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

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, containing statements from many of the Church fathers. 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 have led 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.

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 make 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. 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."

The way that you rewrite the dictionary is amazing. You single-handedly are telling the world (again) that a person of Jewish ancestry cannot be an antisemite? What nonsense. Many of the world's most virulent anti-Semites have been Jews; this is a historical fact. RK

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 throughout history, most Christians have viewed these verses as referring to the entire Jewish people. This is also how many of the Church fathers viewed these verses. Please read the new material being added to the section on Christian anti-Semitism, on the statements of the Church fathers. RK

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

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 it is 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 not been about race. The fact that some modern-day anti-Semites view Jews as a race is actually a modern innovation, and is not a traditional idea. Anti-Semitism has been about religion until the last 2000 years.

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

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

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 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. RK

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

The New Testament often does attack the Jews as a group, and this is precisely how all the Church fathers read these same passages. RK

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

The religion we call Judaism developed out of the Israelites monotheism, and not the other way around. What you describe is a historical anachronism. RK

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

I think its wrong to try to judge something written in the first century CE by modern day standards. Identifying an individual as a member of a particular ethnic group might be racist, it might not be -- there is nothing inherently racist with the statement "Some white people commit murder" or "Some black people commit murder" or "Some Jews commit murder" -- it all depends on the reason the individual had for making it. Of course, making those sort of statements, even without racist intent, in todays context is inadvisable -- but first century CE is not todays context. Consider the following statement: "The Americans bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki". Is that racist since it was only some Americans that did so? And is it racist for mentioning that they are Americans? Of course not -- it is normal practice to use a people as a metonym for their leadership. In the same way, when the NT says "the Jews did this" or "the Jews did that", when what is really meant is that the Jewish leadership did that. There is nothing inherently racist about that, especially since it was Jews who were making these statements! Of course, making those sort of statements today is inadvisable, due to the way they have been twisted by antisemites. But we can't expect the authors of the NT to have realised that their statements would be twisted in this way -- and so it is unfair to try to apply modern standards do that.

Secondly, I don't care what is offensive to anyone. I do not care what is offensive to blacks, or offensive to whites, or offensive to Jews, or offensive to anyone else. People are offended by what they choose to be offended by, and if you choose to, you can be offended by anything. Truth is more important than avoiding offence. And a lot of people, who don't like the truth, will try to avoid facing it by claiming that stating it offends them.

Thirdly, you write "To my way of thinking, such protestations are themselves evidence of racism." If you think like that, you make the concept of racism meaningless. Since when does trying to defend yourself against false accusations of racism makes you a racist? SR, I hereby accuse you of being a racist. Now what are you going to say? Anything you say to try to defend yourself, is by your own logic, evidence of your racism. I hereby accuse everyone on this planet of being a virulent racist. Therefore, by your logic, if any of them dares to try to defend themselves against this accusation, that just proves my accusation right. -- SJK

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

Originally, the list of verses wasn't attributed in the article, there was just a link to the online paper that had the verses. I followed the link to find who the author was, and added that information to the wiki article. The thanks I got was to be accused of trying to make it seem that it was only one man's opinion. --Wesley

Well, it looks like I was right about my little bare-bones defense creating lots of back and forth argument. :-) One thing that the discussion actually clarified for me was the different working definitions of "anti-semitism". FWIW, I've been mostly thinking that the word meant prejudiced against the Jewish race. And a couple days ago at least, that's what the opening paragraph or two of the Anti-semitism article led me to think. And appears that at some point, SJK was working with that definition too; at least I think said so above. But above, RK made it clear that it was prejudice against the Jewish religion, or against both. So we've been arguing with fundamentally different working definitions of the the key term in the discussion.

If we're really talking about the Jewish religion, than I would agree Christianity does teach that Judaism misses the boat when it fails to acknowledge that Jesus Christ is God, and all of that, and the New Testament is certainly highly critical of the Jewish religion. As to race, it's very forgiving towards Jews that decide to become Christians. I understand that this won't give Jews much comfort; I won't pretend the New Testament and Christianity in general says anything different. As to connections between the NT and acts of violence towards Jews at other times and places, I would say that the NT itself doesn't teach violence towards them; if anything, one could probably find more passages suggesting that Christians have nothing to do with them, especially not in a religious context. I hadn't looked at John Chrysostom's Antiochian sermons before, but from the introduction to the first one, it appears that his comments are directed at Christians who were planning to join the Jews in celebrating some Jewish feasts, thinking that Judaism and Christianity were very similar. Chrysostom used harsh language to drive home the point that theologically, the two are very different; I think nearly all Jews today would agree.

