Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament

Many modern day Christians, who have never read the New Testament all the way through, are unaware of the existence of all these verses. Some find it difficult to read these verses and still believe that Jesus himself did not teach anti-Semitism, despite the fact that Jesus was a Jew speaking to a predominantly Jewish audience.

[Removing Anti-Jewish Polemic from our Christian Lectionaries]

In the article Dr. Beck suggests that many passages in the New Testament are inherently racist or sexist, and should therefore be removed from public usage. Many, if not most, Christians would consider any such suggestions of inherent racism not as a component of the scripture but as a severely flawed interpretation of scripture. Many Christians would see the suggestion that selected verses be avoided on such grounds as a rejection of Christian tradition, and an attempt to edit the text of the Bible to fit the author's ideas.

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, and that the described actions are uncharacteristic of actual Jews or Jewish leaders living at that time.

I've moved the above text to the /Talk page for two reasons, both having to do with a failure to be written from a neutral point of view. (1) The first paragraph strikes me as polemical; if you want to say that some people use these passages to argue that Jesus was an anti-Semite, please be clear about that. (2) It is not clear why Beck's views, in particular, on the proprietary of passages from the New Testament deserve to be highlighted in Wikipedia, such that Beck's views are presented, followed by the views of "many Christians"--as if there were not other scholars who had not written on the same subject, and as if Beck were the only important one.

There is a huge misunderstand on a few points. (A) No one is saying that Jesus was an anti-semite. They are saying that the hatespeech against Jews was written by people who came decades after Jesus, and and eventually was canonized into the New Testament. This is a significant difference. In fact, many Christians now admit that the New Testament evolved over many decades. (B) None of this is about Dr. beck's views. I thought I provided a list of references to prove why. This is the mainstream academic view of those who study this subject. Why keep on saying that this is the view of one man, when it is the view of the field itself?

I'm sure this can all be rendered unbiased without too much fuss. Please, rather than engaging in further debate, just do render it unbiased. --LMS

A suggestion -- why don't we replace the paraphrased passages with actual quotations (from one or more English translations of the NT)? (That is, primary research rather than secondary.) About 80% of the Mark passages are actually very misleading (I didn't look at the rest); it's quite obvious in the gospel itself that these verses refer to the religious leaders, not to the Jewish people. --Marj Tiefert

Your personal opinions are not relevent. The indisputable historical fact is that throughout history, Christians have viewed these verses as referring to the entire Jewish people. This is also precisely how all the Church fathers viewed these verses. What you write here is a modern day historical revisionism that may sound nice, but has no basis in actual history. Please read the new material being added to the section on Christian anti-Semitism, on the violent hatespeech from many of the Church fathers. (That is, if it is still there. A few cowards are deleting all this material as fact as it is entered, as they don't like inconvinient facts. Very Orwellian.) RK

I really don't think we can just let these passages sit there without some defence from Christians, many of whom will disagree that these passages are in fact anti-Semitic... -- SJK

They are violent hatespeech which leads to mass murdering Jews. How would you like it, SJK, if I slandered you and your ethnic group as "the children of the Devil", and preached this repeatedly until crowdss murdered your own family? Would you say "Oh, that's Ok, the incitement really isn't against me at all>" Its funny how hatespeech is condemned in all parts of Wikipedia, except when it leads to Jews being murdered. This isn't just double-standard. Its much worse.

RK, well, for starters, according to Gospel of John, Jesus (a Jew) said that, and he was addressing "the teachers of the law and the Pharisees", not Jews in general (otherwise he'd be addressing himself!). So, the Christian defense goes, it is not slandering Jews: it is one Jew attacking another group of Jews. Besides, even if you disagree with that point of view, to be NPOV the article should mention it. -- SJK

So if I say that I am a black person, this gives me the right to spout violence-inciting statements against blacks? And if I say that I am a Christian, I can do the same to Christians? Your logic is faulty. I also note that you have never applied this logic...except when Jews are victims. Why? RK

If you are a black person, then you would not spout violence-inciting statements against blacks, for then you would be inciting violence against yourself. Of course, some people might interpret your statement as inciting violence, but in light of who it is saying it that would clearly be a misinterpretation. If someone is Jewish (and identifies themselves as Jewish, and is recognized by others as a Jew) that proves beyond almost all doubt that their statements are not anti-Semitic, not matter how they may appear. In the same way, if a person is of African origin (and identifies themselves as such, and is recognized by others as such), that proves beyond almost all doubt that they are not anti-black. Same applies to Christians. The logic applies to all groups; if I have only used it in relation to Jews, that is because you and others have been calling Jews anti-Semites, and have not called blacks anti-black, or Christians anti-Christian. An anti-Black Black, an anti-Christian Christian, an anti-Muslim Muslim, an anti-Arab Arab, and equally so an anti-Semitic Jew, are all oxymorons. -- SJK

