Talk:Antisemitism in Christianity/Archive 1

Poland is a Central European country, not Eastern European. I don't know why you choose Poland, when you have so much antisemitism in Austria (Heider), Ukraine, Russia, etc etc szopen


 * And entries should and will be written on those countries as well. Poland is one of the most imporant countries on this topic, but no more so than Russian or Austria. Just a lack of time to work on this subject, that's all. And an entry should also be written on anti-Semitism in the USA. There's a lot less today than in the 1930s, but it certainly still does exist, and it has been on a rise in the last decade from Islamist American Muslims. RK

-- I think the passage in Mathew is only referring to the Pharisees, and perhaps others, who were resisting John's movement in the desert. And they at least purport to be the words of one Jew to another group of Jews, and though they have at various times been interpreted in a different way, they aren't what the main article claims they are...


 * This article is about how Christians view these words. You are talking about how historians view these words. But Jews have never been oppressed by mobs of historians. It is real world Christianity that this article is concerned with.  RK

I'm sure there is a NPOV article to be found here, but the current article is just not it. Some Christian groups have oppressed Jews, but the defense of the Jewish people by Christians is not a 20th century phenomenon either. MRC

I am deleting the whole article. Both attributions are wrong in their chapter/verse numbers (intentionally??); the words of Jesus are ascribed to Matthew; it's falsely claimed that the assertions are made of all the Jews even though the Gospel text is very specific on the fact that Jesus is talking to and about specific Pharisees.

It's unfortunate that RK continues to think that Wikipedia is a vehicle for propaganda. --AV

Huh? Who do you think that the entry had propaganda for? What imaginary group do you have in mind? The simple fact of the matter is that such violent antisemitism has always led to the mass murder of Jews. On the other hand, denying the existence of such antisemitism has always encouraged antisemites. Instead of working to improve entries according to Wiki parameters, you made a change in favor of those who practice and preach Jew-hatred, yet who want their beliefs low-profile. Would you also delete the Encyclopaedia Britannica's entries on this subject? Get real. Antisemitism and its roots are just as valid to discuss as racism and its roots, and homophobia and its roots. Only those who favor bigotry, antisemitism and racism prevent the subjects from being discussed. --RK


 * There is a need for an article on Christian anti-Semitism, but yours wasn't it. One can discuss its history, the relationship between the Vatican and Jews, the medieval disputes, the expulsion from Spain, and many other things. I wouldn't delete anything in that vein written objectively. What you wrote is a few wrongly attributed quotes from the Gospel, with the ridiculous distortion of their meaning (claiming that Jesus spoke of all Jews). All the material you wrote was rubbish, and that's why it got deleted. --AV

Wiki entries are modified when errors are exist. Entire pages are not deleted. Your actions, AV, speak louder than words; your actions deny the existence of antisemitism over the last 2000 years by Christians. You had 4 chances to modify the entry, but your only action was to delete, delete and delete. What is one supposed to conclude? Go away, and come back when you are ready to discuss the subject, instead of censoring it. --RK


 * Since the whole entry was a collection of distortions, there was nothing to salvage there. That is why I deleted all of it. I'm not qualified to write a very good entry on Christian antisemitism, but maybe I'll try to start one later, I don't know. --AV

I'm removing the quotes from the Scripture; they're misattributed, and they are falsely stated to be said about the whole of Jewish people. I'm aware of no reputable authority who supports this point of view; the usual interpretation is that they are addressed to specific Pharisees with whom Jesus is debating. Here they are:

The apostle Matthew write about the Jewish people "You snakes, you brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to Hell?" (Matthew 22:33)

John 8:47 has this to say about the entire Jewish people: "Because you are unable to hear what I say, you belong to your father, The Devil, and you want to carry out your father's desire! He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him! When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies!  Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me.  He who belongs to God hears what God says.  THE REASON YOU DO NOT HEAR IS THAT YOU DO NOT BELONG TO GOD."

The poison of John's pen prompted the Protestant Christian pastor A. Roy Eckardt to describe these lines as "the road to Auschwitz". --AV

Anatoly, I'm not sure that the quotes don't have a place, although they should be correctly attributed (change Jewish people to Pharisees, for example).


 * The problem is that almost all Jews today are Pharisees. I'm one.  Orthodox, Conservative and Reform Judaism are all modern manifestations of Pharisee Judaism. When someone says that they only hate Pharisees, that still labels 98% of Jews today.

I think that for many Christians over the years, many of whom are very badly educated in their religion and its history, these quotes would have been seen as referring to Jews in general. If you don't believe me about the ignorance level, I have met Babtists who believe their religion was founded by John the Baptist. Many protestants believe that Catholicism is heretical, many others (at least in the states) don't even realize that Catholics are, in fact, Christian... Perhaps the way in which Scripture has been bastardized is as important as what it says?

AND BY THE WAY -- why isn't this a sub-entry under antisemitism? I hardly think it need be separate, especially if RK et al actually want people to read this...JHK


 * I agree that if there is evidence that these specific quotes have often been used to justify anti-semitism, then they have a place in the article. However, they need to be NPOVed - the allegation that they talk about all the Jews should be deleted...


 * There is no question; these quotes have always been used to justify anti-Semitism. And your query about these quotes not referring to all Jews is confused. This article is not about what professional historians theorize these quotes may originally have meant; it is not about anti-Semitism from nations run by historians, or by mobs of historians. It is about what real-world Christians believe these verses to mean, and about what actions in the real world they have actually taken. RK


 * and, most importantly, it needs to be stated that the quotes were used by some Christians to justify antisemitism, which doesn't mean that they're anti-semitic in themselves.


 * The reason I didn't do this is because I simply am not sure that the quotes aren't one big red herring - that they indeed have an importance place in history of christian justification of anti-semitism. I can't trust RK on this because he's been consistently mispreresenting the truth (to put it very mildly) in this entry and others. I think that more evidence is called for. --AV


 * Besides the facts that those are not the right verses and an unpleasant translation (should be Matt 23:33 -- referring to lawyers, Pharisees, hypocrites --and John 8:44 -- referring to the Jews who had believed him), I'm not sure that RK is wrong. We know that some Christians make a habit of pulling out convenient bits of scripture as suits the occasion.  That said, it would be nice to see something more concrete.  For example, where did Eckhardt say this was the road to Auschwitz -- was it quoted somewhere in Nazi propaganda?  RK, I think you might want to add some context, if not to satisfy Anatoly, the for the simple reason that the article needs more factual content. JHK

RK, it's nice to know you're happy to retreat into invective, rather than resorting to actual scholarship...JHK

On certain other Wikipedia entries, people got irritated at me when I produced quotes and references, and said that this was not the correct place for scholarship. So I stopped doing this as much. Was this wrong? In any case, let us be very clear, JHK: If someone syas that your entire religious group is the spawn of the devil, and that your entire group is all damned to hell, do you really need a scientific scholarship to "prove" that such a claim is a bigoted insult? RK


 * As has already been mentioned, "your entire group" is your own, and wrong, understanding which directly contradicts the actual text of the Gospels. The only malcontent who doesn't want the subject discussed is you, since you consistently ignore explanations on why this or that material of yours is wrong or inappropriate, and instead engage in infantile name-calling.


 * No matter how many times you try to label others as antisemites, you won't succeed in turning Wikipedia articles into vehicles for bigotry and propaganda. I suggest that you chill and turn to contributing some actually useful material, like you've done in some other Wikipedia articles. --AV


 * I agree that if there is evidence that these specific quotes have often been used to justify anti-semitism, then they have a place in the article. However, they need to be NPOVed - the allegation that they talk about all the Jews should be deleted, and, most importantly, it needs to be stated that the quotes were used by some Christians to justify antisemitism, which doesn't mean that they're anti-semitic in themselves.


 * The reason I didn't do this is because I simply am not sure that the quotes aren't one big red herring - that they indeed have an importance place in history of christian justification of anti-semitism. I can't trust RK on this because he's been consistently mispreresenting the truth (to put it very mildly) in this entry and others. I think that more evidence is called for. --AV

I think the passage in Mathew is only referring to the Pharisees, and perhaps others, who were resisting John's movement in the desert. And they at least purport to be the words of one Jew to another group of Jews, and though they have at various times been interpreted in a different way, they aren't what the main article claims they are...

I'm sure there is a NPOV article to be found here, but the current article is just not it. Some Christian groups have oppressed Jews, but the defense of the Jewish people by Christians is not a 20th century phenomenon either. MRC

Wait a sec, here --I'm not denying that there is cause to see roots of anti-semitism in Christian scripture and teaching. We know that this is so, Anatoly, there is no escaping it. I absolutely disagree that there is anything in Christ's teaching to support anti-Semitism, but no sensible person can deny that Christianity has often been wilfully or ignorantly misinterpreted to excuse man's inhumanity to man on many occasions.


 * I would agree that it is unthinkable that Jesus Christ would have taught antisemitism. I would claim that as we move decade after decade after his death, we see the split between his followers and non-messianic Jews get larger, and that there is no dispute like a family dispute. By the time the last gospels came into their final form, they included points of view that, if said by gentiles to Jews, would certainly be antisemitic.  And this may be where the real problem began - Christianity reached out to gentiles, and eventually said that they could become Chrisitian without first becoming Jewish; so we have non-Jews coming into Christianity, picking up the New Testament, and reading that the Jews are of Satan.

NOW, that said, RK, your article just wasn't good. It was a couple of scriptural misquotes, plus the quote from Eckhardt. From an editorial POV, I suggest that you add a section to anti-Semitism that deals with Christian anti-semitism. Then, go back and fix the quotes by pointing out that the first was not directed at Jews, but at one specific group of Jews, the Pharisees, lawyers, and hypocrites, and take away all of your editorial and inflammatory formatting from the second quote. It would also be a good idea to tell us which Bible you used -- translations differ greatly, and what may have been held as truth in an earlier era may not be held as true today.

Then, tell us when and in what context Eckhardt made his comment and explain how it fits in. Here is one caveat: you will never prove that all Christians are anti-semites, nor that Christianity teaches anti-semitism. They aren't and it doesn't.


 * Absolutely! Most Chrisitians are not anti-Semites! The stuff I added was just the beginning of a number of links related to this subject, discussing the historical origin of antisemitism in different groups.  It discussed antisemitism within the Christian faith community, and was never meant to develop into a claim that Christians have that belief.  [[user:RK|RK]

However, there is a very strong case for demonstrating a tradition of anti-semitism among Christians, often based on religious practice. That needs to be better illustrated. If you want to go ahead and talk about the current Pope's insensitivity to the Holocaust and its victims on his Polish visit, fine. But please stop throwing up non-articles, pretending they prove a point, and then resort to name-calling when people call you on it. 'nuff said JHK

I think the issues being discussed here actually belong in two separate articles: historical anti-Semitic ideas and actions (there are a lot, and the verses quoted by RK have indeed been used as justification, although this was not probably not their original intention) should be incorporated into the anti-Semitism article. This would place Christian anti-semitism in a wider context. The second article we should probably have is one on Relaions between Judaism and Christianity, which would allow us to cover the tensions, fighting and debates between the two religions. This article would be a two-way street; Christian anti-Semitism would be covered, but also the hostility of Jews against Christians, particularly when Christianity was in its infancy. -- STG

When writing about Jesus Christ and the Apostles, it's important to remember that they were all Jews themselves. Christ told his disciples to preach the Good News in Jerusalem first, showing the Jews some favoritism. Paul was not only a Jew, but called himself a "Pharisee of Pharisees" in one place. To accuse the founders of Christianity themselves of anti-semitism would be like accusing a Jesse Jackson of being prejudiced against African-Americans.


 * Why? Early on Christians rewrote their history to make Jews look like monsters who literally murdered God's son, yet they made the mass-murdering Roman monsters, who crucified Jews by the thousands, out to be innocents. The perverted history presented in the New Testament makes the victims out to be evil, and the killers out to the good guys. Why do you think there was a movement in the early church to make the mass-murderer Pontius Pilate a Saint? It was historical revisionism. RK

Now, regarding the paragraph that talks about the New Testament... I haven't changed it yet, but its chronology is all wrong. Paul and others "reached out" to the Gentiles as early as the first century. The Gospels were written late in the first century, some I suppose might say early second century. There was not a universally accepted New Testament canon until the fourth century, in the late 300's. Wesley


 * The basic components of the New Testament existed long before the late 300s, but I agree that no canonization existed until around that time.