So to stop rambling and get to the point of improving the article, I would suggest that we clarify exactly what is meant by 'anti-semitic', preferably in each Wikipedia article in which it's mentioned, because the term is apparently so prone to misunderstanding. Peace, --Wesley

Wesley's comments go far to clarifying the issue. I'd like to add a thought that may help more. First, I personally do see a difference between "anti-judaism" and "racial anti-semitism." I think the distinction is very important in terms of understanding different kinds of hatred, and different sources for hatred. But for most Jews, the experience of being a victim of anti-judaism or anti-semitism is practically indistinguishable. I think one big reason for this -- which Christians may find hard to understand completely -- is that for Jews being Jewish is both a religion AND a nation (or culture or civilization), at the same time. To be frank, when I was a kid I thought "christianity" was a culture too, and one that you automatically inherited from your parents. It took me a long time to realize how my friends, who I thought were Christian, did not think of themselves as Christian AT ALL. A Jew who isn't religious is simply a non-religious Jew, but -- I learned -- a Christian who isn't religious is no longer a Christian (or at least, this is what many non-Jewish friends informed me, that if they did not accept Christ or "believe" in Christianity, they really weren't Christian at all!). I still admit I do not compeltely understand it so I hope Christian readers will forgive me if I am misrepresenting Christians. My point really is that Jews are not just people who have a covenant with God, they are descendants from Abraham. Moreover, these two things are intimately bound together -- God's covenant is not with individuals, but with a nation. And even for non-religious Jews, this covenant is an important part of our historical mythology/national identity. It is thus next to impossible for us not to take an attack on Judaism very personally.

I think I understand what you're saying, though probably not perfectly. Forgive me if I seem to stray off topic, but this will make sense in a moment. Within Christianity, the Protestant branches tend to be the most individualistic, especially the ones that hold to "believer's baptism" instead of "pedobaptism". For them, no one is a Christian until they decide to be one; depending on the branch of Protestantism, it might be possible to stop being a Christian (see Calvinism for those who can't). For pedobaptists, which includes many Protestants, and about all Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, Christianity is something one can be born into and raised in, but also something one can leave by choice. (Functionally, I think infant baptism very roughly corresponds to circumcision in Judaism; to what degree seems to be debated.) I was raised on the "believer's baptism" side of the fence, but of late have moved to the "pedobaptist" camp, and am just starting to learn what that can mean. At any rate, for anyone who identifies closely with a religion, it's understandable that they should take an attack on that religion personally. --Wesley

Finally, although I would argue that Christian anti-Judaism and racial anti-semitism are in many ways different, in fact, historically, the former influenced and laid the groundwork for the latter.

I won't dispute that point. I'm just suggesting that for the New Testament writers to be racist is absurd, since they were of the same race. That they were anti-Jewish, as in opposed to the religion of Judaism, I would be foolish to deny. If possible, that distinction should be made, or at least the potential distinction mentioned, in connection with these verses. --Wesley

I agree that the article can be improved, but I hope it can be changed in a way that takes these concerns seriously -- SR

I have no problem with listing a list of statements from the NT which some people claim are antisemitic. But to be NPOV, we should also note that many people (including I suspect most Christians) deny that these statements are antisemitic, and argue that claims that these statements are being misinterpreted. And if we are going to provide a list of verses, we should also include for each verse a defence. I'm not saying we should endorse either position, that they are antisemitic or not -- I'm merely saying we should provide not just the argument that they are antisemitic, but also the Christian defence. -- SJK

I think that listing two alternate interpretations of these verses is highly problematic, chiefly because many of them will have more than two interpretations. Any Christian "defense" should be general, not verse by verse. And there is no "one" Christian defense for each verse. Not when there are upwards of 20,000 or 30,000 denominations. This would also set a poor precedent for dealing with Bible verses on other topics. Further, if someone adds another verse, who's going to remember to add both interpretations to it? I'm all for dealing with this fairly, but this isn't the best approach. --Wesley

