Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: CarolC
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 02:06 PM

I was referring to Christian scripture. I will rephrase my earlier post...

The charge being made by the Christian Gospel against the Jewish authorities (and not "the Jewish people"), is that they were corrupt. So in the context of the New Testament, it would make sense for them to break Jewish law in order to accomplish what they wanted to do.

This doesn't prove that the Jewish authorities were corrupt, but it does demonstrate a context within which the actions taken could have made sense, and it does prove that it is not "impossible" for the events to have taken place as they are described in the New Testament.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Gulliver
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 06:53 AM

there is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence outside of Christian scripture for a Jewish role in the death of Jesus

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence outside of Christian scripture for the existence of Jesus.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Volgadon
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 04:58 AM

Gerry, you are the one asserting that they didn't do it. You have practically no evidence for that. You want us to assume that position from the get-go.

Jesus was not tried by the Sanhedrin, but by many of the sanhedrists. The Sanhedrin was not in session and could not have been so at that time. This was not a proper trial, to make sure that the guilty are punished and that the innocent go free, they had already decided on Jesus' death quite a bit earlier. The point of this trial was to be able to go to the Romans as quickly as possible with a sentence that could be executed.
You couldn't just go up to the Romans and say we want this guy to be put to death. Have you tried him? Err, no..
In the which case, after the Romans flogged you for wasting their time, they would have instructed you to try the guy.

That "History of Eretz Israel", which I have mentioned earlier, agrees with me in supposing that Pilate was playing 'pass the parcel' with Herod, one of his personal foes. If the mob grew nasty, he could shift the blame to him.

As for releasing a prisoner, that was magnaminous, showing that Rome was both powerful and merciful, that they had no reason to fear by releasing a prisoner.
Remember, you were the one that said that it was in the interests of the Roman to be feared, not hated.
Pilate thought that it could be used to save face. The accusers would be satisfied, because guilt was admitted, and the mob would have it's darling.

Washing your hands like that seems to have been widely done by Jews, is there any reason to suppose that Pilate didn't know of it and didn't use it to drive home a point?
Pilate was telling the ones who demanded the 'judicial murder' that all blame was to lay at their feet.

As for blasphemy, that is more than just saying Jehova. It is any action which denigrates the Lord or lowers him in the eyes of the people.
Chilul in Hebrew stems from the same root as 'Chol', the closest English equivalent being ordinary.
You'll find that that is quite in line with Leviticus

The line "We have no king but Caesar" scuppers your theory about politics. The Jews, in the esteem of any Roman reading those lines, would have gone up a notch.

" I have already noted in earlier posts that there is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence outside of Christian scripture for a Jewish role in the death of Jesus (and no one has contradicted me, so perhaps we can now take that as given). I have also noted that the gospel writers had a motive for shifting as much blame as possible from the Romans to the Jews, as this would serve to differentiate the Christians from the Jews in Roman eyes, and perhaps spare the Christians of some of the persecutions that the Romans were visiting on the Jews at the time. Now let's look at the description of events given in the gospels and see whether it is at all credible.

In Mark, Chapter 14, Jesus is arrested at night, on the first night of Passover. He is brought for trial before the Sanhedrin at the house of the high priest that night. (Mark doesn't actually use the word, Sanhedrin, referring instead to the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes, but that's the Sanhedrin). Now, this is all impossible. The Sanhedrin is not the Mafia; it's the highest judicial body of the Jewish community. You wouldn't be far off if you thought of it as analogous to the British High Court, or the American Supreme Court. Like those courts, it had a long list of laws to follow. It did not meet at the house of the high priest, any more than the Supreme Court would ever meet at the house of its Chief Justice. It did not meet on Passover, the most important religious festival of the day. It was forbidden to have people arrested at night, and forbidden to try capital cases at night.

Mark has the Sanhedrin looking for testimony against Jesus. In fact, the Sanhedrin was commanded to look for testimony exonerating the accused. In verse 62, Jesus speaks, and in reply, in verse 64, the high priest declares Jesus' words to be blasphemy, and gets unanimous agreement (I'm not going to write out quotations from the gospels, because then we'd get into arguments about whether I'm using a reliable translation; rather, I'll ask you to look at a translation you consider reliable, and see for yourself). But in fact blasphemy has a very narrow definition in Jewish law; it means using the special name of God. Jesus didn't do this, so it is not believable that the Sanhedrin unanimously finds him guilty of it.

Interestingly, Luke 23:50-51 says that there was a member of the Sanhedrin who didn't agree with the Sanhedrin position. If that's correct, it stops the action immediately, since by Jewish law a death sentence had to be unanimous.

