Talk:Antisemitism/SV

SV
While its fair to that a part of a large edit does not belong, a blanket revert is never "considered and measured." You claim that the section "defending Jesus" as "explicitly disapprov[ing] of condemnation" is an "off-topic apologetic." The notion that articles be segregated along certain lines, has long been an excuse to offer little (or no) context. The notion of "off-topic" is a common excuse for having a single-sided article section without any contrary or balancing view. If thats the nature of this article, maybe Wikinfo's POV-separated articles would be better place for it.

Jayjg:"This section, however, was about passages in the New Testament that have been considered to be or used as a justification for anti-Semitism...What's more, it's not particularly relevant, nor are the specific speakers; the section is not discussing sayings of Jesus which are considered anti-Semitic, but statements in the New Testament which are considered anti-Semitic;" By whom does the section say these statement "are considered anti-Semitic?" And would this 'considered by nameless' section be without any counterpoint? Wouldnt that kind of article be considered less than NPOV? Would you be claiming that the statements of Jesus are "anti-Semitic," and that the article should hold this view - unchallenged and replete with distortions, including over-generalized context, unattributed quotes, and a highly POV (and baseless) in-text comment "[i.e. "the Jews"]."

The only material aspect of this whole section (aside from dealing with the quotes and their misinterpretations) is how the distiction between non-believer and believer became generalized to all "the Jews." Do not simply repeat past flawed interpretation without context. Note that the very meaning of who is a Jew has never been very consistent either, so how can it be criticised that others (including John the Apostle) do not make 'proper distinctions?' Thats another debate of course.

Jg:"[the Samartian town story] does not say one shouldn't condemn Jews, it says Jesus doesn't want to call down fire from heaven to destroy a town." This might be a fair point, were it not directly contradictory to the notion that his condemnations were directed specifically at Jews. You could argue that the 'Samaritans were not Jews at all,' and that the term 'Pharisees really means "[i.e. "the Jews"]" but those are likewise assertions that belong need jusification, somehow, correct? "Jesus, John, Stephen, Paul, whoever, it doesn't really matter, they're all "holy writ"." - This statement is simply wrong.

Jg:"quoted from John, the text is explicit that it refers to the Jews: John 8:31 "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him etc." John is full of references to "the Jews"." This is a fair point, and should be the basis for an examination of the text. But note that John refers to "the Jews" in an ethnically descriptive sense; Jesus wasnt talking to Gentiles (Romans etc) at that particular moment, and note that included among "the Jews" are "those who remain in [his] word" which impies not only 'those who dismiss his word' but 'those who fall short' as well. Hence by proper rational interpretation, these do not line up with the ethnic distinctions of Jew, gentile, etc.

Jg:"The fact that the section does not distinguish between the Jews and the Pharisees is precisely the point; for most of Christian history the church didn't either, and as a result these passages were interpreted this way. Many Christians still do interpret them this way. For someone to come along now and say "well, they interpreted it all wrong, this is what they really meant, so it's not anti-Semitism at all" is not only a historical anachronism, but the height of POV." This statement has some merits if only because its direct and to the point. My main criticism of the section was that this approach of simply mirroring past flaws in distinction, rather than explaining them in any context other than "anti-Semitism," is hugely flawed, and "the height of POV" to boot. I dont know how modern and authoritative reinterpretations can be called "the height of POV", especially by someone who doesnt care to even make distinctions between middle-age, and contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.

