• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

the anti-semitism in the New Testament thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lloyd

Member
What are people's thoughts on this?

I really don't buy the claim that the New Testament writers were anti-semitic. When I think about it the idea anti-semitic doesn't have much meaning in itself. It gets its meaning from people's association of the word with pogroms, the holocaust, al-Qaida, etc. We live in a time when the word 'jew' seems to be going out of usage. I've noticed that people around me try to use 'jewish' instead, primarilly because of the former's association with white supremacy movements. But really, white supremacy is a far cry from early Christian thought. Because of it's 20th century connotations the usage of the word 'anti-semitic' is misleading itself. It gives the impression that there is continuity between these two thought-worlds.

My explanation for the New Testament fervor against "the Jews" is that the writers were profoundly disillusioned with Judaism and its adherents, so much so that they needed to start their own religion. I think that this summed up fairly well in Luke's account of Jesus' entry into Jerusalem


And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept over it, Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now they are hid from thine eyes. For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every side, And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation.
(King James Bible, Luke 19 41-44)


The problem with 'the Jews' isn't that there is something inherently wrong with them, but that the majority of them didn't recognize the "time of thy visitation." Luke 20: 9-19 hits the same theme pretty well. Since you probably don't feel like reaching for your Bible write now, this is a parable in which 'the master' entrusts a vineyard to some tenants. The master sent messengers to collect the master's share of the harvest. The tenants beat them and sent them away. After hearing this the master sends his son who the tenants kill. Because of this the master decides to take the vineyard away from them and decides to give it to others. Once again, there is a lot of feeling here against Jews but it's only against their individual failures as servants of God.

It's pretty ridiculous to claim that the New Testament writers were bigoted against Israel as a whole. At the time of their writing the Church was still more or less dominated by Jews, not to mention that Jesus, Peter, Paul, Mary, Mary Magdalene, etc. were all Jews themselves. The vitriol was aimed at people who rejected Jesus, a group that was predominantly Jewish. Also, wheras in the past the prophets were mostly rejected by Jews and universally rejected by gentiles, in the case of Jesus many gentiles were heeding the Gospel. This creates an interesting situation. In the Old Testament it was the peopel of God (the Jews) against the world, but now with the New Testament it was the people of God (both Gentiles and Jews) against mostly Jews. At this time the Romans were pretty much ignoring the Church. Almost all persecution at the time was coming from Jews, an unprecedented occurence in the history of Judeo-Christianity. It's only natural that the New Testament writers would use this in some dramatic way.

So, that ended up being quite long. Have at it.
 

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse
I think the term Anti-Judaic (which I think was the term used originally, if the root of this thread is the one I think it is) refers more to being against the religion than against the people themselves. That being the case, you'd be quite correct in thinking that it was religiously based rather than focused on people of particular nationality.
 

Ronald

Well-Known Member
The writers of the NEW TESTAMENT, were all Jews, the translators who monkeyed with scripture were anti-semites and it shows.

The whole bible is Hebrew! the New Testament does not in any way create a new religion, second and third century Christians do! It is called "Replacement Theology." Phoney as a three dollar bill.

God has never changed! The Hebrews are still his chosen people. God's religion was just opened up to the Gentile convert from Paganism!
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Ronald said:
God has never changed!
But we have. We have matured as a society and God treats us differently than he did back in the days of Moses. Just like I can treat my son and daughter differently as they mature.

He reduced the ten commandments down to two, and instead of us offering a yearly sacrifice, he merely asks us to be living sacrifices instead. As I have said before, the biggest problem with living sacrifices is that they keep crawling off of the alter. :D

Disagreeing with the Jews over the form of their religion does not make one an anti-semite. Wishing them ANY harm (economic, cultural, physical or otherwise) DOES make you an anti-semite. It seems that people are rather quick to play that trump card, especially on those we don't even know. Hate unfortunately is a two way street and seems to feed on itself.
 

Montalban

Member
lady_lazarus said:
I think the term Anti-Judaic (which I think was the term used originally, if the root of this thread is the one I think it is) refers more to being against the religion than against the people themselves. That being the case, you'd be quite correct in thinking that it was religiously based rather than focused on people of particular nationality.

I think that, speaking of the peoples of the time, there was little to separete these two concepts.
 

