Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:19, 3 January 2002

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. -- 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. -- 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 verses. The verses 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

Here you are incorrect Wesley, and this isn't a matter of opinion. You can know whether SR (or any other Jew) has rejected "God made flesh in good faith". Just ask him! If he says, "Yes, I do believe that Jesus is God made flesh, but I reject Jesus", then you can honestly reach the conclusion that others have reached about Jews. But my point is that no Jew does say or believe such a thing. It is not the case that all Jews know that Jesus really is God, and reject Jesus nonethess. Rather, most Jews never believed this to begin with. RK

Now, there is a second matter which really is a matter if opinion, and is not a matter of fact - that is the matter of "who is correct". You believe that Jesus really is the only way to God, and that people should choose to follow this path, while Jews do not have this belief. For this I think we can agree that "I firmly believe that only God can judge that; I'm in no position to your heart or anyone else's." What God wants us to choose is not something that you or I can prove. RK

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.

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.

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. -- SJK

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

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.)"

It would be hard for any Jewish person to forgive this particular Christian teaching about Jews. The argument that 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, the argument goes, 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

I don't mean to suggest that Jews reject as false something they know to be true, as though they were calling the sky green when they could see perfectly well that it's blue. I mean that they have apparently not properly heard and understood their own prophets regarding the coming of Christ, and did not listen to the prophet John the Forerunner (a.k.a. John the Baptist) when he identified the Christ. It might be analogous to those Israelites who heard Jeremiah or Isaiah speak the word of God, but did not believe that their words were God's words. This is my interpretation of what little I've read of John Chrysostom and Justin Martyr and their criticism of the Jews. In other words, the Jews blindness need not be a willful blindness. Wesley

Ok, now I understand. I just would note that there are many who do preach that the Jews were willfully blind. However, it is easy to move from "The Jews misunderstood the prophets" to "The Jews deliberately and willfully ignored the prophets", and many leaders in Christianity have fallen down this slippery slope. RK

I'll have to read the fathers further to see whether they differ on that point; feel free to help me find places where they do. As for serving the Devil, it is my understanding (quite probably flawed) that each of us serves the Devil whenever we sin against God or our neighbor, for in doing so we further damage the relationship between God and humanity. Very few, if any, people actually set out to worship a personal Devil or Satan, again just in my own opinion. --Wesley

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 may not be Catholic dogma, but I would not be surprised if some Catholic theologians shared this view, or one close to it. I don't think it's Orthodox dogma either, just a view held by some Orthodox theologians which I happen to hope is correct. I hope you understand that I was not suggesting anything like the Mormon post-death baptism. In fact, there's a canon law that forbids giving Eucharist to the dead (which does imply that someone tried it at least once.. ugh!). Perhaps doing God's will with respect to the Jews might be better expressed by showing them hospitality, helping the needy who happen to be Jewish along with others, making peace, and so forth. And Jews can practice God's will towards Christians in similar fashion. Think we can compromise along those lines? --Wesley

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.

In response both to SJK's repeated call to include a Christian "defense" of these verses, and Sodium's most recent contribution, I would like to qualify something something I wrote earlier. Above, I wrote, "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." I still believe that there are certain quotes in the NT that are anti-semitic; I do not believe that they can or should be defended; I also find it hard to believe that these few verses are essential to Christianity and that to reject them is to reject Christianity as a whole. Nevertheless, I also admit that there are verses that in and of themselves may not be anti-semitic, but have been interpreted to be anti-semitic. I would rather take SJK to be calling not for a defense of anti-semitic statements, but rather an examination of the different ways these verses have and can be interpreted. I believe that this is what the Catholic Church has called for – The Vatican's Commission For Religious Relations With The Jews issued a document, "We Remember: a Reflection on The Shoah," in which it states,

"But Christian mobs who attacked pagan temples sometimes did the same to synagogues, not without being influenced by certain interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people as a whole. "In the Christian world—I do not say on the part of the Church as such—erroneous and unjust interpretations of the New Testament regarding the Jewish people and their alleged culpability have circulated for too long, engendering feelings of hostility towards this people". Such interpretations of the New Testament have been totally and definitively rejected by the Second Vatican Council.