Gentiles in the first century who became Christians did not pick up their New Testaments and decide to become anti-semitic. There was no New Testament to pick up! At that stage, the faith was primarily transmitted orally, and in some letters and other writings that were circulated, including writings that were eventually included in the New Testament.


 * Yet this is similar. It may not have been a canonized New Testament, but it was a proto-New Testament that included written tractates and letters, and oral teachings. RK

Some Gentiles may have been anti-semitic to start with


 * Not many of them. Gentile religious and historical texts did not contain much hatespeech about Jews. A Roman would literally have to join the Christians to learn that Jews were "the offspring of the Devil", or that "Jews killed the Son of God". They didn't teach these things about Jews in Roman pagan shrines. RK

Certainly Christians have misused scripture to abuse Jews at various times in history. But Christianity is not anti-semitic at its core; to suggest that it is reflects a profound misunderstanding of its message. This is very understandable, as we Christians are often very poor messengers. --Wesley, a sinner

All right, I just found the list of "anti-semitic" passages, and could not let it stand. I could start refuting/contextualizing them one by one, but it's easier to point out that viewing those texts as anti-semitic is apparently the opinion of one man, in one of over 20,000 Protestant denominations, who doesn't even speak authoritatively for a single one of those denominations. He does not represent Christianity, nor any recognized subgroup of it. It matters not a hill of beans what he thinks of those texts.


 * For you to deny the existence of millions of people who disagree with these statements is surprising. The person who listed these statements isn't alone; his is a fairly mainstream view, and you would know that if you spoke to more people outside of your own Church. I have read many books and articles which read all of these verses in precisely the same way (I have some of these books here.) And the people who make such statements include Catholics, Protestants, Unitarian Universalists and Jews. RK

At a glance, many of them could be considered "anti-person" rather than anti-Jewish.


 * So if someone writes "You followers of Jesus are all the son of Satan!" and other such things, then you are telling me that you would also argue that it is only against one person, and is not actually anti-Chrisitian? Come on.

Wesley writes - In the Protestant Sunday Schools I grew up in, we would regularly observe how like the Pharisees or other Jews mentioned in Scripture we ourselves were. Yes, I've also encountered at times with others and in my own heart, the idea that "I'm better than those Jews, or that one person" in the Bible, but I know that's not true. Yes, the NT says Jews are a bunch of sinners. It also says that everyone on the planet is a sinner. So Jews shouldn't feel singled out for special treatment.


 * The New Testament does single out the for these attacks. The New Testament never assaults Buddist, Hindu, Wiccan, Egyptian pagan, or Roman pagan religions in such terms as it does the Jews. It is the Jews and the Jews alone who bear the brunt of hundreds of direct assaults. I cannot understand how you could make a claim such as the one you did. It makes we wonder what they taught in your school.  The good news is that what you are saying is not anti-Semitic; the bad news is that you are unaware of the main point, and being unaware prevents you from fully being effective in encouraging the path that you believe to be just.

And people who use such passages against Jews as a race or as a religion, are severely abusing it.

Many of the abuses described in the article happened from the middle ages forward. I'd be curious to learn about instances of Christian anti-semitism in the first 1000 years of Christianity or so. --Wesley


 * One reason they may not exist (at least to the same degree) is that there was an active community in Israel who were Jewish believers in Jesus Christ. It was only after 1200 AD that this group was no longer as active, hence an understanding that Jewish== non-christian.


 * That's an excellent explanation. The muslims certainly did their part to make that community less 'active'. Yet Christians in Israel and elsewhere used the same New Testament with all those passages included, for all those years (with some minor variations before the NT canon was formalized in the fourth century). Surely that suggests that anti-semitism is something that came in later, rather than being inherent in the religion from the very start? --Wesley

Text now reads: "The Romans considered the Jewish sect to be antisocial and the Jews to be religious fanatics. The Jews were nearly unique in the Roman world in insisting that their god was the only one. Romans in general were very tolerant of each region's religious practice."

--

"The Romans considered the Jewish sect to be antisocial and the Jews to be religious fanatics. The Jews were nearly unique in the Roman world in insisting that their god was the only one. Romans in general were very tolerant of each region's religious practice."

Wait - the Romans let everybody worship pretty much whoever they wanted however with the caveat that they had to also worship the Roman state gods (it was a quasi-theocracy - the Romans believed that their state gods supported them, and vice-versa, and that being disrepectful to the Roman gods could result in said gods withdrawing their support of Rome). The Romans had a lot of problems with the Jews because the Jews refused to cooperate with this policy.

-

A new addition to the main entry of this article states that "Further, many of the following verses are accounts of the Jews' actions. To call these passages anti-semitic carries the implicit assumption that the events never happened."


 * These passages are called anti-Semetic because they incite readers to hate Jews. Their historicity is irrelevent. Even if it was true that certain individuals of Jewish descent did what was attributed to them in the New Testament that is no reason to preach hatred towards Jews in general, which is the real-world effect of many of these passages. I have heard of Italians, Russians and Canadians who have done bad things...does that make it somehow not hateful to preach hatred against all Italians, all Russians, or all Canadians? No, not at all. RK


 * Is it hateful to record the bad things done by those particular Italians, Russians or Canadians? Some of the passages listed as anti-semitic do just that, record specific actions by specific Jews or groups of Jews.


 * It is hateful to compile a list of crimes done by individual Italians, and then promote the hatred of all Italians by teaching the Italians are the offspring of Satan and are hated by God, and that all Italians will burn in Hell. And it is equally hateful to do and say such things about about any other group, whether Jews or Germans or whatever. RK

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


 * How can you use an encyclopaedia to suggest that the Jews may well be the children of Satan? (Which is precisely what some of these verses state, and reinforce in dozens of ways, and what you defend as an actual characteristic of the Jewish people at that time.) Your statements are not NPOV; rather, you seem to be quoting from the works of Martin Luther. How would you feel if an encyclopaedia insinuated this sort of thing about all Christians, or all Deists, or all Buddists? Drop the apologetics for hatred. RK


 * But this article is now insinuating that the NT is full of hatred, and by extension attacking all Christians. Your last question above is far from hypothetical.


 * One can continue to label all Jews as the offspring of Satan, and you can continue to damn all Jews to burn in Hell. But most of the civilized world (not just me) will continue to expose such statements for what they are: anti-Semitism. No one is attacking Christians. rather, we are pointing out that those four particular Christian authors of the gospels are attacking Jews, and are doing so in a violent fashion. Read the new quotes in the main entry, and you will see that this precisely how most of the Church fathers viewed these quotes. Are you saying that the Church fathers are attacking Christianity? They are not; in fact, they seem quite proud of their words. RK

An encyclopaedia entry can discuss the meaning of a verse in a historical context; it can discuss how verses where used in different historical settings; it can discuss why the authors of these texts felt compelled to make such charges against the Jewish people. An encyclopaedia entry can take note of the anti-Christian and anti-Jewish climate in which the New Testament was written, and can note that the Christians authors may have felt compelled to attack Jews (as opposed to their Roman oppresors) in order to safeguard their own emerging faith. It can discuss all these things and more. But one thing that an encyclopaedia should not do is to use old anti-Semetic canards. That is abhorrent. RK


 * Can an encyclopedia entry also discuss why Jews may have felt compelled to attack Christians in defense of their faith?


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


 * Is anything negative about any Jew to be considered anti-semitic? Is anything negative about any Christian therefore also anti-Christian and hateful? Me smells a double standard.


 * No, of course not. And no one said any such thing. You are arguing against points that no one ever made. To me, this indicates that your position isn't defensible, so you need to win a debate against straw-man arguments.


 * Several of the NT passages in the main article say that Jews asked authorities to throw Christians into prison, execute them, and so forth. Those passages are categorized as anti-semitic. Thus, the point made in the article is that when the NT records that Jews played a role in persecuting Christians, the NT itself is accused of being anti-semitic. Of course, similar claims are made about representatives of the Roman government, so Jews are not being singled out in this regard. Other passages say horrible things about Christians who later deny their faith; Christians at Corinth and elsewhere are accused of committing grievous sins.

This entry isn't about whether individual Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or agnosticis have done things that are bad. This entry is about anti-Semitism; the use of real, imagined - and ususally outright false - charges against individuals as an excuse to hate Jews in general. RK


 * Are there articles about Muslim, Buddhist, or Communist anti-semitism, or anti-semitism committed by any other group of people? If not, it would appear that Christians are being singled out by Wikipedia as anti-semites. This entry is currently about the 'charges' themselves, and not just about the use of the charges to excuse hatred of Jews in general. Unfortunately.


 * Yes, there are such articles. Didn't you bother to read the entry on anti-Semitism? This project does not claim that only Christians are guility of anti-Semtism, and I cannot imagine who told you such a thing. In fact, the page that you are reading now is only a sub-page of the main anti-Semitism entry. That entry already had specific subpages on ,Arab anti-semitism, KKK anti-semitism, Nazi anti-semitism, Nation of Islam anti-semitism, Christian anti-semitism, and I am sure that more will be added as time passes. I myself intend to add material on communist anti-Semitism and on anti-Semitism within Japan.  RK


 * No, I didn't read the main entry. :-( No, this page is not a sub-page of anti-semitism, at least not technically. Just glanced at the arab anti-semitism page; it seems to focus more on recent history and statements than on ancient history, and avoids attacking the religion of Islam or the Koran. This (Christian anti-semitism) article doesn't just state that some passages in the NT have been used to excuse hatred, but that the passages are hateful of themselves. Even when they report actions taken by specific Jews against Christians. Incidentally, the NT also discusses the sins of Romans and Christians at length; it doesn't just single out the Jews with regard to sins.

---

I think there is a lot at stake here, and perhaps a parallel case might help. In my Bible, God commands my people to wipe out the Amalekites -- effectively, to commit genocide. Although this is a mute point today, as there are no Amalekites left, my point is that there are things in my own sacred scripture that I feel bad about. Granted, the Amalekites -- if the story is to be believed -- were not very nice to us. But very few if any Jews today would like to see all Germans wiped out, and I doubt that there are many Jews today that are proud of or even support the Biblical command to hate and kill Amalekites.

Times have changed and we have changed and there simply are things in our sacred scripture that most of us no longer accept or approve of. And this is what is at stake for Christians. For Jews to point out that there are hateful and offensive things in the Christian Bible does not mean that we hate Christians, Christianity, or the Christian Bible. It does mean, however, that there are claims that Christians have made about Jews that we feel are fundamentally unfair and offensive, and that have over time been used to justify real acts of violence. I understand that it is a challenge for Christians to decide how to respond to this. You can ignore how Jews feel and how Jews see things, or you can enter into a dialogue.

A dialogue between Jews and Christians is especially important because Jews have a singular place in the history of Christianity (in that Jesus was Jewish and the Christians claim the Hebrew Bible as their Old Testament -- some Christians even claim that they are the successors to the covenant between Jews and God, and if I understand this claim correctly to involve displacing Jews, it seems to me to be an inherantly anti-semitic claim. It is also especially important because most Jews live in countries where they are a minority and Christians are a majority.  I have no doubt that there are many Jews who do hate Christians and Christianity.  The fact remains, though, that for most of the past 2,000 years, Christian anti-semitism has caused more suffering than Jewish anti-Christianity, if only because Christians have been more often been in positions of political power.  The Amalekites and the Romans are gone, but we have had to live with each other for 2,000 years, and the question of how we will go on living with each other is a concrete, real issue.

The fact is, many Christians have responded to this challenge by entering into a dialogue. In Vatican II the Catholic Church repents of its prior acts of anti-semitism. I believe that the Lutheran Church has as well. Perhaps it would be useful to add a section to this article on how various Christian organizations have dealt with this history. -- SR - The whole section beginning with
 * The following list of apparently anti-Semitic verses in the New Testament was compiled by Norman A. Beck, professor of theology and classical languages at Texas Lutheran University. On this subject he has written an article available online at the Jewish Christian Relations website. (www.jcrelations.net)

would seem to need some really serious justification. Why should the research of one professor receive so much attention in this article?


