Talk:Antisemitism in Christianity/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Poland is a Central European country, not Eastern European. I don't know why you choose Poland, when you have so much antisemitism in Austria (Heider), Ukraine, Russia, etc etc szopen
- And entries should and will be written on those countries as well. Poland is one of the most imporant countries on this topic, but no more so than Russian or Austria. Just a lack of time to work on this subject, that's all. And an entry should also be written on anti-Semitism in the USA. There's a lot less today than in the 1930s, but it certainly still does exist, and it has been on a rise in the last decade from Islamist American Muslims. RK
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
-- I think the passage in Mathew is only referring to the Pharisees, and perhaps others, who were resisting John's movement in the desert. And they at least purport to be the words of one Jew to another group of Jews, and though they have at various times been interpreted in a different way, they aren't what the main article claims they are...
- This article is about how Christians view these words. You are talking about how historians view these words. But Jews have never been oppressed by mobs of historians. It is real world Christianity that this article is concerned with. RK
I'm sure there is a NPOV article to be found here, but the current article is just not it. Some Christian groups have oppressed Jews, but the defense of the Jewish people by Christians is not a 20th century phenomenon either. MRC
I am deleting the whole article. Both attributions are wrong in their chapter/verse numbers (intentionally??); the words of Jesus are ascribed to Matthew; it's falsely claimed that the assertions are made of all the Jews even though the Gospel text is very specific on the fact that Jesus is talking to and about specific Pharisees.
It's unfortunate that RK continues to think that Wikipedia is a vehicle for propaganda. --AV
Huh? Who do you think that the entry had propaganda for? What imaginary group do you have in mind? The simple fact of the matter is that such violent antisemitism has always led to the mass murder of Jews. On the other hand, denying the existence of such antisemitism has always encouraged antisemites. Instead of working to improve entries according to Wiki parameters, you made a change in favor of those who practice and preach Jew-hatred, yet who want their beliefs low-profile. Would you also delete the Encyclopaedia Britannica's entries on this subject? Get real. Antisemitism and its roots are just as valid to discuss as racism and its roots, and homophobia and its roots. Only those who favor bigotry, antisemitism and racism prevent the subjects from being discussed. --RK
- There is a need for an article on Christian anti-Semitism, but yours wasn't it. One can discuss its history, the relationship between the Vatican and Jews, the medieval disputes, the expulsion from Spain, and many other things. I wouldn't delete anything in that vein written objectively. What you wrote is a few wrongly attributed quotes from the Gospel, with the ridiculous distortion of their meaning (claiming that Jesus spoke of all Jews). All the material you wrote was rubbish, and that's why it got deleted. --AV
Wiki entries are modified when errors are exist. Entire pages are not deleted. Your actions, AV, speak louder than words; your actions deny the existence of antisemitism over the last 2000 years by Christians. You had 4 chances to modify the entry, but your only action was to delete, delete and delete. What is one supposed to conclude? Go away, and come back when you are ready to discuss the subject, instead of censoring it. --RK
- Since the whole entry was a collection of distortions, there was nothing to salvage there. That is why I deleted all of it. I'm not qualified to write a very good entry on Christian antisemitism, but maybe I'll try to start one later, I don't know. --AV
I'm removing the quotes from the Scripture; they're misattributed, and they are falsely stated to be said about the whole of Jewish people. I'm aware of no reputable authority who supports this point of view; the usual interpretation is that they are addressed to specific Pharisees with whom Jesus is debating. Here they are:
The apostle Matthew write about the Jewish people "You snakes, you brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to Hell?" (Matthew 22:33)
John 8:47 has this to say about the entire Jewish people: "Because you are unable to hear what I say, you belong to your father, The Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire! He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him! When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies! Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me. He who belongs to God hears what God says. THE REASON YOU DO NOT HEAR IS THAT YOU DO NOT BELONG TO GOD."
The poison of John's pen prompted the Protestant Christian pastor A. Roy Eckardt to describe these lines as "the road to Auschwitz". --AV
Anatoly, I'm not sure that the quotes don't have a place, although they should be correctly attributed (change Jewish people to Pharisees, for example).
- The problem is that almost all Jews today are Pharisees. I'm one. Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Judaism are all modern manifestations of Pharisee Judaism. When someone says that they only hate Pharisees, that still labels 98% of Jews today.
I think that for many Christians over the years, many of whom are very badly educated in their religion and its history, these quotes would have been seen as referring to Jews in general. If you don't believe me about the ignorance level, I have met Babtists who believe their religion was founded by John the Baptist. Many protestants believe that Catholicism is heretical, many others (at least in the states) don't even realize that Catholics are, in fact, Christian... Perhaps the way in which Scripture has been bastardized is as important as what it says?
AND BY THE WAY -- why isn't this a sub-entry under antisemitism? I hardly think it need be separate, especially if RK et al actually want people to read this...JHK
- I agree that if there is evidence that these specific quotes have often been used to justify anti-semitism, then they have a place in the article. However, they need to be NPOVed - the allegation that they talk about all the Jews should be deleted...
- There is no question; these quotes have always been used to justify anti-Semitism. And your query about these quotes not referring to all Jews is confused. This article is not about what professional historians theorize these quotes may originally have meant; it is not about anti-Semitism from nations run by historians, or by mobs of historians. It is about what real-world Christians believe these verses to mean, and about what actions in the real world they have actually taken. RK
- and, most importantly, it needs to be stated that the quotes were used by some Christians to justify antisemitism, which doesn't mean that they're anti-semitic in themselves.
- The reason I didn't do this is because I simply am not sure that the quotes aren't one big red herring - that they indeed have an importance place in history of christian justification of anti-semitism. I can't trust RK on this because he's been consistently mispreresenting the truth (to put it very mildly) in this entry and others. I think that more evidence is called for. --AV
- Besides the facts that those are not the right verses and an unpleasant translation (should be Matt 23:33 -- referring to lawyers, Pharisees, hypocrites --and John 8:44 -- referring to the Jews who had believed him), I'm not sure that RK is wrong. We know that some Christians make a habit of pulling out convenient bits of scripture as suits the occasion. That said, it would be nice to see something more concrete. For example, where did Eckhardt say this was the road to Auschwitz -- was it quoted somewhere in Nazi propaganda? RK, I think you might want to add some context, if not to satisfy Anatoly, the for the simple reason that the article needs more factual content. JHK
RK, it's nice to know you're happy to retreat into invective, rather than resorting to actual scholarship...JHK
On certain other Wikipedia entries, people got irritated at me when I produced quotes and references, and said that this was not the correct place for scholarship. So I stopped doing this as much. Was this wrong? In any case, let us be very clear, JHK: If someone syas that your entire religious group is the spawn of the devil, and that your entire group is all damned to hell, do you really need a scientific scholarship to "prove" that such a claim is a bigoted insult? RK
- As has already been mentioned, "your entire group" is your own, and wrong, understanding which directly contradicts the actual text of the Gospels. The only malcontent who doesn't want the subject discussed is you, since you consistently ignore explanations on why this or that material of yours is wrong or inappropriate, and instead engage in infantile name-calling.