John 19:7 gets around the blasphemy problem by having the Jews say that by their law Jesus ought to die for saying he is the son of God. But in fact there was no such law, nor anything like it, and the Jewish leadership could not have made such a ludicrous claim.

Back to Mark. Then comes perhaps the most incredible accusation of all; in verse 65, some members of the Sanhedrin spit at Jesus, and strike him. Again, picture the Sanhedrin as the British High Court, and imagine the justices spitting at a defendant, and hitting him.

Now evidently the Sanhedrin reached its verdict on the spot, and, according to Mark, Chapter 15, took Jesus to Pilate as soon as it was morning. This can't have happened; Jewish law required the Sanhedrin to take a full day before passing sentence in a capital case. Then 15:6 says that every year Pilate would release to the Jews any prisoner of their choice. There's no independent evidence for this, and it's about as likely as the US having a custom of releasing to al-Qaeda the prisoner of their choice once a year.

There are some other impossibilities in the Pilate story. Luke 23:6-7 says that Pilate sends Jesus to Herod when he finds out Jesus is from Galilee, because Galilee is in Herod's jurisdiction. If you commit a crime in London, and the London authorities find out you're from Liverpool, do they hand you over to the Liverpool authorities? In Matthew 23:24, Pilate washes his hands before the crowd and says he's innocent of the blood of Jesus. Have a look at Deuteronomy 21:6-9, which is presumably where Matthew got the idea, and ask yourself why Pilate would adhere to such a Jewish custom.

Finally, in Luke 23 (and also in John 19), Pilate repeatedly proclaims Jesus innocent, but sends him off to be crucified anyway. Now, judicial murder is, alas, not unknown to us; many is the judge who has sent a man off to his death, knowing full well that the man is innocent. But it's generally done in secret - Pilate is the only one I know of who announces to the public that he is about to commit judicial murder. Is it credible that he alone acted that way?

So, to sum up: there's no external evidence that it happened the way the gospels say it did; there's plenty of external evidence that it couldn't have happened the way the gospels say it did; and the gospel authors (and their sources) had good political reasons for saying what they said, whether it happened that way or not. There is no good reason to think the Jews were complicit in the death of Jesus, and more than enough reason to think they weren't. "

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 13 Jul 08 - 02:41 AM

oggie, perhaps you have overlooked the many occasions in this thread when I have indicated my disagreement with passages in Genesis. Please have a look and then report back to us.

Howard writes, "Your argument has moved beyond the interpretation of a few lines of a song to challenge the beliefs of millions of people, most of whom would emphatically deny being anti-semitic."

Howard, those people are not anti-semitic, and I have never said that they are.

Howard continues, "The version of the events as it is understood by millions may or may not be historically accurate, but is it anti-semitic? Webster's defines anti-semitism as "The intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people". "

The gospel version of events blames (some of) the Jews (of the time) for something they didn't do. That, by itself, should be enough reason to condemn that version. Then that version of events formed the foundation for centuries of religiously inspired persecution of Jews, and as long as people hold and teach and sing about that version of events they prepare the ground for more of the same in the future.

Howard continues, "Is Christianity inherently anti-semitic? I think most Christians would emphatically reject that idea."

Yes, Howard, and so did I, 07 Jul 08 - 09:29 AM, when I wrote, "Christianity is not antisemitic."

Howard continues, "Some Christians, and some Christian institutions, certainly have been anti-semitic , but to use that to tar all Christians with the same brush is to use the same false logic which holds all Jews responsible for the death of Jesus."

I do not hold that all, or most, or many Christians are antisemites. If they believe the gospel accounts of Jewish involvement in the death of Jesus, then they hold an antisemitic belief - but I do not call anyone an antisemite for his beliefs, only for his actions.

CarolC, where is the charge that the Jewish authorities were corrupt? where, that is, other than in Christian scripture?

Ravenheart, I think that by the time the gospels were written most of the Christian evangelical effort was directed at the Gentiles, not the Jews.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 05:59 PM

Tin coffee pots?

Clearly a reference to a song which clearly has some very dodgy connotations in the context of this thread, what with lines such as:

Now, King Solomon and his wife would carry on
When we heard in the ancient scandals,
He bought her lots of silver coffee pots
With diamond legs and handles
And said the Queen of Sheba,
"I'd rather have any old tea-ba!"

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Tootler
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 04:46 PM

Catspaw49 wrote:

"I think that's something all can agree on and its now time to end this fascinating and scholarly treatise."