 * I would argue that the sentence that you quoted is not appropriate, as it is misleading. It is only here because people are uncomfortable with the long list of statements in the NT identified as anti-Semitic.  This is a common list of statements identified as anti-Semitic, and I have seen many other Christian and Jewish scholars come to the same conclusions about these same verses. I suppose that this particular list can be said to be view of one man, but I can easily provide references to many other works which also cite these verses. (These other lists leave out 2 or 3 verses that we have here, and add to or 3 others, but the gist is the same.)  Another authority on the subject who identifies these same verses as anti-Semitic, is Professor Lillian C. Freudmann, author of "Antisemitism in the New Testament", University Press of America, 1994. Her work has received accollades by Professors Clark Williamsom (Christian Theological Seminary), Hyam Maccoby (The Leo Baeck Institute), Norman A. Beck (Texas Lutheran College), and Michael Berenbaum (Georgetown University). From my personal experience, I can also attest to the fact that most rabbis would agree with this list as well.  RK

There is an easy way to solve this problem, though. Assuming (though I don't know if this is a safe assumption) that this one man's work is so important to duplicate in this much depth in Wikipedia's article on Christian anti-Semitism, we need only include some disclaimer to the effect that we very much welcome accounts of how Beck's research has been received, and that we want a more complete review of the academic literature about Christian anti-Semitism here. --LMS


 * This one man's work isn't terribly imporant. The fact that this list of verses (Plus or minus a few here and there) is a widely accepted consensus, however, is important. Many scholars and historians, and most rabbis, state that these verses have historically had the effect of creating anti-Jewish feelings in readers, and thus are defacto anti-Semitic; many feel that this was their original purpose. (Seeing that Jews are charged with being the offspring of Satan, it is hard to disagree.) RK

I have to agree that a collection of Bible verses that might strike some as anti-Semitic is important information to include in Wikipedia. But including verse after verse, each avowedly embarrassing to Christians, and the collection of which is attributed to one guy, seems strangely out of place in an encyclopedia that is, after all, supposed to be neutral! I've tried to solve the problem by moving the problematic text to verses criticising Jews in the New Testament. --LMS


 * LMS, you have totally missed the responses to you. These verses are not the work of one man. Anyone who told you such a thing is making stuff up. There are many historians and academics who have precisely the same viewpoint. I listed four of them, and can provide you with even more references. Please re-read my comments (above) on this issue. Further, almost rabbi that I have spoken with on this issue also has this view, and a growing number of Christian theologians now admit that this is true. Some I referenced above, and I can give many more references as well. How many academic references would you like?


 * Thomas Aquinas (1225 - 1274) was one of the first to teach that the Jewish people were damned because they had slain Jesus, and the only way they could be saved was to renounce their faith and be baptized as Christians. This belief was to remain prevalent in Christianity almost until the present day.

The latter sentence appears to imply that most Christians have not only believed that Jews couldn't be saved because they're not Christians, but they couldn't be saved specifically as long as they're Jewish. Of course, most Christians have believed that nonbelievers weren't going to heaven--and this isn't a reflection of anti-Semitism particularly, but of a belief that theirs is the only true religion. I doubt rather much that it's been the majority view among Christians--and I would be very curious to see evidence of this--that Jews are specially damned just because they're Jews. --LMS


 * But during the middle-ages, European Christian nobility often forced Jews to take on this role

Forced, how? That's very interesting. I'd like to see more details about this. --LMS -

Before the 1960s, large numbers of Protestant U.S. citizens viewed these groups as the most authentic form of Christianity. At the time, these groups were condemned by some other Christian denominations; since the 1960s they have been condemned by most Christian denominations.


 * If I'm reading this correctly, the first sentence quoted above claims that large numbers of protestants regarded White supremacist groups "as the most authentic form of Christianity." It's hard to believe that anyone would actually write that, that I think I must have misunderstood.  I'm not sure what else might have been meant.  Maybe somebody can clarify. --LMS


 * I wrote that verse, and yes, you understood it correctly. I was referring to a very evil part of America's social history. In the not-so-distant past, many American Christians believed that white supremacy was mandated by the Bible; this racist belief became mainstream in the 1800s with the rise of the Ku Klux Klan and similar Christian White Supremacist movements. It was a very mainstream belief, and in many American states the majority of the population sympathized or actively promoted these racist views. These beliefs were not confined to the south. Even in the north in suburbs like Long Island there were KKK rallies involving huge numbers of people. Heck in the 1930s people in Long Island and other northern suburbs still has pro-Nazi public demonstrations; by this time they not only preached racism, but anti-Semitism as well. It was only when World War II started that racism in American began its final decline. The worldview of society that we know is a recent construct.


 * Let us recall that in the minds of the people with such views racism was not evil, it was the biblically mandated word of God. They found verses to support their belief. There are, of course, many academic works on this topic. We can look for a few highly regarded books, and refer to them within the article. Even today the KKK has a substantial number of followers, while other Christian white supremacist movements, such as the Christian Identity movement, are much smaller, and are numerically insignificant RK

Although I am not quite yet ready to do it unilaterally, I strongly feel that the list of anti-semetic verses in the Christian Bible (or at least, an exemplary sample of these versus) must be included in this article. It is a crucial point. If the verses are left out, the issue appears to be one of distinguishing between good and bad Christians. If the verses are left in, then the article raises an issue in the history of Christianity that even the best Christians must grapple with.

I also think that there is something very odd about refering to anti-Jewish verses in the "old Testament." Although that article seems to be parallel, in fact it is not. Many (although probably not all) anti-Jewish verses in the Christian Bible reflect an emerging theology in which Christians separated themselves from Jews and Judaism, and relegated Jews and Judaism to a subordinate position. The "anti-Jewish" verses in the Hebrew Bible express either a dramatic account of the relationship between God and Israel (in which both partners in the relationship do good and bad things), or the Israelite religious leadership's criticisms of either political leaders or some of their followers for not following their own traditions. In both cases, such "anti-jewish" statements really play a positive role in both Jewish religion and in the relationship between Jews and God. I think the article tries to communicate this (although I don't think it does it very effectively -- more detail would help). But to refer to the article as if it paralleled an article on anti-Jewish verses in the NT seriously misrepresents it. - SR


 * I agree; may I suggest an analogy? When people in the US Government criticise flaws in our laws, and try to improve them, we generally regard this as part of their duty; its their job to point out flaws in the system and to try and improve them. It would be misleading, if not deliberately perverse, for Communists to use such quotes to "prove" that American democracy is flawed and evil, and that this shows that Communism is superior to Democracy. Similarly, when leaders of a particular religious group make harsh constructive criticism, these statements should not be taken out of context to be used be those who wish to dismantle and supercede that religious group. RK


 * I would suggest the two articles are parallel for this simple reason: Old Testament passages have also been quoted by Christians (and others?) to indicate why Christianity is the true religion, and to criticize the Jews. For example, see how Stephen summarizes the pre-Christian Jewish history in Acts 7. Also, it seems I recall that someone has gone to some lengths in other articles to point out that the Old Testament and Tanach are not exactly the same thing. In any case, Christians clearly claim the Old Testament as their own. If we are going to include New Testament passages, it would seem appropriate to include Old Testament passages as well.


 * I personally still dislike the idea of an encyclopedia interpreting scripture in this fashion. How long before we see an article titled something like "New Testament verses supporting Calvinism" (or some other theological position) that we then get to argue over? --Wesley

I hope one of the other contributers to this article restores the list of versus. If no one else does, I will od it later -- I want to allow for time for more discussion on this first, though. SR

I have significantly expanded on the section I created, on the reconciliation between some rather large Christian groups and Judaism. This section is by no means complete. There are many people involved in such efforts in communities all across the US and Canada, and I would guess in parts of Europe as well. Further contributions to this section are requested. RK

Would it be too much to ask that the article clarify what is meant by 'anti-semitism' -- racial hostility, religious hostility, or both? I think it matters. I would be much more ready to concede that the verses are against Judaism and Jews as religous adherents, rather than against Jews as an ethnic group.


 * I totally agree that disagreement (even rigourously) with Judaism isn't anti-Semitism in any way shape or form. This should be made clear in both this entry and the main entry on anti-Semitism. I do see a difference between strong disagreement, and extreme disparagement with insults. I disagree with atheism and polytheism, but I wouldn't disparage them in such a hostile fashion. RK

I'm not going to edit, but I would like to raise a couple other questions. I just looked at the intro to John Chrysostom's first homily against the Jews; it appears that his main objective was to discourage Christians from taking part in Jewish feasts and fasts. Some Christians thought there was little difference between Christians and Jews, and he was saying there are lots of differences. Could something of this sort be added to the article? I don't object to retaining the quotes as they are, but some mention of context wouldn't hurt. On a much more minor note, there's a quote from "Gregory of Nyassa"; I've usually seen that written "Gregory of Nyssa". Is that a typo, or are there alternate spellings of Nyssa, or are they different towns? Peace, --Wesley


 * Quite reasonable; it would be fair to add this to the article. It may explain some of his motivation. However, on a personal level I don't think it makes much difference, since he explicitly labels the Jewish people as all being child-murdering demons, pigs and whores. One wouldn't say such things if one's only goal was to clearly distinguish between the theologies and practices of the two faiths. It seems to me that his statements were intended to make people believe these things about the Jews, and not to add ideological clarity. RK


 * I've simply added a quote to suggest the purpose of Chrysostom's homilies. Here's an article which further discusses his historical setting, and Christian anti-semitism: http://www.orthodoxy.faithweb.com/antisem.htm. I found it helpful. Again, let me know if you think it would be appropriate to include it among the external links or anywhere else in the article. --Wesley

Would it be possible to give better citations for the church father quotes? For many of them, there is only a name and a sentence. Without any further information, it's very difficult to verify that the quote is accurate, let alone find the proper context of the quote. For instance, I've skimmed through many of Ephraim the Syrian's writings without finding anything about Jews, so I deleted the following quote:
 * * Ephraem - "Jews are circumcised dogs"

I'm not even sure the quote is from Ephraim of Syria; if it can be documented, I'd be happy to see it restored.

--Wesley

The quotations from Origen, Tertullian, and Martin Luther are also completely without source. I suspect that all of the quotations from Chrysostom came from one or more of the "Homilies against the Judaizers", rather than just one of them as the article currently suggests. Could someone please supply the source of these quotations? --Wesley

The article currently states: "The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant Christian denomination in the U.S., has been attempting to convert all Jews to Christianity." Does the SBC specifically target Jews above others? If not, I'd say this sentence is inflammatory and misleading. As far as I know, the SBC targets everybody, not just Jews. I know they've put out materials talking about how to convert people of my faith to Christianity (even though I'm already a Christian), so I don't' think it's specifically Jews they're after. --Eric


 * I've partly answered my own question, finding a 1996 SBC statement that rejects the idea Jews don't need to become Christians, and calling on the denomination to seek the conversion of Jews "as well as for the salvation of 'every kindred and tongue and people and nation.'" It doesn't sound to me like anti-Semitism per se, just a belief in exclusivistic salvation, which isn't quite the same thing. --Eric

Maybe we should simply note that many Jews and liberal or mainline Christians consider their behaviour to be antisemitic, although others (e.g. conservative Christians, and some other people) disagree with this? As Larry says (something I've been guilty of ignoring at times myself), we should try to describe the different positions that exist on a controversial issue, rather than advocating any particular one. -- SJK
 * Agreed. I've rewritten the paragraph and added some info in an attempt to make it NPOV. --Eric

I think one important question is whether SBC or other Christian groups single out Jews by name.