Anti-Semitism is an irrational point of view, correct? Hence all interpretations of anti-Semitic meaning in the New Testament can be considered irrational, correct? I'm sure you would agree that the Christian religion itself, based on the teachings of Jesus, is not inherently anti-Semitic, correct? Similarly, the blanket interpretation of Jesus' teachings as anti-Semitic is not a rational view, just as anti-Semitism itself is not rational, correct? There is no "rational" anti-Semitism. And similarly condemning an entire belief system of Christianity as "irrational" is not rational. This is surely not the point you want to convey, thouth that does seem to be what you are arguing, when you say: "particularly in light of the many condemnations by Jesus listed in the New Testament." You seem to be asserting a connection between the "many condemnations" (sources please) and an anti-Semitic condemnation of all Jews. Not only is this assertion rife with POV, but the claim that it should go unchallenged is completely antithetical to the (holy) NPOV structure of articles. -SV|t|add 22:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi SV, I'll respond to your comments tomorrow, when I have more time to read them carefully. My opening statement is that I think the section needs to be balanced and improved as well, but that those edits were not the way to do it. Jayjg (talk)  23:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jg
While its fair to that a part of a large edit does not belong, a blanket revert is never "considered and measured."
 * Blanket reverts
 * First, it wasn't a blanket revert. Second, that's your opinion; in actuality, I carefully read through the changes, and decided that none were worth retaining.  Third if you object so strongly to blanket reverts, then why did you do the same to me? Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You claim that the section "defending Jesus" as "explicitly disapprov[ing] of condemnation" is an "off-topic apologetic." The notion that articles be segregated along certain lines, has long been an excuse to offer little (or no) context. The notion of "off-topic" is a common excuse for having a single-sided article section without any contrary or balancing view. If thats the nature of this article, maybe Wikinfo's POV-separated articles would be better place for it.
 * Off-topic apologetic?
 * The topic of the main article is anti-Semitism, and the topic of the subsection is anti-Semitism in the New Testament. Whether or not Jesus disapproved of condemnation is irrelevant to whether passages in the New Testament have been or are seen as anti-Semitic, or used as a pretext for anti-Semitism. Moreover, even if it were on topic, it's an extremely weak argument, since Jesus is quoted in the gospels as regularly condemning all sorts of people. But the worst problem of all is that it is No original research, at least until you can find someone who actually makes this argument in defending the New Testament against accusations of anti-Semitism.Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who makes these claims?
Jayjg:"This section, however, was about passages in the New Testament that have been considered to be or used as a justification for anti-Semitism...What's more, it's not particularly relevant, nor are the specific speakers; the section is not discussing sayings of Jesus which are considered anti-Semitic, but statements in the New Testament which are considered anti-Semitic;" By whom does the section say these statement "are considered anti-Semitic?" And would this 'considered by nameless' section be without any counterpoint? Wouldnt that kind of article be considered less than NPOV? Would you be claiming that the statements of Jesus are "anti-Semitic," and that the article should hold this view - unchallenged and replete with distortions, including over-generalized context, unattributed quotes, and a highly POV (and baseless) in-text comment "[i.e. "the Jews"]."
 * The sources of those who claim those passages are anti-Semitic do indeed need to be sourced, which is something I hope to do next week. The primary sources for these claims are 1) Groups which claim the passages are anti-Semitic 2) Groups which claim the passages have been accused of being anti-Semitic, but are actually not, and 3) Groups which use these passages to promote anti-Semitism.  All three sources exist, but pulling it all together will take time. Ideally the section should present the views of those who argue they are anti-Semitic, followed by the views of those who insist they are not; this should also deal with your complaint about lack of context; without doubt, some of those defending the verses will insist they were all taken out of context. Regarding the attribution, I fail to understand the relevance; if the verses have been accused of supporting anti-Semitism, then what difference does it make who said them? As for the in-text comment ("the Jews"), since the chapter the quote is coming from immediately preceding that explicity mentions "The Jews", I'm not sure why you state it is highly POV or baseless.

Only material aspect of the section
The only material aspect of this whole section (aside from dealing with the quotes and their misinterpretations) is how the distiction between non-believer and believer became generalized to all "the Jews." Do not simply repeat past flawed interpretation without context. Note that the very meaning of who is a Jew has never been very consistent either, so how can it be criticised that others (including John the Apostle) do not make 'proper distinctions?' Thats another debate of course.
 * No, the only material aspect of the situation is description of the views of those who believe the verses are anti-Semitic, and those who believe they are not. Remember, that's what NPOV is all about; it's not intended to trumpet the truth, or re-enact disputes, but merely to characterize them.  As I said above, once both sides of the dispute have their say, issues of context should disappear; detractors of the verses will insist they are not taken out of context, and explain why, and defenders of the verses will insist they are taken out of context, and explain why. And please note, it is only your personal POV that the past interpretation is "flawed"; there are certainly some Christians who still understand the verses that way, and you can only conjecture as to what the original intent of the authors was. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jg:"[the Samartian town story] does not say one shouldn't condemn Jews, it says Jesus doesn't want to call down fire from heaven to destroy a town." This might be a fair point, were it not directly contradictory to the notion that his condemnations were directed specifically at Jews. You could argue that the 'Samaritans were not Jews at all,' and that the term 'Pharisees really means "[i.e. "the Jews"]" but those are likewise assertions that belong need jusification, somehow, correct?
 * Samaritan town story
 * Not really. Jesus doesn't talk about condemnations there, he talks about calling down fire from heaven, so it is off-topic.  More importantly, it is No original research, at least until you can find someone who actually makes this argument in defending the New Testament against accusations of anti-Semitism; see "Off-topic apologetic?" above. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Jesus, John, Stephen, Paul, whoever, it doesn't really matter, they're all "holy writ"." - This statement is simply wrong.
 * Does who said what matter?
 * That's not a strong argument. Jayjg (talk) 19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you didnt make one to respond to. SV|t|add 01:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