- No matter how many times you try to label others as antisemites, you won't succeed in turning Wikipedia articles into vehicles for bigotry and propaganda. I suggest that you chill and turn to contributing some actually useful material, like you've done in some other Wikipedia articles. --AV
- I agree that if there is evidence that these specific quotes have often been used to justify anti-semitism, then they have a place in the article. However, they need to be NPOVed - the allegation that they talk about all the Jews should be deleted, and, most importantly, it needs to be stated that the quotes were used by some Christians to justify antisemitism, which doesn't mean that they're anti-semitic in themselves.
- The reason I didn't do this is because I simply am not sure that the quotes aren't one big red herring - that they indeed have an importance place in history of christian justification of anti-semitism. I can't trust RK on this because he's been consistently mispreresenting the truth (to put it very mildly) in this entry and others. I think that more evidence is called for. --AV
I think the passage in Mathew is only referring to the Pharisees, and perhaps others, who were resisting John's movement in the desert. And they at least purport to be the words of one Jew to another group of Jews, and though they have at various times been interpreted in a different way, they aren't what the main article claims they are...
I'm sure there is a NPOV article to be found here, but the current article is just not it. Some Christian groups have oppressed Jews, but the defense of the Jewish people by Christians is not a 20th century phenomenon either. MRC
Wait a sec, here --I'm not denying that there is cause to see roots of anti-semitism in Christian scripture and teaching. We know that this is so, Anatoly, there is no escaping it. I absolutely disagree that there is anything in Christ's teaching to support anti-Semitism, but no sensible person can deny that Christianity has often been wilfully or ignorantly misinterpreted to excuse man's inhumanity to man on many occasions.
- I would agree that it is unthinkable that Jesus Christ would have taught antisemitism. I would claim that as we move decade after decade after his death, we see the split between his followers and non-messianic Jews get larger, and that there is no dispute like a family dispute. By the time the last gospels came into their final form, they included points of view that, if said by gentiles to Jews, would certainly be antisemitic. And this may be where the real problem began - Christianity reached out to gentiles, and eventually said that they could become Chrisitian without first becoming Jewish; so we have non-Jews coming into Christianity, picking up the New Testament, and reading that the Jews are of Satan.
NOW, that said, RK, your article just wasn't good. It was a couple of scriptural misquotes, plus the quote from Eckhardt. From an editorial POV, I suggest that you add a section to anti-Semitism that deals with Christian anti-semitism. Then, go back and fix the quotes by pointing out that the first was not directed at Jews, but at one specific group of Jews, the Pharisees, lawyers, and hypocrites, and take away all of your editorial and inflammatory formatting from the second quote. It would also be a good idea to tell us which Bible you used -- translations differ greatly, and what may have been held as truth in an earlier era may not be held as true today.
Then, tell us when and in what context Eckhardt made his comment and explain how it fits in. Here is one caveat: you will never prove that all Christians are anti-semites, nor that Christianity teaches anti-semitism. They aren't and it doesn't.
- Absolutely! Most Chrisitians are not anti-Semites! The stuff I added was just the beginning of a number of links related to this subject, discussing the historical origin of antisemitism in different groups. It discussed antisemitism within the Christian faith community, and was never meant to develop into a claim that Christians have that belief. [[user:RK|RK]
However, there is a very strong case for demonstrating a tradition of anti-semitism among Christians, often based on religious practice. That needs to be better illustrated. If you want to go ahead and talk about the current Pope's insensitivity to the Holocaust and its victims on his Polish visit, fine. But please stop throwing up non-articles, pretending they prove a point, and then resort to name-calling when people call you on it. 'nuff said JHK
I think the issues being discussed here actually belong in two separate articles: historical anti-Semitic ideas and actions (there are a lot, and the verses quoted by RK have indeed been used as justification, although this was not probably not their original intention) should be incorporated into the anti-Semitism article. This would place Christian anti-semitism in a wider context. The second article we should probably have is one on Relaions between Judaism and Christianity, which would allow us to cover the tensions, fighting and debates between the two religions. This article would be a two-way street; Christian anti-Semitism would be covered, but also the hostility of Jews against Christians, particularly when Christianity was in its infancy. -- STG
When writing about Jesus Christ and the Apostles, it's important to remember that they were all Jews themselves. Christ told his disciples to preach the Good News in Jerusalem first, showing the Jews some favoritism. Paul was not only a Jew, but called himself a "Pharisee of Pharisees" in one place. To accuse the founders of Christianity themselves of anti-semitism would be like accusing a Jesse Jackson of being prejudiced against African-Americans.
- Why? Early on Christians rewrote their history to make Jews look like monsters who literally murdered God's son, yet they made the mass-murdering Roman monsters, who crucified Jews by the thousands, out to be innocents. The perverted history presented in the New Testament makes the victims out to be evil, and the killers out to the good guys. Why do you think there was a movement in the early church to make the mass-murderer Pontius Pilate a Saint? It was historical revisionism. RK
Now, regarding the paragraph that talks about the New Testament... I haven't changed it yet, but its chronology is all wrong. Paul and others "reached out" to the Gentiles as early as the first century. The Gospels were written late in the first century, some I suppose might say early second century. There was not a universally accepted New Testament canon until the fourth century, in the late 300's. Wesley
- The basic components of the New Testament existed long before the late 300s, but I agree that no canonization existed until around that time.
Gentiles in the first century who became Christians did not pick up their New Testaments and decide to become anti-semitic. There was no New Testament to pick up! At that stage, the faith was primarily transmitted orally, and in some letters and other writings that were circulated, including writings that were eventually included in the New Testament.
- Yet this is similar. It may not have been a canonized New Testament, but it was a proto-New Testament that included written tractates and letters, and oral teachings. RK
Some Gentiles may have been anti-semitic to start with
- Not many of them. Gentile religious and historical texts did not contain much hatespeech about Jews. A Roman would literally have to join the Christians to learn that Jews were "the offspring of the Devil", or that "Jews killed the Son of God". They didn't teach these things about Jews in Roman pagan shrines. RK
Certainly Christians have misused scripture to abuse Jews at various times in history. But Christianity is not anti-semitic at its core; to suggest that it is reflects a profound misunderstanding of its message. This is very understandable, as we Christians are often very poor messengers. --Wesley, a sinner
All right, I just found the list of "anti-semitic" passages, and could not let it stand. I could start refuting/contextualizing them one by one, but it's easier to point out that viewing those texts as anti-semitic is apparently the opinion of one man, in one of over 20,000 Protestant denominations, who doesn't even speak authoritatively for a single one of those denominations. He does not represent Christianity, nor any recognized subgroup of it. It matters not a hill of beans what he thinks of those texts.
- For you to deny the existence of millions of people who disagree with these statements is surprising. The person who listed these statements isn't alone; his is a fairly mainstream view, and you would know that if you spoke to more people outside of your own Church. I have read many books and articles which read all of these verses in precisely the same way (I have some of these books here.) And the people who make such statements include Catholics, Protestants, Unitarian Universalists and Jews. RK
At a glance, many of them could be considered "anti-person" rather than anti-Jewish.
- So if someone writes "You followers of Jesus are all the son of Satan!" and other such things, then you are telling me that you would also argue that it is only against one person, and is not actually anti-Chrisitian? Come on.
Wesley writes - In the Protestant Sunday Schools I grew up in, we would regularly observe how like the Pharisees or other Jews mentioned in Scripture we ourselves were. Yes, I've also encountered at times with others and in my own heart, the idea that "I'm better than those Jews, or that one person" in the Bible, but I know that's not true. Yes, the NT says Jews are a bunch of sinners. It also says that everyone on the planet is a sinner. So Jews shouldn't feel singled out for special treatment.