 * In the US almost all Christian groups single out the Jews by name. The New Testament itself does so dozens of times, the Church fathers do so hundreds of times, and modern day Protestant Christian groups do so literally thousands of times. Millions of dollars are spent each by Portestant groups to convert Jews to Christianity. Jews see it is anti-Semitism for so many millions of Christians to try and exterminate the Jewish faith. If the tables were turned, I think that these Christian groups would object to attempts to destroy Christianity. RK

In any event, I found this excerpt concerning the SBC:
 * The most significant opportunity came the morning of Sept. 10, when the CBS television network broadcast an interview with Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, and Don Kammerdiener, executive vice president of the Southern Baptist International Mission Board.
 * A CBS producer estimated the total national audience for that broadcast at about 1 million.
 * Foxman echoed other Jewish activists in criticizing Southern Baptists and claiming to be offended by the prayer guide.
 * "It's offensive. It's arrogant. It assumes that the Baptists and the Christians possess the absolute truth," Foxman told CBS "This Morning" interviewer Thalia Assuras. ?It?s this attitude that Jews on their own, without Christianity, have no future that led to inquisitions and expulsions and is the basis of Western anti-Semitism.
 * "To say you are against anti-Semitism and at the same time work toward the non-existence of the Jewish people is very, very ironic."
 * Kammerdiener countered that Baptists in America, far from being persecutors of the Jews, have been the staunchest advocates of the religious freedom that has benefited Jewish Americans.
 * "Baptists would find it ironic to be accused of anti-Semitism or persecution across the centuries," he said. "We've been the greatest defenders of religious liberty.
 * "The fact is, we do not claim Southern Baptists have a monopoly on truth. We claim that Jesus Christ is the truth, and we worship Him. ... Our goal is to offer to Jewish people the opportunity to understand that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah."

Personally, I do not understand how one can say "we do not claim we have a monopoly on the truth" and immediately say "we calim JC is the truth." In any event, I think I understand why Christians do NOT think this is anti-semitic. Do Christians understand why Jews think it is? I think a good article will do justice to both sides, SR


 * Kammerdiener is so full of zeal to exterminate Judaism that he twists the English language around so that words are used in the opposite way of what they mean. He claims that Christians only have the monopoly on the truth, and that the truth is that one must believe in Jesus Christ, but then he tries to claim that "We don't claim to have a monopoly on truth". These are childish word games. He should at least be honest. RK


 * I think this is what has been called "theological anti-semitism" in the anti-Semitism article. I don't know, but perhaps Kammerdiener meant that Christianity is a more complete revelation of the truth, without denying the truth that is within Judaism. This takes us right back to religious pluralism. :-)   --Wesley


 * It seems to be much more than that. Kammerdiener is saying that all Jews are damned to Hell, and that his Church is actively working to destroy the religion of the Jews. This would be opposite of pluralism. I wonder how he'd feel if millions of non-Christians spent 2000 years trying to exterminate Christianity?  Apparently he never learned the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."  RK


 * BTW, I'd still love to see some attributions for those quotes. --Wesley


 * I got the excerpt I quoted above from the Baptist Press News, article, "Media storm over prayer guide puts Baptist witness center stage" by Mark Kelly; Sep 15, 1999 -- SR


 * Thanks, but I meant the quotes in the main article from the Church fathers, especially the ones attributed to Origen, Tertullian, and Martin Luther, and the quotes from John Chrysostom that are missing a citation. Sorry I wasn't more clear. I'm looking for the citations both for my own education, and so that any historical perspective can be added if it would be helpful. --Wesley

Here is a seconday source for the quotes for Ephraem, Jerome, Gregory and Chrysostom - they are cited in "Jesus and Israel", by Jules Isaacs, pp.241-242. The text on Augustine is from "Three Popes and the Jews", Pinchas Lapide, p.42; the quote to Amrbose is from Lapide's book on p.47. Martin Luther's words are from his essay "Concerning the Jews and Their Lies", written by him in 1543.


 * Thanks. I'll try to find those books at a local library this weekend. --Wesley


 * It took me a while to check, but it appears that my local library does not have a copy of "Jesus and Israel", by Jules Isaacs. They do have a copy of Lapide's book though.

It looks like St. Ambrose's 40th epistle, addressed to Emperor Theodosius, deals extensively with the burning of a synagogue. It can be found online here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-52.htm Based on that text, I'd like to amend this text:
 * Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397 CE) - Amrbose publicly praised the destruction of a Roman synagogue by an anti-Semitic mob. He threatened the Roman Emperor with excommunication, and labeled the emperor a "Jew", because the emperor committed the "sin" of helping to rebuild the Jew's synagogue.

to something along these lines:
 * Saint Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (340-397 CE) - A bishop was accused of instigating the burning of a synagoge by an anti-semitic mob, and Emperor Theodosius was preparing to order the bishop to rebuild it. Ambrose discouraged the Emperor from taking this step because (1) no action was taken against those responsible for burning the houses of various wealthy individuals in Rome; (2) no action was taken against those responsible for the recent burning of the house of the Bishop of Constantinople; (3) Jews had caused several Christian basilicas to be burnt during the reign of Julian, yet had never been asked to make reparation, and some of those basilicas were still not rebuilt. Ambrose asked that Christian monies not be used to build a place of worship for unbelievers, heretics or Jews, and reminded Ambrose that Christians had said of Emperor Maximus, "he has become a Jew" because of the edict Maximus issued regarding the burning of a Roman synagogue.

Comments? Is there another letter or homily by Ambrose that speaks differently on another occasion? --Wesley


 * This sounds fine to me. RK
 * Since I figure RK would be the one most likely to raise any objections, I'm going to make the proposed change to the entry on St. Ambrose. The original text is still just a few lines up if anyone else objects. --Wesley

I would add that in Ambrose's 41st epistle, found here: http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-10/Npnf2-10-53.htm#TopOfPage, we probably find the threat of "excommunication" spoken of in the original text. It is plain that Ambrose addresses the Emperor in the homily before going up to the altar to prepare the Eucharist, and waits for him to promise not to require the bishop to rebuild the synagogue before celebrating the rest of the Divine Liturgy. This "excommunication" is simply not serving communion that day without the emperor's repentance; it is NOT a threat of eternal damnation, as is sometimes understood by the term today. Today in the Orthodox Church in America, many priests sometimes bar members from communion for one or two weeks to help them realize the severity of their sins, but such "excommunication" is always meant to be temporary, and the objective is always to encourage them to repent and to restore them to communion. Reading this 4th century account with the current practice of the OCA in mind seems to put it in a rather different light. --Wesley


 * I didn't even know that some people viewed excommnication as the same as damnation! I assumed, in fact, that people didn't necessarilly correlate the two (although I certainly see how they are connected.) Is there an entry on excommnication in Christianity? If not, we could at least create a stub, and link to it. RK


 * Argh. Looks like I just opened up another can of worms. I should caution that that's only the impression I received of Roman Catholic excommunication... in my Lutheran confirmation class. So don't just take my word for it. OTOH, if one were to be permanently and explicitly cut off from the Church, that would imply separation from God for Christians who have a strong eucharistic theology. Whether that separation is eternal would depend on who you ask; I'm fairly confident that most Eastern Orthodox would not go so far as to say the person is therefore eternally damned, at least the ones with whom I've come in contact. --Wesley

I removed the following from the main page because it appears to be unverifiable:
 * Saint Gregory of Nyassa (ca 335 - 394 CE) - In his homilies on the resurrection, section 5, he states that Jews are "Slayers of the Lord, murderers of the Prophets, adversaries of God, haters of God, men who show contempt for the law, foes of grace, enemies of their father's faith, advocates of the devil, brood of vipers, slanderers, scoffers, men whose minds are in darkness, leaven of the Pharisees, assembly of demons, sinners, wicked men, stoners and haters of rigtheousness."

In all the online listings of the works of Gregory of Nyssa, I have found none entitled "Homilies on the Resurrection". The closest title I could find is "On the Soul and the Resurrection", the text of which is in the public domain at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-05/Npnf2-05-37.htm. It has no mention of Jews whatsoever. Although I would rather keep this quote and include the context for it, as with John Chrysostom quote, I can't even be sure that the quote even exists. Perhaps it is a collection of things said by him in various places in different contexts, as now that I look at the text, it doesn't even comprise a complete sentence. Wesley

Why are people trying to hide the existence of anti-Semitism? I am concerned about the way that some people are deleting articles about anti-Semitism, and rewriting Wikipedia biographies of well-known anti-Semites like Henry Ford and Richard Wagner. There is an obvious (and rather childish) concerted attempt by anti-Semites to whitewash and deny the existence of anti-Semitism altogether. Please, people, be aware of the way that people are abusing Wikipedia. RK


 * What does this have to do with this article? Why do people free to fabricate quotes and attribute them to prominent Christians in the past? What's the point of asking rhetorical questions? If you have a problem with the biography of Henry Ford, shouldn't you discuss it at that article where people interested in his biography might be able to respond or even correct his bio? (btw, I amended the above IP to my sig., as I remember making the comment ages ago but must not have been logged in by the time I saved it.) Wesley


 * Wesley, you can't seriously be accusing people here of fabricating quotes and attributing them to Christians in the past. Up until recently you never challenged this entry as factual. Surely you are not claiming that these are Zionist lies, and should be deleted as Stevertigo wants. Further, how can you say that you don't understand what this has to do with the article: Someone deleted this entire article.  How can that not have something to do with this article? RK

I think it was some time ago that I questioned the Gregory of Nyssa quotation, and there used to be a few other quotes on this article that I eventually deleted when they couldn't be documented. I don't really think these are examples of "Zionist lies" though, just plain sloppy scholarship that we're all guilty of from time to time, including myself. I said what I did about "fabricating quotes" in an attempt to point out that it's very easy to accuse someone of racial or religious bias, when they may instead be simply mistaken, or have some other entirely innocent reason for making edits. I hadn't noticed until after making my above post that the whole article had been deleted and restored. Deleting this entire article without any discussion was of course uncalled for. Wesley


 * I looked for the quote with google and found      (etc, etc). All are almost exactly the same quote as the one earlier in this talk page... are they all fabricated, though? Martin


 * Well, I don't know for sure. If it's a genuine quote, it should be possible to find it as part of a larger work called "Homilies on the Resurrection". What looks like a fairly complete set of his writings is here: . As I said before, I can't find anything with that title, let alone that quote in context. The reason I started looking for it is I wanted to see what he said before and after that quote, who his audience was, the occasion of writing it, when he wrote it approximately, etc. But the references you give above could easily have been copied from each other, making me think it's some sort of urban legend. I'm still ready to be proven wrong by being shown the full primary source of the quote, though. Wesley 21:26 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)


 * Well I looked, and the best I got was  which has an actual set of notes, http://www.billwilliams.org/ANTI/notes.html, which credits the quote to Fred Gladstone Bratton in Europe and the Jews, pg83. Assuming I'm reading it right. Bratton apparently claims that the quote is from Oratio in Christi: Resurrectionem: XV, pg 553. Can I find a book called "Europe and the Jews" by Mr. Bratton? Can I heck. Can I find the full text to this oratio? Nope.


 * I'm going with the "fabricating quotes" option. There should probably be something in the article about such things. *sigh* Martin


 * Tertullian - "the whole synagogue of the sons of Israel killed him [Jesus]."

From the edit history, it appears that RK added this particular quote. way back on Dec 30, 2001. I can't find it on the net at all, so I'm curious what the source was... Martin


 * Origen - "The blood of Jesus falls not only on the Jews of that time, but on all generations of Jews up to the end of the world."

Similar story - this one is at least the same as other quotes on the web, by Origen, but none of these purported quotes give an actual source.


 * Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) - In Epistle 82 he writes "The ceremonies of the Jews are both baneful and deadly to Christians and whoever keeps them is doomed to the abyss of the devil."

Both Letter 82 and Tractate 82 appear to be lacking this phrase. I've not been able to find a copy marked as an epistle, but I'm under the impression that an epistle and a letter are much the same thing.


 * Augustine preached "The Jews held Jesus, they insulted him; the Jews bound him; they crowned him with thorns, dishonored him by spitting on him; they scouraged him; they heaped abuse upon him; they hung him on a tree; they pierced him with a lance." This quoting became a popular Easter sermon in Churches, often leading to pogroms.

I only found this online here:, a random message board posting that also repeats te epistle 82 thing. This does not seem a reliable source, even assuming that we're not breaching copyright.


 * removed reinstated quote - found reference

Uh, guys? As hard as it is to believe, I get a lot of my information from printed books, not the world-wide-web. If you go to a libray and pull out a dozen or more books on Christian anti-Semitism (many of which nowadays are written by Christians, even priests) you can find all these same quotes, with references and footnotes. Just not on websites. There is no anti-Christian conspiracy. This is real, even if makes some people uncomfortable. RK


 * I'm sure it is real, which is why I left the referenced notes on Eusebius and Ambrose, and why I spent over an hour doing various searches to try and find many of the sources for these quotes. I was hoping that you could provide references for the above quotes so that people can read them in context and verify their correctness. Without references these quotes are unverifiable and out of context, and therefore deleting them is entirely proper.