John and "the Jews"
Jg:"quoted from John, the text is explicit that it refers to the Jews: John 8:31 "Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him etc." John is full of references to "the Jews"." This is a fair point, and should be the basis for an examination of the text. But note that John refers to "the Jews" in an ethnically descriptive sense; Jesus wasnt talking to Gentiles (Romans etc) at that particular moment, and note that included among "the Jews" are "those who remain in [his] word" which impies not only 'those who dismiss his word' but 'those who fall short' as well. Hence by proper rational interpretation, these do not line up with the ethnic distinctions of Jew, gentile, etc.
 * Well, that's certainly one POV, and might even be correct. But don't forget, as strongly as you might believe that, you can't go around inserting your own personal beliefs into articles.  It's entirely possible someone uses that argument as a defence against accusations of anti-Semitism in the New Testament; in that case, it would be quite valid to include it. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * "as strongly as you believe it" - Nonsense, Jay. Read it for yourself - Thats the whole point of this excersise; that someone like yourself who seeks to make a critical point of the New Testament might actually base it on an direct reading and understanding of the material you want to criticise. Its fairly easy when the object of criticism is a book that's in the public domain, that anyone has access to, and can read and compare as they see fit. Certainly we can agree that in the past, when Bibles were in Latin, and when people couldnt read, and even when they did, the kind of bigoted interpretation was supported in the culture... - then certainly we are not in disagreement.

But how is that different from anything else, including the interpretation of the Old Testament? For example Josephus says that Sodom was destroyed by the Assyrians(?) because the Sodomites (prosperous and fruitful) wouldnt trade with them. Why then does the Bible give a much less plausible explanation, by NPOV standards, and yet the Bible is considered NPOV when Josephus is considered biased? Hence, just as Judaism is no less fundamentally based on a selective interpretation of history, that was excusable in times of antiquity, likewise the denomination/interpretation of "what is anti-Semitism" is similarly based in an ethnocentric sphere. Thus the only remaining material difference, besides universalism's effect of broadening of the Christian demographic, is the context of now, as a time different from then. Theres really nothing controversial in the above, if you read it correctly, but it does demolish the claim that "anti-Semitism," in order to be "NPOV" must adhere to a commoner's or insiders point of view. -SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I'm not following your argument. My intent here is merely to quote, or summarize the positions, of people who claim that the New Testament (or verses in it) are anti-Semitic, and people who claim the opposite.  I don't think we can determine the "truth" here, even if this were the place for it (which it is not). Jayjg (talk)  02:20, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anachronistic interpretations
Jg:"The fact that the section does not distinguish between the Jews and the Pharisees is precisely the point; for most of Christian history the church didn't either, and as a result these passages were interpreted this way. Many Christians still do interpret them this way. For someone to come along now and say "well, they interpreted it all wrong, this is what they really meant, so it's not anti-Semitism at all" is not only a historical anachronism, but the height of POV." This statement has some merits if only because its direct and to the point. My main criticism of the section was that this approach of simply mirroring past flaws in distinction, rather than explaining them in any context other than "anti-Semitism," is hugely flawed, and "the height of POV" to boot. I dont know how modern and authoritative reinterpretations can be called "the height of POV", especially by someone who doesnt care to even make distinctions between middle-age, and contemporary interpretations of the New Testament.
 * It amazes me that you would make statements insisting that past interpretations were "flawed", and current ones are "authoritative", and not see that it is highly POV. I'm sure that some of the papers defending the New Testament against accusations of anti-Semitism will make this argument, and so (once sourced) they should be included, but it's not up to Wikipedia to proclaim that modern interpretations are correct and authoritative, and past ones are flawed. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Its a modern pov that needs to be relected, Jay. I could just as easily that that someone who cites anti-semitism in the bible is living in the past, and has a "historical" pov. "Once sourced" please remove the offensive material now, until you do properly source them then. -SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not understanding much of your argumentation here, but I do intend to find sources for both sides. I've had an extremely busy week, and have had much less time than usual for Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk)  02:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism is an irrational point of view, correct? Hence all interpretations of anti-Semitic meaning in the New Testament can be considered irrational, correct?
 * Anti-Semitism is irrational
 * Well, I think anti-Semitism is irrational, but your argument that "all interpretations of anti-Semitic meaning in the New Testament can be considered irrational" is only true if you assume that the New Testament isn't anti-Semitic; your argument here is circular. If the authors of the New Testament were indeed anti-Semitic, then interpretations that found anti-Semitic meaning in it would be entirely rational. Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, if we can agree that its irrational, how then can New Testament material be used for its "purposes?" "Irrational purpose" is a contradiction in terms, no? I agree that the majority in times of antiquity have held these views, but I dont defer to the Biblically ignorant to characterize interpretation of scripture, either.-SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No, "irrational purpose" is not a contradiction in terms, and the New Testament is quoted in the exact same way by some for that very purpose today. Jayjg (talk)  02:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Im afraid that many would disagree with you that "irrational and purpose" are largely oxymoronic when used together. :) "...is quoted in the exact same way by some..." Well, many would argue that simply quoting racist pamphleture would be lazy - quoting the lowest types of interpretation rather than the more elevated ones.


