Talk:Antisemitism in Christianity

Older discussions on this subject may be found in these archives.

• Talk:Christianity and anti-Semitism/Archive 1
• Talk:Christianity and anti-Semitism/Archive 2
• Talk:Christianity and anti-Semitism/Archive 3
• Talk:Christianity and anti-Semitism/Archive 4

---

Pope Gregory I section

I guess someone inserted this to show the other side of the story, but it doesn't seem appropriate here.

---

yes, it is necessary. The title of the article is "Christianity and anti-Semitism" after all. Gregory I is a Christian, in fact the pope, and he is responding to anti-Semitism.

on last editing

Just a note on the opening lines that were just edited on this page on Sept. 1st, 2005 at about 10AM. In light of the overwhelming amount of evidence presented in the article entitled Christian opposition to anti-Semitism I think that it is necessary to mention that "many" not just "some" Christians have condemned anti-Semitism. I did the above edit, Jayjg, if you were wondering, otherwise, I'm not sure what recent edits you are talking about. Newcrusade 20:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

MacDonald

Calling MacDonald "scientific" and an "evolutionary psychologist" is a POV that unduly gives MacDonald too much credit.

 In that case all psychologist are not scientific.

On Luther's known anti-Semitism

What's wrong with this statement quoted from the article?

"Martin Luther, founder of Protestant Christianity, was at first very friendly towards the Jews, believing that the evils of Catholicism had prevented their conversion to Christianity."

Believing that the Jews did not convert because of "the evils of Catholicism" is not "very friendly". It is a patronising position and likely to antagonise Jews then and today. Luther appears to have tried to convert the Jews to his own version of Christianity and then reacted in a hostile fashion when he was rebuffed by them.

The passage from the article distorts the extent and violence of Luther's ant-semitism by portraying it as a later manifestation.

If Martin Luther really believed that the sins of the Catholic Church prevented Jews from converting, then it sounds correct to say it was a later manifestation. If you think it is patronizing, then it was Luther being patronizing, not the author. JoshNarins 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

On recent deletions

Removed to talk:

Christianity became ethnically inclusive but theologically exclusive, while Judaism was ethnically exclusive but theologically pluralistic. Consequently, adherants of each religion viewed the other as exlusionary.

This isn't true. Both Judaism and Christianity accept converts! The differences it that Christianity has historically taught that every human must convert to Christianity, or else they will burn in hell. In contrast, Jews taught that non-Jews did not have to convert. How would this make Christians view Jews as esclusionary?

Removed:

Some Christians hold the perception that Jews may take more extremist measures to "protect themselves" from losing numbers of people to assimilation. This very perception, in turn, may be seen by certain Jews as anti-Semitic.

I have no idea what this refers to. Please clarify. What extremist measures do people believe that Jews are taking? Or is merely educating children in the Jewish faith, and asking them not to convert, being labeled as "extremist"? RK

Removed:

But if, as the Gospels suggest, Jesus or his followers actually claimed that he was literally God's son, and divine, Jewish authorities would very likely have opposed him for theological reasons since such a claim would be blasphemous ((??? , were at least partly instrumental in the death of Jesus.))

This is untrue. It is not against Jewish law to call oneself the literal son of God. It would merely be looked upon by religious Jews as ridiculous. To Jews, the idea that an incorporeal God would have a physical human child has no meaning; it would be like saying that "I am literally the biological son of gravity". Such a claim has no meaning to Jews. RK 14:07, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the way that was phrased was confusing. This proposed replacement text may be better:

But if, as the Gospels suggest, Jesus or his followers actually claimed that he was literally God, Jewish authorities would very likely have opposed him for theological reasons since such a claim would be blasphemous.

That's the meaning I was attempting to convey with "and divine" from the initial section. Numerous places in the Gospels suggest that the Gospel writers understood "Son of God" and "Son of Man" to both mean "God", such as when the disciples called Jesus the Son of Man and then worshipped him, something they would only do if they thought he were God. Wesley 15:37, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed text:

"Christianity did not arise as a political ideology, and lacks the tools, internally, which are necessary to rule. Instead, where it rises to dominance, Christianity borrows those tools from the cultures into which it has been insinuated; and this was the case of the New Roman Empire. Old Roman principles of state were patched onto the new religious assumptions of Christianity, after the "Edict of Milan."

I removed this for two reasons. (A) It isn't true. Christianity has ruled as a political power, and it certainly could do so again given the right historical and social conditions. In many Protestant American communities, in almost does rule as a defacto shadow-government, dictating what kinds of people are considered acceptable to be elected. (B) In any case, it wasn't really connected to the section that it was in, or even to the paragraph that it was attached to. RK 14:22, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Pardon, just with point (A). I agree that Christianity has ruled politically - based on identifying the political power with the rulers' religion. The removed text is right to point out that Christianity did not start as a political ideology. It even discusses related circumstances that brought Christians to be rulers of states. Isidore2k 04:43, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)Isidore2k

Labeling as Christian culture and teachings

I edited this: Church teachings and Nazi Germany

"Many historians hold that Nazi policies towards Jews were based in traditional Christian culture and teachings. The following are examples of Christian beliefs towards Jews that became Nazi policy"

To: Early Christian States' Policies with regards to Jews and Nazi Germany

"There were Nazi policies towards Jews that are based or similar to state laws enacted in Europe by Christian rulers centuries before Nazism. The following are examples that were similar to Nazi policy."

Good day! Please be careful in the labeling of what is "traditional Christian culture and teachings." Even if these were enacted by Christian rulers these do not relate to the true Christian culture and teachings. I do not know of any traditions or teachings that have been taught to us that was akin to Nazi policy. These doesn't even pertain to all adherents where the majority lives in the third world. Anti-Semitism and other hurts of other Christians especially in Europe, centuries before or even now, comes as a shocking surprise to us. We are dismayed and shamed by these things committed by our brethren in the west. We are even angry that these Christians are using Christianity's name in vain.