Well said, spaw. I entirely agree with you.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 04:00 PM

In the end, despite all the arguing and carrying on, each of us will do what we do, sing what we want to sing, and life will go on.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,paddy
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 03:57 PM

The whole song is an insult to our inteeligence. Why this assertion that a man was the son fo a mythological figure and was crucified? all mythology and black magic. I for one will not look at this thread agin.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 03:34 PM

Folks, here is another possible way to sum up one of the threads of this thread, at least:

The lyrics can be heard as resonating with the slights, slurs, discrimination, and occasionally worse (consider the recent experience of Elie Wiesel) that remain a (not necessarily universal) part of the Jewish experience even in the modern English-speaking world. We have demonstrated that is not the only way to look at them, and not the best or most solidly grounded way to look at them, but we can't dismiss takes on the song some people have who are not part of this dialogue as mere perversity.

Various thoughtful people have noted the problem and taken some action on it, maybe by adroitly altering the lyrics, as the Revels producers have.

This happens from time to time with songs. Songwriters struggle to get across some key ideas in images that hearers can understand and embrace, and sometimes levels that they weren't focused on can have unintended consequences.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 02:16 PM

Gerry, do you feel assured that all the Jewish laws and customs you cite extend back unchanged to at least that time? I wonder how the gospel accounts would find credibility with readers of the time, who may have been Jewish or had some familiarity with Jewish customs?

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 01:00 PM

We were once in a cafe in Fleetwood, at the Folk Festival oddy enough (No grass, no dog and it's only 6pm, unnamed Guest), when a policeman came out of the station across the road put down 2 tin teapots on the pavement and went back in. 2 minutes later he came out, picked up the teapots and went back in. Dunno if he was called Eunice though. Aye, spaw, let's call it a day.

:D

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 12:57 PM

or go to your local folk club before it closes down!
Too late for that it's closed

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: CarolC
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 11:48 AM

All of the arguments made against the Gospels involve making large assumptions. In order for the arguments to be valid, assumptions have to be made about the Jewish authorities and their motivations and behavior. For instance, the assumption has to be made that they were honest and not corrupt, that they would never break any Jewish law or distort any Jewish law in order to make it possible to do what they wanted to do.

We know from recent experience that authority figures who are corrupt do indeed break and distort their own laws in order to do whatever they want to do. It's against the law for the US government to hold prisoners indefinitely without charges, and to torture people. This didn't stop them from doing these things, however.

The charge against the Jewish authorities (and not "the Jewish people"), is that they were corrupt. So in the context of the New Testament, it would make sense for them to break Jewish law in order to accomplish what they wanted to do.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 11:47 AM

Oh dear, it doesn't look like it's over yet, Eunice or no Eunice...

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: catspaw49
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 11:40 AM

After reading this thread as it has gone along I feel that all the anti-jewish arguments here and sepecially those phrased so passionately by Gerry can best be summarized by the statement, "Look! There goes Eunice with a tin coffee pot."

I think that's something all can agree on and its now time to end this fascinating and scholarly treatise............

Spaw

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 11:06 AM

Ignore the argument that LoTD is anti-Jewish. It is an old ploy of the right wing press.

Flag of St George is anti-Moslem therefore Moslems are anti-English
Blackboards are racist therefore black people are anti-White
LoTD is anti-Jewish therefore Jews are anti-Christian

It's just done to stir up the Sun readers that believe this twaddle. Took me a while to see it this time but it's there all the same. Once you realise where that sort of specious argument can lead it becomes obvious that all the justifications for it are equaly false.

D.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 11:03 AM

I would suggest that the real problem with Gerry is, is that he has no historical perspective just the biblical, and as such is crippled in his explanations, by those limitations.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Howard Jones
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 11:01 AM

Gerry, you're confusing two different issues. Your argument has moved beyond the interpretation of a few lines of a song to challenge the beliefs of millions of people, most of whom would emphatically deny being anti-semitic.

The version of the events as it is understood by millions may or may not be historically accurate, but is it anti-semitic? Webster's defines anti-semitism as "The intense dislike for and prejudice against Jewish people".

Is Christianity inherently anti-semitic? I think most Christians would emphatically reject that idea. Some Christians, and some Christian institutions, certainly have been anti-semitic , but to use that to tar all Christians with the same brush is to use the same false logic which holds all Jews responsible for the death of Jesus. You're falling into the same trap which you find offensive in others.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: oggie
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 10:25 AM

So everthing in the Old Testament is true and the Gospels are false?

The Old Testament can be taken seriously (and exists in contemporaneous record) and so the Jews are per se "the Holy People" is unassailable?

Out of interest does Guest Gerry accept the existence of Christ?

Steve

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 09:22 AM

The words hole, digging and stop spring to mind.