To Wesley -- I think we understand each other. As I recall RK explicitly stated that anti-semitism was not racism. My view is somewhat different -- I think anti-semitism takes different forms, sometimes racist, sometimes religious. But I was trying to make a larger point, and you may still be misunderstanding me, albeit only slightly. My point is that when it comes down to it, it is difficult for Jews to talk about a "Jewish Religion" distinct from "the Jewish people." I am trying -- very inarticulately, I admit -- to take issue with your concession that "for anyone who identifies closely with a religion, it's understandable that they should take an attack on that religion personally." I understand why you get this from what I earlier wrote, but I meant something a significantly, but subtley, different. I think that as far as anti-Judaism goes, almost all Jews today will take offense, even if they do not identify with "Jewish Religion" AS SUCH. All they need to do is identify with "being Jewish" i.e. the Jewish people. Because what you -- non-Jews -- call religion is for us not just or necessarily religion but history, culture, and national consciousness. I think I was wrong to say "take it personally" because that suggests not only a subjective but an individual response. I meant to indicate a subjective response, but also a collective response. Because it is not about me or what I think individually, it is about the people I identify with historically. Does this make any sense?

Yes, I think it makes sense; your explanation certainly helps. I probably won't ever understand entirely since culturally, it's a foreign concept to me. --Wesley

I understand your distinction between Catholics and Protestants. But my Catholic friends told me that despite being baptized, they still had to be "confirmed" in the Church, i.e. make a declaration of faith as an adult. Or am I again misunderstanding? By contrast, a Jew is a Jew even if as an adult he decides not to obey the law or believe in God. Would an adult Catholic who renounces the Church and God still be a Catholic?

I don't think you're misunderstanding, though I'm not as familiar with all the ins and outs of Catholicism. Personally, I'm learning and growing into Eastern Orthodoxy; one place it differs is that it doesn't have a time of confirmation, and infants began taking part in the Eucharist from the day they're baptized, rather than waiting for teenage confirmation as in the Catholic Church. I think someone who renounces the Church and God, and therefore presumably breaks off all contact with the Church, would have effectively excommunicated themselves from the Church, though in most cases the Church would take no formal action. In Orthodoxy, the only one who has the final say regarding who is and is not Christian is Jesus Christ, of course; no one calls themself a Christian, the Church calls people Christian through baptism and chrismation, but the Orthdox Church does not single someone out and say they are not a Christian.

Finally, as far as the versus go: I fully understand that many, perhaps most, contemporary Christians are not and do not want to be anti-semitic. But, SJK, I honestly do not see how they can persist in these claims unless they renounce certain verses in the Bible. No matter how Christians read them, they are utterly offensive to Jews.

And to be clear, I want to make a distinction. Personally, I have a lot of trouble with a religion that claims specifically to supersede my own. I think the very term "New Testament" is offensive, as are claims that Jesus is the messiah alluded to in the Tanach. But I accept that Christians will call their sacred text the New Testament, and view Jesus as their Messiah. I not only accept that, but I understand that believing these things to not make a Christian anti-semetic. My point is that there are a number of things I do not like but I will accept and I won't expect any apologies or retractions -- ultimately, I accept these things as just a difference of opinion/belief/path to God. BUT when a particular verse makes explicit and specific reference to JEWS, it is completely my business, and my feelings count.

I would have to agree with you on this point. The verses do not necessitate violence towards Jews, but they are certainly religiously offensive to adherents of Judaism, and, according to your explanation, by extension anyone who considers themself Jewish. There's no way to change that without editing the New Testament. --Wesley

SJK rightly points out that things should be read in context. I believe he is sort of right. I say "sort of" because most religious documents, like myths (and I use the word to refer to a function, not to the veracity, of a text) in general, exist to be taken out of context – part of what makes them sacred is that people find in them a "timeless" quality that authorizes their use in new contexts. I mean, it is pretty amazing that it is not just scholars of Roman Judea, or of the ancient Near East, continue to read the Jewish and Christian Bible today. They find meaning in it today by taking it out of context. And this is precisely what Christian anti-semites (but not all Christians) do when they call Jews today "Christ killers."