 * In the case of Augustine of Hippo, I went to Epistle 82 online, looked, and the alleged quote simply wasn't there. In the case of Gregory of Nyassa, wo different lists cited two different works supposedly by Gregory, and neither of those works appears to exist.


 * I have managed to find Augustine's City of God quote, though, so I'll be reinstating that, with link and chapter numbers. If you'd help me with the rest, that would be helpful :)Martin


 * Two things occurs to me to bring up here. It is fact that anti-Semites show no hesitancy in fabricating quotes to try and incite anti-Semitism. See the wikipedia entry on Benjamin Franklin, for example. Given this fact, it is completely unsurprising that anti-Semites also fabricate quotes from the Christian fathers. I take a harsh view of all fabricated quotes, whether they be fabricated against Christians, Americans, or anyone else.


 * The second is that there are two subjects here - the first is possible anti-Semitism in the church fathers and the early church; the second is (ab)use of quotes from church fathers to promote anti-Semitism, and also to promote anti-Christian sentiment amongst non-Christians. These are, to my mind, seperate issues. Martin

Why does the page open with such quete as  "Ask most Jews what they honestly think about Jesus, and you will find a deep bitterness" As a jew, in europe, I see that alot of anti-semic attitude, is just based on such views, often during discusions, a christian will comment "natuaraly, becuase you don't like Jesus". Wherther or not this is true (which I dought), I don't think the page should _open_ with such a quote. My personal aquitance with fellow jews, shows rather that jews tend to view Jesus as just another jewish prophet, saying words of the time, not that diffrent from other jewish scholars (such as rabbi akiva, as an example). Christians tend to accept this view of 'un-uniqifing' Jesus as a sort of insult, and deduce that jews have something against him. Anyway, opening with such a quote, would just strenghthen views of hate I think. -

Wow! I just read this page from beginning to end for the very first time. I am sorry, guys, but I am pretty much astounded at the lack of serious scholarship here. It is just one anachronism after another. It seems to me like there is this homogeneous label, "anti-Semite," which is attached (or not) to people based on quotes (or misquotes) from their writings. The apologetics are no better (and possibly worse). Here's a little history lesson for all of you. Four hundred years of Jewish-Christian history in a nutshell.

There was a religion called Judaism, which was very prevalent in the Roman Empire. It attracted a large following among the pagan peoples, many of whom did not convert, but who identified with Jewish religious principles (monotheism, etc.). Of course, it also had its detractors. At the same time, it also had various sects within it, and these sects did not always get along. After the destruction of the Temple, the dominant Jewish sect was the Rabbinates, who followed the traditions of the Pharisees of Temple times. The Christians were a small but growing sect, though to many outsiders, they were indistinguishable from the Rabbinates. Inevitably, there were differences between the two sects, and differences often lead to disputes. Nevertheless, for a time, there was also cooperation and acceptance. Look at Romans 11:26 "And so, all Israel shall be saved ..." and 11:28 "As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sake, but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sake." This went both ways. Acts 5:38-39 quotes Rabban Gamaliel: "And now I say unto you, refrain from these men, for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought. But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it..." A century later, Tertullian describes how Jews rescued Christians during times of persecution by hiding them in synagogues. Oh, and there were fights too, but I think I mentioned that already. In any event, Stephen was probably betrayed by Jewish supporters (Poppea, wife of Nero?), but that is to be expected between two rival groups.

There are a number of reasons why tensions increased between the two groups. Simple reasons: Christians fled Jerusalem in the Great Revolt (67-70); Rabbi Akiva proclaimed Bar Kochba the messiah; the Council of Jamnia created an invocation against the minim (it is unclear whether this was intended against all Christians or just Jewish Christians). Whatever. The fact is that as the Christian group increased in size, so did the animosity between it and the Rabbinate group. After all, they were vying for the same followers and each group felt threatened by the other.

This is an important point though. You will notice that many of the Christian quotes (and considerably more texts than are quoted) speak out against the "Judiazers." They felt threatened that people would leave the emerging religious group and revert back to the Rabbinate interpretation of Judaism. Meanwhile, the Rabbinate Jews felt threatened by the people abandoning them for the Christians (hence the Jamnia invocation). The split was in the making, with both groups laying claim to the same legacy (Matthew 5:17: "Think not that I come to destroy the law or the prophets. I am not come to destroy but to fulfil"). For the next two centuries, the split was a matter of debate within the Church--should the Sabbath be on Saturday or Sunday? How does Easter relate to Passover? In this period, even people who condemned the Judaizers seem to be referring to those who opposed to clear distinctions between Church and Synagogue. Eventually they lost, but their influence was still felt for the next, crucial century--the century of the Church fathers most often quoted in this article.

By the fourth century, the split was complete, though the two groups continued to influence each other. Aphraates, Cyril of Jerusalem, Saints Ephraim, Epiphanius, and Gregory of Nyssa wrote in varying degrees of harshness against the Jews, though it appears that they were aiming at the Judaizers and the relics of Jewish influence. An interesting case of this is St Jerome, who studied Hebrew and the Bible with rabbis, but who also called the Jews "serpents." I will go out on a limb here and say that their opposition, despite the rhetoric, was directed against the rival Jewish religion, rather than against the Jews as a people. This even seems to have been the initial motivation of St John Chrysostom. The Christians of Antioch were still "too close" to the Jews. They were visiting synagogues and even using Jewish ritual objects. As a zealot he had to put a stop to it once and for all.

His answer was Adversus Judaeos. The fact is that his writing is particularly offensive: "... Inveterate murderers, destroyers, men possessed by the devil ... (Homily 1:6). The problem with Chrysostom though, as I see it, is not his rhetoric, so much as his establishment of the theology of deicide in the Judeo-Christian debate. For this he declares that there is "no expiation possible, no indulgence, no pardon." He made it an obligation to hate the Jews: "He who can never love Christ enough will never have done fighting against those [Jews] who hate him" (Homily 7:1). In effect, he had declared war against the Jews.

A different attitude was taken by Augustine. Despite their rejection of Christ, the Jews survived. This posed a challenge to the Church, which Augustine answered by introducing a new concept: testitis iniquitatis et veritatis nostræ--the Jews were witnesses to the truth of the Church. He compared them to Cain, the archetype of the murderer, but like Cain, they were to live in degradation but not be killed. The Jews were being punished for laying hands on Christ. (This, by the way, can be seen as the basis of Martin Luther's vituperance against the Jews twelve hundred years later, but I am not going that far in this little history diatribe.) By the way, in Epistle 5, Augustine also called on Christians to preach to the Jews "in the spirit of love," but this is often forgotten.

Anyways, these are two early attitudes that had an impact on the Church for hundreds of years. Inevitably, the underlying philosophy evolved and transformed itself countless times. Inevitably, there were also great Christian leaders who looked to earlier sources based on cooperation. There are lots of reasons why anti-Semitism flourished for centuries in Christian Europe, not all of them based on religion. Nevertheless, religion, particularly some of the early Church fathers like Chrysostom and Augustine, could be quoted (or misquoted) to provide a basis for the persecution of Jews.

Well, I probably just pissed a lot of people off, so I will stop here. This was in a nutshell. It is even more complex than all this and there are plenty of opposing views too. I just thought that if you're gonna discuss the issue, you might as well have some of the history to place it into context. Bye. Danny 02:37 Feb 27, 2003 (UTC)


 * (This paragraph would greatly benefit from evidence and examples.)

This note to editors, which I removed from the section concerning "Reasons Anti-semitism continued", is good advice for that whole section. It just sort of waves its hand over the issues in a vague way, and it would be helped by specifics. Mkmcconn 23:25, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed this:


 * The Synod of Clermont (Franks), 535 CE - Prohibited Jews from holding public office. Nazi Germany, 1935 CE - Prohibited Jews from holding public office. The 12th Synod of Toledo (Spain), 681 CE - Ordered the burning of the Talmud and other Jewish books. Nazi Germany - Ordered the burning of the Talmud and other Jewish books. In 692, the Trulanic Synod forbade Christians to go to Jewish doctors, attend Jewish religious feasts or have friendly relations with Jews. Nazi Germany - The Nuremberg laws forbade people to go to Jewish doctors.

Some of the information here might well belong in the article, but the existing presentation was based on a phony logic that things which look similar must be casually connected.

I also changed "Weissmandel" to "Weissmandl" which is how his son spells it. Sometime I will get back to the "quotes" attributed to Weissmandl as other evidence casts doubt on them.

One other thing (which I did not try to change). It says Thus, almost all Jews today are descendants of the Pharisees. It reads like genetic descent is meant but I can't tell that for sure. If so I very much doubt that there is any evidence for it. It is only obvious that the Pharisee practice and tradition came to be the dominant one.

-- zero 14:28, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

According to [ http://www.lernzeit.de/themen/sendungen/st/st290302_inhalt.phtm ], Cardinal Mindszenty was arrested by the Nazis for opposing the deportation of Jews. He was imprisoned for 4 months. According to [ http://www.eichlers.com/374249466.html ], he "acted as a secret conduit for money transfers to keep Jews alive". It's easy to find more such material. Until someone can provide an authoritative source that proves beyond doubt that this guy was an anti-semite, this one is gone:


 * Cardinal Joszef Mindszenty, of Hungary, claimed that "The troublemakers in Hungary are the Jews! They demoralize our country and they are the leaders of the revolutionary gang that is torturing Hungary." (Source: B'nai B'rith Messenger, January 28, 1949)

Actually I am not surprised that problems like this exist on the page. Whenever I see an article that consists largely of a sequence of quotations, it is almost a certainty that the academic quality is unacceptable. I bet there are more examples on the page than this one.

-- zero 13:28, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Pluralism statements are being misrepresented
The contention in this article, that Christians are generally coming to agreement with the Jewish equation of evangelism with anti-semitism, is not accurate &mdash; but, the view is so pervasively represented in that section of this topic, that I wouldn't know where to begin in correcting or balancing it.

What does appear to be true (summarizing very wide trends can't be done with infallible assurance of accuracy), is that Christians generally have moved to the position that the hostility with which Jews regard Christian proselytism must be considered with the benefit of insight into the unique reasons for why they are hostile, and to overcome this hostility by doing a better job of explaining the cause of Christian evangelism, especially with regard to the Jews. (This is not to deny that "liberal" Christianity, which has redefined the faith into humanistic terms, has no place for evangelism not only of the Jews, but of anyone else).

Several of the statements quoted in the article, and the positions characterized as "ending the evangelism of Jews", must be interpreted this way. To characterize these statements and positions, as the article does, is in several cases shallow, and in some cases a purely false analysis.

But I'm afraid that what's happening in this article is an example of how the present Christian attitudes toward the Jews are being over-interpreted, and these shallow or inaccurate interpretations will in the long run be perceived as deceitful. Especially in regard to very broad church unions, especially of the Protestant sort, editors here need to keep in mind that these unions are made possible by the fact that they embrace a plurality of opinion. Their official pronouncements are intentionally designed to allow for a multiplicity of interpretations. This kind of double-talk is understood by those who live with it, but it is obviously not understood as clearly by those who look at it from the outside.

For the overwhelming majority of Christians, when evangelism stops, Christianity in any meaningful sense has come to an end: If Christians resolve not to evangelize Jews, they have resolved not to be Christians toward Jews. Call this "anti-semitism", or "genocide" if you wish &mdash; the problem of how evangelism is perceived is not an issue that Christian evangelists can permit themselves to ignore, so call it what you must. In fact, this problem of "perception" is what is addressed in most of the statements and positions described in this article. But the bottom line is, Roman Catholics have not resolved to "end evangelism of Jews"; similarly, it is not a fact that the PCUSA or the others have all decided to "end their efforts to convert the Jews". What is true, is that they have issued statements intending to assure Jews of several things. They affirm in fuzzy language, that Jews have an ongoing role as a witness to the nations, that has not expired and will not until the end. In light of that, and the belief that Christianity is only true if and because the Jews are an elect people of God, and possessors of the truth of which Christians are heirs (in a way distinct from being Jewish), they assert that it is wrong to particularly target Jews for evangelism, as though being Jewish makes them particularly ignorant of the truth, and specially in danger of the judgment of God - a particularly persistent allegation, which Jews have against Christian evangelism. Etc...

