|
I see what you're saying now, and it is a problem in all of my writing. I simply don't know what is common knowledge and what isn't. I want to bring the reader along to my train of thought, but I don't want to state the obvious thereby insulting my reader's intelligence and also taking some of the steam out of the work. My philosophy with writing is always to assume the reader knows as much as I do, and start from there.
"I (the reader) wonder if the Romans resent the Jews because they crucified Christ, or because they introduced guilt (along with the Christian Religion) to the rest of the world."
The 'Jews killed Christ' is my antithetical argument. It is the common theory for the origin of anti-Semitism, therefore it must be shot down before I can bring my theory to a synthesis. If this needs to be made more clear (and I think you're right, it might be) than I will work to do so. Thank you for your advice.
With the 'Jews killed Christ' theory, the emphasis is on the Jews and their guilt. I mean to shift the emphasis to the anti-Semites and their guilt. I feel that once people realise that the reason for their hatred, fear, guilt, etc. is internal and not external, they can cure themselves of it. A classic phychiatric method, only applied on a social scale.
|