(Note to non-Catholics: I do not mean to favor the Roman Catholic Church, it is just easy to find these things on the web; I am sure than non-Catholic organizations have made similar statements). In fact, I think it would be very valuable and helpful to follow SJK's suggestion – if I understand him correctly – to explore non-anti-semitic ways that Christians have interpreted these verses. But I would still implore him and other Christians to follow the Vatican's example in accepting responsibility for anti-semitic ways that these verse have been interpreted and used. (Remember, SJK, this long list of verses, and their identification as "anti-semitic," which you object to, was made by a Lutheran theologian) – SR

To SR: I don't deny the verses have been given antisemitic interpretations. What exactly do you mean, however, by "accepting responsibility for anti-semitic ways that these verse have been interpreted and used"? I'm not responsible for the behaviour of Christians throughout history, be it good or bad.

When you write "I would rather take SJK to be calling not for a defense of anti-semitic statements, but rather an examination of the different ways these verses have and can be interpreted.", you seem (to me at least, forgive me if I'm wrong) to be suggesting that I am defending statements which I consider to be antisemitic. I'm not. My claim is roughly that:

(a) There are many statements in the NT that can undoubtedly be given antisemitic interpretations, but these statements can also be given non-antisemitic interpretations.

(b) Although the antisemitic interpretations may well have dominated throughout most of history, the original meaning of the authors were not antisemitic.

I'm not saying that we should endorse these claims, I am merely asking that they be given equal treatment as the case that the NT is antisemitic. Particularly since, the claims I make above would probably be endorsed by the majority of Christians in the world, or at the very least by the majority of conservative Christians.

Why would most Christians, or at least most conservative Christians, endorse these claims? Because they believe that all of the bible is inerrant, divinely inspired, and a binding authority for doctrine and morality. Having accepted this, they have only two choices: (a) the NT is antisemitic, and therefore antisemitism is actually a good thing; or (b) antisemitism is a bad thing, therefore the NT can't be antisemitic. The third option you put forward, that the NT is antisemitic and antisemitism is bad, is not open to them, because it would deny the inerrancy of the Bible. Since I doubt most of them wish to endorse (a), believing as most people that antisemitism is a bad thing, the only option is to endorse option (b).

The choices depend greatly upon how the word 'anti-semitic' is being used. I started this discussion convinced that the New Testament couldn't be anti-semitic, thinking that anti-semitism was a specific form of racism and that the NT was not racist. I still don't think the NT is racist. But if anti-semitism is more about religious hostility or prejudice, I don't think it can be denied that that New Testament is hostile to the notion the Jesus isn't God, and that it records a good bit of animosity between Jewish Christians and Jewish Jews (adjectives equal race, nouns equal religion here). Christianity insists that Judaism be extended to include the revelation of Christ himself, and the New Testament and the rest of apostolic tradition. With that definition, I've landed on (a). --Wesley

Well, it troubles me very much that you would define yourself as an anti-Semite. I am also aware that you are not alone. Much of mainstream Protestant Christianity in the US agrees with your argument. However, this is very troubling to me, as my people are still being subjected to anti-Semitism. Can't you imagine another path? Life isn't all or nothing. I see three possibilities where you see two: You see paths (a) and (b) - (a) The New Testament is totally anti-Semitic, and therefore you must be anti-Semitic (b) The New testament is not anti-Semitic at all. But what about path (c) The New Testament does not have to be seen as anti-Semitic in its totality, but it contains some statements by some people that are anti-Semitic. These particular statements can be repudiated by modern day people, who want to consider their faith's origins in their original historical context. (Many Christians have done just that) But by refusing to repudiate any phrase in the NT, you are forced to define yourself (as you have just done) as anti-Semite who thinks that there should be animosity towards the Jews. Is this really the only path you think is correct? RK

Personally, I don't believe in biblical inerrancy. And nor do I think its essential to Christianity (I reject it, and I still consider myself to be a Christian). But an awful lot of people do believe it, and do think its something essential. So they can't just delete or ignore or reject the passages, like you suggest.