- The New Testament does single out the for these attacks. The New Testament never assaults Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, Egyptian pagan, or Roman pagan religions in such terms as it does the Jews. It is the Jews and the Jews alone who bear the brunt of hundreds of direct assaults. I cannot understand how you could make a claim such as the one you did. It makes we wonder what they taught in your school. The good news is that what you are saying is not anti-Semitic; the bad news is that you are unaware of the main point, and being unaware prevents you from fully being effective in encouraging the path that you believe to be just.
And people who use such passages against Jews as a race or as a religion, are severely abusing it.
Many of the abuses described in the article happened from the middle ages forward. I'd be curious to learn about instances of Christian anti-semitism in the first 1000 years of Christianity or so.
--Wesley
- One reason they may not exist (at least to the same degree) is that there was an active community in Israel who were Jewish believers in Jesus Christ. It was only after 1200 AD that this group was no longer as active, hence an understanding that Jewish== non-christian.
- That's an excellent explanation. The muslims certainly did their part to make that community less 'active'. Yet Christians in Israel and elsewhere used the same New Testament with all those passages included, for all those years (with some minor variations before the NT canon was formalized in the fourth century). Surely that suggests that anti-semitism is something that came in later, rather than being inherent in the religion from the very start? --Wesley
Text now reads: "The Romans considered the Jewish sect to be antisocial and the Jews to be religious fanatics. The Jews were nearly unique in the Roman world in insisting that their god was the only one. Romans in general were very tolerant of each region's religious practice."
"The Romans considered the Jewish sect to be antisocial and the Jews to be religious fanatics. The Jews were nearly unique in the Roman world in insisting that their god was the only one. Romans in general were very tolerant of each region's religious practice."
Wait - the Romans let everybody worship pretty much whoever they wanted however with the caveat that they had to also worship the Roman state gods (it was a quasi-theocracy - the Romans believed that their state gods supported them, and vice-versa, and that being disrepectful to the Roman gods could result in said gods withdrawing their support of Rome). The Romans had a lot of problems with the Jews because the Jews refused to cooperate with this policy.
A new addition to the main entry of this article states that "Further, many of the following verses are accounts of the Jews' actions. To call these passages anti-semitic carries the implicit assumption that the events never happened."
- These passages are called anti-Semetic because they incite readers to hate Jews. Their historicity is irrelevent. Even if it was true that certain individuals of Jewish descent did what was attributed to them in the New Testament that is no reason to preach hatred towards Jews in general, which is the real-world effect of many of these passages. I have heard of Italians, Russians and Canadians who have done bad things...does that make it somehow not hateful to preach hatred against all Italians, all Russians, or all Canadians? No, not at all. RK
- Is it hateful to record the bad things done by those particular Italians, Russians or Canadians? Some of the passages listed as anti-semitic do just that, record specific actions by specific Jews or groups of Jews.
- It is hateful to compile a list of crimes done by individual Italians, and then promote the hatred of all Italians by teaching the Italians are the offspring of Satan and are hated by God, and that all Italians will burn in Hell. And it is equally hateful to do and say such things about about any other group, whether Jews or Germans or whatever. RK
The new addition continute "and that the described actions are uncharacteristic of actual Jews or Jewish leaders living at that time."
- How can you use an encyclopaedia to suggest that the Jews may well be the children of Satan? (Which is precisely what some of these verses state, and reinforce in dozens of ways, and what you defend as an actual characteristic of the Jewish people at that time.) Your statements are not NPOV; rather, you seem to be quoting from the works of Martin Luther. How would you feel if an encyclopaedia insinuated this sort of thing about all Christians, or all Deists, or all Buddists? Drop the apologetics for hatred. RK
- But this article is now insinuating that the NT is full of hatred, and by extension attacking all Christians. Your last question above is far from hypothetical.
- One can continue to label all Jews as the offspring of Satan, and you can continue to damn all Jews to burn in Hell. But most of the civilized world (not just me) will continue to expose such statements for what they are: anti-Semitism. No one is attacking Christians. rather, we are pointing out that those four particular Christian authors of the gospels are attacking Jews, and are doing so in a violent fashion. Read the new quotes in the main entry, and you will see that this precisely how most of the Church fathers viewed these quotes. Are you saying that the Church fathers are attacking Christianity? They are not; in fact, they seem quite proud of their words. RK
An encyclopaedia entry can discuss the meaning of a verse in a historical context; it can discuss how verses where used in different historical settings; it can discuss why the authors of these texts felt compelled to make such charges against the Jewish people. An encyclopaedia entry can take note of the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish climate in which the New Testament was written, and can note that the Christians authors may have felt compelled to attack Jews (as opposed to their Roman oppresors) in order to safeguard their own emerging faith. It can discuss all these things and more. But one thing that an encyclopaedia should not do is to use old anti-Semetic canards. That is abhorrent. RK
- Can an encyclopedia entry also discuss why Jews may have felt compelled to attack Christians in defense of their faith?
- Is anything negative about any Jew to be considered anti-semitic? Is anything negative about any Christian therefore also anti-Christian and hateful? Me smells a double standard.
- No, of course not. And no one said any such thing. You are arguing against points that no one ever made. To me, this indicates that your position isn't defensible, so you need to win a debate against straw-man arguments.
- Several of the NT passages in the main article say that Jews asked authorities to throw Christians into prison, execute them, and so forth. Those passages are categorized as anti-semitic. Thus, the point made in the article is that when the NT records that Jews played a role in persecuting Christians, the NT itself is accused of being anti-semitic. Of course, similar claims are made about representatives of the Roman government, so Jews are not being singled out in this regard. Other passages say horrible things about Christians who later deny their faith; Christians at Corinth and elsewhere are accused of committing grievous sins.
This entry isn't about whether individual Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or agnosticis have done things that are bad. This entry is about anti-Semitism; the use of real, imagined - and ususally outright false - charges against individuals as an excuse to hate Jews in general. RK
- Are there articles about Muslim, Buddhist, or Communist anti-semitism, or anti-semitism committed by any other group of people? If not, it would appear that Christians are being singled out by Wikipedia as anti-semites. This entry is currently about the 'charges' themselves, and not just about the use of the charges to excuse hatred of Jews in general. Unfortunately.
- Yes, there are such articles. Didn't you bother to read the entry on anti-Semitism? This project does not claim that only Christians are guility of anti-Semtism, and I cannot imagine who told you such a thing. In fact, the page that you are reading now is only a sub-page of the main anti-Semitism entry. That entry already had specific subpages on ,Arab anti-semitism, KKK anti-semitism, Nazi anti-semitism, Nation of Islam anti-semitism, Christian anti-semitism, and I am sure that more will be added as time passes. I myself intend to add material on communist anti-Semitism and on anti-Semitism within Japan. RK
- No, I didn't read the main entry. :-( No, this page is not a sub-page of anti-semitism, at least not technically. Just glanced at the arab anti-semitism page; it seems to focus more on recent history and statements than on ancient history, and avoids attacking the religion of Islam or the Koran. This (Christian anti-semitism) article doesn't just state that some passages in the NT have been used to excuse hatred, but that the passages are hateful of themselves. Even when they report actions taken by specific Jews against Christians. Incidentally, the NT also discusses the sins of Romans and Christians at length; it doesn't just single out the Jews with regard to sins.