While these statements are broad enough that they certainly permit for the interpretation that "we reject evangelism", that is not the only interpretation allowed; and if it were, the statements probably would not have been adopted, because they would be in conflict at a more basic level, with other commitments internal to the groups' identity and sense of mission. You may expect these groups to dissolve funds, organizations and publications with names like "Mission to convert the Jews". You should not, and probably cannot expect them to stop publishing reasons for Jews to convert to Christianity, or to start publishing reasons why Jews must not convert. Mkmcconn 16:19, 15 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Deleted: alleged Joszef Mindszenty quotation Reason: RK, the onus is on you to establish the veracity of the Joszef Mindszenty "quotation". As well as being in contradiction to other sources regarding him, it appears that at the time of the B'nai B'rith Messenger article he was the target of a traditional communist show trial in Hungary. We know very well from history that none of the accusations made publically at such a trial, including statements supposedly from the victim, can be taken at face value. Do you actually have any real knowledge about this individual? Did you look at the Messenger article so see if it gives context? Do you care? Until you can do much better than this, I will continue to delete this supposed quotation.


 * Uh, no. The onus is not on me. This quote is in many history books on this subject, and it is fully in accord with hundreds of other quotes by similar figures in the same time and place. (Books, I said, btw, and not web sites.) The onus is on you if you wish to disprove it. RK
 * I tend to believe that people are innocent until proven guilty, even if they are Christians. However, since you have books about this one you can tell us the background and original source of this "quotation" so we can judge whether it belongs on the page or not.  -- zero 02:04, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Four weeks later, I have found the issue of B'nai B'rith Messenger in which this "quotation" appears. It is not a direct report but a "bona fide story that happened to Mrs. H. Laski, daughter of the late Chief Rabbi of England Moses Gaster...a few years ago".  There is no indication even that BBM got the story directly from Mrs. Laski.  In other words, it is a rumor and its deletion was justified. --zero 11:44, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Deleted: alleged "papal nuncio" quotation Reason: The person concerned was the papal charg&eacute; d'affairs (not nuncio) Giuseppe Burzio. The account is wrong (it was before Weissmandl escaped from the train and not after) but the main problem is that it is contradicted by the documentary evidence. Here is the summary from Yehuda Bauer, Jews for Sale? Nazi-Jewish Negotations, 1933-1945, p86:
 * The documents show that while some of the leading clergymen [of Slovakia] were certainly no friends of the Jews, others intervened forcefully, and Burzio, whom Weissmandl attacks, too, was in the forefront of the defense of the Jews, not just the converts.

If one of the leading Holocaust historians doubts our "quotation", then so should we. This same opinion of Burzio is given in the documentary film "Among Blind Fools" about Weissmandl's life. The first sentence of the paragraph (about what the Slovakian laity were taught) is also unacceptable without evidence.


 * Um, if one person holds one view, then we must agree with him? Since when? Don't we usually agree with the consensus view?  I do not follow your logic. RK
 * There are plenty of books that quote some things from Min HaMetzar, but repeated quoting does not constitute a consensus. The consensus we should be concerned with is that established by the academic historians who have investigated the primary sources.   I know of only a few: Teveth (which is mostly an attack on an earlier book of Tom Segev), and Bauer.  There are also some in languages I don't read (like Slovakian), but it sounds from Bauer's citations that they mostly agree with his analysis except in details.  From what I can tell, Bauer's book is regarded as the most important study on the subject and is repeatedly described in that way by other historians.  -- zero 02:04, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Deleted: alleged Kmetko quotation Reason: The account here has a number of errors and causes for doubt. First, Weissmandl does not claim to report this from his own experience, but rather says that he was told this story by his father-in-law. Second, the sentence "This is your punishment for the death of our Redeemer" (which I think is a mistranslation: according to a source I trust it says "And you deserve this punishment.") is the only part of the statement that is obviously hostile. The rest of it reads more like a warning than anything else. Kmetko had no power to carry out threats. Apart from the "punishment" sentence it can be read as "The Nazis are planning to kill you and the only way I can help is to convert you." (Many Hungarian Jews were saved by precisely this means, so this reading is quite plausible.) As for the "punishment" sentence, Weissmandl's ability to report past events accurately is in doubt and this is the opinion of many historians (Bauer and Teveth, to name two). RK, before you challenge this I suggest you look into Min HaMetzar a little. I guarantee that you would scream very loudly indeed if people started quoting some of the other things in there. Of course I could be wrong and Kmetko could have been the vilest of antisemites, but I don't know that and neither do you.


 * I will agree with you on this. RK

Deleted: supposed "Thomas Short" quotation Reason: After 45 minutes with Google I was not even able to confirm that there is such a person. (However I did find a few "Christian Jew-haters" lists with this same story verbatim.) So what we have is an unsourced story probably relying on the memory of one unidentified person about someone who is utterly insignificant if he even exists. Of course there really are "preachers" who spout this type of bile---I heard one of them years ago---but surely we can do better than slandering someone we only know through a few lines on a web page.


 * Why are you using Google? Most material in books is not available on the web.  In any case, the entire point of this section is to summarize the view of many Christian priests, pastors, preachers, etc. in the 20th century. We would have a misleading, rosy-colored, and unrealistic article without several such quotes, along with a social analysis.  We can replace this particular quote with another, sure, but we need to keep this section. RK 16:19, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I used Google to try to find out who this guy is. Anyone who is significant enough to deserve quoting on this page ought to have some on-line trace.  Maybe I looked in the wrong places.  Anyway, quoting some random bigot who nobody has heard of actually makes your case look contrived.  Let's see some quotations from people with influence, together with sources.  -- zero 02:04, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Comment: In fact, a large part of this article consists of stuff that someone collected off the internet without any sort of critical filtering. I'm sure that some (perhaps most) of it is completely correct, but there is no way to know what is and what isn't. If it is all correct it would be a miracle, and the context required to understand it is absent. The issue of anti-Semitism in the Christian tradition is a very serious one but large parts of this page read like crude Christian bashing. Maybe we should have a page of anti-Christian (or anti-gentile?) statements from famous Jews to "balance" it? I could contribute a dozen or two really good quotations without blinking (but I won't; two wrongs don't make a right). zero 11:33, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Uh, that is false. It comes from reading many books, by both Christian and Jewish scholars of this subject, and many journal articles. Some of us use hardcopy books for research. Please stop projecting. RK 16:19, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Please start citing. --zero 02:04, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Now your true intention finally surfaces. You want to "balance" nearly two thousands years of anti-Semitism, persectuion, beatings and genocide with quotes to prove that the Jews are just as evil as those who preached hatred towards them. We will not fall for this obviously anti-Jewish agenda. On other pages, you already have implied Jewish conspiracies about Arab quotes and the Arab press; this already discredits you. I don't know why you have an issue with the Jews, but we will not let you distort our articles in your quest to promote "balance". RK 16:19, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Your reply here is truly disgusting RK. I'm not going to pay you the respect of replying to it directly because you don't deserve it.  However I will expand on what I wrote for the benefit of other people who may be reading.  It's a simple logical deduction:
 * It is possible to make a list of anti-Christian statements by Jews which is just as long as the list on this page of anti-Jewish statements by Christians.
 * Over the centuries Jews have suffered from Christian prejudice to a vastly greater extent than Christians have suffered from Jewish prejudice.
 * Therefore, the mere existence of hostile statements does not by itself suffice to establish the historical importance of Christian antisemitism. Something more is needed.
 * The additional thing that is required is some deeper analysis. Quotations simply do not suffice to establish historical reality.  Nearly always the context of the quotation is at least as important, and the actions if any accompanying the quotation are usually more important.  It matters a great deal, for example, whether a particular accusation was made in the heat of a debate that had both sides hurling abuse at each other, or whether it came from a more sinister motive.  Just the quotation alone tells us hardly anything.  If we have to have quotations, then the words of a respected historian who has studied the issue and can summarise the whole story would be much more useful than a few words of unknown context.
 * Another reason I heartily dislike the history-by-quotations genre is that almost everyone says different things at different times. If you want to "prove" that person P believed B, then you can look at all the things P ever said and you have a good chance of finding something close enough that a citation without context appears to establish that person P believed B.  What we don't know is that person P spent most of their life combatting B, even though they once believed B sometime in their foolish youth.  Even within a short time period people often make apparent contradictions.  Compare these:
 * Whatever the outcome the Arabs will stick to their offer of equal citizenship for Jews in Arab  Palestine and let them be as Jewish as they like. In areas where they predominate they will have complete autonomy.
 * This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre of the Jews which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.
 * These were spoken by the same person (Azzam Pasha) within about a week of each other in May 1948. On both occasions he was speaking to the western press, so it wasn't a matter of telling a different story to different audiences.  Maybe this is an extreme example, but this type of inconsistency is completely normal.  Needless to say, some history-by-quotation articles quote one of them, and others quote the other one, according to their political positions.  I say reject both articles and demand something better. -- zero 02:04, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Um, there is balance in Wikipedia on this subject. Just as we have articles on anti-Semitism(this one, for instance) we also have article on anti-Christian bigotry. The article is called Persecution of Christians, and it needs more contributors. RK 16:26, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I do not know why Zero0000 is debating a position with me that I simply have not held. Why convince me to adopt a position that I already agree with? As far as I can tell, there are enough real disagreements already. Why refuse to take "yes" for an answer? Take the following statements from Zero0000:

Zero0000 writes "It is possible to make a list of anti-Christian statements by Jews which is just as long as the list on this page of anti-Jewish statements by Christians. Over the centuries Jews have suffered from Christian prejudice to a vastly greater extent than Christians have suffered from Jewish prejudice. Therefore, the mere existence of hostile statements does not by itself suffice to establish the historical importance of Christian antisemitism. Something more is needed."


 * My response: This is not what you had written before. In fact, it isn't even close. What you write here is something that I happen to agree with, 100%. Your previous statement took away things which had made Christian anti-Semitism look bad, and said that to obtain "balance" we should ask for bigoted statements from Jews to add.  It is that former position which was way out of line, and which I strongly objected to.  Now you have written a very different position, and this newer text is something that I agree with totally.  I am glad you agree with me on this, but I just don't understand why you are trying to convince me of a position I already have. Maybe you need to spend more time writing your initial thoughts more clearly. Your initial statements were ugly...and your amplified version was beautiful.  I wouldn't have even guessed they were written by the same person. RK 02:20, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Zero0000 writes "The additional thing that is required is some deeper analysis. Quotations simply do not suffice to establish historical reality.  Nearly always the context of the quotation is at least as important, and the actions if any accompanying the quotation are usually more important.  It matters a great deal, for example, whether a particular accusation was made in the heat of a debate that had both sides hurling abuse at each other, or whether it came from a more sinister motive.  Just the quotation alone tells us hardly anything.


 * Um, I agree totally. I don't understand who you are trying to refute. You don't get quite fully how Wikipedia works. If you believe that this article requires more analysis and context, then it is up to you to add that analysis and context. Don't look at the present state of any Wikipedia article, and get angry at us for what it hasn't yet become!  Be bold in updating pages, and spend a few minutes improving the article.  You seem to be trying to build a case for change...yet I don't disagree with your proposed changes, and no one here is stopping you.  Stop yelling at me, and start editing the pages.


 * Frankly, Zero0000, if you had written this sort of thing yesterday, I would have been a cheerleader for you! The way you now propose rewriting this articlen sounds like a great idea, and I hope you do it. I will support such changes wholeheartedly. I just object to slowly chipping away this (or any) article, without putting anything else in its place. RK

Moved to talk extremist statements.

Theologian Andrew Wilson writes:


 * Ask most Jews what they honestly think about Jesus, and you will find a deep bitterness. Jesus was the starting-point for the painful history of Christian anti-Semitism. Centuries of Christian violence against Jews: mob violence, pillaging, rape, confinement to ghettos, forcible abduction of children to be baptized as Christians, expulsions from many nations and finally the Holocaust, have poisoned the minds of Jews from being able to appreciate the goodness of Jesus Christ. Christian anti-Semitism, and the resulting Jewish resentment of Christianity, remains a spiritual weight, the congealed pain of tens of millions of people who lived and died through that persecution. It is a continuing factor in hindering the Jewish-Christian relationship.

Cautious 16:47, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

-- RK wrote: Your previous statement took away things which had made Christian anti-Semitism look bad, and said that to obtain "balance" we should ask for bigoted statements from Jews to add.