You have just proved the bible cannot be believed.

Now, tell us again, what was the evidence you provided to 'prove' the Jews called themselves the holy people?

Go away and stop trying to stir up anti-Jewish feeling.

D.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 08:11 AM

I'm going to try to show that the gospel accounts which implicate Jews in the death of Jesus can't be taken seriously.

If you aren't interested, please read something else instead.

If you've just come to this thread and you're wondering why I'm going to do this and what it has to do with Lord of the Dance, and you'd rather not read through the first 300 messages to see, here's a brief summary.

One stanza of LotD, to my reading, accuses the Jews of complicity in the death of Jesus. Just to make things clear, in this context when I write "the Jews" that's an abbreviation for "some or all of the Jews of the time of Jesus." I maintained that the Jews had nothing to do with the death of Jesus. Several people responded that the Jews must have had a great deal to do with the death of Jesus, since the gospels say so. I responded that the gospel accounts were wrong. I was asked, by several people, to provide evidence for this belief of mine. Since they asked, that's what I'm going to do, in this message.

Again, if you aren't interested, you have the option of not reading.

I have already noted in earlier posts that there is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence outside of Christian scripture for a Jewish role in the death of Jesus (and no one has contradicted me, so perhaps we can now take that as given). I have also noted that the gospel writers had a motive for shifting as much blame as possible from the Romans to the Jews, as this would serve to differentiate the Christians from the Jews in Roman eyes, and perhaps spare the Christians of some of the persecutions that the Romans were visiting on the Jews at the time. Now let's look at the description of events given in the gospels and see whether it is at all credible.

In Mark, Chapter 14, Jesus is arrested at night, on the first night of Passover. He is brought for trial before the Sanhedrin at the house of the high priest that night. (Mark doesn't actually use the word, Sanhedrin, referring instead to the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes, but that's the Sanhedrin). Now, this is all impossible. The Sanhedrin is not the Mafia; it's the highest judicial body of the Jewish community. You wouldn't be far off if you thought of it as analogous to the British High Court, or the American Supreme Court. Like those courts, it had a long list of laws to follow. It did not meet at the house of the high priest, any more than the Supreme Court would ever meet at the house of its Chief Justice. It did not meet on Passover, the most important religious festival of the day. It was forbidden to have people arrested at night, and forbidden to try capital cases at night.

Mark has the Sanhedrin looking for testimony against Jesus. In fact, the Sanhedrin was commanded to look for testimony exonerating the accused. In verse 62, Jesus speaks, and in reply, in verse 64, the high priest declares Jesus' words to be blasphemy, and gets unanimous agreement (I'm not going to write out quotations from the gospels, because then we'd get into arguments about whether I'm using a reliable translation; rather, I'll ask you to look at a translation you consider reliable, and see for yourself). But in fact blasphemy has a very narrow definition in Jewish law; it means using the special name of God. Jesus didn't do this, so it is not believable that the Sanhedrin unanimously finds him guilty of it.

Interestingly, Luke 23:50-51 says that there was a member of the Sanhedrin who didn't agree with the Sanhedrin position. If that's correct, it stops the action immediately, since by Jewish law a death sentence had to be unanimous.

John 19:7 gets around the blasphemy problem by having the Jews say that by their law Jesus ought to die for saying he is the son of God. But in fact there was no such law, nor anything like it, and the Jewish leadership could not have made such a ludicrous claim.

Back to Mark. Then comes perhaps the most incredible accusation of all; in verse 65, some members of the Sanhedrin spit at Jesus, and strike him. Again, picture the Sanhedrin as the British High Court, and imagine the justices spitting at a defendant, and hitting him.

Now evidently the Sanhedrin reached its verdict on the spot, and, according to Mark, Chapter 15, took Jesus to Pilate as soon as it was morning. This can't have happened; Jewish law required the Sanhedrin to take a full day before passing sentence in a capital case. Then 15:6 says that every year Pilate would release to the Jews any prisoner of their choice. There's no independent evidence for this, and it's about as likely as the US having a custom of releasing to al-Qaeda the prisoner of their choice once a year.

There are some other impossibilities in the Pilate story. Luke 23:6-7 says that Pilate sends Jesus to Herod when he finds out Jesus is from Galilee, because Galilee is in Herod's jurisdiction. If you commit a crime in London, and the London authorities find out you're from Liverpool, do they hand you over to the Liverpool authorities? In Matthew 23:24, Pilate washes his hands before the crowd and says he's innocent of the blood of Jesus. Have a look at Deuteronomy 21:6-9, which is presumably where Matthew got the idea, and ask yourself why Pilate would adhere to such a Jewish custom.