---
I think there is a lot at stake here, and perhaps a parallel case might help. In my Bible, God commands my people to wipe out the Amalekites -- effectively, to commit genocide. Although this is a mute point today, as there are no Amalekites left, my point is that there are things in my own sacred scripture that I feel bad about. Granted, the Amalekites -- if the story is to be believed -- were not very nice to us. But very few if any Jews today would like to see all Germans wiped out, and I doubt that there are many Jews today that are proud of or even support the Biblical command to hate and kill Amalekites.
Times have changed and we have changed and there simply are things in our sacred scripture that most of us no longer accept or approve of. And this is what is at stake for Christians. For Jews to point out that there are hateful and offensive things in the Christian Bible does not mean that we hate Christians, Christianity, or the Christian Bible. It does mean, however, that there are claims that Christians have made about Jews that we feel are fundamentally unfair and offensive, and that have over time been used to justify real acts of violence. I understand that it is a challenge for Christians to decide how to respond to this. You can ignore how Jews feel and how Jews see things, or you can enter into a dialogue.
A dialogue between Jews and Christians is especially important because Jews have a singular place in the history of Christianity (in that Jesus was Jewish and the Christians claim the Hebrew Bible as their Old Testament -- some Christians even claim that they are the successors to the covenant between Jews and God, and if I understand this claim correctly to involve displacing Jews, it seems to me to be an inherantly anti-semitic claim. It is also especially important because most Jews live in countries where they are a minority and Christians are a majority. I have no doubt that there are many Jews who do hate Christians and Christianity. The fact remains, though, that for most of the past 2,000 years, Christian anti-semitism has caused more suffering than Jewish anti-Christianity, if only because Christians have been more often been in positions of political power. The Amalekites and the Romans are gone, but we have had to live with each other for 2,000 years, and the question of how we will go on living with each other is a concrete, real issue.
The fact is, many Christians have responded to this challenge by entering into a dialogue. In Vatican II the Catholic Church repents of its prior acts of anti-semitism. I believe that the Lutheran Church has as well. Perhaps it would be useful to add a section to this article on how various Christian organizations have dealt with this history. -- SR
The whole section beginning with
- The following list of apparently anti-Semitic verses in the New Testament was compiled by Norman A. Beck, professor of theology and classical languages at Texas Lutheran University. On this subject he has written an article available online at the Jewish Christian Relations website. (www.jcrelations.net)
would seem to need some really serious justification. Why should the research of one professor receive so much attention in this article?
- I would argue that the sentence that you quoted is not appropriate, as it is misleading. It is only here because people are uncomfortable with the long list of statements in the NT identified as anti-Semitic. This is a common list of statements identified as anti-Semitic, and I have seen many other Christian and Jewish scholars come to the same conclusions about these same verses. I suppose that this particular list can be said to be view of one man, but I can easily provide references to many other works which also cite these verses. (These other lists leave out 2 or 3 verses that we have here, and add to or 3 others, but the gist is the same.) Another authority on the subject who identifies these same verses as anti-Semitic, is Professor Lillian C. Freudmann, author of "Antisemitism in the New Testament", University Press of America, 1994. Her work has received accollades by Professors Clark Williamsom (Christian Theological Seminary), Hyam Maccoby (The Leo Baeck Institute), Norman A. Beck (Texas Lutheran College), and Michael Berenbaum (Georgetown University). From my personal experience, I can also attest to the fact that most rabbis would agree with this list as well. RK
There is an easy way to solve this problem, though. Assuming (though I don't know if this is a safe assumption) that this one man's work is so important to duplicate in this much depth in Wikipedia's article on Christian anti-Semitism, we need only include some disclaimer to the effect that we very much welcome accounts of how Beck's research has been received, and that we want a more complete review of the academic literature about Christian anti-Semitism here. --LMS
- This one man's work isn't terribly imporant. The fact that this list of verses (Plus or minus a few here and there) is a widely accepted consensus, however, is important. Many scholars and historians, and most rabbis, state that these verses have historically had the effect of creating anti-Jewish feelings in readers, and thus are defacto anti-Semitic; many feel that this was their original purpose. (Seeing that Jews are charged with being the offspring of Satan, it is hard to disagree.) RK
I have to agree that a collection of Bible verses that might strike some as anti-Semitic is important information to include in Wikipedia. But including verse after verse, each avowedly embarrassing to Christians, and the collection of which is attributed to one guy, seems strangely out of place in an encyclopedia that is, after all, supposed to be neutral! I've tried to solve the problem by moving the problematic text to verses criticising Jews in the New Testament. --LMS
- LMS, you have totally missed the responses to you. These verses are not the work of one man. Anyone who told you such a thing is making stuff up. There are many historians and academics who have precisely the same viewpoint. I listed four of them, and can provide you with even more references. Please re-read my comments (above) on this issue. Further, almost rabbi that I have spoken with on this issue also has this view, and a growing number of Christian theologians now admit that this is true. Some I referenced above, and I can give many more references as well. How many academic references would you like?
- Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274) was one of the first to teach that the Jewish people were damned because they had slain Jesus, and the only way they could be saved was to renounce their faith and be baptized as Christians. This belief was to remain prevalent in Christianity almost until the present day.
The latter sentence appears to imply that most Christians have not only believed that Jews couldn't be saved because they're not Christians, but they couldn't be saved specifically as long as they're Jewish. Of course, most Christians have believed that nonbelievers weren't going to heaven--and this isn't a reflection of anti-Semitism particularly, but of a belief that theirs is the only true religion. I doubt rather much that it's been the majority view among Christians--and I would be very curious to see evidence of this--that Jews are specially damned just because they're Jews. --LMS
- But during the middle-ages, European Christian nobility often forced Jews to take on this role
Forced, how? That's very interesting. I'd like to see more details about this. --LMS
Before the 1960s, large numbers of Protestant U.S. citizens viewed these groups as the most authentic form of Christianity. At the time, these groups were condemned by some other Christian denominations; since the 1960s they have been condemned by most Christian denominations.
- If I'm reading this correctly, the first sentence quoted above claims that large numbers of protestants regarded White supremacist groups "as the most authentic form of Christianity." It's hard to believe that anyone would actually write that, that I think I must have misunderstood. I'm not sure what else might have been meant. Maybe somebody can clarify. --LMS
- I wrote that verse, and yes, you understood it correctly. I was referring to a very evil part of America's social history. In the not-so-distant past, many American Christians believed that white supremacy was mandated by the Bible; this racist belief became mainstream in the 1800s with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and similar Christian White Supremacist movements. It was a very mainstream belief, and in many American states the majority of the population sympathized or actively promoted these racist views. These beliefs were not confined to the south. Even in the north in suburbs like Long Island there were KKK rallies involving huge numbers of people. Heck in the 1930s people in Long Island and other northern suburbs still has pro-Nazi public demonstrations; by this time they not only preached racism, but anti-Semitism as well. It was only when World War II started that racism in American began its final decline. The worldview of society that we know is a recent construct.