 * I have to say, that it seems odd that people would ask for "sources" for any positive interpretation of a major religious text, as if though these were on a par with negative ones. The text itself should speak for itself, and the definition of "proper interpretation" should be by definition the most positive interpretation that can be made.
 * An encyclopedia just might be more interested in asserting the more elevated views as dominant, and this should not be seen as expressing a POV, but rather a "correct" or de-biased interpretation of that literature, as these are open to be read by anyone. Granted, if one is operating under the POV assumption that the literature itself contains "incorrect" views, then of course I would encourage the attribution to other sources. But in the context of any religion or religious source, the deference seems to be toward the benevolence of the texts themselves.


 * But this all would seem to present the obstacle that Wikipedians cannot themselves even cite original sources, but rather rely on the interpretations of those sources by scholars of sources. In other words, is this simply going to default to a some say, some say type of article? Is "cite sources" and "research" a euphemism to mean that the Bible will not be cited directly, but only through second-handed quotation?
 * Well at least (it would seem) Ive demolished any basis for directly citing the bible as "anti-Semitic" material, which is a good thing. Though its understandable that the call for sources is used to maintain the pov status quo, and hence revert any contrary edits made to the article, nevertheless the outcome should be that all of us involved should be able to write much better on the subject. Regards, and I'm reading your links now. -SV|t 23:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: ""Christians are morally obligated to understand the New Testament’s harsh words against Jews and Judaism in their original contexts, without translating those polemics into antisemitism."" http://www.jcrelations.net/en/?id=1542] - Note that this text asserts that "harsh words...in their original contexts do not equate to anti-semitism, except through biased translation. I think this states most of the point quite clearly, though, again the assertion that Jews and Judaism were targets is inaccurate. Jesus preached a "correct" interpretation of Judaism, not Christianity, and much of Christianity has since assumed that Judaism is de-facto "incorrect," without considering the historic context, and the basic essence of Jesus' personal Judaism. -SV