Finally, in Luke 23 (and also in John 19), Pilate repeatedly proclaims Jesus innocent, but sends him off to be crucified anyway. Now, judicial murder is, alas, not unknown to us; many is the judge who has sent a man off to his death, knowing full well that the man is innocent. But it's generally done in secret - Pilate is the only one I know of who announces to the public that he is about to commit judicial murder. Is it credible that he alone acted that way?

So, to sum up: there's no external evidence that it happened the way the gospels say it did; there's plenty of external evidence that it couldn't have happened the way the gospels say it did; and the gospel authors (and their sources) had good political reasons for saying what they said, whether it happened that way or not. There is no good reason to think the Jews were complicit in the death of Jesus, and more than enough reason to think they weren't.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Rowan
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 04:19 AM

I've been away for a while and am surprised by what I've found.

Gerry wants to convince us that LotD is antisemitic; no success there, yet.
Dave wants us to use 'anti-Jewish' as a more accurate substitution for 'anti-semitic'; more likely to succeed but only if we care about truth.

Some want to use scriptural quotes (in English) of texts that were less than accurately translated from various ancient forms of language (always a dodgy prospect) and seem to ignore the fact that the New Testament was a book (compiled by a committee at Nicea some three centuries after the events) of texts written at least a century after the events by heirs of the participants; no acknowledgement of the effects of oral history, either.

Shiva (not even Semitic, let alone Judaic not Christian) is the "real" LotD and it takes 300 or so posts before a nonCarter song (the Coventry Carol) is mentioned.

I must admit I'm with Joe Offer and others about Carter's LotD; I've always preferred "Tomorrow shall be my dancing day" (apparently written at about the same time, by John Gardner) because the tune lends itself to better (IMO) harmonies. The words as Gardner published them (I sing a different text) are even more pungent than Carter's, so I shall probably have to reassess its effect on others' perceptions of political correctness.

If Gerry wanted to convince people, I think he's lost his chance, but it has been comforting to know (as if I didn't already) that there are some good people at Mudcat, who try do deal seriously with any and all questions.

Cheers, Rowan

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Haruo
Date: 12 Jul 08 - 12:56 AM

At some point here someone said Shiva is the Lord of the Dance. Unfortunately, that actually might support the "antisemitism" charge, since the Hindus invented the Swastika...

In any case, I am glad for this thread because it reminded me of "Friday Morning" (which I may or may not have seen before), and actually motivates me to try to get ahold of Carter's Vol. 2 which contains it.

Haruo

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 04:50 PM

Would people take a few minutes to consider the second-century figure of Irenaeus and the role he played in our story?

The story goes, he lived through a massacre of his own Christian community in Gaul and decided to throw his hat in with the emergent forces of orthodoxy to ensure the wider community's survival.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 02:50 PM

Peace, yes, that makes the point well.

Another thing that the article on crucifixion brought home to me is that you have to think of the psychologies and politics of minorities when the dominant discourse is a reign of terror or the constant threat of a reign of terror. Maybe comparisons between the Roman Empire and the Third Reich would not be out of place, and how some people knuckle under and compromise, become Quislings, form Vichy states, act as some religious leaders (the church hierarchies, Jewish leaders in the ghettos and the model camps that were opened to view) did under the Nazis, hoping and praying for survival but always sensing any shift in the winds could lead to their liquidation.

Of course, there was the well-known religious "tolerance" of the Romans, who accepted all kinds of cults as long as they paid obeisance to the official idolatry. That too (the "carrot") must have made for an enormous pressure on people to reframe their beliefs in ways that conformed to the sanctioned models.

It makes the stories of the few who found a way to "dance in the dragon's jaws" (as Bruce Cockburn said--hey, I'm not so far off-topic, I hope) all the more amazing.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 06:11 AM

A point that's just occurred to me is that LOTD isn't actually telling the story of Christ's life and death. It's so abbreviated that without prior knowledge of that story it is all but meaningless. Both the singers and target audience are almost certainly aware of that story, and the song simply cues references to different parts of it. So the first part of the contentious verse refers to one incident, and the second part to an entirely separate, later incident. Anyone listening to the song with that background knowledge would realise that and would not make the connection that Gerry is claiming, unless they were determined to find the most tenuous excuse for anti-semitism, which Gerry appears to be doing.