But to pursue SJK's point that we should look at these verses in context – alas, that is what I am trying to do. SJK points out that they were written by Jews. This is true, but a partial truth. They were written by Jews who were breaking away from Judaism and creating a new religion that they claimed superseded and replaced Judaism. SJK warns that "we can't expect the authors of the NT to have realised that their statements would be twisted in this way" but I believe – in context that this is precisely how the authors themselves were using these verses (perhaps not all, but certainly many). I agree that it is anachronistic to apply the contemporary meaning of the word "race" to the 1st century. Like RK, I have labeled these verses "anti-semitic," not racist as such (it is the continued legitimation of these verses today that I consider racist). But it is similarly wrong to view these statements as criticisms of specific individuals or a specific way of thinking. They are attacks on those people who reject Jesus as Christ and who reject the "new" covenant with God. These attacks characterize those people who reject Jesus as Christ and the new covenant with God as children of Satan who worship in the synagogue of the Devil. Jews today are the heirs of the Pharisees; we do not accept Jesus as Christ and we do not accept a new covenant. Jews today see a connection, a continuity, with those Pharisees in the 1st century. And we do not question or challenge Christian's connection to Jesus or the apostles, and the right of Christians today to enter into their own covenant with God and find their path to Him through Jesus. We do, however, ask how Christians today will deal with their connection to these specific New Testament verses.

Well, some of the verses certainly are limited to specific people, a couple of them don't appear to directly involve Jews at all (the Roman guards falling over when the angel appeared at the tomb), but many are about Jews in general, or at least all Jews who deny Jesus was God. To Christians, it appears that Jews have rejected not only Jesus Christ, but Moses and the prophets who foretold his coming, and the Law that prepared them for Christ. If Jesus is God, and Jews reject Jesus, than Jews reject God in the flesh, the most complete revelation of God to humanity. (Please forgive the harshness of my language.) Christianity is not Hinduism, and it is not Universalism. I think that Orthodox theologians go as far as any Christian can within the faith when they say that for those who have not explicitly become Christians in their lifetime, they may well have an opportunity to do so after their death. This is why they pray for the dead, "Lord, have mercy on [name] and remember him/her in your kingdom". Most protestants would not go even that far; I won't pretend to speak for Catholics, except that I doubt that conservative Catholics would go further.

At the same time, I personally don't think even the harsh words I've used above require me to hate anyone. Even given the above beliefs, I quite fail to see how hatred, violence or murder would ever bring a Jew or any non-Christian one millimeter closer to God or Christianity, or how such a response would in any other way be made appropriate or justified by the above. A Christian response? My personal feeling is to avoid re-introducing additional Jewish theology or practice beyond what the Church has historically kept already, but also to leave the door of the Church open to Jews, as to everyone else. I note that overt acts of proseletizing are considered anti-semitic by the article. All I can say is that while I probably wouldn't suggest or undertake that sort of thing, the motivation is probably almost the best possible, given the exclusive nature of Christianity's claims. --Wesley

SJK accuses me of being a racist, in part because he is upset that I accuse him of being a racist. Please allow me to clarify and explain myself. I did not want to call you, SJK, a racist – but I did want to call attention to specific things a person can say that are themselves hurtful. Frankly, I was hoping to take the approach of "hating the sin, but not the sinner" – an approach I though participants in this discussion would find congenial. I must say, though, that I am a little surprised that SJK writes "I don't care what is offensive to anyone." Frankly, I also thought that this discussion could be "love your neighbor as yourself" – one principle I thought both Jews and Christians agree is fundamental. I had hoped that I have been clear that what is at stake in these discussion is the relationship between two neighbors, Jews and Christians – and how this relationship today must come to terms with its relationship in the past. I personally do not see how there can be a relationship when people are careless about offending others. In any event, I was trying to make a slightly different point: who is it that defines what constitutes an "anti-semitic" act? If "anti-semitism" means (at least for the purpose of this discussion) speech or acts that attack Jews, it just seems reasonable to me that what Jews take to be an attack be taken seriously. When SJK writes that "People are offended by what they choose to be offended by" I take him to be dismissive (please correct me if I am mistaken). Are you saying that there is no such thing as "anti-semitism" (because it is only in the eye of the beholder)? If not, I am trying to explain that what I wrote about offensiveness was meant to query why a non-Jew has the right to define what constitutes anti-semitic and a Jew does not.