This really isn't any different from Judaism -- I could point out that the Torah contains passages which are arguably highly homophobic (see Leviticus) -- in fact, the Torah is arguably even more homophobic than the NT is antisemitic, since even if the NT attacks Jews, it never calls for them to be executed. However, I doubt most Jews will be happy with the proposal to delete or ignore or reject those passages from the Torah. And since most Jews wouldn't be happy with rejecting part of the Torah, they can't really complain if Christians refuse to reject part of the NT.

I'm guessing many Jews would probably either: (a) point to how the passage is interpreted in the Mishnah and Talmud, and how the Rabbis eventually (IIRC) interpreted the death penalty out of existence; or (b) follow many modern liberal Christian scholars, and argue that the passages in question don't actually refer to homosexuality at all, but something else (homosexual rape, maybe). But how is this act of interpretation in respect to the Torah to make it non-homophobic any different from interpreting the NT to make it non-antisemitic?

(Please excuse any Protestant bias in my discussion above about biblical inerrancy.)

I believe that the Torah's statements in Leviticus are indeed homophobic. Interestingly, most religious Jews (but not most Orthodox ones) are quite happy to reinterpret - effectively rejecting - these passsages from the Torah. As you point out, Jews have never accepted that the plain text of the Torah contains all the information from God to man; Jews accept a wide set of oral law (canonized in the Mishna and Talmud) along with the Torah, which usually allows them to defeat or bypass fundamentalism. To phrase it in a modern way, Judaism would state that God's word to humankind cannot be exhausted by any one document, even the Torah. The kernel of revelation as recorded in the Torah may be true for all time, but the process of revelation continues as long as man seeks God. Thus Jews accepted the religious legitimacy and normative standing of many religious works that were created after the Torah, such as the rest of the books of the Tanakh.

This being so, one can consider this statement from a Jewish paper on homosexuality by Rabbi Joel Roth, a member of the traditional wing of Conservative Judaism. While he ultimately rules that homosexuality is against Jewish law, he states in his position paper that "Each age may have its list of questions which seem unlikely ever to require serious discussion, yet subsequent ages may find it necessary to discuss those very questions. Answers which may have seemed a foregone conclusion years ago, may no longer be self-evidently true. However, willingness to discuss a question in no way predetermines what the answer will be. It is possible to discuss a question and reaffirm a longstanding precedent as it is to discuss it and abrogate the precedent. When a longstanding precedent is question by a sufficient number of people who cannot be dismissed as 'lunatic fringes', it may no longer be sufficient merely to assert the precedent stands because it is the precedent. Surely precedent will stand unless there is compelling reason for it not to stand. But it must be remembered that those who are questioning the precedent are offering what they believe to be compelling reason for overturning it. One who wishes to reaffirm the precedent must now respond to the claim that there is compelling reason to overturn it. If there is evidence that the 'compelling reason' is not as compelling as those who assert it claim, the precedent should stand. If one can offer equally compelling reason why the precedent should stand, then surely it should stand. And if, in the course of discussion and analysis, one comes to the conclusion that there is, indeed, compelling reason to overturn the precedent, one should support overturning the precedent. It is dangerous for halakhah (Jewish law) to refuse to discuss a question for fear that legitimate discussion will result in the 'wrong' answer." ["Homosexuality", unpublished responsa by Rabbi Joel Roth, accepted by the Committee of Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly in May 1992. Soon to be published next year.] RK

Ok, I'll bite my tongue. Your main point remains perfectly valid without using that controversial word anyway. (smile) --Wesley

I think RK has more or less defined anti-semitism as being hostile or prejudiced against the Jewish religion, which would include claiming that the New Testament version of the crucifixion and earliest church history are historical. (In this case, I don't think calling them religious myth would help matters.) And SR has observed that for Jews, they personally have difficulty separating religious prejudice from racial prejudice, since both are essential to their self-perceived identity. (Apologies to both RK and SR if I've mischaracterized either of you, just correct my misunderstanding if I have. Thanks.) --Wesley

There still seems to be a big misunderstanding. If you claim that the basic events in the NT happened, no one is calling that anti-Semitism. Sure, many historians, and most Jews, believe that the description of events described in the NT were tainted by anti-Semitism, but that doesn't mean that accepting the story as-is somehow is anti-Semitism. Its the other stuff that goes along with it, such as the horrific belief that all Jews literally choose to reject the truth about God, and that deep down inside Jews really do believe that Jesus is God, but reject Jesus anyway. Or the statement that Jews are the children of the Devil. or the belief that Jew murdered God. It is all this secondary material that is anti-Semitic. You keep totally missing this point, and I don't know why. RK

