I gather that the early church distanced itself from the original Jewish core to expand as widely as possible, hence Paul scrapping kashrut and circumcision as requirements. One strategy seems to have been appealing to gentile antisemitism, like by playing up the Sanhedrin's role in Jesus's death. This MAY have entailed referring to Jesus's betrayer as Judas, but that name is a Greek/Latin version of a popular name Yehuda (see also St. Jude), so Jesus's betrayer could've easily been called that.
Thanks! Yeah, I was thinking more about this and wondering if we know it for sure. (Again, even if it IS a fake etymology, itâs understandable to me that people would be upset by it anyway.)
I recall lots of art of the Crucifixion having the label âINRIâ on the cross, and while I donât recall what each letter stands for I know itâs an acronym for âJesus Christ King [of the] Jewsâ (that is, a mocking inscription making fun of his claim to the title) and if thatâs so, âJewsâ starts with an I in Latin, not a J.
Which may or may not mean much, lots of ancient names and words get written in different ways by different people, and different translators use different letters sometimes.
But I did wonder.
It may well just be how I was raised, but I personally was never taught that early Christians intended to portray all Jews as villainous. The intention, i was taught, was to convert both them and Gentiles. (This is ALSO not okay/shitty behavior, to be clear.)
If youâre trying to convert people, you donât portray every member of that community as shifty. Then youâre just alienating them. Instead you portray the religious leaders of the day as out of touch and missing the point, obsessed with how well others follow the rules rather than what the rules mean and why they matter.
Which is what I was taught the tension was between Jesus and the priests. It wasnât that they shouldâve immediately converted or something. (I mean, yes, itâs implied that they should have, Christianity wants to spread. Thatâs a thing, and imo not a good one. But that wasnât the primary point.)
The primary point was that, being corrupt religious leaders, they acted similarly to corrupt religious leaders of our day (who are often Christian Dominionist), shaming and judging people for failing at following the rules perfectly rather than paying attention to whether they lived well, praying in ostentatious ways to show off their wealth and power, etc.
Iâm not saying there arenât people who teach that the point is âJews are bad.â Just saying I wasnât taught to see it that way, so I donât look at it and think âOh no, rabbis.â I look at it and think âOh no, Paula White and Creflo Dollar.â
I and J were the same letter originally, it was only in about the 1500s they began to be treated as separate letters.Â