Montalban

Member
Ronald said:
The writers of the NEW TESTAMENT, were all Jews, the translators who monkeyed with scripture were anti-semites and it shows.

The whole bible is Hebrew! the New Testament does not in any way create a new religion, second and third century Christians do! It is called "Replacement Theology." Phoney as a three dollar bill.

God has never changed! The Hebrews are still his chosen people. God's religion was just opened up to the Gentile convert from Paganism!

I thought they wrote some in Greek?
 

Quoth The Raven

Half Arsed Muse
NetDoc said:
As I have said before, the biggest problem with living sacrifices is that they keep crawling off of the alter. :D
Ah, Netdoc, you need to use pushpins:D .That keeps the little buggers in place.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
NetDoc said:
Disagreeing with the Jews over the form of their religion does not make one an anti-semite.
Your clever distinction allows the following ...
  • For it is unbecoming beyond measure that on this holiest of festivals, we should follow the custom of the Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious people. - Council of Nicea
  • The Jews are the odious assassins of Christ and for killing God there is no expiation possible, no indulgence or pardon. Christians may never cease vengeance and the Jews must live in servitude forever, God always hated the Jews, so it is incumbent upon all Christian's to hate the Jews. - St John Chrysostom
  • The true image of the Hebrew is Judas Iscariot who sells the Lord for silver. The Jews can never understand the scriptures, and forever bear the guilt of the death of Jesus. - St Augustine
I take you to be an honest man, Net Doc, so let me ask you a question: Have you ever read any book on the history of antisemitism?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Lloyd said:
At this time the Romans were pretty much ignoring the Church. Almost all persecution at the time was coming from Jews, an unprecedented occurence in the history of Judeo-Christianity.
From what silly excuse for a history book did you acquire such nonsense?
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Your clever distinction allows the following ...
Gee Deut...

I don't find THOSE quotes in the Bible. They are "odious" in and of themselves, which is why I steer clear of extra-Biblical teachings such as the Nicene Creed. If the Bible were written like that, I would be rethinking my allegiance post haste.



To expand my "clever distinction", let me add hate, bigotry and intolerance. These are devoid of love and have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.
 

Lloyd

Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
From what silly excuse for a history book did you acquire such nonsense?
History of the World Christian Movement Vol. 1

I took an upper level college course in Church History back in the Fall. And yes, early on the Romans didn't really care. At the time they were just yet another religious sect among hundreds in the Roman Empire. By the time of Nero though, things started to pick up pace.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
NetDoc said:
Gee Deut...
Gee Doc ...
Was their some reason you avoided my question.


NetDoc said:
To expand my "clever distinction", let me add hate, bigotry and intolerance. These are devoid of love and have nothing to do with Biblical Christianity.
Perhaps you should tell that to the Midianites.

NetDoc said:
If the Bible were written like that, I would be rethinking my allegiance post haste.
Your Bible persistently paints the Jewish leadership in the most disdainful tones, while reframing Pilate as a relatively pleasant fellow, yet ...
Concerning Jesus' executioner, Pontius Pilate, we have a considerable body of data that contradicts the largely sympathetic portrayal of him in the New Testament. Even among the long line of cruel procurators who ruled Judea, Pilate stood out as a notoriously vicious man. He eventually was replaced after murdering a group of Samaritans: The Romans realized that keeping him in power would only provoke continual rebellions. The gentle, kindhearted Pilate of the New Testament—who in his "heart of hearts" really did not want to harm Jesus is fictional.

- see www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org
That you don't find this odious is instructive.

Nor is the anti-Judaic thrust always so obvious. So, for example ...
To grasp the true nature of Matthew's story of Jesus's birth, you have to take a fresh look at the gospel passage and put out of your mind all the Christmas cards and carols loosely based on the text. You have to forget about the birth story in Luke. Look closely, and you will find no manger, no stable, no camels, no kings, and no specific number of visitors from the East. What do you have left? What you have is a silly story about a star that even a first-grade child who listens carefully can see is utter nonsense.

< --- snip --- >

Although the word "Gentile" does not appear in the story, the good people are described as coming "from the East." They are not from Judea, they have no knowledge of Hebrew scriptures, and they do not worship at the temple in Jerusalem. They are definitely not Jews, and they are just as definitely the good guys of the story. These foreigners are called "magi", translated as "wise men" or "astrologers". Exactly what Matthew had in mind in using the term is a matter for speculation, as is the number of them who made the journey. Matthew leaves no room for doubt, however, about the qualities with which he has invested these characters in his story.