Exactly how would the New Testament account need to be changed so it didn't say that Jews murdered God? It can't omit that Jesus is God. It would be a huge omission to omit the role that Jewish leaders played in his trial. And there are the sermons in Acts 2 and Acts 7, and elsewhere. I am still offended by Dr. Beck's suggestion that we stop reading that huge list of verses publicly. And it still seems that you're asking for a major revision to our scriptures. Perhaps if you would indicate exactly how the New Testament should be changed, I would better understand your position. --Wesley

Actually, I don't think that the text of the New Testament would need to be changed at all to achieve this goal. Rather, one only needs to teach about the origin of the NT in its historical context, and to interpret the verses differently than they used to be interpreted. This is already done by the Catholic Church in some countries (but not by all Catholics, especially in Poland), and it is done by a few Protestant Christian denominations. SR discusses this in more detail below. RK

Wesley, Jews just aren't a race! We've been over this before. There are white Jews, Hispanic Jews, Asian Jews, black Jews and Indian Jews. How can they be a race? Rather, they are an ethnic group that has allowed newcomers to enter over time. Jews were a nationality in exile, and they have evolved into a grouping that may best be defined as an evolving religious civilization. One can even be an atheist, and still a Jew. In the last 300 years, most anti-Semites have made it clear that they hate atheist Jews as much as believing Jews, so anti-Semitism isn't necessarilly religious. Of course, people who mistakenly believe that Jews are a race sometimes hate Jews because of their "race", despite the fact that no such race exists! RK

Ok, I'll grant that, BUT you have to admit that as the term is popularly used in everyday society, anti-semitism is understood to be racism. In cases where anti-semitism isn't religious, what else would it be but racism? Even if the race doesn't exist, such bigots think they're talking about racial differences. --Wesley

Whoo Boy – This is getting complicated! Still, I think it is a very important issue and the discussion is worth it. I'd like to start with a tangential observation: I think that it is precisely the profundity and intensity of the conflicts that have come up in this discussion that exemplify why so many Jews dismiss the notion of a "Judeo-Christian tradition" as at best empty and at worst dangerous.

Anyway, I would like to respond to some of the more recent comments. SJK, I think, asks

What exactly do you mean, however, by "accepting responsibility for anti-semitic ways that these verse have been interpreted and used"? I'm not responsible for the behaviour of Christians throughout history, be it good or bad.

I believe in collective responsibility, although I do believe that collective responsibility is quite different from individual responsibility. For example, my ancestors came to the United States long after the end of slavery; obviously they never owned slaves. Not only am I not individually responsible for slavery, no one in my family is or was. Nevertheless, all of us have benefitted from an American economy that was in many ways strengthened and built by the labor of slaves. So I believe I must take responsibility, as an "American" for our history of slavery. I am not sure what this responsibility entails – since it is collective, it is something that I think we Americans need to discuss. Minimally, I would say that taking responsibility means that I firmly believe we should at least discuss the issue. Similarly, some Germans were individually responsible for the Shoah and other war-crimes, and they were individually punished through imprisonment or execution. I do not believe that other Germans who were not individually responsible should be punished. But Germany -- at least, Federal Republic of Germany, did accept some collective responsibility, and expressed this through reparations to individual survivors and to the Jewish people represented by the State of Israel. Now to turn to Christian anti-semitism. Someone who calls themself a "Christian" is explicitly identifying with a community and a tradition. And I believe that when you identify with or join a group, you and members of that group become in certain ways responsible to and for one another. You may not be individually (i.e. as "SJK" or "Wesley" or "John Paul II") responsible for anti-semitism. But if you identify with a group of people who have historically supported or promoted anti-semitic acts, I believe that as Christians you must take a kind of responsibility. Not the same kind as anti-semites themselves! But I think the statement from the Vatican document I quoted above perfectly illustrates the kind of collective responsibility I mean. I am sure that the Vatican officials who wrote and approved that statement are not anti-semites. But they are taking responsibility for things their Church did. Personally, as a Jew, I believe that your collective responsibility (if you do consider yourself a Christian) extends to grappling with with the history of Christianity, including NT verses, and also to entering into a good-faith dialogue with Jews. Most important, I think there needs to be dialogue among Christians themselves over how to deal with their community's past relationship with Jews, and the Jewish community in the present.