Well. I realize this discussion has gone rather far from what is appropriate in an encyclopedia. Yet I think it is important, because no matter what the NPOV policy of Wikipedia is, some topics are necessarily controversial and difficult and I am glad that there is a forum where contributers can work through these issues. When SJK calls for the inclusion of a defense of these verses, his use of the word "defense" makes me worry that he thinks we are attacking Christianity. We are not. But we are informing Christians of the effects of some of the things they have written or repeated. But I think the crucial issue is this: Do Christians want their religion to be anti-Semitic? If the answer is "no," then the thing to do is not to defend anti-Semitic statements, but to recognize them, apologize for them, and get over them. For us to agree that Christianity can be a non-anti-Semitic religion, does not call for a defense of anti-Semitism but rather a coming to terms with a complicated past -- SR

I understand the issue you raise, but we can't really choose what our religion is; it has been given to us. If becoming "non-anti-semitic" means giving up the claims to exclusivity, to the claim that God has most fully revealed himself to humanity in the person of Jesus Christ, than I don't think it's possible. To do so would be to so radically redefine Christianity as to invent yet another religion. We can of course renounce hatred and violence, as should have been done throughout history but wasn't. This means rigorously teaching each other and our children how to NOT abuse these and other passages. We can also make Christianity as inclusive as possible by making it a safe place for everyone, a "hospital" for people to come and be healed of their wounds, as the church fathers often spoke of it. It is inclusive in the sense that everyone can become a Christian, regardless of race, previous religion, mental ability or disability, or what have you. I have no doubt that a good deal of what I've written will seem highly inflammatory, and for that I'm sorry. Not much of this had to do with the actual article; hope it wasn't a waste of space. Peace, --Wesley

Welsey, I have not found what you have written to be inflammatory; I always appreciate the sincere, honest, and engaging spirit of your remarks. I appreciate your comment about religion being given. I apologize if my own comment was unclear -- yes, I admit that Christianity's claim to exclusivity (which in a strange sort of way is also a claim to inclusivity, meaning to include everyone) bothers me. But I absolutely do not equate it with anti-semitism and I am not calling on Christians to renounce their religion. Once again your words invite me to be clearer: what I mean is, I believe Christians have a resoponsibility to grapple with some of the potential consequences of their "claim to exclusivity," to take responsibility for past ways that this claim to exclusivity has lead to abuses, and to find ways to continue to live within their religion but in a world shared by others, in a way that is not dismissive or disrespectful of others. I do believe that there is a history of dismissiveness and disrespect that starts in the New Testament. But I do not at all believe that these attitudes are essential to Christianity. They may follow from exclusive claims, but they do not necessarily follow. And despite problems in the past, I do believe that many Christians and Christian organizations, including the Catholic Church but also including Protestant organizations, have very consciously and openly grappled with this, and I appreciate it very much. I do not think that every contributer to Wikipedia has grappled with these issues as honestly or responsibly as Pope John XXIII, and groups such as the Alliance of Baptsists and the United Church of Canada referedt to in the article, and perhaps you too. I am sorry if my own attempts to explain myself have been unclear -- certainly others have not responded as I hoped.

Wesley, I think you misunderstand what SR and I have been saying. Neither of us have been asking Christians to renounce their religion; neither of us are asking for Christians to renounce the belief that their religion is true. All religions make such claims, and obviously is not anti-Semitism. Rather, we are discussing a secondary point - the fact that the traditional way that Christian chose to pursure this path was by denigrating and insulting Judaism. Early Christians had many paths open to them, yet many of them seemed to lack the skills or desire to explain what was true and just about Christianity; instead some of the apostles and many of the Church leaders felt that they had to "prove" that Judaism was evil, and that Jews were filthy and corrupt. It is these claims and positions that many people are asking Christians to renounce. RK