But for the purpose of presenting this(and other sensitive issues) as an encyclopedia entry. Circumstances involved must carefully considered, in fairness to all Christians and Jews alike. Also, the use of the phrase "Many historians hold..." or "Scholars allege that..." and the like, must be used with caution. It is prudent to present who are these historians or scholars so that wikipedians could scrutinize whether their views can wholly be written here.

Isidore2k 07:32, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)Isidore2k

Part of this is a Jewish reaction to Christian claims, or more specifically Roman Catholic claims, to infallibility in matters of morality. Many of the Popes have passed various laws designed to harrass or humiliate Jews specifically (For example Pius IX). Others, such as Pope Urban II encouraged Christian violence against non-Christians, specifically the Massacre of the Rhineland Jews as part of the First Crusade.

It is notable the paucity of Christian leaders excommunicated for persecution of Jews. If there has ever been one could a citation be provided. It is also notable the Christian leaders who have been rewarded and praised for persecution.

One painful issue was the recent push to beatify Queen Isabella of Spain for the establishment of the Spanish Inquisition and the expulsion of 1492. The credibility of people praying to her and then condemning 'anti-semitism' is rather low.'

Edited to clean up presentation. David Cheater 18:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Newcrusade, please keep in mind that the topic of this article; there is already a See Also for the alternate thesis at the bottom of the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semite article.....

Jayjg, I just wish to make the article more neutral. While I realize that it is about Christian anti-Semitism, there are controversial statements in it that are up for debate. Your quotes are quotes, those are there, but what I have a problem with is the interpretation at some places. I just want to have a neutral article that presents the facts, that is we need a neutral interpretation. That's why I added the following statement: It should also be noted that, no pope ever infallibly (Papal Infallibility) declared it as an official Catholic dogma It is a true statement, and nowhere can you find a pope infallible declaring anti-semitism to be true, I think our readers have a right to know this. Thanks for the discussion, Newcrusade

Neutral is a good idea. The issue with the quotes is not whether they are being interpreted correctly (in your view), but rather wether they have been interpreted in anti-Semitic ways. I've cleaned up your statement and added links. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

-Thanks Jayjg for the cleanup on the added statement, most of the article looks pretty good so far, there might be some other minor changes such as the ones I did before on "some" and stuff like that, I will be explaining it later though if I make any further changes.

The problem with looking for 'infallible Papal statements' is that the term is fuzzy. The only ex cathedra papal statement made in the 20th Century was the declaration of the assumption of the Virgin Mary. That doesn't mean that the teachings of different popes were not infallible under ordinary and universal magisterium. Pope John Paul II's declaration of Edith Stein as a Catholic martyr was certainly not ex cathedra but it is a statement that cannot be questioned by a faithful Roman Catholic.

David Cheater 07:09, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

"Research" subpage

The list of books included in Talk:Christianity and anti-Semitism/Research material should be included in the main article as references. Moreover, these works ought to be cited wherever the text of the article depends upon them. Without inline cites, this article must either rely on weasel terms ("Many historians believe that..."), or, worse, appear to be original research. Unfortunately, I haven't read any of the books on that list, so I can't be of help in the latter endeavor. However, the various interpretations of the quotes from the Bible and the Church Fathers need sourcing. NatusRoma

Dress Code For Jews

Get a load of today's dress code addition  : this is great NP/POV , really like it . Like the new Chief Justice nominee who argues there's nothing in the constitution of the USA against discrimination . New dress Code there , then.

And, I wouldnt like you assiduous editors one way or another to go without reading what a Jew thought of this subject back in 32 so I put the link , then scroll to "A Jewish reaction fro 1934" (published 34) -irs about dress code and stuff. [[1]] Famekeeper 18:01, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Fk doesn't know what he's talking about. My post was referring to the context of such a badge/hat etc in medieval times when it was common to prescribe that one class has to dress this way, another that way. In the 1930s however, where everyone dressed as they liked, it was indeed "singling out" the Jews. You might dislike both cases, but you cannot help to notice that there is a difference.

PS: This is not original research.

Str1977 22:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed passages

I removed the following passages:

"Jesus was considered by Christians to be the Messiah, certainly by the time of Paul's writings, and very probably during Jesus' life."

Christians by definition considered Jesus the Messiah. To claim this happened only later, as this seems to imply as possible, is absurd

and also this:

"Some scholars, however, have argued that the Gospel understanding of messiah developed only after Jesus' death, as a way for followers to maintain their claims that he was the messiah."

What has this to do with the issue of anti-semitism?

"...early Christians preached that Jesus was about to return, it is virtually certain that Jewish authorities would have opposed them out of fear of Roman reprisal."

But that's just one possible factor. As the text said above, many Jews didn't like the idea of a Messiah suffering death, and that was the offical reason for forbidding the Apostles to preach. Also there is a Saducee opposition to messianic pretenders in general. The fear of Roman reprisal might have been a factor too (see Kaiaphas' reason for the trial against Jesus in the first place), but that's hardly "virtually certain". Str1977 21:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Many modern scholars consider the idea of Jesus being the Messiah as having developed gradually, and point to textual evidence from the New Testament. It wasn't that Jews "didn't like the idea of the Messiah suffering death", it's that they believed that that invalidated a Messianic candidate. What "official reason" are you referring to? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

That many modern scholars say so, doesn't make it right. Not that a understanding of what Messiah meant could not develop gradually, but certainly the belief was there from day one otherwise this "bunch" wouldn't have survived at all.

But anywy, I can't see where it's relevant to anti-semitism.

My "didn't like" meant exactly what you said.

Sorry, I though I remembered from Acts 4 and 5 a ban to preach "in the name of that dead man", when in fact the text only says "... that man". That was my reference to "official reason". Now that I read it again, "your" reason has basis in this text, but still it is only one of many factors.