SJK also writes

(a) There are many statements in the NT that can undoubtedly be given antisemitic interpretations, but these statements can also be given non-antisemitic interpretations.

And I agree completely, and

(b) Although the antisemitic interpretations may well have dominated throughout most of history, the original meaning of the authors were not antisemitic.

And I disagree, at least in part. Perhaps some of the statements were not anti-semitic, but I believe that many of them express a categorical rejection and condemnation of Jews and were not only meant to incite physical violence, but were in and of themselves violent, what we call "hate speech."

I think you should be very careful in the use of such loaded terms. If you believe they were meant to incite physical violence, there ought to exist examples of such violence prior to the Middle Ages. I'm not aware of any, but could easily be ignorant. I'm reading in Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary copyright 1983, so it doesn't have all the latest 'politically correct' usages. In looking through the meanings of "violence" and skipping over the ones involving physical force, I find it cat involve "(5) great force or strength of feeling, conduct, or language; passion; fury. (6) distortion of meaning, phrasing, etc.; as, to do violence to a text. 7. desecration; profanation". If you mean that the verses are very passionate and emotional, well, some of them may be, and some may incite strong feelings in the listener. "hate" is not used as an adjective according to this edition, but "hateful" means "exciting great dislike, aversion or disgust." Do you mean that the verses excite great dislike in Jews, such that Jews dislike these verses, or that the verses excite great dislike of Jews in "anti-semites" (whatever they are)? At any rate, the phrase "hate speech" to me smacks of political correctness, which seems to be a vaguely Orwellian attempt to limit the words that can be used in debate, and redefine what words remain. --Wesley

SJK points out that "most Christians, or at least most conservative Christians, endorse these claims...Because they believe that all of the bible is inerrant, divinely inspired, and a binding authority for doctrine and morality."

This raises a larger issue that intersects with the one at hand but has to first be considered separately. Since the Enlightenment the claim that the Bible is inerrant has been challenged from numerous directions, especially from followers of Darwin and from students of Biblical criticism (see JEDP theory for a review of criticism of the Hebrew Bible). I cannot but take these challenges seriously, and expect all religious people to take them seriously.

Since that time I think all religions can be divided into two camps. In the first camp, at least within Judaism, and apparently within Christianity as well, there are "fundamentalists," people who take the text as written to be sacred or inerrant. When they come across problems – for example, the command to kill Amalekites, that I pointed out earlier, or the issue of homosexuality that RK raises – the standard response is to reinterpret the verses and then to claim that the reinterpretation is the real (and intended) meaning. I consider this intellectually bankrupt, but morally admirable and I certainly accept this as a sincere and moral response to the issue of anti-semitic verses in the NT. In the second camp are "non-fundamentalists," people who consider the Bible to have been written by people and to be a historical document. Such people often consider this document to be divinely inspired and a continued source of divine inspiration, but they accept that since it was written by people living under specific conditions, it is limited and fallible. Their response would be that the founders of Christianity were people struggling with God and themselves, but imperfect; people who wrote and did extraordinary things that reveal eternal truths, but sometimes in the process made mistakes.

I simply cannot believe that all Christians are fundamentalists. I know enough Christians who claim that God created people as rational creatures, but also as imperfect ones, to hope that they can find a way to be non-fundamentalists without losing their faith.