I reply: Please look again. I put "balance" in quote marks to indicate that it was NOT my belief. Yes, I should have been more explicit to avoid misunderstandings and I apologise to anyone who was unnecessarily offended. -- zero 03:02, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * I too am sorry, Zero0000; I should have read your words more charitably. I was just pissed because I have been dealing with a lot of new contributions on Wikipedia, containing some truly terrible stuff. (i.e. moral equivalency between any actions of the USA, and the World Trade Center bombing, and long-winded apologetics for Yemenite Arabs to murder Americans. Heck, people even suggested ratios of how many Americans could be murdered, and still be considered fair and ethical.) Many of the comments which I have been fighting off were a form of moral equivalency presented as "balance". So when I read your words, it (at the time) seemed to be in the same boat. Now I know better. I apologize for being quite wrong about you. RK 03:18, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * Accepted. As for the article I don't feel qualified to write it except maybe for the part around WWII and that would take a lot of work (Holocaust scholarship is my second reading interest after ME history but it's an enormous subject).  I hope other people will step in to fix various parts (for example Mkmcconn, whose discussion of pluralism statements above is spot on).  Mkmcconn, go for it.  -- zero 10:41, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I removed statements about Billy Graham and Pat Robertson not evangelizing Jews because I can't find any support for it, except some extremist Christian websites who use the allegation as ammunition to acccuse Graham of heresy, and because it would appear to contradict what Graham says elsewhere about the uniqueness of Christianity. I did find testimonies on the Graham website from Jews who had accepted Jesus. DJ Clayworth 15:01, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me why Falwell's statements are considered anti-semitic? It looks to me as though all he did was to say that there is one person in the future who will be both evil and Jewish. I don't see how this is discriminatory, any more than saying "Hitler was evil" is discrimination against the German people? DJ Clayworth 15:08, 26 Sep 2003 (UTC)
 * "Anti-Semitic" is a strong word, and although I personally believe that a good deal of Christian theology is -- or at the very least for a very long time was -- anti-Semitic, I'd hesitate to throw the word around casually. But I believe that the aticle said that the statement was a cause for concern among Jews, and aside from the fact that this is simply an assertion of fact, and an accurate one, I don't think it takes much explaining.  For one thing, the analogy with Hitler is false because Hitler lived and died, while Falwell is talking about the future.  It is an established fact that Hitler was Austrian and moved to Germany, this is a fact in a way that any claim about some future anti-Christ is not a fact.  Moreover, part of Hitler's evil was his racism -- his explicit polemic that the "Aryan" race is superior, which was in fact used to justify killing millions of Jews as well as others.  In other words, Hitler himself made race the issue.  Of course this does not mean that all Germans or Austrians are evil -- but I do think what Hitler wrote and did, with massive popular support, casts a dark shadow indeed on a certain form of German nationalism, and all those who adhere to that nationalism.  In any event, for Hitler, at least, his being German was a big part of how he explained his beliefs and acts, and was a big part of why certain people supported him.  Now, I am sure that there have been other bad, perhaps even evil, people in the past who happened to be German, but the fact that they were German was utterly irrelevant to their evil (the movie "M" is a great exploration of such a case).  Likewise, I am sure that there have been bad, even evil people who happen to have been Jewish.  The quesion is, is there any connection between their being Jewish and their being evil?  In most cases, I doubt it, although I am sure one could find some examples.  But my point is that one's race or religion need not have anything to do with one's character or actions, and in these cases race or religion is irrelevant.  BUT the whole point of Falwell's statement is to say that race/religion IS relevant.  He is saying that (presumably) the most evil person who will ever have lived will be Jewish.  Why?  And why does he say it, if race/religion doesn't matter?  This is the worst form of profiling as a form of racism that casts a shadow over all Jews.  Italians, French, Japanese, Indians -- they are all immune from this shadow, simply because they are not Jewish.  But because Falwell thinks that the anti-christ will be Jewish, he is implying that the only possible suspects will be Jews, which implies that all Jews are suspect.  If you do not understand how deeply this can offend a Jew, I am sorry that you lack that capacity for understanding.  But I hope that you have the decency, at least, to take seriously Jews' feelings of having been injured.  At least, I hope that is what motivated your question.  Slrubenstein


 * Sl. First an apology. I should not have used Hitler as an example here - I'm afraid I only wanted a clear example of a bad person, intending to show that their badness didn't necessarily reflect on their race. It was of course stupid of me to choose the example I did. I apologise entirely.


 * Having examined the article and some more of Falwell's statements I'm still not convinced that they were intended to be anti-semitic. Isn't it possible that Falwell is simply trying to give a picture of the person he is talking about, for identification, rather like a policeman who includes a suspect's race in the description, without intending to imply that all people of that race should be suspects? DJ Clayworth 14:24, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * ''I don't have a clue about the "theology" behind Falwell's statement, but just on the face of it one can interpret his statement as "Christ was a Jew, the anti-christ will be a 'counterfeit of Christ', therefore the anti-christ will be a Jew too". I'd want to see more of what Falwell believes about Jews in general before labeling it as more than normal religious clap-trap.  --zero 14:51, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't really care about Falwell's theology, but I am a little curious if he thinks the Anti-Christ will be the son of a carpenter (or a carpenter) too. I agree that it would be worth knowing more about Falwell's beliefs and personal intentions, but only to a point, because I think that much racism is unconscious; I think people often do or say things that are unintentionally racist, because of how they were brought up.  So personally, for me a test of whether someone is racist or anti-Semitic is always, how they respond when someone suggests that what they did or said was racist of anti-Semitic.  If they get angry or defensive, to me that is strong evidence that they are racist; if they apologize and reflect on what they said or did, I am happy to reconsider my first reaction.  Still, I continue to be suspicious of Falwell and here is why: the logic of his argument is patently false.  If the anti-Christ must be a counterfeit Christ, meaning that if Jesus were Jewish the anti-Christ must be Jewish, one could also -- I mean, just using the same logic -- argue that the anti-Christ must be a subject of the Roman Empire (I doubt JF would make that claim).  As to DJ Clayworth's apology, of course I accept it and appreciate it, but I must say, it is unnecessary.  I found it only very mildly offensive and was certain it was unintentional, but my main reason for making an issue of it was not because I was offended but because I believed it was unconstructive and only further illustrated the problem with making analogies, which, to be generous, is one of Falwell's problems. Slrubenstein


 * I have the hardest time seeing your logic here, and think that it's rather simple to follow Falwell's thinking. The prophecies, as Falwell understands them, predict that the Christ would be a Jew, and Falwell is drawing his analogy on that basis alone.  He predicts that the Antichrist will be like Christ in all ways, except falsely appearing to be righteous (just as Christ falsely appeared to be unrighteous): thus, a Jew, who performs miracles, even seeming to have been raised from the dead.  What would it mean if these prophecies say nothing about the Christ being subject to the Roman Empire?  I imagine he thinks there is no relevance here at all for predicting who the Antichrist will be, because he holds this view based upon what the Scriptures say (as he understands them).  Mkmcconn 21:38, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Slr asks whether Falwell might think the anti-christ will be a carpenter. The first answer is "maybe" because there is no limit to how ridiculous this stuff can get.  The second answer is that the question assumes there is some sort of logical reasoning going on but that is asking too much of someone like Falwell.  The third answer is that probably Falwell didn't make it up by himself and is just quoting a traditional belief.  Slr also suggests that getting angry when accused of anti-semitism is evidence of guilt.  I would have thought that a person accused of a grave offence has the right to be angry.  I would also think that when such an accusation is made in error it is the accuser who has the greatest obligation to apologise. --zero 08:51, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I wasn't clear -- I think you in part misunderstand me, and in part I agree with you and should be more specific. I think it depends on what one is being accused of.  If you accuse me of having killed someone, well, killing is an objective act (although we might question whether it was accidental or in self-defense).  You either did or did not kill someone, and if you know that you did not kill someone, of course you have a right to be angry.  But racism is a different sort of offence than murder -- it may take many forms, and in some cases it has taken the form of murder, but in many cases it takes other forms, many of which involve offending or insulting someone else.  Here we come to my point: you cannot know whether or not you have offended someone in the same way that you can know whether or not you have killed someone.  Whether or not you have offended someone depends as much on the other person as on you.  I understand that some people are unfairly or hypersensitive, and perhaps we can agree that someone can reasonably or unreasonably take offense at something.  Whenever someone feels offended, I think that before they react (or, as soon as possible after the initial reaction), they ought to reflect: were they being hypersensitive, or did they really have good cause to take offense.  If upon reflect, the "victim" concludes that s/he was over-reacting, s/he owes someone an apology.  Similarly, if I accuse you of having offended me, I believe that you have an obligation to reflect on why I might have been so offended (and this reflection might involve an invitation to dialogue, which is what I was hoping DJ Clayworth was doing).  If after serious reflection and dialogue you understand why what you said was offensive, you should apologize and try to avoid so offending someone again.  Of course, if you really believe your remark was fully justified and the other person's sense of injury unjustified, go ahead and be angry and defensive.  I have already said that in some, maybe even many, cases, the other person's sense of injurty could be unjustified so this would be a fair response.  Nevertheless, it should be obvious that someone who is deeply, even if subtly, racist, will find it very hard to understand why someone different from them would take offense, and would resist genuine reflection and dialogue and instead retreat into anger and defensiveness.  This was my point.  And whatever the "logic," to suggest that any Jew can be a suspect of being the epitomy of evil incarnate, although all non-Jews are immune from this suspicion, is racist and offensive. Slrubenstein


 * The last point simply does not follow. Christians believe that the salvation of the world is through the Jews, but this is not a pro-Jewish statement: it concerns belief in the word of God.  A person with this belief may, nevertheless, be an antisemite (after all, that's what this article is about).  Some Christians also believe that a deceiver of the whole earth will come from the Jews.  A person may certainly believe this without being a racist, and many racists may believe it, just as both kinds of people believe that God chose the Jews for the salvation of the world.  I can understand why you are offended; but it weakens the seriousness of the accusation of "racism" to abuse its definition this way. Mkmcconn 16:52, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Well, there is no point in arguing over this. But now, I really am curious about something.  I understand that according to the Hebrew Bible the moshiah, meaning the king of the Jews, must be from the line of David.  But that does not mean that the "son of God" or the "savior" must come from the line of David, or from the tribe of Judah, or from the Children of Israel.  My understanding of Christianity is that it is catholic (small c, in the sense of "universal); surely in Christian belief the Christ is not the "King" or even the "savior" of "the Jews" but of all people.  Am I wrong?  So here is my confusion: why do Christians believe that "the salvation of the world is through the Jews" and that the "savior" must be Jewish?  Yes, I understand that our next king (if we ever get one) should be descended from David and be Jewish.  But why should the savior or lord over all people be Jewish?  Jews certainly do not believe that God is Jewish (indeed, there is a text in Genesis that suggests God doesn't keep kosher)?  Slrubenstein


 * The shortest answer is, it is simply what the Scriptures say, in so many words (Jn 4:22). But this is just a summation of what is understood from the earlier Scriptures, that the whole creation has been awaiting the appearing of a "seed" (Gen 3:15); and, this seed of Abraham (Gen 12:7;13:15,16;15:5,13,18;17:7-10;22:17-18), a circumcised (Gen 17:12) descendant of Sarah (Gen 17:19), and of Isaac (21:12; 22:17,18), would be a descendant of Jacob (Gen 28:12-14). The blessing of God on all the families of the earth, is through the "seed" of Abraham, by the line of Isaac, and of Jacob: a Jew and descendant of David (Jeremiah 23:5-6). Mkmcconn 18:35, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Gen 12:7, 13:15, 15:18, 22:17-18 are specifically about the inheritance of the land of Canaan -- quite parochial, certainly not universal. 13:16 and 15:5 simply means there will be a lot of Jews in the future. 17:19 specifies that the heirs shall be through Sarah -- but again, all this is saying is that those people to whom God is giving a specific portion of land shall be descendants of Sarah, and 21:12 further specifies a descendant of Isaac, 28: 13-15 further specifies descendants of Jacob; there is nothing about being a savior.  15:13 "predicts" the future enslavement by Egyptians.  17:7-10 is about the enduring covenant between God and the Children of Israel -- it is specific to the biological descendants of Abraham (though Jews accept converts to the covenant; 17:12 provides something of a precedent); does not in any way exclude other covenants between God and other nations; is in any case parochial and not universal; and has nothing to do with a savior, let alone a savior of the world.