Again, my main objection is "how is this relevant". Str1977 22:26, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It actually seems to me that Str1977 added irrelevant information. Be that as it may, I think the crux of this dispute hinges on Str1977's comment "That many modern scholars say so, doesn't make it right." Str1977, this statement may be correct. But it is entirely irrelevant to Wikipedia. We are not arbiters of truth and our articles are not about what is "right." Our articles provide accounts of topics based on verifiable sources. What modern scholars say definitely belongs in the article. What you think is right must be excluded from the article. Of course, if a modern scholar says something that you happen to agree with (or, put it another way, if you have actually done the first task of anyone who wants to contribute to an encyclopedia, which is: do research, if you can provide reputable sources for your claims) then it goes into the article. Str1977, it seems to me that you are violating our Wikipedia:No original research policy, and do not understand our Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. With all due respect, I urge you to read over those two policies carefully. If you understand these two policies, you will understand why "That many modern scholars say so, doesn't make it right" simply carries no weight in this discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, with all due respect, it seems to me that you are extremely patronising. I very well know about these policies and don't think I have violated them. Granted, the "..doesn't make it right" phrase isn't a proper argument. My point is that a) these finding are far from being consensus, b) some are even nonsensical (mainly: some Christians didn't consider Jesus the Messiah, when that's the definition of Christian), and most importantly c) that this is irrelevant to this article. We could put all kind of stuff into this article, even stuff that's more widely accepted. Str1977 09:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Current attempts to convert Jews to Christianity

I have a question: Does this section refer to attempts to convert among others Jews (while not singling them out) or does it refer to specifically targetting Jews for conversion?

It should be formulated more clearly and I think this explains why one of my edits seems to be contested.

Str1977 16:52, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

No Christian denomination refuses to convert Jews (aside from racist fringe groups like Christian Identity followers), but only some specifically target them, and only some others have formally repudiated specifically targetting them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Then, Jayjg, this should be made clear in the text, especially in regard to the churches that have given up campaigns aimed at Jews in specific. I don't want my Church to be falsely portrayed as having "given up" on Jews. Also, this clarification makes the "anti-semitism complaint" more reasonable. Str1977 18:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

My changes

Dear Jayjg, though I'm not sure why it is only me that has to justify his changes and not you, I will do as you said:

• "These elements of the New Testament have their origins in first and second century history."

I removed the "and second century" because according to the currently accepted dates even those books considered to be late, mainly 2 Peter, John's writings, Jude are still dated within the first century and only slightly after the year 100. If this is so, 2nd century history cannot have influenced the NT.

• "Scholars debate the historicity of the Gospels"

That might be true: some scholars approve of the historicity while others dispute this. However, I think "some scholars dispute" is the clearer wording as it makes obvious that there is disagreement. "Your" version can easily be misread to "Scholars dispute" which would be wrong.

• "Jesus' brother James believed that Christians had to be Jews and observe Jewish law"

Now this is clearly wrong. Can you give any sources for that? According to Acts 15,1 "some men came down from Judea" demanding circumcision. These "men" are also identified with "some believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees" (Acts 15,5), which is hardly a proper description of James. How James thought about this is unclear in the former passage and later he agrees with Peter (Acts 15,13). The "men" might be identical with "certain men came from James" in Galatians 2,12, though the occasion is another one, but still it doesn't say that James sent them.

• After mentioning the dispute, there is absolutely no reason to delete "The issue was settled in the Council of Jerusalem ..." A more concise wording may be appropriate but not mere deletion. I will try this in my next edit.

• The Martin Luther passage may remain.

Str1977 09:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As to when the New Testament was completed, it was believed for centuries that the entire New Testament was completed in the first century. Some scripture scholars made the argument in the nineteenth century that since Jesus is reported in the NT to have predicted the Fall of Jerusalem, then the NT must have been written after that event. Such scholars were arguing from the POV that Jesus couldn't have known things that were going to happen in the future; therefore he didn't really predict it. Karl Keating in What Catholics Really Believe (p. 40) says, "The scholars' conclusions are often tendentious; they are opinions drawn, all too often, from a bias against miracles. If something supernatural appears in Scripture, their prejudice is to assume it must have been a late interpolation, not an accurate account of what really happened." Three modern scholars who argue for an early date are Jean Carmignac (The Birth of the Synoptics), John A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament), and Claude Tresmontant (The Hebrew Christ) By the way, I'm not arguing about when the NT was written; my opinions don't belong on Wikipedia. I'm just making the point that it's POV to state as a fact that they have their origins in first and second century histroy. I think it would be less POV to leave it as first century, because, even if some books were written in the second century, the elements of them would still have their origin in the first century. (The message of Jesus was passed on by word of mouth before it was written down.) But do we really need that sentence at all?

I agree that "Scholars debate" carries an implication that scholars in general doubt the historicity of the Gospels. I think that "some scholars dispute" would make it a little clearer that there's a disagreement among scholars. (Scholars whose writings very much support the historicity of the Gospels include William Most, Scott Hahn, and René Laurentin.) I acknowledge that that is what "debate" actually means, but I think if you were reading that passage hastily, you could think that it meant "dispute".

I was also a bit taken aback to read that James believed that Christians had to be Jews and observe Jewish law. Unless there's some passage in the New Testament that I've overlooked, I have to agree with Str1977. Another problem, which he doesn't mention, but which I feel uncomfortable with, is calling James Jesus's brother. I'm well aware that he is referred to as "the brother of the Lord", but the Catholic Church has always taught that Mary remained a virgin for her entire life. That is also the position of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, unless I am much mistaken, and even some Protestants held that view. If no citation can be provided for the claim that James taught that Christians had to be Jews, then of course, we won't need to refer to him at all. But if we are referring to him, it's enough to have a wiki-linked James the Just, without making a POV statement. The wiki-link leads to the article on James, which does not claim that he was or that he was not a full blood brother of Jesus. The Catholic Church says he was not. See also this article, which points out that the Greek word adelphos was used loosely in the Bible to mean kinsman as well as brother. Wikipedia NPOV policy does not allow a direct contradiction (or affirmation) of Catholic teaching. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 11:30, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ann's statement regarding James the Just. Wikipedia should also not directly contradict or affirm Eastern Orthodox teaching. Calling James Jesus' brother could also be seen to support the Orthodox view that he was the brother of Jesus, his half brother, the son of Joseph and Joseph's first wife; Joseph would have been an older widower when Mary was betrothed to him. As Ann suggested, better to simply link to James the Just without endorsing either view of James' relationship to Jesus. Wesley 13:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Let's remember that it doesn't matter what our interoretation of the NT is, what matters is whether we have verificable sources to back up our contributions. There certainly are historians who claim that James and other early Christians observed Jewish law (which was not, then, what it is now, of course — nor even what it is in the Talmud). If Jayjg can be faulted for anything it is not providing sources. I ask him to do that, and if he does, those claims stay. Similarly, if Ann or Str1977 have sources that provide other interpretations, they should be included. Wesley, although for this article it may be sufficient to be vague about James the Just, ordinarily I think we should include all the interpretations you mention — and provide the verifiable sources. 17:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