- Let us recall that in the minds of the people with such views racism was not evil, it was the biblically mandated word of God. They found verses to support their belief. There are, of course, many academic works on this topic. We can look for a few highly regarded books, and refer to them within the article. Even today the KKK has a substantial number of followers, while other Christian white supremacist movements, such as the Christian Identity movement, are much smaller, and are numerically insignificant RK
Although I am not quite yet ready to do it unilaterally, I strongly feel that the list of anti-semetic verses in the Christian Bible (or at least, an exemplary sample of these versus) must be included in this article. It is a crucial point. If the verses are left out, the issue appears to be one of distinguishing between good and bad Christians. If the verses are left in, then the article raises an issue in the history of Christianity that even the best Christians must grapple with.
I also think that there is something very odd about refering to anti-Jewish verses in the "old Testament." Although that article seems to be parallel, in fact it is not. Many (although probably not all) anti-Jewish verses in the Christian Bible reflect an emerging theology in which Christians separated themselves from Jews and Judaism, and relegated Jews and Judaism to a subordinate position. The "anti-Jewish" verses in the Hebrew Bible express either a dramatic account of the relationship between God and Israel (in which both partners in the relationship do good and bad things), or the Israelite religious leadership's criticisms of either political leaders or some of their followers for not following their own traditions. In both cases, such "anti-jewish" statements really play a positive role in both Jewish religion and in the relationship between Jews and God. I think the article tries to communicate this (although I don't think it does it very effectively -- more detail would help). But to refer to the article as if it paralleled an article on anti-Jewish verses in the NT seriously misrepresents it. - SR
- I agree; may I suggest an analogy? When people in the US Government criticise flaws in our laws, and try to improve them, we generally regard this as part of their duty; its their job to point out flaws in the system and to try and improve them. It would be misleading, if not deliberately perverse, for Communists to use such quotes to "prove" that American democracy is flawed and evil, and that this shows that Communism is superior to Democracy. Similarly, when leaders of a particular religious group make harsh constructive criticism, these statements should not be taken out of context to be used be those who wish to dismantle and supercede that religious group. RK
- I would suggest the two articles are parallel for this simple reason: Old Testament passages have also been quoted by Christians (and others?) to indicate why Christianity is the true religion, and to criticize the Jews. For example, see how Stephen summarizes the pre-Christian Jewish history in Acts 7. Also, it seems I recall that someone has gone to some lengths in other articles to point out that the Old Testament and Tanach are not exactly the same thing. In any case, Christians clearly claim the Old Testament as their own. If we are going to include New Testament passages, it would seem appropriate to include Old Testament passages as well.
I hope one of the other contributers to this article restores the list of versus. If no one else does, I will od it later -- I want to allow for time for more discussion on this first, though. SR
I have significantly expanded on the section I created, on the reconciliation between some rather large Christian groups and Judaism. This section is by no means complete. There are many people involved in such efforts in communities all across the US and Canada, and I would guess in parts of Europe as well. Further contributions to this section are requested. RK
Would it be too much to ask that the article clarify what is meant by 'anti-semitism' -- racial hostility, religious hostility, or both? I think it matters. I would be much more ready to concede that the verses are against Judaism and Jews as religous adherents, rather than against Jews as an ethnic group.
- I totally agree that disagreement (even rigourously) with Judaism isn't anti-Semitism in any way shape or form. This should be made clear in both this entry and the main entry on anti-Semitism. I do see a difference between strong disagreement, and extreme disparagement with insults. I disagree with atheism and polytheism, but I wouldn't disparage them in such a hostile fashion. RK
I'm not going to edit, but I would like to raise a couple other questions. I just looked at the intro to John Chrysostom's first homily against the Jews; it appears that his main objective was to discourage Christians from taking part in Jewish feasts and fasts. Some Christians thought there was little difference between Christians and Jews, and he was saying there are lots of differences. Could something of this sort be added to the article? I don't object to retaining the quotes as they are, but some mention of context wouldn't hurt. On a much more minor note, there's a quote from "Gregory of Nyassa"; I've usually seen that written "Gregory of Nyssa". Is that a typo, or are there alternate spellings of Nyssa, or are they different towns? Peace, --Wesley
- Quite reasonable; it would be fair to add this to the article. It may explain some of his motivation. However, on a personal level I don't think it makes much difference, since he explicitly labels the Jewish people as all being child-murdering demons, pigs and whores. One wouldn't say such things if one's only goal was to clearly distinguish between the theologies and practices of the two faiths. It seems to me that his statements were intended to make people believe these things about the Jews, and not to add ideological clarity. RK
- I've simply added a quote to suggest the purpose of Chrysostom's homilies. Here's an article which further discusses his historical setting, and Christian anti-semitism: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/antisem.htm. I found it helpful. Again, let me know if you think it would be appropriate to include it among the external links or anywhere else in the article. --Wesley
Would it be possible to give better citations for the church father quotes? For many of them, there is only a name and a sentence. Without any further information, it's very difficult to verify that the quote is accurate, let alone find the proper context of the quote. For instance, I've skimmed through many of Ephraim the Syrian's writings without finding anything about Jews, so I deleted the following quote:
- * Ephraem - "Jews are circumcised dogs"
I'm not even sure the quote is from Ephraim of Syria; if it can be documented, I'd be happy to see it restored.
--Wesley
The quotations from Origen, Tertullian, and Martin Luther are also completely without source. I suspect that all of the quotations from Chrysostom came from one or more of the "Homilies against the Judaizers", rather than just one of them as the article currently suggests. Could someone please supply the source of these quotations? --Wesley
The article currently states: "The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant Christian denomination in the U.S., has been attempting to convert all Jews to Christianity." Does the SBC specifically target Jews above others? If not, I'd say this sentence is inflammatory and misleading. As far as I know, the SBC targets everybody, not just Jews. I know they've put out materials talking about how to convert people of my faith to Christianity (even though I'm already a Christian), so I don't' think it's specifically Jews they're after. --Eric
- I've partly answered my own question, finding a 1996 SBC statement that rejects the idea Jews don't need to become Christians, and calling on the denomination to seek the conversion of Jews "as well as for the salvation of 'every kindred and tongue and people and nation.'" It doesn't sound to me like anti-Semitism per se, just a belief in exclusivistic salvation, which isn't quite the same thing. --Eric
Maybe we should simply note that many Jews and liberal or mainline Christians consider their behaviour to be antisemitic, although others (e.g. conservative Christians, and some other people) disagree with this? As Larry says (something I've been guilty of ignoring at times myself), we should try to describe the different positions that exist on a controversial issue, rather than advocating any particular one. -- SJK
- Agreed. I've rewritten the paragraph and added some info in an attempt to make it NPOV. --Eric
I think one important question is whether SBC or other Christian groups single out Jews by name.
- In the US almost all Christian groups single out the Jews by name. The New Testament itself does so dozens of times, the Church fathers do so hundreds of times, and modern day Protestant Christian groups do so literally thousands of times. Millions of dollars are spent each by Portestant groups to convert Jews to Christianity. Jews see it is anti-Semitism for so many millions of Christians to try and exterminate the Jewish faith. If the tables were turned, I think that these Christian groups would object to attempts to destroy Christianity. RK
In any event, I found this excerpt concerning the SBC:
- The most significant opportunity came the morning of Sept. 10, when the CBS television network broadcast an interview with Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, and Don Kammerdiener, executive vice president of the Southern Baptist International Mission Board.