 * Gen. 22:18 comes closer to your point, but obviously can be argued different ways. That other nations shall find us Jews a blessing is nice, but does not mean that we (let alone one specific Jew) will be a "savior."


 * Jer. 23: 5-6 simply promise that the Jews will have another king, who will be a descendant of David.


 * None of the above have anything to do with a "savior of humankind." They deal with God?s promise that Abraham's descendants will be many (I am guessing he made the same promise to the Chinese and Indians, and was perhaps a little more serious about it with them); that his descendants through Jacob (the son of Sarah's son Isaac) will inherit the land; and that a descendant of David will be king over that land.  All of this seems very very parochial to me, and I don't see how it requires that the savior of all humankind be a Jew, let alone king of Israel. So sorry, but I am still confused. Slrubenstein


 * Christians are not in doubt concerning how the promises have been fulfilled in Christ, as you are. And so, a Christian interpretation of these promises is in that light.  The local and particular promises to one man and family ("the land", for example) are also implicated within a universal promise ("all the families of the earth").  And thus their fulfillment implies a universal scope (an everlasting kingdom over all the inhabitants of the earth, not limited to "the land").  So, you are right, you would not understand any of these passages in the Christian way, if they are taken in isolation from the universal scope implied by their connection to other promises.  We would run into the same problem if we went from the other direction, and looked at passages concerning the kingdom of God which are clearly universal in scope, and you might raise questions about what these have to do with promises made to Abraham.  Again, the New Testament is based upon the identification of Christ with these promises, and not as though there is doubt.  Nothing is more interesting to me to discuss (I'm not, like so many here, interested in and knowledgeable about practically everything!), but I wonder if this page might be an improper place to do it? Mkmcconn 22:20, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * I admit that this has become a tangent -- though one that I was curious about and I appreciate your efforts to explain. I DO think this material -- the issue itself -- is relevant to the article Comparing and contrasting Judaism or Christianity (or something like that) -- maybe you want to go over it and see if any of this fits in. Slrubenstein


 * I am always interested and challenged by you. Reading back over this, I see that I haven't really answered the question very well.  I'll put some work in it and see if I can find a more appropriate place to post it for your attention.  Mkmcconn


 * Anyone who argues with SLR will definitely end up learning something important. The man is a treasure trove of knowledge and wisdom. (So why don't I listen to him more? Just stubborn, I guess, like my Jewish grandfather. ;-) --Uncle Ed 21:46, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yikes! This is way too much flattery, even if it comes from two people I really respect. I do hope, however, that this exchange reveals to others how differently Jews and Christians (and of course others) read the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. I do hope Mkmcconn or others do use this opportunity to help develop the article on comparing Judaism and Christianity! Slrubenstein

"By the time the Gospels came into their final form, they included points of view that, if said by Gentiles to Jews, would certainly be considered anti-Semitic by the Jews."

I removed this because I can find no examples. Remember that it has to be something condemnatory of all Jews. Just calling someone a hypocrite is not anti-semitism just because the target is a Jew, especially if the speaker is also a Jew.
 * It depends on the context. Certainly these passages have been used to inflame anti-Jewish and anti-Semetic attacks.  That's the point.  In any event, I clarified some of the discussion on Pharisees. Slrubenstein

Similarly, in the Church fathers section I find one of the examples has a bishop arguing that no action should be taken against Christians who burned a Jewish house because no action was taken against Jews who burned a Christian house. To me that sounds like simple fairness. I suggest the passage is removed. DJ Clayworth 16:08, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * You aren't seriously suggesting that two wrongs make a right, are you? In any event, the text does not say that these Church Fathers were themselves anti-Semetic, only that these pronouncements have been used to justify anti-Semitism. Slrubenstein

Two wrongs is irrelevant. My point is that the Church fathers quoted were actually arguing for equal treatment for Jews and Christians. I don't see how that can be construed as anti-semitic.

I find the expansion of the Pharisaic passage troubling. You seem determined to convince people that the New Testament writers intended to attack Jews, but your argument critically depends on the assumption that the New Testament books were not just written down post-AD70, but that the original sources they were taken from were from post-AD70. Many if not most scholars would say the the NT, especially the sayings of Jesus, derive from sources that are pre-AD70, which means that the Pharisaic passages should be taken for exactly what they are - one Jew criticising another Jew. Several of the NT writers were clearly Jews; Paul was a Pharisee. I don't see that you can make this into some kind of anti-semitic attack.

You have also omitted NT passages where the Jews are singled out as specially blessed, and to be treated well. (e.g. Romans 15:27).

If your point is the mistaken usage of these passages, then maybe we should research the use and how they came to be used wrongly. DJ Clayworth 04:28, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
 * It is true that I added some new material, but much of what I did involved reorganization -- thus, some of your remarks address sentences I did not write. I am sorry that you think I am "determined to convince people that the New Testament writers intended to attack Jews."  I am not.  Indeed, I think we agree on the main points: that "the Pharisaic passages should be taken for exactly what they are - one Jew criticising another Jew" -- this point was made very clearly in my expansion, as well as the important point that many people have interpreted the passage differently.  The article was clear that these passages have been used to justify anti-Semitism.  This is a fact, and this assertion makes no claims one way or another about intentions.  I did, however, also write about passages in the Gospels that were written after 70 CE.  This is an uncontroversial claim supported by a good deal of scholarship (and it is a claim that in no way suggests that all ofthe Gospels were written after 70, or that Jesus didn't exist).  First century Jewish-Christian relations were complex.  As far as I am concerned Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew.  Saul was born a Jew but when he changed his name to Paul he also left Judaism and promoted a break between Jews and Christians.  Within the NT you thus find passages that recall the time when all Christians were Jews, as well as passages that legitimate the break between Christianity and Judaism.  After the destruction of the Temple different groups competed with different visions of the role of God in the world.  In this context Christians were no longer a group of Pharisees debating against other Pharisees, they constituted a new religion whose story of itself relied on a break with, and rejection of, the old one. Slrubenstein

Thanks for that note. I'm glad you agree about the Pharisaic attacks, and sorry if I misinterpreted, or attributed to you things in the article that weren't yours.

I think the article is definitely improving. As you say, Christian-Jewish relations are complex; I'd certainly like to see if we can examine them in more detail. It seems to me, for example, that for the first few hundered years the strife between Jews and Christians was far from one-sided; Jews were as anti-Christian as Christians were anti-Semite.

I do disagree with you on one thing. It seems to me from his writings that Paul also considered himself a Jew to the end of his life, and continued to believe in God's special relationship with the Jews. The Romans ch 11 v 1-13 is a good example of this. It seems to me he regarded the current dispute Judaism as something temporary rather than permanent. (Modern Christian leaders should probably be a little more zealous in making sure passages like this are better known, incidentally).

I'm a bit busy over the next few days, but I'm going to try to take another look at the article soon. DJ Clayworth 14:50, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I am glad you think the article is improving, and appreciate your comments. I certainly agree with you that in the first centuries CE the conflicts between Christians and Jews was not one-sided.  I am certain that Jewish authorities opposed at least some Christian teachings, and I believe I state this clearly in my most recent additions.  Perhaps you think more needs to be added and I wouldn't object as long as any material is carefully contextualized.  Specifically, I think it is important to delineate when and why Jewish authorities opposed or even "persecuted" Christians.  From what I have read, I do not think Pharisees persecuted Jesus -- as some other contributer to the article put it (citing a Lutheran minister) it was more like a family squabble.  But I do believe that the Pharisses opposed early Christians after Jesus' death.  I think one reason they opposed Christians was that Christians claimed people did not have to follow Jewish law; I think a bigger reason was that Christian preached the immanent second coming of Christ.  I try to make this clear in the article and have no objections to making it clearer.  But let me know if you think I am wrong or incomplete.


 * I understand your disagreement, but I think I was unclear. You say "Paul also considered himself a Jew" but I never said otherwise (about what Paul himself thought); I do believe that when he stopped obeying Jewish law the Jewish community would have seen him as leaving Judaism.  Maybe I am wrong, or maybe it doesn't matter.  In any event, the article (which is what really counts) doesn't claim that Paul wasn't Jewish.  What really matters, I think is that Paul claimed that non-Jews could be Christians, and that Christians do not have to obey Jewish law.  Am I wrong?  For most Jews, it was these two claims that really signified a break with Judaism and the beginning of problems with Christianity, more than anything Jesus preached.


 * I am also not sure what the significance is of his belief that the problems with Jewish leaders was temporary. I assume, and many scholars argue, that Paul like other early Christians believed that Jesus would return really soon, and of course if they believed he was the messiah his return would end all debates between Jews and Christians.  Is there some other reason that he would think the disputes were only temporary?


 * In any event the disputes weren't temporary and have endured to this day. I think we have to distinguish clearly between the claim that Jesus, his disciples, Paul and other second generation Christians were anti-Semitic (I believe they were not); that later, non-Jewish early Christians were anti-Semitic (I believe many were, in part because Jews revolted against Rome, and in part because Jews rejected Jesus); and that later Christians were anti-Semitic and used the NT to justify their anti-Semitism (I think this was the case).  In other words, we shouldn't over-generalize and we should be clear about chronology and other contextual factors.  I also think we have to distinguish between two points of view: some people claim that the Gospels are literally true and an accurate record of the words and deeds of Jesus.  Others believe that some of the words and deeds of Jesus recorded in the Gospels are most likely true, some are probably ture, and some are probably not true.  The ones that are probably not true would have been written quite sometime after Jesus was crucified, and reflect the situation, beliefs, and attitudes of the authors -- Christians living under very different conditions than Jesus (e.g., after the Great Revolt was put down and the Temple destroyed; after the fall of the Saducees from power and the rise of the Pharisees; at a time when some Christians were non-Jews and Christians were having more success proselytizing non-Jews than Jews).  I think the article must represent both points of view clearly.  If we can agree on these, I don't anticipate any serious conflicts in working on the article.  But if anything I just wrote doesnt make sense to, or bothers, you -- please let me know.  Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein wrote above: ''What really matters, I think is that Paul claimed that non-Jews could be Christians, and that Christians do not have to obey Jewish law. Am I wrong? For most Jews, it was these two claims that really signified a break with Judaism and the beginning of problems with Christianity, more than anything Jesus preached. ''

I think that Paul believed that "Christianity" (a very new term at the time, may or may not have been used by Paul) was the fulfillment of the Hebrews' faith, not a departure from it. Yes, Paul did not believe it was still necessary for every male to be circumcised before joining the community of believers in God. He was moving away from Judaism as an ethnic identity and collection of cultural practices, and towards a religion founded on a relationship with God. "Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor... There is is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Galatians 3:24-25, 28-29. Paul thought that the special relationship between God and the Jews was meant to be shared with all humanity, not confined to a single ethnic group forever, and he believed this based on the Old Testament. Yes, Paul may well have believed that the remaining debates would soon be settled by Christ's imminent return. He also may have been optimistic that many more Jews would believe in Jesus Christ. Despite his reputation as apostle to the Gentiles, he often visited the synagogue first when entering a city, preaching to Gentiles only after being turned out of the synagogue. And despite Paul's insistence that Moses' Law need not be strictly followed by all, I personally think that Jesus' claim to be the Son of God was a much more blasphemous assertion. Wesley 02:29, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree (or at least don't necessarily disagree) with what you wrote above. Paul seemed to consider that mainstream Judaism had, temporarily, gone down the wrong path, but retained a belief in their (i.e. his) special value to God as a race. Since we are talking about anti-semitism here, it seems to me enough to establish that Paul disagreed with current Judaism on theological grounds, and not on any racial grounds. Is that not enough to establish that he, and his writings, are not anti-semitic.

On a separate note the new version of the section discussing anti-semitism in the Gospels has a lot of slightly weaselly 'if the Gospels are to be believed' language. Christians clearly believed that Jesus was the Messiah very early on (and the persecution of the early church would seem to indicate that this was very, very soon after Jesus death, if not before). Can we trim this down a bit? The early church clearly made claims about Jesus which got them thrown of the Jewish community. DJ Clayworth 16:55, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)