 * SV, you are re-enacting the dispute, rather than presenting it, which is not what Wikipedia Talk: pages are for. It's not for us to decide whether or not the New Testament, or various verses in it, are truly anti-Semitic, or have merely been misinterpreted/misused.  Instead, we must simply present the facts:
 * 1) The New Testament and/or various verses in the New Testament have accused of being anti-Semitic.
 * 2) Various verses in the New Testament have been (and, by some groups, still are) interpreted in anti-Semitic ways, and this fact is acknowledged by most mainstream Christian groups.
 * 3) Most Christian groups today believe those anti-Semitic intepretations to be incorrect, for a variety of reasons.
 * I've provided a number of sources outlining this issue; all that's left is to present the issue in a NPOV way, citing the accusations of anti-Semitism, the historical and current usage in anti-Semitic ways, and the various responses of Christians/Christian groups. I've been extremely busy over the past two weeks, and have had little time to do this, aside from finding sources, but I expect to have more time next week. Jayjg (talk) 04:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Is Christianity anti-Semitic?
I'm sure you would agree that the Christian religion itself, based on the teachings of Jesus, is not inherently anti-Semitic, correct? Similarly, the blanket interpretation of Jesus' teachings as anti-Semitic is not a rational view, just as anti-Semitism itself is not rational, correct? There is no "rational" anti-Semitism. And similarly condemning an entire belief system of Christianity as "irrational" is not rational. This is surely not the point you want to convey, thouth that does seem to be what you are arguing, when you say: "particularly in light of the many condemnations by Jesus listed in the New Testament." You seem to be asserting a connection between the "many condemnations" (sources please) and an anti-Semitic condemnation of all Jews. Not only is this assertion rife with POV, but the claim that it should go unchallenged is completely antithetical to the (holy) NPOV structure of articles. -SV|t|add 22:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * SV, there are so many assumptions in that section it's hard to know where to begin. You assume that Christianity is faithfully following the teachings of Jesus, and that the New Testament faithfully reproduces them, etc.  In any event, the article itself makes no claims that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, or irrational; rather, it (ideally) explores the topic of whether or not verses in the New Testament have been used for anti-Semitic purposes, or are inherently anti-Semitic.  I don't think the former can be denied, and to deal properly with the latter, cited statements or arguments from both sides must be produced.  That is exactly what the holy NPOV is all about, not about inserting original research attempting to "defend the faith". Jayjg (talk)  19:32, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Its assuming none of those things Jay. Rather its asking a question: Is this the base from which you are operating? If so, then my comments were intended to make you reflect back upon you own comments as not being NPOV. I think thats the only problem here, frankly, is your assumption that your views are NPOV, and that a section that asserts a connection between anti-semitism and Christianity remain in a shoddy state, unchallenged by objectivity or even demands for attribution.

"In any event, the article itself makes no claims that Christianity is inherently anti-Semitic, or irrational" No, but it implies it by its unattributed listing of "holy writ" and inuendo "[i.e. the Jews]." "It (ideally) explores the topic of whether or not verses in the New Testament have been used for anti-Semitic purposes, or are inherently anti-Semitic." This would be nice, but its still has the inverted focus on what's "considered to be" over what "is". Again, you dont cite sources for who "considers" what to be what, and I look forward to seeing those. Its not my intent to "defend the faith" just as I'm sure it wasn't your intention to disparage it. -SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sv2
I think were largely in agreement and now are better understanding the others concerns. Ill respond to some of your points tomorrow, and look forward to your "charachteriz[ation]" of the various sources you intend to cite. Regards -SV|t|add 01:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Response to SR
SR:"The thrust of Jayjg's last comment is that although Jayjg has spelled out his views to explain why he reverted SV's, SV did not respond to that explanation, or provide one of his own, for reverting. Compromise and collaboration are impossible if people won't respond to one another's comments." I was late in responding, forgive me. -SV

"As for the article itself, SV, I think I agree with Jayjg, at least on some points. Christian anti-Semitism is a tricky topic and I think your edits were motivated by a desire to be even-handed. That is a worthy goal, but I don't think the particular changes you made effectively accomplish that." But what could? And what would not be an improvement over whats there now?