SJK writes that "If you are a black person, then you would not spout violence-inciting statements against blacks, for then you would be inciting violence against yourself. Of course, some people might interpret your statement as inciting violence, but in light of who it is saying it that would clearly be a misinterpretation. If someone is Jewish (and identifies themselves as Jewish, and is recognized by others as a Jew) that proves beyond almost all doubt that their statements are not anti-Semitic, not matter how they may appear."

My god. The way that you rewrite the dictionary and go into such illogical verbal contortions is amazing. Is there any length that you are unwilling to go to in your effort to whitewash anti-Semitism? You single-handedly are telling the world (again) that a person of Jewish ancestry cannot be an antisemite? What utter nonsense. Many of the world's most virulent anti-Semites have been Jews; this is a historical fact. You are so desperate to make anti-Semitism out to be Ok, that you rewrite the very definition of the word "anti-Semitism" so that anti-Semitism is Ok and fine as long as the author of a Jew-hating screed has Jewish blood. Shame on you. This is not only a violation of NPOV, it again brings up your long-standing animosity towards the Jews. You have no place on this project until you rethink your anger towards the Jewish people.

Ok, here's the beginning outline of a defense. There are different sorts of verses, which will need different replies. The easiest sort is the historical claims, such as the Jews plotting to kill Jesus, to have the disciples arrested, etc. The verses themselves do not attempt to include all Jews, only specific ones committing specific actions.

I must disagree; The New Testment repeatedly attacks the Jewish people as a group. Sure, there are a handful of verses which attack individual Jews, but these have to be read in context, as the entire Jewish people are attacked "the children of the Devil". The NT repeatedly attacks the entire people, not individuals. That's the point.

I disagree. It attacks "the teachers of the law" and "the Pharisees", which were by no means all Jews. And even some of them it seems quite friendly towards, e.g. Nicodemus -- SJK

SJK, that is a modern day revisionist reading - but it has no validity. The indisputable historical fact is that throughout history, Christians have viewed these verses as referring to the entire Jewish people. This is also precisely how all the Church fathers viewed these verses. What you write here is a modern day historical revisionism that may sound nice, but has no basis in actual history. Please read the new material being added to the section on Christian anti-Semitism, on the violent hatespeech from many of the Church fathers. RK

No, they have not throughout history viewed those verses as referring to the entire Jewish people.

Such bald-faced historical revisionism has no place in this project. Wikipedia is meant to form an entry through debate, but not by merging historical facts with absolute fictions. SJK, until you can get over your long-standing animosity towards the Jewish people, you have no place on this project.

Firstly, a lot of Christians today don't view them as such. Secondly, clearly the original authors, mostly being Jews themselves, did not view those verses as such either. Just because later Christians tried to twist the NT into supporting their anti-semtiic views, doesn't make the NT in itself in any way anti-semitic. So what if the Church fathers interpreted the NT in antisemitic ways? The Church fathers did not write the NT -- they came over several generations later. Have you considered the possibility that the antisemitism of the Church fathers either does not have its origin in the NT at all, or alternatively has its origin in a misinterpretation of what the original (mostly Jewish) authors of the NT said? -- SJK

For another broad group, it should be enough to observe that the criticisms are of Jewish religious practice at that time and place, not of the race.

This is incorrect. There is a wholescale slander of the entire Jewish people, not a polite disagreement with Jewish religious practices. Come on, just go back and read the NT description of the Jews. You may agree with it or disagree, but its there nonetheless.

There is no wholescale slander of the entire Jewish people in the New Testament. All the apparently negative comments about Jews in the New Testament are referring to particular groups of Jews, not Jews in general (or else, they'd apply to Jesus and the disciples as well, since they were all Jewish!). -- SJK

As far as I can tell, anti-semitism is more about race than religion,

Where did hear such a thing? Anti-Semitism, historically, has NEVER been about race. The fact that some modern-day anti-Semites view Jews as a race is a modern innovation, and is not a traditional idea. Anti-Semitism has always been about religion until the last 150 years.

