Wikipedia: Christian anti-Semitism/Talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On certain other Wikipedia entries, people got irritated at me when I produced quotes and references, and said that this was not the correct place for scholarship. So I stopped doing this as much. Was this wrong? In any case, let us be very clear, JHK: If someone syas that your entire religious group is the spawn of the devil, and that your entire group is all damned to hell, do you really need a scientific scholarship to "prove" that such a claim is a bigoted insult? Come off it. Why are such attacks against others bad, but against Jews one needs "proof" that it is antisemitism? This isn't rocket science. There are just a few malcontents here who don't want this subject discussed. --RK

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

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

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

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

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

Then, tell us when and in what context Eckhardt made his comment and explain how it fits in.

Here is one caveat: you will never prove that all Christians are anti-semites, nor that Christianity teaches anti-semitism. They aren't and it doesn't.

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

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

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

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

: Why? Early on Christians rewrote their history to make Jews look like monsters who literally murdered God's son, yet they made the mass-murdering Roman monsters, who crucified Jews by the thousands, out to be innocents. The pervered history in the New Testament makes the victims out to be evil, and the mass-murderers out to the good guys. Why do you think there was a movement in the early church to make the mass-murderer Pontius Pilate a Saint? It was hate-based historical revisionim. How would you feel if you read a history of the Holocaust in which Adoph Hitler was presented as good, the Jews were literally referred to as the offspring of the devil, and the murders by the Nazis were not mentioned at all, and the only murders mentioned were the ones by Jews of Nazis? Such a history would be blatant anti-Semitism if written by someone in today's Neo-Nazi movement. But its an exact analogy. RK

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

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

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

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

Some Gentiles may have been anti-semitic to start with

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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