I think the issue is much more complex than that. There is inerrancy of original texts versus the manuscripts we have available now, inerrancy versus infallibility (which is a distinction made by Protestant evangelicals to distinguish themselves from Protestant fundamentalists in the U.S.), and as you mention, whether it is sacred at all. For instance, I don't insist on a literal six-day Creation, but that is because I don't think such a reading of Genesis is how the Church has interpreted the book historically. My imperfect understanding of the Orthodox view in this regard is that the Bible and the Church are infallible in matters of theology, faith and morals; I think this is at least close to the Roman Catholic view as well. --Wesley

I would not call on such Christians to change their Bible or to refrain from repeating offensive phrases in the Bible. All religious Jews read aloud the entire Torah over the course of the year, including versus many of us now reject. I think our attitude is, "well, this is what we used to believe, we have grown since then, but in growing we will not forget who we have been." So part of what I would ask is just what SJK has called for – teaching readers of the NT various interpretations of versus about Jews and Judaism. But beyond what SJK calls for, I also think that Christians have to accept the fact that some of their early leaders, in trying to distance Christianity from Judaism, deliberately said things that were hateful and inspired hate. Christians today can apologize for that without erasing it from their Bible.

Uh, no, I honestly don't see how. I think RK said elsewhere that Jews have reinterpreted parts of the Tanach (or Torah?) so as to have the effect of erasing them, I think regarding the subject of homosexuality. That sounds like what you're asking us to do, and I don't think it's possible to do that and still remain within the historic Christian tradition.

Having said this, I know that there is still one fundamental issue that divides Christians and Jews and others, and that is the Christian claim that their way is the only true way. Both as a Jew, who identifies with a pluralistic tradition, and an American, who was born into a democracy, and as a modern person, born into a post-Enlightenment world, I simply find this position impossible to accept, and I find it hard to understand how anyone who believes in democracy and rational thought can believe this.

Being Jewish necessarily means rejecting Christ and Christianity (all Jewish organizations reject "Jews for Jesus" as a valid Jewish movement) – FOR OURSELVES; we do not have any problem with Christians being Christians. And we find it hard to understand why they have a problem with Jews being Jews.

I do not mean to put words into Wesley's mouth, but if I understand him correctly I think this may be why he is now wondering whether he (or Christianity as such) is anti-semitic, in that it categorically rejects others. I know SJK draws a distinction between disagreeing with a religion and physical acts of violence such a genocide, and that he restricts "anti-semitism" to the latter. But we Jews know that religious Christians really believe in heaven and hell, and it is hard for us not to see a religion that automatically consigns us to hell BECAUSE we are Jewish (and being Jewish necessarily means rejecting Christ and Christianity because we sincerely believe that accepting Jesus' divinity would violate the first commandment) as a religion that is in the process committing a violent and thus anti-semitic act.

So "consigning" non-Christians to hell, including Jews, is violent? What's the working definition of violence here -- evoking strong emotions? profanity?? In any case, it is God, not any Christian, who passes final judgment. And even there, my understanding is that God merely announces what is, rather than 'throwing' anyone anywhere. Yes, Christians teach that the consequence of self-separation from the triune God, who is the ultimate source of all life, is eternal death; but this is merely an observation that all humanity shares a common fallen nature and a common predicament. They also teach that all humanity also has equal access to salvation; but in any case, this is the view of all non-Christians, not just Jews.

To me, the curious thing about pluralism is that it wants to think that all religions are equally true, or that one religion can be true for some and another for others. But when it encounters a religion that denies pluralism, it is in a quandary. Christianity insists it is the fullest and most complete revelation of God to Man, that God exists as a Trinity, and that the person of Jesus Christ is not just the best but the only way to encounter God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. If Christianity is true, than Judaism, Hinduism, Islam, and so forth cannot be equally true, although they may contain lesser revelations of God that are true. So the pluralist must either twist Christianity to make it pluralistic, or reject it and acknowledge that one cannot be a complete pluralist. In most respects, Western logic has no problem seeing the need to choose one of two opposing ideas, but when it comes to pluralism, Eastern logic suddenly seems attractive, and Christianity gets swept along as just one more option on the smorgasbord of religions. --Wesley

And yet neither RK nor I want to call Wesley and anti-semite, and I if I may speak for RK (I know he will correct me if I am wrong!) We feel this way because Wesley has engaged us with respect and an apparently sincere desire to understand us. (Part of this respect is revealed in his willingness to take seriously what it is that we as Jews experience as hateful or offensive i.e. anti-semitic, rather than his imposing his own definition of anti-semitism on us).