As the term is used today, "anti-semitism" is about race. -- SJK

What? That's absolutely false, and you know this. I thought that you had ended your long history of attacks against the Jews on this project. I am sad to see you returning to your old ways. Please leave this project, SJK. It is difficult enough for many people to deal with different points of view and develop a consensus, but impossible to do so when anti-Semites hurl flat-out lies in order to derail a discussion. RK

That is not absolutely false. As the term is used today, antisemitism is about race. Hitler was about race. The Holocaust is the supreme example of antisemitism. Of course, you are right that prior to the last two centuries or so, persecution against Jews was mainly because of their religion, not their race -- but that is a different phenomena from modern anti-Semitism, and the two really should not be given the same name. You, RK, are the one who is returning to your old ways, of accusing everyone who dares to disagree with you of being an anti-semite. Please leave this project, RK. It is difficult enough for many people to deal with different points of view and develop a consensus, but impossible to do so when people like you attack with baseless accusations of antisemitism everyone who dares to disagree with you. -- SJK

Let's be clear. SJK is an anti-Semite who deliberately writes bald-faced lies in an attempt to subvert this entry. He even has attemtpted to rewrite the dictionary on mnay occasions to make anti-Semitism look good, as long as anti-Semited have some Jewish blood. I would warn fellow Wikipedians not to take hisdeliberately false statements into account, as his bald-faced lies expose him for the anti-Semite that he is.

at least based on the opening paragraphs of wikipedia's anti-semitism article. Jesus also affirmed the Law of Moses, saying that none of it would pass away. He was often called 'rabbi'.

Irrelevent, because the New Testament was not written by Jesus. No one here is claiming that Jesus was an anti-Semite. The actual claim is that the four gospels contain large amounts of anti-Semiticic passages written by people many decades after Jesus's death. Paul himself contradicted Jesus on many occasions.

Seems funny that a bunch of anti-semites would claim a Jew as their founder. In fact, many of these so-called anti-semites were Jews themselves. Maybe 2000 years later, anti-semites could forget that Jesus was a Jew, but the writers of the gospel certaintly couldn't. -- SJK

Finally, the NT has many verses also calling attention to the sins of the Romans and of Christians. See especially the letters written to the Corinthians, and the first three or four chapters of Revelations. The argument that the NT is anti-semitic could almost be extended to say that the Epistles are anti-Christian, or would be if they were said by non-Christians to Christians.

It is only the Jews that the NT singles out as damned and the children of the Devil. I simply don't find much correlation between the NT version I own and the one you describe. How many verses condemn the entire Roman people? None. How many damn the entire Corinthian people? None. It is the Jews who receive special attacks in the NT; your may choose to set your task as to find out why, but not to deny that it is so.

Again, the NT does not claim all Jews are damned and the children of the Devil. It is attacking particular Jews for their actions, that is all. The frequent use in John of the term "Jews" when he means "some Jews" is regrettable for the interpretations it can give rise to, but I don't think it has any anti-semitic intent in itself. -- SJK

This is a flat-out lie. The New Testament often does attack the Jews as a group, and this is precisely how all the Church fathers read these same passages. Your utter lack of hontesly makes any form of discussion impossible.

The NT does not attack Jews as a group, and if the Church fathers read the passages this way, they were misintepreting them. The NT was written by Jews; they didn't mean to attack Jews as a group, because if the authors did they'd be attacking themselves, they'd be attacking their founder and his earliest followers, they'd be attacking Mary, Mary Magdalene, John the Baptist, and other (Jewish) figures from that period they admired, and they'd be attacking the Jewish prophets who they looked to as prophesying their coming. It is your utter refusal to consider any other possible interpretations of the NT other than the one which you favour makes any form of discussion impossible. -- SJK

However, I also think LMS is right to ask how the paper has been received in the academic community; some more authoritative responses would probably be better than my almost certainly flawed ad hoc outline above. Also, presenting a defense like I did above in the article may just lead to more back-and-forth argument, rather than a good neutral article; if so, than we need another approach entirely. --Wesley

This article should be retitled or subsumed into one of the Jewish-Christian dialogue pages. The verses don't "criticize" but "are used to criticize" in the never-ended squabbles between Christians and Jews.

They are used to incite mobs and nations to mass-murder Jews. That is why so many people find this topic necessary to write about. And that is why people like SJK are trying to hard to subvert this entry.