- A CBS producer estimated the total national audience for that broadcast at about 1 million.
- Foxman echoed other Jewish activists in criticizing Southern Baptists and claiming to be offended by the prayer guide.
- "It's offensive. It's arrogant. It assumes that the Baptists and the Christians possess the absolute truth," Foxman told CBS "This Morning" interviewer Thalia Assuras. ?It?s this attitude that Jews on their own, without Christianity, have no future that led to inquisitions and expulsions and is the basis of Western anti-Semitism.
- "To say you are against anti-Semitism and at the same time work toward the non-existence of the Jewish people is very, very ironic."
- Kammerdiener countered that Baptists in America, far from being persecutors of the Jews, have been the staunchest advocates of the religious freedom that has benefited Jewish Americans.
- "Baptists would find it ironic to be accused of anti-Semitism or persecution across the centuries," he said. "We've been the greatest defenders of religious liberty.
- "The fact is, we do not claim Southern Baptists have a monopoly on truth. We claim that Jesus Christ is the truth, and we worship Him. ... Our goal is to offer to Jewish people the opportunity to understand that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah."
Personally, I do not understand how one can say "we do not claim we have a monopoly on the truth" and immediately say "we calim JC is the truth." In any event, I think I understand why Christians do NOT think this is anti-semitic. Do Christians understand why Jews think it is? I think a good article will do justice to both sides, SR
- Kammerdiener is so full of zeal to exterminate Judaism that he twists the English language around so that words are used in the opposite way of what they mean. He claims that Christians only have the monopoly on the truth, and that the truth is that one must believe in Jesus Christ, but then he tries to claim that "We don't claim to have a monopoly on truth". These are childish word games. He should at least be honest. RK
- I think this is what has been called "theological anti-semitism" in the anti-Semitism article. I don't know, but perhaps Kammerdiener meant that Christianity is a more complete revelation of the truth, without denying the truth that is within Judaism. This takes us right back to religious pluralism. :-) --Wesley
- It seems to be much more than that. Kammerdiener is saying that all Jews are damned to Hell, and that his Church is actively working to destroy the religion of the Jews. This would be opposite of pluralism. I wonder how he'd feel if millions of non-Christians spent 2000 years trying to exterminate Christianity? Apparently he never learned the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." RK
- BTW, I'd still love to see some attributions for those quotes. --Wesley
- I got the excerpt I quoted above from the Baptist Press News, article, "Media storm over prayer guide puts Baptist witness center stage" by Mark Kelly; Sep 15, 1999 -- SR
- Thanks, but I meant the quotes in the main article from the Church fathers, especially the ones attributed to Origen, Tertullian, and Martin Luther, and the quotes from John Chrysostom that are missing a citation. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I'm looking for the citations both for my own education, and so that any historical perspective can be added if it would be helpful. --Wesley
Here is a seconday source for the quotes for Ephraem, Jerome, Gregory and Chrysostom - they are cited in "Jesus and Israel", by Jules Isaacs, pp.241-242. The text on Augustine is from "Three Popes and the Jews", Pinchas Lapide, p.42; the quote to Amrbose is from Lapide's book on p.47. Martin Luther's words are from his essay "Concerning the Jews and Their Lies", written by him in 1543.
- Thanks. I'll try to find those books at a local library this weekend. --Wesley
- It took me a while to check, but it appears that my local library does not have a copy of "Jesus and Israel", by Jules Isaacs. They do have a copy of Lapide's book though.
It looks like St. Ambrose's 40th epistle, addressed to Emperor Theodosius, deals extensively with the burning of a synagogue. It can be found online here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-52.htm Based on that text, I'd like to amend this text:
- Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397 CE) - Amrbose publicly praised the destruction of a Roman synagogue by an anti-Semitic mob. He threatened the Roman Emperor with excommunication, and labeled the emperor a "Jew", because the emperor committed the "sin" of helping to rebuild the Jew's synagogue.
to something along these lines:
- Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397 CE) - A bishop was accused of instigating the burning of a synagoge by an anti-semitic mob, and Emperor Theodosius was preparing to order the bishop to rebuild it. Ambrose discouraged the Emperor from taking this step because (1) no action was taken against those responsible for burning the houses of various wealthy individuals in Rome; (2) no action was taken against those responsible for the recent burning of the house of the Bishop of Constantinople; (3) Jews had caused several Christian basilicas to be burnt during the reign of Julian, yet had never been asked to make reparation, and some of those basilicas were still not rebuilt. Ambrose asked that Christian monies not be used to build a place of worship for unbelievers, heretics or Jews, and reminded Ambrose that Christians had said of Emperor Maximus, "he has become a Jew" because of the edict Maximus issued regarding the burning of a Roman synagogue.
Comments? Is there another letter or homily by Ambrose that speaks differently on another occasion? --Wesley
- This sounds fine to me. RK
- Since I figure RK would be the one most likely to raise any objections, I'm going to make the proposed change to the entry on St. Ambrose. The original text is still just a few lines up if anyone else objects. --Wesley
I would add that in Ambrose's 41st epistle, found here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-53.htm#TopOfPage, we probably find the threat of "excommunication" spoken of in the original text. It is plain that Ambrose addresses the Emperor in the homily before going up to the altar to prepare the Eucharist, and waits for him to promise not to require the bishop to rebuild the synagogue before celebrating the rest of the Divine Liturgy. This "excommunication" is simply not serving communion that day without the emperor's repentance; it is NOT a threat of eternal damnation, as is sometimes understood by the term today. Today in the Orthodox Church in America, many priests sometimes bar members from communion for one or two weeks to help them realize the severity of their sins, but such "excommunication" is always meant to be temporary, and the objective is always to encourage them to repent and to restore them to communion. Reading this 4th century account with the current practice of the OCA in mind seems to put it in a rather different light. --Wesley
- I didn't even know that some people viewed excommnication as the same as damnation! I assumed, in fact, that people didn't necessarilly correlate the two (although I certainly see how they are connected.) Is there an entry on excommnication in Christianity? If not, we could at least create a stub, and link to it. RK
- Argh. Looks like I just opened up another can of worms. I should caution that that's only the impression I received of Roman Catholic excommunication... in my Lutheran confirmation class. So don't just take my word for it. OTOH, if one were to be permanently and explicitly cut off from the Church, that would imply separation from God for Christians who have a strong eucharistic theology. Whether that separation is eternal would depend on who you ask; I'm fairly confident that most Eastern Orthodox would not go so far as to say the person is therefore eternally damned, at least the ones with whom I've come in contact. --Wesley
I removed the following from the main page because it appears to be unverifiable:
- Saint Gregory of Nyassa (ca 335 - 394 CE) - In his homilies on the resurrection, section 5, he states that Jews are "Slayers of the Lord, murderers of the Prophets, adversaries of God, haters of God, men who show contempt for the law, foes of grace, enemies of their father's faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men whose minds are in darkness, leaven of the Pharisees, assembly of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of rigtheousness."