Also, I think it's possible to be anti-Jewish, in the sense of being critical of the actions of certain Jews, without being anti-semitic, which means hatred of all Jews. Even then, the verse in question is only critical of the hypocrisy in the first part - the second part simply references the events (whether or not you accept their historical accuracy) without comment.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Peace
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 06:06 AM

Ravenheart: I had to have what's called a 'blood gas' done many years back. Nurse/doctor takes a needle and goes 'looking' for a vein or artery that's in the middle of the wrist on the inside of the arm. Most painful thing I ever felt in my life--and they had to try a second time when the interns could hold my arm down.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 06:03 AM

With respect, Gerry, you're thinking like an antisemite

Spot on, Pip, and acting like one too! I can just imagine the shaved heads at the bar of the old Dog and Jackboot discussing this over their pints.

"'ere, Dwaine, 'eard about them f'in Yids wantin' us to change our good British Christian songs now? Lets go down Beffnal Green and kick a few..."

"But I fort we wuz Paki bashin' tonight!"

"Ah, they can wait, plenty of immigrants to go round..."

Like I said before. it is akin to the false reports of Moslems being offended by Christmas or St Georges day. Funny how Guest Len Wallace, who started the thread, possibly with trouble in mind, has never returned, but Guest Gerry popped up shortly after in support isn't it?

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 04:50 AM

Yes, Gerry, you've explained why you're offended by LotD. Actually you explained it perfectly well in your first comment on this thread, nine days ago(!). Let's refresh our memories:

The verse,

I danced on the Sabbath
And I cured the lame;
The holy people
Said it was a shame.
They whipped and they stripped
And they hung me on high,
And they left me there
On a Cross to die.

accuses the Jews ("The holy people") - not the Pharisees, but the Jews - of crucifying Jesus.

Nobody, as far as I can see, agrees with your interpretation of the line
'They whipped and they stripped and they hung me on high'
to mean
'The holy people [subject of the preceding sentence] whipped and they stripped and they hung me high'

I am not at all surprised that nobody agrees with this reading, as there's no support for it either in Christian tradition or in the Bible. The Romans scourged, stripped and crucified Jesus; the Gospels are quite clear on that point.

Nobody, as far as I can see, agrees with your interpretation of the preceding line 'The holy people said it was a shame' to mean 'the Jews said it was a shame'.

Again, I am not at all surprised that nobody agrees with you on this, as there's no support for it either in common usage or in the work of Sydney Carter.

With respect, Gerry, you're thinking like an antisemite - you're looking for any possibility of an interpretation which would support an antisemitic reading. Relax - there's nothing there.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 08 - 04:44 AM

So, now we have what it is realy all about do we? I never said that "the Jews" are offended by LotD. I said that I am offended by LotD

So, in a nutshell, the Jews are not offended by it. It is not anti-(current)Jew. It is not anti-(current)Roman. It may prove to be offensive to some guys that lived in the middle east 2000 years ago and to Gerry, guest of the Mudcat? Well, whoopie-do. Lets ban it, desecrate the name of a wonderful songwriter, ignore the words of a wise Rabbi and stamp all over Christian tradition! I'll tell you what, for good measure, lets get Moslem terrorists involved as well.

Sorry, Gerry (or is it Len?), your arguments have become too ridiculous to even think about.

D.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 11:13 PM

I've heard that just having a nail driven through the hand at the point described is a hideously painful thing, because of the nerves affected.

It's a token of the kind of history we're dealing with.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:27 PM

Good article on crucifixion.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Greg B
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:03 PM

Some good points, here, just up above.

To put it in a less intellecual way, there is a great tradition
of the powers-that-be amongst any people f***ing their own people
over.

A similar tradition in the powers-that-be, once they finish
f***ing their own people over, going out and f***ing other people
over.

Such is tha nature of powers-that-be.

The Egyptions and Babylonians did it to the Jews. After they did
it to themselves.

The Greeks did it to each other, then to the non-Greeks, then the
Romans came along and did it to them.

The Jews did it to one another, then got it done to them by the
Romans, and kept doing it to one another, (as did the Romans).

Eventually the Romans got it done to them, but first they did it
to nearly everyone else.

Britain did it to the Indians and some of the Africans while France
did it to the rest of the Africans.

The Americans did it to the Native Americans (to the extent that
they're stuck with being called something-Americans to this day)
and to a bunch of the Africans, whom we still screw over. Then we
did it to a whole bunch of other people in Asia, and it looks like
we're still at it.

The Christians and Muslims have done it to the Jews for a coupla thousand years, but then again, the Jews have found ways to stick it
to the Muslims (who continue to commit violence against one another)
and the Catholics and Protestants while the latter have been at one
anothers' throats for a few centuries or more. While the Orthodox,
Conservative, and Reformed give one another hell and deny each
others' legitimacy, the Shiites and Sunis kill each others' babies,
and the Papists, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians etc., find fault
with one another.