What Ann and myself referred to was not interpretation, but the strict and plain reading of our sources: the book of Acts and Paul's letter to the Galatians. These are the main sources. There are indeed scholars (or rather pseudo-scholars like Eisenman) who claim that for James. However, this article is neither about James nor about this dispute or the council, but about Jewish-Christian relations. Hence, there is no room for all of this to be discussed in detail. In fact, James' opinion is, all in all, irrelevant - what is relevant is that there were some of opinion A and some of opinion B and that decision C was reached. Hence this article should not indulge in speculations. Str1977 18:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The article can quote the NT, which is the primary source. But for any editor to make any claims about its validity or meaning violates our NOR policy. What you call speculation is what others call scholarship; what you call the strict and plain reading of the text others call fundamentalism. No matter. NOR means that we do not make claims about the meaning of sources. It also means that we cite existing scholarship, whether it upsets your personal beliefs or not. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, this is too far apart from the actual topic to merit a broad discussion of different views. So we should leave out this discussion and restrict ourselves to what is relevant (see above). I'm quite aware of the difficulties of a "plain reading" (and I wanted to include this into the post above), but in this case any statement about James wanting to restrict Christianity to Jews is in my book against the sources and speculative at least. And we don't need to hind behind false conclusions from the NOR policy to avoid the obvious, especially if it is off topic. (And note that I didn't insert "... but James thought this or that" - I just attributed the "restrictive view" to those whome our sources attribute it to and left out James' views). I'm a historian BTW, so I know how to handle sources. But I also know to base myself on sources. These are our sources. Please read the passages (if you haven't done this already). Str1977 19:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

And I do not mean to patronize you. Have you read Boyarin's new book on Martyrs? That Christians may once have all been Jews is, it seems, highly relevant to any discussion of Christian anti-Semitism. And I know there are some scholars who claim that the origins of Christian anti-Semitism are found where Christianity broke off. I am not injecting any of my own claims into the article, just observing that these claims, properly sourced, have a place in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding dating, the dates of all the books of the New Testament, and the later datings (particularly of John) stretch well into the second century, so saying "first and second centuries" is both accurate and NPOV. Regarding "scholars debate the historicity", scholars generally do not consider the gospels etc. to be histories, but to be statements of faith - as such they contain elements which are relevant to faith, not actual historical events. I'm going to restore at least those two original wordings. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Jayjg, even the most skeptical scholars nowadays consider the latest of the NT books to have been written around 100 the latest (and that includes John in particular). Also the "some scholars dispute" wording seems to be clearer to me. To say, the gospels are not historical sources is a widespread belief but it is neither universal nor is it in line with historiographical principles. How to analyse these sources is of course a different matter. Yes, they are are statements of faith but they are also historical documents. Hence I'm going to restore these two original wordings. Str1977 11:08, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding dating, Bauer asserted a date of 160 for John. Regarding "scholars debate the historicity", I will merely quote from the introduction to the Jesus article: "To what extent these sources are reliable is the major historiographical issue about Jesus which has occupied biblical critics for several centuries." Your wording downplays what is, in fact, the major issue about which scholars debate. I have given in to your aggressive reverting on every other issue here, but I am restoring the "scholars debate the historicity" wording, which is much milder than the wording in the Jesus article. Please strongly consider these words, rather than aggressively reverting again, and please do not re-factor my comments in the future. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Jayjg. I'm glad you didn't reinsert "second century". As I explained above, I have a problem with it as well as Str1977. By that, I don't mean simply that it goes against my personal opinions. (I don't really have strong opinions as to when the books of the NT were written.) But I did feel that it was not quite in keeping with Wikipedia policy to state as fact that they "have their origins in first and second century history". Some scholars give earlier dates; some give later dates. We can't prove it one way or the other, and it's not for Wikipedia to make a judgment that Bauer etc. are correct and that Robinson etc. are wrong. And, if these books were truly written in the first century, it would be inaccurate to say that they have origins in the second centuary, whereas if they were written in the second century, it wouldn't be inaccurate to say that they had origins in the first century, as these accounts were of things that happened in the first century, and that were passed on orally in the first century before being written down, regardless of exactly when they were written down.

As for "some scholars dispute" versus "scholars debate", as I said above, I prefer Str1977's wording to yours, but I can live with yours. Would you consider "scholars disagree on"? It would be nice to find a wording that we can all accept. Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 19:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Jayjg,

Though I obviously prefer my wording re the "scholars" issue, I could also live with your. As I said (and actually you too) it is a question of clarity and emphasis. What I'm concerned about is someone misreading it "Scholars dispute ..." How about Ann's proposal.

Re the dating, I am referring to current views on this. Baur lived in the 19th century and no serious scholar would agree with his dates now. Note, this is not about my view on this -I actually tend to agree with JAT Robinson on this, who dates books much earlier than the consensus - but about the consensus of current research, which dates John's books, 2 Peter and Jude at about 100 and not very much later. Consider that archeology has proven the 4th gospel's presence in Egypt in the year 120.

Re "refactoring your comments" - if you meant moving them down, I just wanted to have this in one piece. I'm sorry if you're upset about this.