In all the online listings of the works of Gregory of Nyssa, I have found none entitled "Homilies on the Resurrection". The closest title I could find is "On the Soul and the Resurrection", the text of which is in the public domain at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-37.htm. It has no mention of Jews whatsoever. Although I would rather keep this quote and include the context for it, as with John Chrysostom quote, I can't even be sure that the quote even exists. Perhaps it is a collection of things said by him in various places in different contexts, as now that I look at the text, it doesn't even comprise a complete sentence. Wesley
Why are people trying to hide the existence of anti-Semitism? I am concerned about the way that some people are deleting articles about anti-Semitism, and rewriting Wikipedia biographies of well-known anti-Semites like Henry Ford and Richard Wagner. There is an obvious (and rather childish) concerted attempt by anti-Semites to whitewash and deny the existence of anti-Semitism altogether. Please, people, be aware of the way that people are abusing Wikipedia. RK
- What does this have to do with this article? Why do people free to fabricate quotes and attribute them to prominent Christians in the past? What's the point of asking rhetorical questions? If you have a problem with the biography of Henry Ford, shouldn't you discuss it at that article where people interested in his biography might be able to respond or even correct his bio? (btw, I amended the above IP to my sig., as I remember making the comment ages ago but must not have been logged in by the time I saved it.) Wesley
- Wesley, you can't seriously be accusing people here of fabricating quotes and attributing them to Christians in the past. Up until recently you never challenged this entry as factual. Surely you are not claiming that these are Zionist lies, and should be deleted as Stevertigo wants. Further, how can you say that you don't understand what this has to do with the article: Someone deleted this entire article. How can that not have something to do with this article? RK
I think it was some time ago that I questioned the Gregory of Nyssa quotation, and there used to be a few other quotes on this article that I eventually deleted when they couldn't be documented. I don't really think these are examples of "Zionist lies" though, just plain sloppy scholarship that we're all guilty of from time to time, including myself. I said what I did about "fabricating quotes" in an attempt to point out that it's very easy to accuse someone of racial or religious bias, when they may instead be simply mistaken, or have some other entirely innocent reason for making edits. I hadn't noticed until after making my above post that the whole article had been deleted and restored. Deleting this entire article without any discussion was of course uncalled for. Wesley
- I looked for the quote with google and found (etc, etc). All are almost exactly the same quote as the one earlier in this talk page... are they all fabricated, though? Martin
- Well, I don't know for sure. If it's a genuine quote, it should be possible to find it as part of a larger work called "Homilies on the Resurrection". What looks like a fairly complete set of his writings is here: . As I said before, I can't find anything with that title, let alone that quote in context. The reason I started looking for it is I wanted to see what he said before and after that quote, who his audience was, the occasion of writing it, when he wrote it approximately, etc. But the references you give above could easily have been copied from each other, making me think it's some sort of urban legend. I'm still ready to be proven wrong by being shown the full primary source of the quote, though. Wesley 21:26 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)
- Well I looked, and the best I got was which has an actual set of notes, http://www.billwilliams.org/ANTI/notes.html, which credits the quote to Fred Gladstone Bratton in Europe and the Jews, pg83. Assuming I'm reading it right. Bratton apparently claims that the quote is from Oratio in Christi: Resurrectionem: XV, pg 553. Can I find a book called "Europe and the Jews" by Mr. Bratton? Can I heck. Can I find the full text to this oratio? Nope.
- I'm going with the "fabricating quotes" option. There should probably be something in the article about such things. *sigh* Martin
- Tertullian - "the whole synagogue of the sons of Israel killed him [Jesus]."
From the edit history, it appears that RK added this particular quote. way back on Dec 30, 2001. I can't find it on the net at all, so I'm curious what the source was... Martin
- Origen - "The blood of Jesus falls not only on the Jews of that time, but on all generations of Jews up to the end of the world."
Similar story - this one is at least the same as other quotes on the web, by Origen, but none of these purported quotes give an actual source.
- Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) - In Epistle 82 he writes "The ceremonies of the Jews are both baneful and deadly to Christians and whoever keeps them is doomed to the abyss of the devil."
Both Letter 82 and Tractate 82 appear to be lacking this phrase. I've not been able to find a copy marked as an epistle, but I'm under the impression that an epistle and a letter are much the same thing.
- Augustine preached "The Jews held Jesus, they insulted him; the Jews bound him; they crowned him with thorns, dishonored him by spitting on him; they scouraged him; they heaped abuse upon him; they hung him on a tree; they pierced him with a lance." This quoting became a popular Easter sermon in Churches, often leading to pogroms.
I only found this online here: , a random message board posting that also repeats te epistle 82 thing. This does not seem a reliable source, even assuming that we're not breaching copyright.
- removed reinstated quote - found reference
Uh, guys? As hard as it is to believe, I get a lot of my information from printed books, not the world-wide-web. If you go to a libray and pull out a dozen or more books on Christian anti-Semitism (many of which nowadays are written by Christians, even priests) you can find all these same quotes, with references and footnotes. Just not on websites. There is no anti-Christian conspiracy. This is real, even if makes some people uncomfortable. RK
- I'm sure it is real, which is why I left the referenced notes on Eusebius and Ambrose, and why I spent over an hour doing various searches to try and find many of the sources for these quotes. I was hoping that you could provide references for the above quotes so that people can read them in context and verify their correctness. Without references these quotes are unverifiable and out of context, and therefore deleting them is entirely proper.
- In the case of Augustine of Hippo, I went to Epistle 82 online, looked, and the alleged quote simply wasn't there. In the case of Gregory of Nyassa, wo different lists cited two different works supposedly by Gregory, and neither of those works appears to exist.
- I have managed to find Augustine's City of God quote, though, so I'll be reinstating that, with link and chapter numbers. If you'd help me with the rest, that would be helpful :)Martin
- Two things occurs to me to bring up here. It is fact that anti-Semites show no hesitancy in fabricating quotes to try and incite anti-Semitism. See the wikipedia entry on Benjamin Franklin, for example. Given this fact, it is completely unsurprising that anti-Semites also fabricate quotes from the Christian fathers. I take a harsh view of all fabricated quotes, whether they be fabricated against Christians, Americans, or anyone else.
- The second is that there are two subjects here - the first is possible anti-Semitism in the church fathers and the early church; the second is (ab)use of quotes from church fathers to promote anti-Semitism, and also to promote anti-Christian sentiment amongst non-Christians. These are, to my mind, seperate issues. Martin
Why does the page open with such quete as
"Ask most Jews what they honestly think about Jesus, and you will find a deep bitterness"
As a jew, in europe, I see that alot of anti-semic attitude, is just based on such views, often during discusions, a christian will comment "natuaraly, becuase you don't like Jesus". Wherther or not this is true (which I dought), I don't think the page should _open_ with such a quote.
My personal aquitance with fellow jews, shows rather that jews tend to view Jesus as just another jewish prophet, saying words of the time, not that diffrent from other jewish scholars (such as rabbi akiva, as an example). Christians tend to accept this view of 'un-uniqifing' Jesus as a sort of insult, and deduce that jews have something against him. Anyway, opening with such a quote, would just strenghthen views of hate I think.
Wow! I just read this page from beginning to end for the very first time. I am sorry, guys, but I am pretty much astounded at the lack of serious scholarship here. It is just one anachronism after another. It seems to me like there is this homogeneous label, "anti-Semite," which is attached (or not) to people based on quotes (or misquotes) from their writings. The apologetics are no better (and possibly worse). Here's a little history lesson for all of you. Four hundred years of Jewish-Christian history in a nutshell.