Wesley once wrote, "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." Although I am a little offended by the language he used, I am deeply moved by the spirit in which he wrote. So although I know he may take issue with what I now say, I hope he sees that I am trying to write in the same spirit as he, but in my own language, when I say that I therefore am led to think that he and other Christians may well have a chance to discover or create a pluralistic Christianity in the future, one that understands Christ to be that path to God that is true and right for Christians, but no the only path and not for everyone. When Wesley wrote "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," I am led to think that he cannot be a fundamentalist or dogmatic, and may come to find a Christianity that is non-dogmatic. (Wesley, you may have actually said you do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but not all the above passages are clearly marked so I apologize to you and other previous contributors for probably misascribing statements)

I don't think you have misascribed anything to me; I'll try to be better about identifying my contributions. Yes, I see that you're trying to write in the same spirit. I just don't see how Christianity can become pluralistic without becoming something very, very different than what has been given to us. I know this goes against the grain of the Enlightenment, and political correctness, and on and on, but I am also convinced that there are certain knowable truths in the field of religion, which are knowable only because of God's revelation of himself to humanity. Christianity is not just a bundle of ancient manuscripts, quaint customs and moral guidelines that we're at liberty to edit or tweak to suit our changing sensibilities, or the changing values of our surrounding culture. It is the divine revelation of God to Man of who God is, who we are, and how God and Man can attain love, fellowship and communion with each other. It points to external reality that won't be changed, even if all the scriptures and dogmas were rewritten by a new council, or were reinterpreted by each individual. --Wesley

The bottom line is a question I have raised before: how will Christians live in a world shared with non-Christians? Christians accept the dictum to love the neighbor as themselves, and traditionally they have interpreted this to mean that they should bring the word and way of Christ to their neighbors. It is only in the past fifty years that Christians have come to accept that Jews, at least, find this to be a hateful and not loving act, and some Christian movements, including the Catholic Church, have begun (but not completed) a struggle to deal with this fact. What if the only way to love us is to accept us for ourselves, as ourselves?

One image of the Church that was persistently used by the Church fathers was that of a hospital. With that in mind, the doctor does not always care for a patient in the way the patient would like, but in the way best suited to bring about healing to the patient. (Entry into the hospital should of course be voluntary!) Doing what you ask would be somewhat akin to the false "pillow prophets" of the Tanach who prophesied to the king what he wanted to hear, predictions of victory, rather than God's words of certain defeat that could only be avoided through thorough repentance.

And I would also ask: how will pluralists, both Jews and others, live in a world shared with Christians? By turning them into pluralists like themselves?? My honest fear is that if retelling the traditional Gospel message becomes defined as "hate speech", Christians in the West may find themselves severely censored or otherwise limited, given the current 'politically correct' climate.

I am having trouble understanding this. Jews are asking Christians not to preach things that usually end up harming Jews. How is this request now turned around into something that leads to harming Christians? That would only be true if you defined Christianity as a faith which depended on inciting others against Jews (and other non-Christians). If I ask someone to stop hitting me, how it that turned around into a claim that I might end up hitting them? I still maintain that there is big difference between disagreeing with other religions, and disparaging them and inciting people against them. You can believe that Christianity is true without depending on many anti-Semitic arguments that have developed over the last 2000 years. Many Catholics and liberal Protestants already have officially recognized this, and have reinterpreted their Scripture and altered their teachings so as to still preach Christianity, without anti-Judaism. Do you see Christianity as dependent on a continuing theological war against the Jews? If that is true, then it will forever see itself at theological war with the rest of the world, and that is a very dangerous path. RK

OOf course Christians can and should avoid physical violence and so forth, but they cannot be expected to reinterpret or ignore vast sections of their scripture. Wesley

I am scared of where you are going. Does this mean that you still believe that Jews are morally and religiously blind, that Jews willfully reject their own propehts, and are the offspring of the Devil? That kind of theology always leads to violence; there is no way around it, even if you personally happen to be peaceful. RK

I know you and RK have both insisted before that you're not expecting me or anyone to change their religion, but then you seem to come around and expect us to change anyway. And this not out of any concern for us, but out of concern for having your own feelings hurt, or for experiencing new outbreaks of physical violence if the Bible should be abused yet again. --Wesley