The Old Testament, which was written before the birth of Christianity, has hundreds if not thousands of verses critical of the people of God. The usual criticism in prophetic books like Isaiah is that the people were disregarding God's commandments, must repent, and will be in trouble if they don't repent. Since "the Lord chastens those whom He loves", the Old Testament criticism of the Israelites or Jews can mean:

God singled the Jews out for special criticism because they are inherently unworthy, and the critical Bible verses proves this, or

God chose the Israelites for reasons of His own and used criticism to make them better

Anyway, we need an article on "Christian attitudes toward Jewish people", perhaps with a verses used to criticize Jews section in it. Just bear in mind that interpretation of the verses is crucial and generally reflects the POV of the interpreter. Ed Poor

Huh? Are you aware that the religion we call Judaism developed out of the Israelites monotheism, and not the other way around? What you describe is a historical anachronism, and is the same argument used by Church leaders to justify atatcks on Jews. I would insist that until you do some secular academic (non-religious) study on the development of the Tanach (hebrew Bible, Old Testament) and the development of Judaism, that you not add such statements? You are simply in error.

There has been a lot of discussion here over the past few days. I want to add a couple of thoughts on why, as a Jew, I think the article on Christian anti-semitism, including the Biblical verses, is important (in an earlier comment "I think there is a lot at stake here" in Christian anti-Semitism/Talk, I tried to make a case for why this should be important to Christians). I am primarily responding to some things SJK wrote, but perhaps these points will be of interest to others.

When I was a child -- AFTER Vatican II -- I heard more than one Christian tell me that "Jews killed Christ." Given that Jews have been persecuted and killed by people yelling "Christ-killers" I can only beg any decent Christian to try to imagine how it felt when I was told that "Jews killed Christ." Perhaps if you have not yourself been a victim of racism (any kind of racism) you just cannot understand, but I rather hope that even someone who has lived a life of privilege is still capable of understanding and empathy.

A second point, and by way of analogy. I have heard some people calim they are not racist by saying things like "I have friends who are Black," or "I know not all Blacks are like thi, but some are." To my way of thinking, such protestations are themselves evidence of racism. I can certainly understand why a Black would cringe hearing these remarks -- I do. The same goes for "some Jews." The point is, why identify them as Jews? The word "Jew" names a large group of people. To identify ANYONE as a "Jew" is to identify that person with this group. And to then say something about that "Jew" is to imply something about the group. Is Joe a crook? then say "Jow is a crook." But if you say "Well, I know a Jew who is a crook," you are saying something anti-semetic. And if you think to yourself, "well, I am NOT anti-semetic" then please do me a favor and just don't talk that way, then!

If the Christian Bible simply named the individuals who identified Jesus to the Roman authorities, or who called for his punishment, perhaps there would not be any issue. But when the text identifies "Jews," or "Pharisees" (practially all Jews today ar Pharisees, or the heirs to the Pharisees), it is inflammatory.

By the way, just as I would ask a Black person if I wanted to know if something were offensive to Blacks, I would ask a Jew if I wanted to know if something were offensive to Jews. It is a little offensive for a non-Jew to tell a Jew that something isn't offensive to Jews! At best, a non-Jew can say "I didn't mean to be offensive" or "I do not want to be offensive." In some cases, that person can even say, "I am sorry." -- SR

One of the most common and useful tricks we have for ending controversy is to "go meta". Wikipedia ought to have no opinion on whether these Bible verses actually are anti-semitic or not. That's controversial, and the Wikipedia itself has no opinion on controversial matters. Instead, the Wikipedia ought to step back to a point where all parties can agree.

Some historical facts in this area are uncontroversial, as in: "The Bible says X. People such as A, B, and C, and others like them, living in the years, I, J, and K, have used these verses to support an anti-Jewish agenda. Scholars Q and R have analysed these verses and claimed that the verses are anti-Semitic. Scholars M and N have claimed such-and-so."

When something like this is well-done, all parties ought to be able to read it and say "Yes, that's a fair characterization. It gets the information out so that people can decide for themselves."

--Jimbo Wales

well, this is how I read the the previous version of the article, which included the versus. The versus were included with an attribution, or citation, to Norman A. Beck, a professor of theology and classical languages at Texas Lutheran University. I didn't insert the list of verses, so I don't have a personal investment -- but I read them in the spirit of "The Bible says x" and ?Scholar Q has anaylized these verse and claims that they are anti-semetic" -- SR

Right, I thought so too, but I'm really totally uneducated on this topic. As an interested reader with no background, I think that the list of verses was very helpful. --Jimbo Wales