It just so happens that, in the Christian world, one of these
inevitable screwings-over at the hand of the local and remote
screwers-over has been super-mythologized.

And nearly every Christian and Jew misses the point that it wasn't
about who did what to whom but the fact that when some SOB actually
stands up and speaks the truth nearly everyone gets up and says
'crucify him' in order to break the mirror that said SOB holds
up to us so we can see ourselves at our worst...while calling us
to be better.

For us Christians, the lesson isn't so much 'the Jews killed
Jesus' but rather (to borrow a phrase) 'everybody must get
stoned.'

Most of the time, when we get offended, it isn't so much that
someone is really doing us wrong as the fact that someone is
holding a mirror up to us that we really can't handle.

Me, I'd rather do the tune as 'Simple Gifts' than 'Lord of the
Dance.'

But heck... let's all get offended. Then angry. Then really mad.
Then let's get a cross or a noose or a boycott or some such
violent crap and get rid of the guy who upsets our little apple-cart.

The thing about this historical Jesus, is that he was at least
one guy who said 'enough,' cut it out. As did a lot of other guys
who got done in before their times.

So he was an archetype.

Get past the whole Jew/Roman thing and understand that the Passion
Play is all about what man does to his fellow man...again and
again and again and again.

And you know what?

It usually starts with some a**h*** taking "offense."

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:18 PM

Gerry,

You are not offended. You are just playing with folks heads. If you were actually offended, you would make an effort to make more sense.

I don't see any reason to close the thread. Then again, I don't see the point in going the WAV's threads to abuse him. If you don't like what they are saying, no one is forcing you to read it.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 09:13 PM

The Gospels may indeed be 100% inaccurate. And so may the old testament. I'm inclined to think they are myself. But if that's the case, we really can't say there's any such thing as either Jews or Christians, can we? Or Muslims, either. And if that was the case, seems to me there would be a lot less bickering in the world (I won't say violence, because it's money and power that are the root cause of that).

In both the Christian and Jewish religions, there's a central theme of being persecuted by authority figures. The Jews being persecuted by the Egyptian rulers, then the Roman rulers, and then Christians. The Christians being persecuted originally by the Jewish elite, then the Romans, and then, the Protestants being persecuted by the Catholic rulers, and Catholics being persecuted by Protestant rulers. I don't think either religion could function without this central theme. Maybe the early Christians fabricated their tradition of being persecuted by Jewish authority figures. But maybe the idea that this Christian tradition is a form of persecution of Jews has been fabricated by the people promoting this idea.

We'll never know. So I guess the best thing to do is just let everyone keep their own traditions and stop bickering about them, and we can all strive to speak out against anyone who uses any of these traditions as an excuse to treat other people badly.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Gerry
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 08:54 PM

Paul, I assure you, I am listening (well, reading). Hypocrites of all nations, of all ethnicities, of all sexes, of all ages, of all epochs, would have had no reason to object to Jesus profaning the sabbath - only his fellow Jews, and perhaps only the hypocritical among them, would have given a stuff what Jesus did on the sabbath. Carter may have been aiming at the hypocrites, but with that part of the stanza, he hit (some of) the Jews (of the day).

Dave, I believe it is a Christian teaching that God sent His only son to redeem us through his suffering. I have explicitly said elsewhere in this thread that that Christian teaching is not anti-Jewish. I probably don't know as many Christian teachings as you do, but the ones I do know of, they aren't anti-Jewish - except the one that says that (some of) the Jews (of the day) brought about the death of Jesus.

The Coventry Carol is a new one on me. I'll look into it. Thanks for the heads-up.

Volgadon, we agree that in those first years of Christianity the Romans saw the Christians as nothing more than another Jewish sect. I've been suggesting that the gospels were, in part, an attempt to move the Romans away from that view.

McGrath, the account given in the gospels is, to the best of my knowledge, supported by no historical records whatsoever. There are many improbable things about the gospel accounts. I mentioned one, way back upthread somewhere, and I will detail others, when I have all my ducks lined up in a row.

Pip, in the first place, the gospels (and, by my reading, LotD) don't just say that the Jewish holy people of Jesus' time objected to his teaching and activities; they say that those people brought about Jesus' death, a rather more serious accusation. And as I have written elsewhere in this thread, while the members and guests of Mudcat are far too sensible to hold the Jewish people of today guilty for what they believe some Jewish people in the past have done, the world out there is full of people who are not nearly so sensible, as any reading of history will make clear.

CarolC, the key phrase in your post above is, "according to the gospels." What if the gospels are not 100% historically accurate? Where does that leave St Stephen?