< --- snip --->

In writing his story about the birth of Jesus, Matthew created characters with the qualities he saw in himself and in his fellow Gentile followers of Jesus. They were perceptive, courageous, and generous. They understood themselves to be the people God had chosen to replace the Jews who had refused to accept Jesus as the son of God and as their king. The behavior of the Gentiles in the story stands in marked contrast to the actions of the Jews, represented by Herod and "all Jerusalem."

- see The Story of the Magi: Biblical Origins of Anti-Semitism

Have you never asked yourself why the Jerusalem sect found no future in nascent Christianity?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Lloyd said:
History of the World Christian Movement Vol. 1

I took an upper level college course in Church History back in the Fall.
Thanks. You wrote: Almost all persecution at the time was coming from Jews, an unprecedented occurence in the history of Judeo-Christianity. Perhaps you could quote the book, being particularly careful to include their extra-Biblical references. Also, I would be interested in whatever secular history text you could quote on the subject.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
Have you ever read any book on the history of antisemitism?
Yes, but it was back in the mid to late seventies. I have concentrated spreading the Gospel of Love and acceptance rather than studying hate and bigotry.

So, I wonder if you feel there was no hypocrisy among the Pharisees or the Saducees at the time that would warrant such scathing remarks from Jesus. IF HE WAS who he said he was then his presence certainly threatened their hold on religious power.

I feel that the Pharisees and Saducees of the New Testament were mirror images of the Religious Right of today. I abhor that spiritual tyranny no matter if they wear a cross or a star of David. You should too. It doesn't matter if the mask worn is Christianity, Judaism, Nazi, or whatever: there is no need for hatred or bigotry of any sort.

I see the sham of trying to discredit the Bible as antisemitic as essentially anti-Christian. If you have to rely on convoluted controversies and wacko conspiracies to try and discredit Christianity, then one might use a tad bit of introspection to determine why.

Acts 5:34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God." NIV
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
NetDoc said:
So, I wonder if you feel there was no hypocrisy among the Pharisees or the Saducees at the time that would warrant such scathing remarks from Jesus.
I have no reason to believe that some 'Jesus' ever said such stuff ... and neither do you.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
I find that the NT speaks both ill and well of the religious leaders of it's day. That it weighs in mostly on the negative side has nothing to do with with anti-semitism, for the authors were indeed semitic. They weren't anti-Jewish, for they saw Jesus as the messiah... the chosen one of Israel.

I would like to know if you have any literature (other than Jewish) that supports your contention? Obviously, any Jewish literature could be biased AGAINST Christianity.
 

Lloyd

Member
Deut. 32.8 said:
Thanks. You wrote: Almost all persecution at the time was coming from Jews, an unprecedented occurence in the history of Judeo-Christianity. Perhaps you could quote the book, being particularly careful to include their extra-Biblical references. Also, I would be interested in whatever secular history text you could quote on the subject.

It's a big friggin' book that isn't organized totally sequentially. I don't really have the time to go flipping through it. What can you offer against it?
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
NetDoc said:
I would like to know if you have any literature (other than Jewish) that supports your contention?
We wouldn't want to reely on Jewish literature would we? Well, actually, the first book that I read on the subject was Who Killed Jesus? : Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of the Death of Jesus by John Dominic Crossan.

There is also Wrestling with Johannine Anti-Judaism: A Hermeneutical Framework for the Analysis of the Current Debate though, to be honest, I have not vetted the authors as non-Jews, though they do state:
On the basis of these theoretical considerations, we now return to the issue of anti-Judaism in the gospel of John. Admitting anti-Jewish elements in the Fourth Gospel (or any Scripture text) and evaluating them as unacceptable from a Christian perspective do not make impossible our faith conviction of the revelatory character of the scripture texts in question. [ibid]
All and all, it seems unlikely language for a Jew.

If you have history texts that you feel are sufficiently accurate, written by authors you feel are sufficiently gentile, I'll be more than willing to consider them.

In th emeantime, perhaps you could explain why you presume me to be Jewish ... ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top