Re my "aggressive editing". I must take exception to this. In fact, I considered your editing just as aggresive. Neither of us did well in explaing his edit at first. Hence I was upset by your calling for "justification" without giving one yourself. If I have upset you, I'm sorry about that. Str1977 21:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: your apologies, thank you, and I apologize for using the phrase "aggressive reverting". Regarding Ann's phrasing, as a compromise it's fine with me. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and you're welcome. Str1977 00:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Judaism

Added a few lines at the end of the anti-Judaism section explaining the distinction between anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism. This was NOT done to suggest there is no link, but rather because scholars of Jewish-Christian relations use the distinction to separate patristic and medieval anti-Jewish attitudes based in theology from 19th century and contemporary anti-Jewish attitudes, based in racial theories which did not exist prior to the 19th century. Makrina 17:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Opposition

Under "Opposition to the Holocaust", someone should add a bit about how the Vatican saved thousands of Jews by smuggling them out of Nazi countries.

Most Jews...

The phrase "Most Jews see evangelism directed specifically at Jews as anti-Semitic." is unsubstantiated in the cited works and is highly inflammatory as it attempts to sway opinion to associate Christian evangelism as an evil. Encyclopedias are meant for fact and not speculation nor bias. 140.211.126.144 23:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that you find this statement as highly inflammatory is your POV. It is nevertheless a fact that most Jews see evangelism directly towards them as anti-Semitic. This page is also about the possibility of anti-Semitism in Christianity. Most Jews do associate (Christian) evangelism as an historical (and thus relative) evil which may be absolute when directed against their own faith. hasofer 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see a cite for most anything, but this one would be a good start. Sam Spade 02:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I've NPOVd the statement and provided four citations to start with; let me know what you think. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Four cites is slightly overkill (I usualy stop at 1, 3 at the most, but whatever), but you did a great job of taking a statement which would have been nearly impossible to verify ("most jews") and changing it into a perfectly reasonable, well cited position held by well known organisations. Good work. Sam Spade 17:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the phrase (former wording) is that it may set the tone for the rest of article, turning the view of these "most Jews" into an axiom which then leads to a classification as evangelism as anti-semitic. Which is wrong in my book and POV in the Wiki book. The new wording is much better.

However, I am still not happy with the preceding note about churches that have given up evangelium directed against Jews. I don't think that really accurate. I know I complaint about this before, some months ago, but the issue remains. Str1977 17:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism and NT

There's another issue I'd like to raise. The article says "A number of elements of the New Testament are anti-Jewish".

1. This statement is POV unless it is amended "are considered".
2. I think it's questionable whether some of the elements mentioned are in the NT:

• "the claim that Jews are responsible for the murder of Jesus" (+ quote)

Is that supposed to refer

a) to the claim that that "the" Jews (in general) have killed Christ, regardless of whether they were actually involved in the trial of Jesus, or

b)to the Gospel's account of the trial and statements based on these events (1 Thess, Acts) - based on these accounts there were some Jews involved and hence responsible, but these were few.

If a) applies then it is IMHO anti-Jewish but not to my knowledge part of the NT, if b) it is part of the NT but not IMHO anti-Jewish.

• "the claim that the Jewish covenant with God has been superseded by a new covenant"

Does that mean an end to the Old Covenant (not in the NT, but later in the theological idea called "supercessionism") or merely the idea of a new/renewed covenant, which Christians see as accomplished by Jesus (in the NT, but also the idea already in the AT)

• "criticisms of the Pharisees"

These are undoubtedly in the NT, but are they anti-Jewish? This at least needs to be depoved (see # 1)

• "criticisms of Jewish parochialism or particularism"

Are there any references to what in the NT should constitute that?

Thanks for your consideration. Str1977 18:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the view that certain passages of the NT are anti-Semitic are a view and must be identified as such. However, it is a view many Jews hold. And that certain verses have been used to incite anti-Semitism is a view held by many historians.

The verses have to do with blaming the Jews for Christ's crucifixion and criticisms of the Pharisees, which are considered anti-Jewish because Pharisaic Judaism became Rabbinic Judaism after the destruction of the Judaism, and all normative Judaism today exists within the Pharisaic tradition (with the possible exception of a small group called the Karaites). Let me give you an analogy: prior to the Reformation, there were heretical sects of Christians. However, I think most would agree that prior to the Reformation normative Christianity in Western Europe was Roman Catholic Christianity. During that period, wouldn't attacks on Roman Catholicism have been interpreted as "anti-Christian?" This may be a poor metaphor. The fact remains, to criticize the Pharisees is to criticize the judaism practiced by virtually all Jews today.

As to supersession, I think most Jews are offended by the claim that their religion is no longer valid and the implication that Christians believe that all Jews will go to Hell (since the only way for them not to go to Hell would be if they were to cease being Jewish).

Now, I agree that all of these claims are points of view and we should find verifiable sources for them. But believe me, it will not be hard to do so. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein,

certainly passages have been used to incite anti-semitism. However, I would distinguish between the passages and what they have been used for and it must be clear what the article is addressing - the one or the other.

Re the "criticism of Pharisees" I would ask whether the passages are criticism (not anti-Jewish in my book, though they could be understood like that, as way of Jews and Christians parted) or attacks. The latter I'd consider anti-Jewish, but I don't think that is what Matthew 22 is doing (under the rules of rabbinical debate of that time) and it's not what the actual wording seems to imply.

I absolutely agree with you on the analogy - indeed last week I had to endure an argument with someone who claimed that a persecution directed against RCs could not be called a persecution of Christians.

Certainly what you describe is offensive and I am saddened that either Christians behave in a manner to imply this or that some Jews don't understand the actual Christian position, which neither holds that all non-Christians (at least) go to hell nor that you have to cease being Jewish in order to become Christian.

I don't doubt you will find sources. But it should clearly be worded as POV, and it should consider what it actually wants to talk about: the NT passages or the usage made of these passages.