Dave, with regard to the quotation from Rabbi Sol - I grant that Rabbi Sol is not offended by LotD. I never said that "the Jews" are offended by LotD. I said that I am offended by LotD, and I've tried to explain why I'm offended by LotD.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,The Last Word
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:56 PM

the whole thread has drifted so far off course that it's barely recognisable anymore.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:48 PM

It's fine with me if you want to close the thread now. I just wanted to have the last word on everything.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:42 PM

Dave, it's a good point: I might have said "for better or worse" or "for better and for worse." But I think recent scholarship and archaeological discoveries really are helpful clues if we are to hope to understand Jesus' true intent. And if for instance we can reach a better understanding of the role of women (cf. Mary Magdalene) in Early Christianity, we can also form a clearer picture of Jesus in relation to Judaism and the Jewish movements of his time.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:14 PM

Tootler's right, Gerry's theology is decidedly wonky, at best, and there is simply no telling him.

I second the call to close this thread

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Tootler
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 05:09 PM

Let's face it. Gerry is another WAV. He won't listen and inflicts his peculiar theology on us - rather like WAV does with his so-called poetry.

This thread is going nowhere and it is high time it was closed.

Can some Mud Elf do the honours?

Geoff

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 04:48 PM

Aye, they are indeed Ravenheart. The 'truth' we were told only a few years ago is the same. Now, let me see, there was something to do with weapons of mass destruction wasn't there?

Anyway - back to the plot. I just noticed post number 2 on this thread, from a Rabbi Sol - I don't think we have anyone much more Jewish do we?

I have heard Tommy Makem sing this song for over 30 years and have never thought of it in this light. It is describing an incident that is related in the New Testament. Although as a Jew I do not believe in the New Testament I can not expect the Christians to rewrite their Bible to meet the standards of political correctness that exist in the 21st century. In my opinion It is not at all anti-semitic.

You post shortly after, Gerry says 'with all due respect to Rabbi Sol.' Just how hypocritical is that? You completely ignore the words of possibly the only contributer to this thread that gives us the Jewish point of view! If someone tells you that they are not offended and that the message is not interpreted in that way by the very people it is supposed to be against, why will you not believe them? What is your agenda in perpetuating this myth?

Maybe if you get enough people to belive that the Jews are offended by such trivia then you could start a whole new wave of anti-Jewish feeling? Maybe it is akin to the myths about Moslems being offended by the flag of St George? I think we may have seen posts from you before in different guises. Hats off to you though - this was the sneakiest!

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:51 PM

I might have said "1700-1900-odd years."

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: GUEST,Ravenheart
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 02:28 PM

Dave, the teachings of about 1700-2000 years are being modified and reinterpreted right and left, and nothing's going to stop that.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:32 PM

St. Stephen was stoned...no...wait a sec let me re-phrase that!

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 01:29 PM

Imodium is definitely anti-emitic.

D.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: CarolC
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 11:05 AM

Saint Stephen was executed by the Jewish elite of his time (stoned to death), essentially for preaching the teachings of Jesus, according to the gospels. In his final speech, he is reported to have said...

"Which one of the Prophets did your fathers not persecute, and they killed the ones who prophesied the coming of the Just One, of whom now, too, you have become betrayers and murderers."

I wonder if we can pin this one on the Romans, too.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Lord Batman's Kitchener
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 11:04 AM

Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?/Is'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?

the answer, quite simply, is, no it's not.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: Phil Edwards
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 11:01 AM

I did take the position that "the holy people" meant "the Jewish people," but I have elsewhere in this thread noted that there is still a problem if "the holy people" is interpreted as the priests, or as the Pharisees, or as the Jewish religious or political or legal authorities of the day.

Kindly identify this problem. As I said earlier on, if Meir Kahane were alive I would have no problem saying that I hate his guts; that doesn't mean I hate Jews, and nobody sane would imagine it did. Similarly, saying that Jewish holy people of Jesus's time objected to his teaching and activities doesn't say anything about the Jewish people of the time, let alone present-day Jews.

Subject: RE: Was 'Lord of the Dance' anti-semitic?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jul 08 - 10:54 AM

Basically the argument seems to be that, if an account of an event, based on whatever historical records exist, is capable of being used to justify oppression and persecution, the right thing to do is to reject this version, and replace it with a different version which is less likely to be used in that way, even if there are no historical records which justify it.

Interesting. I wouldn't wholly disagree, historical records are often very defective - but a revisionist version such as that should always be identified as a speculative and tentative hypothesis.

There doesn't seem anything improbable about the story of the Crucifixion that emerges from the Gospel accounts. It's quite easy to imagine a similar train of events in modern colonial and post-colonial times.