I know that much of what I wrote echoes things that RK has written, although I think he might disagree with some of what I wrote (but we are pluralists, right?). I do want to add one more point where I disagree with RK, although it is a minor point. RK insists that Jews are not a race, because there are White Jews, Black Jews, etc. Well, in one sense I agree, but not for the reasons RK provides; in another sense I disagree. I agree that we are not a race for two reasons: first, I think we as a nation are simply sui generis. There was a time when nations claiming descent from a common ancestor and worshiping one God (or set of gods) were common, but not any more; Jews may be the last example. The word "race" is a recent (past 400 years or so) Western construct and I do not think that it appropriate to a people whose history and identity long predates this construct. In other words, "race" is a cultural construct and I don't think any "race" is "real" in a scientific sense – I don't think "Whites" are "really" a race, or "Hispanics." On the other hand, cultural constructs are very powerful and meaningful. In the 19th century and 20th century – even during my own life – I have heard Jews and non-Jews identify Jews as a race, and contrast "Jews" as a group to BOTH "Blacks" and "Whites." Certainly there are anti-semites who have used the language of race to express their hatred. So what if Jews aren't "really" a race? Anti-semitism itself is wrong, so does it matter that they also use or misuse wrong concepts in justifying their hatred? RK calls Jews an ethnic group – this is fine by me. I would only point out that "ethnic" is as much a cultural construct as race, and that for many people "ethnic group" is just a p.c. substitute for "race" but they use the word to do the same thing; ultimately, I think it is a matter of semantics. When I used the word race before, it was with the understanding that it is a malleable cultural construct. I used it only to indicate that Jews are not a community of faith, but in many ways a family which in its own mythology are connected through ties by blood -- but, my larger point was, we are not just bound by ties of blood but by a common history (even common only in a mythic sense; every Passover we all reenact having been slaves in Egypt), and this common history includes a relationship of God that non-Jews call a "religion" – SR

Well that was a long comment, but I didn't find anything in it I would strongly object to. I only want to put in my $0.02 to say that, while Jews are not really a "race" and only possibly an "ethnicity" (depending on the definitions you adopt), I do think that a great deal of modern anti-semitism (the KKK being a most excellent example) is based on the *belief* that there is a Jewish Race. I think that today there is quite a bit less anti-semitism which could be called anti-Judaism. My personal experience is limited to the U.S., so that might not apply elsewhere. --Dmerrill

Guys, I am finding it difficult to believe that all of this discussion is really necessary in order to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution about how to word or present some information here. Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum. This isn't the place for it. That's not what Wikipedia is about.

I have been toying with an idea that I might present in an a Meta-Wikipedia essay: if some topic, like the ones RK has been writing about, threatens to sidetrack our attention from writing articles to writing about articles (and then to writing about what the articles are about), we should get into the habit of simply listing the particular biases that we have such that it is important to us that the views informing those biases be reported fairly in the article. That way, we focus attention not on who's right and who's wrong, but what our opinions happen to be and how we can agree to represent them, fairly, from aneutral point of view. Could that possibly work? --LMS

@@ Line 674: / Line 674: @@
 :Well that was a long comment, but I didn't find anything in it I would strongly object to. I only want to put in my $0.02 to say that, while Jews are not really a "race" and only possibly an "ethnicity" (depending on the definitions you adopt), I do think that a great deal of modern anti-semitism (the KKK being a most excellent example) is based on the *belief* that there is a Jewish Race. I think that today there is quite a bit less anti-semitism which could be called anti-Judaism. My personal experience is limited to the U.S., so that might not apply elsewhere. --[[Dmerrill]]
+----
+Guys, I am finding it difficult to believe that all of this discussion is really necessary in order to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution about how to word or present some information here.  Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum.  This isn't the place for it.  That's not what Wikipedia is about.
+I have been toying with an idea that I might present in an a Meta-Wikipedia essay: if some topic, like the ones RK has been writing about, threatens to sidetrack our attention from writing articles to writing about articles (and then to writing about what the articles are about), we should get into the habit of simply ''listing'' the particular biases that we have such that it is important to us that the views informing those biases be ''reported fairly'' in the article.  That way, we focus attention not on who's right and who's wrong, but what our opinions happen to be and how we can agree to represent them, fairly, from a[[neutral point of view]].  Could that possibly work? --[[LMS]]