Str1977 18:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion in MacDonald section

I deleted the entire reference to MacDonald's critics in this section. The section dealt with KM's views on Christian anti-Semitism, a very small aspect of his vast work, which I have read much of. I have read all of the criticisms of all of the critics cited in the piece and NONE of them deal with (to my knowledge), specifically, MacDonald's theory of Christian A-S. Instead, the critics (as I recall) all criticize other aspects of MacDonald's work. To be included, KM critics must specifically critique KM's theory on Christian A-S. Critiques of MacDonald's work as a whole are not acceptable. Also deleted the POV sentence that said white supremacists love KM. Many persons respect KM, and probably the vast majority of his supporters are not white nationalists, including myself. Robert Lindsay 10:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (talk)

POV and whatnot

Hi, I just popped in here as a result of the AfD on Christian opposition to anti-Semitism. As far as I can tell, this article is simply a laundry list of times Christians of one sort or another have done bad things to Jews or the Jewish people. This seems POV to me, as the entwined histories of Chrisitianity and Judaism are quite complicated, and certainly is not as one-sided as this article is at the present time. Moreover, this article conflates all different kinds of Christians, from Catholics to Protestant to Christian Identity believers; I would think it is clear to most people that these are radically different groups.

I'd like to propose a solution to this problem: What if we had an article which gave a historical treatment of the interaction between Christianity and Judaism (specifically, a historical treatment, not just a list of events) and then we could have most of these events in a child article called something like Christian anti-Semitism, and then also link to the other article, Christian opposition to anti-Semitism, as well? Of course I wouldn't want to make such radical changes without a lot of discussion here, and I'd very much like to know what people think. --Deville (Talk) 14:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Please see my merge proposal as well. Although no doubt your suggestion is genuinely made in good faith, it is extremely likely to create two very biased articles. Head-bangers would exclude all information about Christians opposing anti-Semitism from the first article on the grounds that "there is a separate article for that" and visa-versa. One article (with subarticles divided by time periods, or regions, or some other appropriate content forking principle) would be much more inline with Wikipedia's policies and much more useful to the end user. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:11, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge Christian opposition to anti-Semitism

Please keep the discussion centralized on this talk page. The proposed article to be merged survived a AfD several weeks ago as no consensus because although a majority of users agreed that it should be deleted or merged, neither option accrued a clear majority. In short, that article is a POV fork. Understandably, there is more notable and verifiable information about Christianity and anti-Semitism than can be discussed in one article. However, to divide this information by Christian opposition to anti-Semitism and Christian support of anti-Semitism (please do not create this article, I am merely demonstrating the absurdity) would create two extremely biased articles (if you doubt this look at Talk: Christian opposition to anti-Semitism where Newcrusade—and I am not trying to single him out—repeatedly has removed information with the explanation that the article is only about possitive things about Christians—this is a textbook example of why POV forks are undesireable). Instead I propose that the articles be merged, and that this article be split at a later date, with further discussion from the editors of both articles by time periods. Both of these articles have frequent POV disputes; perhaps this is because information which is percieved to be pro-Christian is moved to one article and information which is percieved to be anti-Christian is moved to another. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 19:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. We may divide them either by time periods (as you suggested) or by some other criteria, e.g. Catholic vs. Protestant vs. Orthodox Chr-ty. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The content of the article Christian opposition to anti-Semitism is primarily about Catholic "opposition" . . . so, it's title is wrong. It's also among the most unbalanced articles I've seen. So, the question I have is, should the article be corrected and then merged or merged and then corrected? I would not want to see all that POV bias pushed into the Christianity and anti-Semitism article. Certainly, properly contextualized opposition to antisemitism within Christendom should be addressed, just as significant opposition to antisemitism among Nazis should be noted with the appropriate weight in their relevant articles.Doright 22:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

If there proves to be support for the merger, my suggestion would be that the article be moved to Christianity and anti-Semitism/draft where it can be content can be struckthrough as it is added to this article and moved to that talk page and discussed if it should not be included. My guess is that most of the cited material may be useful in some form but that much of the uncited and speculative/argumentative/etc. material can safely be done without. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I support your plan and suggestion.Doright 16:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I support the merge and your plan makes sense.MrHen 02:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is Newcrusade, the author of the article that is being proposed for merger. I would like to thank everyone for remaining so civil in this disussion so far. However, there are a few clarifications that I should make.

• First, my article has been accused of being POV. Well, quite frankly it is. But, in fact every article in the entire wikipedia is POV. We cannot help but look at things from a particular viewpoint; that's just the way it is. Besides, to say that "Christian opposition to anti-Semitism is POV" is making a POV statement. The real issue is whether these POVs are right, whether they have the correct viewpoint. Sure, the article does only emphasize the Christian opposition to anti-Semitism, but that's because originally the "Christianity and anti-Semitism" article downplayed any Christian opposition. And anytime that I would put in instances of Christian opposition, they were promptly deleted with the excuse that they were beyond the scope of the article. So, since my contributions were not welcome in that article, I created my own. If the truth was not welcome in one article, then it certainly would be in another one. My point is this: "Christianity and anti-Semitism" article needs much more information on Christian opposition to anti-Semitism. Also, much more historical context is useful too.

The argument that all articles have POV is valid, but irrelevant. The goal of Wikipedia is to strive toward a Neutral POV. This is still technically a POV. While a perfect neutrality may be hard to achieve, it should be the goal. MrHen

• Second, it has been stated that most of the material on the article of "Christian opposition to anti-Semitism" is uncited or is speculative material. Please read the article. Nearly every single paragraph in the article has a citation. The article has more citations per paragraph than the "Christianity and anti-Semitism" article. There are entire sections in that article where there are no citations! Are some of these citations biased? Of course, but so are many of the citations in the "Christianity and anti-Semitism" article. You cannot avoid POV in citations or in books. ALL books and websites have some POV.
• Third, as for the merger and the title of the article. Yes, the article is mostly about "Catholic" not "Christian" opposition. Thus, I am in favor of renaming it. If nobody objects I would be willing to rename the article "Catholic opposition to anti-Semitism" myself.
  • Overall, I approve merging the two articles together. But, keep most of the good material from my article. For example, in "Christianity and anti-Semitism" there is almost no mention of the Catholic opposition to anti-Semitism during the middle ages. That is one among many things that should be incorporated into the article "Christianity and anti-Semitism."