"First of all, some of what you wrote is inaccurate -- Jesus and his apostles did not just criticize Saducees and Pharisees, they did speak of Jews in general. Moreover, all Jews today are heirs of the Pharisees, and in retrospect, an attack on Pharisees is an attack on all Jews today. Indeed, some have suggested that the NT attacks against the Pharisees were inserted after Jesus was murdered, at the time that the Pharisees had emerged as the hegemonic form of Judaism and especially the form of Judaism directly competing with early Christians for Jewish supporters."
 * "Some have suggested..." whom? "All Jews today are heirs" is besides the point, isnt it? "....Is an attack on all Jews today" This is a rather broad statement, which isnt really relevant even if it were distinctly "true." Yes, that could be one interpretation, but its not the correct one, if one reads the Gospels with any consistency. The term "the Jews", as I pointed out to Jay, as used in the New Testament, are ethnic general terms for distinguishing the people Jesus was ministering to at the time from the Gentiles, Samaritans, etc. Of course, this interpretation has not been characteristic of many past interpretations, and that's fair to cite an article on "past interpretations of anti-Semitism" but its not fair to say that "NT = (or contains) AS."
 * Notice that the very terms Pharisee, Gentile, etc. are "Jewish terms" and hence can be reinterpreted in accordance with Jewish history and heritage as its understood today. But thats not their meaning in Christian history. Jesus was denouncing hypocrites and posers, who mixed together money and influence with religion, which (according to Jesus) was disfavorable to God. True, one could make the flimsy argument (and many have) that these are de-facto denouncements toward Jews in general. But for example, similar characterizations of other Jews are equally common in the Old Testament, though in an older language that tended to attribute all failures to a "disobedience of God" and other deviations from "the proper way." The wisdom of Solomon became the folly of Solomon... 'the Kingdom of Israel was not part of the covenant (unfit to rule),' etc. Theres nothing anti-Semitic about reproach. The apparent consistency in the old testament might be attributed to the documentary hypothesis, etc, but at least that's fairly controversial among non-dogmatic interpretations of scripture.
 * To make the point: If I ever call someone a "Pharisee" today, I would mean it to connote a member of particular ancient conservative political affiliation, whom, according to the characterizations of the "favorite philosopher of the West" tended to say, "Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing;' but 'whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!'" and so on. Certainly, by that defintion, it can be said that we have "Pharisees" around today, but no reasonable or literate person ("no true Scotsman") today could say that the ancestral lineage supercedes the actual meaning, and that meaning is hardly genetic, racial, or even cultural. One could argue that there are plenty of "Pharisees" (again by Jesus' characterisation) in the various conservative parties today, many of whom claim to be Christian. Of course that too is JPOV from circa 30CE, but that at least shows that the characterization of the members of a political sect of 2000 years ago cannot be said to be "anti-Semitic" as the term "anti-Semitic" is understood today, just as calling a Republican a hypocrite for mixing his money with his religion, is not a denouncement of all Christians. I dont see anything controversial about that point, or how it really needs a talk-show like debate. If we can agree on that, maybe we can also agree to iron out the kinks in the definition of "anti-Semitism" itself, which likewise may differ according to POV. You wouldnt argue that anti-Semitism, if it has a literal objective definition, can only be defined by its targets?

SR:"Now, I do not think that any of what I just said belongs in the article. But it does show how tricky it is to talk about these things, and why there is a need to be as accurate as possible. Second, I just disagree completely with your use of the phrase "true" or "truth." Everyone thinks their religion or their version of their religion or their politics is "true." For an article to affirm that a particular view of Christianity is the "true" version is a flagrant violation of NPOV. Yes, there are different interpretations of the NT, but no one here has the right or authority to say which one's are true and which one's are false. Yes, Christianity has changed over the years -- Vatican II being one example. But again, it is not for us to say which version is right."
 * I agree. "But then again is not for us to say which version is right" - this does indeed go many ways, professor. :) -SV

"This article is not on Christianity, it is on anti-Semitism. The section on anti-Semitism in the NT should not list statements any of us think are anti-Semetic (which only invites someone else to explain why they are not anti-Semitic, which is an equally inappropriate thing to do). Wikipedia articles never express the views of their authors. They provide an account of other peoples views. So let's try to find out which passages in the NT have actually been used to promote anti-Semitism, and which verses Jews believe are anti-Semitic, and provide that information (even if we do not agree, personally). Then we should have a very brief statement that some Christians interpret these verses differently and a link to another article that can go into detail." Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * What does it mean that the article "is on anti-Semitism"? Does this mean that its free to make assertions and associations about Christianity without any counterpoint or contradiction? Of course, not, and I know you dont agree with that characterisation, but I dont see how is possible to call the section NPOV at all, if the matter is simply one of my interpretation versus your interpretation. "Correct interpretation" should supercede. Wouldnt that be nice: Why do the views expressed on wikipedia have to reflexively reflect the ignorance of the world? "Which verses Jews believe are anti-Semitic" YMAKWIGTS, but someone of my persuasion (disagreeable) would not be able get away for a second with an assertion like "[all] Jews beleive..." anything. Why then should any such 'all-encompassing view' be unchallenged when it comes from elsewhere? Pardon the hodgepodge of rambling. -SV|t 23:13, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Course syllabus
Apparently this issue is the topic of a second year course at the University of Toronto:  The course seems to take for granted that anti-Jewish polemic exists in the New Testament. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2005 (UTC)