One can believe that Jesus was the messiah without believing that the entire Jewish people at the time, or later, were responsible for his death. One can believe that Christians have a path to God without believeing that all religious Jews are damned to burn in Hell and therefore must be converted to Christianity; one can believe in the Trinity without saying that Jews are obstinate, and willfully turn away from God. One can believe that the New Testament is divine without publicly (or privately!) disparaging those who believe in the Tanach (Old Testament, Hebrew Bible) alone. In fact, many Christian denominations are officially moving in this direction; some are listed in the section on "Reconciliation between Christians and Jews" in the main entry. In other words, no one is asking Christians to give up their theological beliefs; just their anti-Jewish ones. It is not anti-Semitic for Christians to say "We believe that our way to God is true, and other other ways to God in other religions are lacking". It is anti-Semitic to say that "our way to God is true, and those damned blind Jews willfully reject and hate God, they will burn in Hell, they are damned for murdering God, and they are whores, they are blind Pharisees, etc." Sadly, the latter way has traditionally been the Christian way for most of the past 2000 years. This is what SR and I propose must change to end anti-Semitism. RK

there is one question I have left to ask you, and others -- I understand that your own beliefs lead you to see Jews as among those who have rejected God made flesh. My question is, can you believe/accept that we have done son "in good faith?" (i.e. for what WE consider sincerely legitimate/valid spiritual reasons). I think this is the real challenge of tolerance, in the good sense of the word. SR

I wish you -- and all other readers/contributers -- a happy and healthy New Year, SR

Thank you very much for taking my remarks in the spirit they were meant. As usual, you invite me to learn more, this time about exactly how Pope John XXIII has handled the issue. Perhaps I can learn from him. As to whether you have rejected God made flesh in good faith (to paraphrase your language), I firmly believe that only God can judge that; I'm in no position to your heart or anyone else's. In fact, I'm barely beginning to know my own heart, as God reveals it to me. The possibility of having done so in good faith is what leads me to think you may well have a chance to accept God in the flesh in the next life. If by some chance you're right and there is no next life, then I suppose you have nothing to worry about. ;-) May God bless you richly in the New Year, --Wesley

Personally, I wouldn't care less if the verses go. I'm not a biblical literalist. But I still insist they are not antisemitic. Why? I define antisemitism as involving things such as (solely on the basis of their ethnicity or religion) killing Jews, using violence against Jews, stealing or vandalising the property of Jews, deporting Jews, segregating Jews, discriminating against Jews in employment or the provision of services, imposing special taxes on Jews, abusing them in public, shunning them socially, etc. These verses do not call for any of these things, nor is there any evidence that the people who wrote these verses intended to use them to call for these things. Of course, people other than the original authors may have twisted them in this manner, but what the original authors intended by their statements is what matters, not how their sucessors twisted them.

I neither participate in nor advocate in any of these acts -- I consider them to be an extreme of moral evil. Therefore, I am not an antisemite. I find it highly offensive when people (like RK) baselessly accuse me of an antisemitism, merely because I disagree about whether or not the NT is antisemitic, or whether Zionism is a good or bad thing, or what should happen in the Middle East, and so on. My views on this issue may well be totally wrong -- but, since they do not involve any calls for Jews to be killed, injured, discriminated against, shunned, or anything similar -- they are not antisemitic.

Since I have produced a definition of antisemitism, which clearly includes all the major manifestations of it (e.g. the Holocaust, pogroms, etc.), you cannot call me dismissive of its existence. My point remains that trying to defend one's self against baseless allegations of antisemitism is no evidence at all that one is an antisemite. True, many antisemites will deny they are antisemitic -- but almost all non-antisemites will do the same.

So will people please stop calling me an antisemite without any evidence? It is baseless name calling, highly insulting, and disrespectful to the victims of real antisemitism.

Also, maybe I should have been clearer about my comments about not caring about offending people, since I was being somewhat hyperbolic. I do believe one should try to avoid causing offence. However, truth is more important than avoiding offence. I honestly believe that the New Testament is not antisemitic. I may be wrong. However, since I believe my position to be true, it is my intellectual duty to state and defend it. RK seems to find the fact that I believe this highly offensive. The fact that he does, does not concern me in the slightest, nor should it. It only shows that RK is afraid of honest pursuit of the truth. -- SJK

Again, SJK, you are making things up. In point of fact, other Christians working on this entry have held such a position, yet in my discussions with them I have not called them anti-Semitic. I only said that you were, because of your consistent and repeated anti-Jewish statements throughout Wikipedia. Maybe I was wrong, but your response does nothing to change my mind. Instead, you reiterate that you don't care what Jews think at all (a few paragraphs above), and then you attempt to mislead people by pretending that I am attacking all people with a certain position as anti-Semitic. That just isn't so (as anyone can see for themselves by reading this very entry.) Look, a criticism against you personally is not the same as a criticism against every Christian. Please learn to understand the difference. Your "defense", thus, only makes me more suspicious of you. RK