There was a religion called Judaism, which was very prevalent in the Roman Empire. It attracted a large following among the pagan peoples, many of whom did not convert, but who identified with Jewish religious principles (monotheism, etc.). Of course, it also had its detractors. At the same time, it also had various sects within it, and these sects did not always get along. After the destruction of the Temple, the dominant Jewish sect was the Rabbinates, who followed the traditions of the Pharisees of Temple times. The Christians were a small but growing sect, though to many outsiders, they were indistinguishable from the Rabbinates. Inevitably, there were differences between the two sects, and differences often lead to disputes. Nevertheless, for a time, there was also cooperation and acceptance. Look at Romans 11:26 "And so, all Israel shall be saved ..." and 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sake." This went both ways. Acts 5:38-39 quotes Rabban Gamaliel: "And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it..." A century later, Tertullian describes how Jews rescued Christians during times of persecution by hiding them in synagogues. Oh, and there were fights too, but I think I mentioned that already. In any event, Stephen was probably betrayed by Jewish supporters (Poppea, wife of Nero?), but that is to be expected between two rival groups.
There are a number of reasons why tensions increased between the two groups. Simple reasons: Christians fled Jerusalem in the Great Revolt (67-70); Rabbi Akiva proclaimed Bar Kochba the messiah; the Council of Jamnia created an invocation against the minim (it is unclear whether this was intended against all Christians or just Jewish Christians). Whatever. The fact is that as the Christian group increased in size, so did the animosity between it and the Rabbinate group. After all, they were vying for the same followers and each group felt threatened by the other.
This is an important point though. You will notice that many of the Christian quotes (and considerably more texts than are quoted) speak out against the "Judiazers." They felt threatened that people would leave the emerging religious group and revert back to the Rabbinate interpretation of Judaism. Meanwhile, the Rabbinate Jews felt threatened by the people abandoning them for the Christians (hence the Jamnia invocation). The split was in the making, with both groups laying claim to the same legacy (Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil"). For the next two centuries, the split was a matter of debate within the Church--should the Sabbath be on Saturday or Sunday? How does Easter relate to Passover? In this period, even people who condemned the Judaizers seem to be referring to those who opposed to clear distinctions between Church and Synagogue. Eventually they lost, but their influence was still felt for the next, crucial century--the century of the Church fathers most often quoted in this article.
By the fourth century, the split was complete, though the two groups continued to influence each other. Aphraates, Cyril of Jerusalem, Saints Ephraim, Epiphanius, and Gregory of Nyssa wrote in varying degrees of harshness against the Jews, though it appears that they were aiming at the Judaizers and the relics of Jewish influence. An interesting case of this is St Jerome, who studied Hebrew and the Bible with rabbis, but who also called the Jews "serpents." I will go out on a limb here and say that their opposition, despite the rhetoric, was directed against the rival Jewish religion, rather than against the Jews as a people. This even seems to have been the initial motivation of St John Chrysostom. The Christians of Antioch were still "too close" to the Jews. They were visiting synagogues and even using Jewish ritual objects. As a zealot he had to put a stop to it once and for all.
His answer was Adversus Judaeos. The fact is that his writing is particularly offensive: "... Inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil ... (Homily 1:6). The problem with Chrysostom though, as I see it, is not his rhetoric, so much as his establishment of the theology of deicide in the Judeo-Christian debate. For this he declares that there is "no expiation possible, no indulgence, no pardon." He made it an obligation to hate the Jews: "He who can never love Christ enough will never have done fighting against those [Jews] who hate him" (Homily 7:1). In effect, he had declared war against the Jews.
A different attitude was taken by Augustine. Despite their rejection of Christ, the Jews survived. This posed a challenge to the Church, which Augustine answered by introducing a new concept: testitis iniquitatis et veritatis nostræ--the Jews were witnesses to the truth of the Church. He compared them to Cain, the archetype of the murderer, but like Cain, they were to live in degradation but not be killed. The Jews were being punished for laying hands on Christ. (This, by the way, can be seen as the basis of Martin Luther's vituperance against the Jews twelve hundred years later, but I am not going that far in this little history diatribe.) By the way, in Epistle 5, Augustine also called on Christians to preach to the Jews "in the spirit of love," but this is often forgotten.
Anyways, these are two early attitudes that had an impact on the Church for hundreds of years. Inevitably, the underlying philosophy evolved and transformed itself countless times. Inevitably, there were also great Christian leaders who looked to earlier sources based on cooperation. There are lots of reasons why anti-Semitism flourished for centuries in Christian Europe, not all of them based on religion. Nevertheless, religion, particularly some of the early Church fathers like Chrysostom and Augustine, could be quoted (or misquoted) to provide a basis for the persecution of Jews.
Well, I probably just pissed a lot of people off, so I will stop here. This was in a nutshell. It is even more complex than all this and there are plenty of opposing views too. I just thought that if you're gonna discuss the issue, you might as well have some of the history to place it into context. Bye. Danny 02:37 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)
- (This paragraph would greatly benefit from evidence and examples.)
This note to editors, which I removed from the section concerning "Reasons Anti-semitism continued", is good advice for that whole section. It just sort of waves its hand over the issues in a vague way, and it would be helped by specifics. Mkmcconn 23:25, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)
I removed this:
- The Synod of Clermont (Franks), 535 CE - Prohibited Jews from holding public office. Nazi Germany, 1935 CE - Prohibited Jews from holding public office.
The 12th Synod of Toledo (Spain), 681 CE - Ordered the burning of the Talmud and other Jewish books. Nazi Germany - Ordered the burning of the Talmud and other Jewish books.
In 692, the Trulanic Synod forbade Christians to go to Jewish doctors, attend Jewish religious feasts or have friendly relations with Jews. Nazi Germany - The Nuremberg laws forbade people to go to Jewish doctors.
Some of the information here might well belong in the article, but the existing presentation was based on a phony logic that things which look similar must be casually connected.
I also changed "Weissmandel" to "Weissmandl" which is how his son spells it. Sometime I will get back to the "quotes" attributed to Weissmandl as other evidence casts doubt on them.
One other thing (which I did not try to change). It says Thus, almost all Jews today are descendants of the Pharisees. It reads like genetic descent is meant but I can't tell that for sure. If so I very much doubt that there is any evidence for it. It is only obvious that the Pharisee practice and tradition came to be the dominant one.
-- zero 14:28, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)
According to [ http://www.lernzeit.de/themen/sendungen/st/st290302_inhalt.phtm ], Cardinal Mindszenty was arrested by the Nazis for opposing the deportation of Jews. He was imprisoned for 4 months. According to [ http://www.eichlers.com/374249466.html ], he "acted as a secret conduit for money transfers to keep Jews alive". It's easy to find more such material. Until someone can provide an authoritative source that proves beyond doubt that this guy was an anti-semite, this one is gone:
- Cardinal Joszef Mindszenty, of Hungary, claimed that "The troublemakers in Hungary are the Jews! They demoralize our country and they are the leaders of the revolutionary gang that is torturing Hungary." (Source: B'nai B'rith Messenger, January 28, 1949)
Actually I am not surprised that problems like this exist on the page. Whenever I see an article that consists largely of a sequence of quotations, it is almost a certainty that the academic quality is unacceptable. I bet there are more examples on the page than this one.
-- zero 13:28, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)