Talk:Antisemitism in Christianity

Poland is 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

--

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, 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

---

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 whatsoever. These quotes have alwaysbeen used by Chrisitians 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? Come off it. Why are such attacks against others bad, but against Jews one needs "proof" that it is antisemitism? This isn't rocket science. There are just a few malcontents here who don't want this subject discussed. --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

---

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. 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.

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 pervered history in the New Testament makes the victims out to be evil, and the mass-murderers 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 hate-based historical revisionim. How would you feel if you read a history of the Holocaust in which Adoph Hitler was presented as good, the Jews were literally referred to as the offspring of the devil, and the murders by the Nazis were not mentioned at all, and the only murders mentioned were the ones by Jews of Nazis? Such a history would be blatant anti-Semitism if written by someone in today's Neo-Nazi movement. But its an exact analogy. 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.

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.

This is nonsense. The New Testament most certainly does single out the Jews, and only the Jews, 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."

Have you heard about the Jews? They're so poor, that they can only afford one God! (drum roll). Credit goes to Mel Brooks for the joke, and RK for this interruption of our normally scheduled theological debate.  :)

---

"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."

No, not in the slightest. These passages are called anti-Semetic because they incite readers to hate Jews, period. 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 (which historians dispute) 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.

Yes, 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. But I notice that you don't do this for any group in the world, except for Jews. Hmmm. Your agenda is unmasked. RK

The new addition continute "and that the described actions are uncharacteristic of actual Jews or Jewish leaders living at that time."

This is anti-Semitism. How dare 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. 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?

Huh? The Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, Old Testament) contains no such things. It is the other way around. This is a historical anachronims.RK

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.

A person I have been disagreeing with has misrepresented the purpose of this entry. 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. Is this person trying to compile Wikipedia lists of evil Christians, evil Jews, evil Muslims, evil Buddhists, evil agnostics, etc? No. It is only the Jews who are being focused on as targets for a discusion of their "sins". This strikes me very suspicious. Why only the Jews? (The answer is obvious; the question is rhetorical.) 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 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 this sentence 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. People wanted this list to appear as if it was the opinion of one man - but it isn't. This is a very 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

---

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