On the issue this page is actually about, I think that if we are going to include a detailed list of NT verses some consider antisemitic, we should also include a Christian defence of them. Otherwise, we are providing (in the list of verses), moderately detailed coverage of the argument of one side, but only a general coverage of the argument of the other. To be NPOV, we should either limit the coverage of the "NT is antisemitic" side (by eliminating most of the verses), or give the "NT is not antisemitic" side detailed coverage (by including for each of them a defence).

In fact, I think a whole long list of verses is pretty useless. It would be much better if we took a selection of a few key verses, and include a detailed discussion (including each side's case) in relation to those key verses. -- SJK

I am not surprised that you think quoting the anti-Semitic passages is useless. Then again, you deny their very existence, and have been claiming that no such anti-Semitic passages exist. It would greatly strengthen your case if all examples were removed! This, however, will not clarify the issues. It will simply tend to hide it, which I still maintain is your true agenda.

Wesley writes "To Christians, it appears that Jews have rejected not only Jesus Christ, but Moses and the prophets who foretold his coming, and the Law that prepared them for Christ. If Jesus is God, and Jews reject Jesus, than Jews reject God in the flesh, the most complete revelation of God to humanity. (Please forgive the harshness of my language.)"

No Jewish person can forgive this unforgiveable assault on Jews that, sadly, some Christians still teach about Jews. The argument taht you repeat here is, in fact, the ultimate justification for hatred and persecution of Jews. If this argument was true, then Jews truly are an evil people that deserve to be hatred, if not killed . What kind of evil people actually know for a fact that Christianity is true, yet nontheless falsely claim not to believe it ? Obviously, anyone who does such a thing is deliberately trying to attack God, and serve the Devil. And this is what many Christians have preached for 2,000 years, and this is why Jews were persecuted, discriminated against, and exterminated. But I would ask, do you really believe that this is true? Do you honestly believe that SR and I know that Jesus is the messiah, know that Christianity is true, yet claim to reject it nonetheless? If you say "yes", then you are a traditional Christian, but I would regret to say that such an attitude is considered anti-Semitic. If you say "no", then I would say that you are not in any way anti-Semitic. (And I do not believe that you are!) However, if you say "no" then what is left of the argument that you were taught? The only people that believe that Jesus is the messiah, and that Christianity is true, are Christians. Your argument would only refer to Christians who believed in Christianity, yet nonetheless decided to attack Christianity (presumable to serve the Devil?). So it could be used to attack Christians. Yet in practice, because people don't think about the question, it has historically been used to incite anger at Jews for their "willful blindness". And this is what we Jews find so wrong and incomprehensible. RK

Weley writes "I think that Orthodox theologians go as far as any Christian can within the faith when they say that for those who have not explicitly become Christians in their lifetime, they may well have an opportunity to do so after their death."

Catholics and most (if not all) Protestants do not believe this. However Mormons do believe this. They practice post-death baptisms. The Jewish community was enraged when they found out that the Mormons used their extensive geneological records program to hold mass "baptisms" of dead Jews murdered by Nazis in their concentration camps, in an attempt to retroactively turn dead Jews into Mormons. Jewish people regarded this action as an abominable desecration of the dead, one step removed from necrophilia. Mormons thought that they were doing God's will. I just wish that when others tried to do God's will, they would leave Jews out of it from now on. RK

It is not my place to interfere in this discussion, but RK: you seem to be consistently misinterpreting everything that SJK says. You write "Instead, you reiterate that you don't care what Jews think at all (a few paragraphs above)." Here SJK is simply saying that the truth should not be sacrificed in order to not offend people. You write "I am not surprised that you think quoting the anti-Semitic passages is useless"; this is almost the opposite of what SJK meant. He actually called for an in-depth discussion of certain passages, rather than a list of references that mean nothing to people unfamiliar with the NT. Finally, "I only said that you were, because of your consistent and repeated anti-Jewish statements throughout Wikipedia." I have not (nor, I believe, has anybody else) seen any evidence of this these remarks. Please stop calling names and concentrate on constructive arguments.