are the chief instigators with a little help from Judas Iscariot, will no longer hold up. The more Jesus is seen in harmony with his fellow Jews, including Jewish leaders, all happily sharing in the same culture, the more likely it is that he will lose the lethal Jewish enemies he has always been surrounded with.
This intuition is correct. And it is good news for Christianity, not bad news. The first thing that has to be done is to study Jewish history completely on its own terms. Christian theology has absolutely no place in this. Christian theology has nothing to do with who the Pharisees and priests were. And yet every Christian scholar brings some theological baggage with them into this Jewish history (and some bring a lot).
To reduce the Pharisees to being obsessed with Temple, rituals, and purity is a falsification and trivialization of their culture. The Pharisees fought for constitutional government, due process, reason, open debate with God, justice, peace. Of course, I am just listing general qualities. When you see the Pharisees in action against KIng Alexander Yannai (Jannaeus), Herod, and others, including the Sadducees, these words gain greater meaning. The priests were not the Pharisees, but Josephus makes it very clear that they would never cooperate with Romans in the arrest and prosecution of those Rome considered troublemakers charged with a capital crime.
My point is that just as Spangler and Tverberg hear things in the Gospels, now that they are more familiar with the Jewish context, so too you can hear the evidence in the Gospels in a different way, once you have a firmer grasp of real Jewish history. Did you know that a high priest ripping this robes before someone was not an act of condemnation, but an act of persuasion, an act of pleading? And this is merely the tip of the tip of the iceberg.
It is hard for people to accept this, but the traditional (and scholarly) version of Jesus' death is not the same as the Gospel version. The Gospel version is so much richer than anything you can imagine. What scholars have done is to erase any evidence that is in favor of Jewish leaders and Judas. They misstate the evidence to make it appear worse for them.
Scholars have a tendency to present both Judas' betrayal and the so-called Jewish trial of Jesus as if they were stated facts in the Gospels. They are not. They are theories or interpretations of the facts and quite bad ones at that. Did you know that Mark does not contain one definite feature of a story of betrayal? He does not use the word that definitely means betray, also no motive, no conflict with Jesus or other disciples, and not even anyone denouncing Judas after the deed is done (if anyone who knew Judas ever said a bad word about him, all four Gospels failed to record it). Mark's entire story is ambiguous to the nth degree. We read betrayal into it. We put betrayal in the text and then claim we found it there. Shame, shame.
This might seem to be taking us far afield from Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus. But not really. It's all about getting to the Jewish roots of the story. Recall that Spangler and Tverberg said, "Jesus' message of the kingdom is Jewish to the core" (195). So is the original story of what happened to Jesus, in which Judas never betrayed him and Jewish leaders tried to save him from a Roman execution. The clues are all there. We just have to listen.
In the kingdom of God, will we still condone lies and injustice because they make us feel comfortable? Are Jews and Christians that far apart here? A Jew is called upon to listen in the prayer of the Shema. So is a disciple of Jesus. Do we kowtow to the powers that would silence the evidence? Or do we listen to the silenced voices of the past and fight for the truth?
I wish Sitting at the Feet of Rabbi Jesus all the success in the world. I doubt that the authors will have much effect on academic scholars because historical Jesus scholarship has shown itself to be impervious to change. But then scholars are not their intended audience and that's probably a good thing. Despite my misgivngs about some of the false turns in this book, Spangler and Tverberg give enough good information about Jesus' Jewishness that it may help to wake some people up. I hope Christians will open themselves up to even more dialogue as I have suggested here. Just don't be surprised if Jews object to any unjust statements about what Judaism was and is. Learning to see the whole truth and achieving full justice must continue.
Leon Zitzer