As for organization, I suggest that we separate the article according to Christian, Orthodox, and Catholic, and then within those sections separate it by time period. Merge, and then edit. Newcrusade 19:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you support the merger. I think that—although it was unfortunate that you feel that you were locked out of this article—this is a good demonstration of why we shouldn't have articles arbitrarily limited to certain viewpoints. "Christianity and anti-Semitism" obviously should cover the entire intersection of these two topics, rather than just instances where Christians have been anti-Semitic. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

While the merger would create a very large topic, I agree that they should be merged. Right now, this article only presents one viewpoint and not two. The only other option is to link to the Christian opposition to anti-semitism in a clear way so people can easily access that viewpoint from this article, and vice versa. KCMODevin

If anything that article should be merged here. We have Islam and antisemitism, so it is only right to have Christianity and antisemitism. - Francis Tyers · 13:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Nay!!! This article is already long and hard to read. It isn't well organized and difficult to navigate. The last thing we need is to add another huge article to it. What we really need to do is separate a lot of the article into new articles, it will make it easier to search. Charlesblack 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support for consistency. There shouldn't be a Christian opposition to anti-Semitism article or a Muslim opposition to anti-Semitism article.--Sefringle 03:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple answer: too unwieldly

If both articles were merged, it would simply be too long and would be very inconvenient to navigate. The articles should, however, include links to each other in the "See also" section.--Cocopuffberman 20:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Many innacuracies

This article contians many innacuries. Some of them are so glaring that they turn this article upside down and reduce the importance of real intolerance. Many innacuracies derive from intepreting the establishment of historic state/empire religions which treat all minority religions badly. This is one of several articles which are dilluting true Antisemitism with extremely broad brushes that threaten to turn the defintions to mush.

Neutrality/Bias

When I was reading parts of this article, I haven't seen much neutrality or bias to both sides of the issue. I think people need to understand that not only have some of the quotations in this section have been falsely used to justify anti-semitism, but also that many quotes, mainly those from Church Fathers aren't anti-semetic at all. --KCMODevin 13:56

Wikipedia is not interested in truch (and thus, by implication, false) but rather verifiability. Also, we must be NPOV which includes providing multiple points of view. It does not matter whether an editor considers some comments to be anti-Semitic or not, or whether interpretations of comments as justifying anti-Semitism to be true or false. What matters is that there are different points of view, some anti-Semitic, some not, and they should all be represented as ... not true, not fale, but as real. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

However, you also need to present the POV that is that the church fathers were NOT anti-semetic. And in fact, that is actual truth, the only POV that is currently presented is that those comments are anti-semetic. --KCMODevin

If you have a verifiable source that expresses this POV, then by all means add it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I just know that both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches hold this view. I have links to websites explaining their views, but I don't know if you'd consider that verifiable or not. I'm not a member of either of these churches, but I do hold many views that are parallel to the Eastern Orthodox ones. (and I've spoken to an Eastern Orthodox priest about it) KCMODevin

I suggest you review our core policies, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. As long as you comply with these two policies (and NPOV) you can be confident that your additions and edits will not be reverted. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cut the content

Could people start to remove content from this article - it is twice as long as recommended. While certainly containing a lot of information, it does not provide a clear verifiable picture to the reader. Really this is not that tough. Just pretend you are doing an article on brocolli or something. Keep it factual, minimalize, and reference other articles as well as references for support. Greroja 21:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

2nd century Jewish/Christian tensions - Martyrdom of Polycarp, participation of Jews

Note: This is not to be anti-Semitic, but in the end to try to understand why the conflict and other agressions arose between Christians and Jews.

I have not read numerous martyrdom accounts from the time of the early Christians, but I took a college course at UCLA in Early Western Civilization, in which I read the matyrdom account of Polycarp of Smyrna. In the martyrdom account of St. Polycarp circa 160, there is a line (13:1),

"These things, therefore, happened with so great rapidity, that they took less time than the narration, the multitude quickly collecting logs and brushwood [for burning Polycarp] from the workshops and baths, the Jews especially lending their services zealously for this purpose, as is their custom."

What strikes me as a historian particularly is the Christian sentiment expressed in "as is their custom." It is perfectly understandable why the Jews would persecute the early Christians, beleiving the sect to be a heresy just as St. Paul did before his conversion to Christianity. And at the same time, one can see the Christian sentiment (and later resentment) that the Jews frequently persecuted them. I thought a mentioning of this or points like it would help show why there eventually become the tension betweem Jews and Christians arose in between the 1st and 4th centuries (of which the current article does not describe). Please tell me what you think.

Also, in the class we were told that the Roman officials did not actively search for the Christians, but citizens (and not rarely Jews) told the officials so as to have them tried and recant their beliefs. From a historical perspective it would make sense for this to have occurred. Also, it makes sense that the new Christians of the 4th and 5th centuries who came from pagan faiths, would misinterpret the early Christian sentiments of persecution of Jews as a bitter enmity. If you disagree or can give better facts, please tell me.--Francis419jn655 22:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

That's quite right. This page reads like a propaganda pamphlet by Richard Dawkins. It would be properly informative to include reference to Jewish hostility towards Christians, particularly violence committed by Jews in the early Christian period. A major contributing factor to this particular interfaith antagonism.

In addition, some context should be added with respect to:

= treatment of minorities in general in this period. ie. does the kind of mistreatment suffered by the Jews, endured by other minorities at this time (Christian Europe's own peasants included), qualify for a Nazi-aligned term like 'antisemitism'.

= the honoured and respected place Jews had in Christian Europe throughout most of its history, finding success as composers, artists, doctors, financiers etc.

= Some context of when and in what circumstances anti-Jewish activities took place. During a long, but specific period that involved war and violence between numerous nations, sects and movements, sometimes with clear sectarian motives but at other times with religion as a transparent pretext for some other advantage.

= The Jews have written a lot of unpleasant things about Jesus and Christians over time, eg. in the Talmud, but it wouldn't be suggested this was some sort of genocidal precursor or such. Does the fact that Luther wrote some unpleasant things about the Jews justify a loaded hard-core term like anti-semitism? Not really 'NPOV'.

= For that matter, a quick definition and background of the term 'anti-semitism' (a purely 19th and 20th Century term not associated with any Christian writer) would be scholarly.

= Certain historical events -- expulsions of Jews from various countries, mass killings, forced conversions, severe restrictions, for example -- would justify a strong term like anti-semitism. But I think including common bigotry and intolerance under this definition is hyperbolic.

Overall, the implied narrative that Christianity led to the Holocaust is unscholarly and biased. Kipwatson 08:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Need citation for Greek Orthodoxy & Antisemitism

The section on Greek Orthodoxy and antisemitism states that the liturgy and/or other rubrics make "execrations [ie, curses] against the Jewish people". Please cite specific sources. The troparion referenced in the article clearly does not qualify as an execrations. Thanks. Majoreditor 03:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone find appropriate citations to substantiate these claims?

Note: Please see the village pump policy discussion regarding the title of this article

here. Thanks. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 20:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

bible verses

The bible verses should be applied with the {{bibleverse}} template.--Sefringle 23:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits by User:Charlessoper and reverted by User:Jayjg

User:Jayjg reverted three good-faith edits by User:Charlessoper. This edit is clearly unencyclopedic in tone. However, I am wondering whether this edit might be worth keeping. Anybody else have an opinion?

--Richard 17:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed move: Jews in the New Testament to Anti-Jewish polemic in the New Testament

Why isn't the Jews in the New Testament article titled Anti-semitism in the New Testament? Seems to me that is what the article is really about. Or, if you don't like that title, how about Anti-Jewish polemic in the New Testament? Your opinion is solicited.

--Richard 17:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

AntiChristian bias and hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy

Article is biased in that it implies that Christianity could not possibly be true, and the New testament the true word of God. One example of this is the statement: "These conflicts had a negative impact on the writers of certain parts of the New Testament especially the author of the gospel of John which was compiled about this time. In several places John' s gospel associates "the Jews" with darkness and with the devil. This laid the groundwork for centuries of Christian characterization of Jews as agents of the devil, a characterization which found its way into medieval popular religion and eventually into passion plays." This statement assumes the biased stance that what the writers of the New Testament wrote was influenced by anything other than the Holy Spirit which inspired them, and that they wrote something other than what they would have written had the "conflicts" not occurred. This in itself is an informal fallacy known as "hypothesis contrary to fact". The fact is, the "conflicts" did occur, so any statement as to what would have happened had they not occurred is mere speculation, and what was written might have been(indeed Christians believe it would have been, since God directed them as to what to write) written regardless. The whole article is written from a distinctly antiChristian viewpoint, when all viewpoints or none are supposed to be represented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronar (talk • contribs) 03:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I agree. Just because they didn't like Pharisees doesn't mean they hate all Jews. If someone is not willing to vote for Hillary Clinton, that doesn't mean they're opposed to electing a woman. They may want to have Condoleeza Rice become President. It's the same with being opposed to Pharisees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.180.244 (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Proselytization by Jews during Hellenistic and Roman eras

I am removing the blurb about competition for converts being a point of contention between Jews and Christians. Judaism has a long-standing tradition of not proselytizing or attempting to get people to convert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.173.34 (talk • contribs)

Contrary to the popular myth that Judaism has never proselytized, there is a school of thought that suggests that the Judaic prohibition against proselytization arose as a defense against Christian antisemitism. I added a citation that establishes that there is at least one scholar who believes that Jews actively proselytized during the nascent years of the Christian faith. Were it not for this proselytization, Christianity might never have found a foothold amongst the Gentiles. Jewish proselytization laid the seeds which Christianity reaped. The argument runs like this... the Gentiles liked the Jewish approach to religion and ethics but they didn't like the strictures of the Mosaic code. When it was revealed to Paul in a dream that the Mosaic code no longer needed to be followed to the letter (e.g. the laws pertaiing to kashrut and circumcision), the Christians gained a decisive advantage in the competition for converts.

--Richard (talk) 07:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the first sentence of Richardchur's comment. However, I think most historians would say that the issue was not Judaism competing with Christianity for Gentile converts, but the Pharisees and Christians - both at the time factions of Jews - competing for adherants among Jews. This was the principal antagonism and competition in the second century, and may account for manny of the specifically anti-Pharisee comments in the NT. On a side note, Daniel Boyarin in A Radical Jew has argued that the burdens of Rabbinic law were not a major obstacle to conversion (for many reasons: Jews do not find them burdensome; Gentiles did in fact convert to Judaism and obviously did not find them burdensome; Gentiles had religions of their own that involved a variety of proscriptions and prescriptions that could also be declared burdensome; Christianity imposes its own discipline that could be considered burdensome ... Boyarin concludes that Paul's great insight, to which Gentiles responded, was his universalistic theology which presented itself as inclusive. To convert to Judaism is to become a member of a different nation; according to Paul, to convert to Christianity is to be a human being. Boyarin argues that it was Paul's de-ethniciczation of Christianity that made it so appealing.) Slrubenstein | Talk 10:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that bit summarizing Boyarin's perspective. That really helps me personally.

However, if I read you correctly, you agree with 66.146.173.34's comment because, even during the formative years of Christianity, Jews in the Diaspora were not actively proselytizing. Any conversion of the Gentiles was spontaneous rather than as the result of active proselytism.

Also, any citations that you can provide that discuss the competition between the Pharisees and the Christians would be much appreciated. I think the article on Persecution of early Christians by the Jews could use a better exposition of the relationship between Christians and Jews during that era.

--Richard (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Jews

There is a proposal to move Persecution of early Christians by the Jews to Persecution of Christians in the New Testament. Please express your opinion at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. --Richard (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Antecedents of Christian antisemitism

Weren't the Ancient Egyptians and Persians antisemitic? The Jews were enslaved in Egypt, and Haman, Xerxes' right-hand man wanted to eliminate Jews.--69.234.207.252 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosher food regulation

This has been regulated because of the method of slaughter. I've removed the claim that European governments have: "singled out Jewish dietary practices for regulation," as the regulation applies to Halal meat as well. The basic requirement is that animals be stunned before slaughter to minimize pain, and has nothing to do with religion. Ireland, where about 60% still go to churches every Sunday, still slaughters meat in the old ways, inspected by rabbis and imams, and exports its kosher / halal products.86.42.192.152 (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The conflict ultimately played a dramatic role in the Nazi Third Reich, World War II and the Holocaust.