Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This Article is Terrible

This article is biased, ridiculous and unencyclopedic. The New Testament was authored by Jews (with the possible exception of "Luke," who MAY have been a Jew, it just wasn't explicitly stated). Jesus (a full-blooded, Torah-observant, Jewish Rabbi) was the most pro-Jewish figure in history, and preached nearly exclusively to the Jews.

This article needs to be renamed and rewritten. It's really a joke. Let's start an article called "21st Century America Hates the Black Man" because Kanye West says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.37.124 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this bit in the text:

Specifically, some of the books were written by Gentiles, or for a Gentile audience, some time after the events they describe.

Which books is this referring to? I don't think the synoptic gospels qualify. If you believe Acts was written by Paul, who is at least nominally a Jew, that doesn't qualify. Clarification? Graft

Acts is traditionally ascribed to Luke the Evangelist. I'm not sure which book or books that line might be referring to. Paul was certainly a Jew, a Pharisee who studied under Gamaliel. Incidentally, if the only requirement to be a Jew is that one be born of a Jewish mother, wouldn't Paul or any Jew who adopted the Christian religion still be considered a Jew? Would it make any difference if someone born a Jew decided to become a Buddhist instead? Wesley

Yes, of course. See the entry on Jew for a discussion of this point. If Paul really was born a Jew, then he remained a Jew after he became a Christian. If a Jew today converts to Christianity, technically they still are Jewish. They are not, however, considered a Jew in good-standing in the Jewish community, nor are they considered a part of the Jewish community, nor are they considered to be practicing Judaism. They are viewed as people of Jewish ethnicity who have since chosen to leave the Jewish community and have joined another people. Such people are always welcome back into the Jewish community if they ever decide to re-adopt Judaism as their religion. RK

Saulus a Jew? Not in the eyes of contemporary Jews. Saulus was a Herodian and they were not regarded as Jewish. It is this question of Herodian Jewishness which underlay the conflict leading to the First Jewish Revolt and, in my view, to the invention of Pauline, Gentile, Herodian Christianity. It is time to stop repeating the myths and face up to historicity. (Extramural 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Well, if you want to get technical about it, no modern day Jew is in "good standing", since the Jews today perform none of the ritual sacrifices commanded (not "suggested") in the Torah. Of course, since the Temple no longer exists, it's not like they have any choice about it. Therefore, the "Jewish community" has no trustworthiness when claiming others are not "practicing Judaism" when they themselves do not practice Judaism. In other words, there is a difference between modern Jews and "Biblical" Jews. That's my $0.02 at any rate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Here's a source for the interpretation of Ioudaioi as "Judaeans" rather than "Jews": suite101-dot/article.cfm/8061/66071. As you can see, it is an essay by an Orthodox Christian on the subject of Christian anti-semitism, but is not an official statement of the Orthodox Church or any church official. I first found the view either in this article (just found through a web search) or in one very much like it. It sounds to me like a plausible interpretation of some passages, but probably not all. Hope this helps. Wesley

This still seems to be an iconoclastic claim that only a handful modern day people are suggesting. As far as I have been able to tell, this is not the position of any Christian religious bodies or churches, nor is it a mainstream academic view. It seems to be a modern-day apologetic to ignore the plain meaning of the New Testament. RK

However, Ioudaioi=Judeans is the view of the Jesus Seminar, which is hardly a pro-Christian apologetic organization, and it is growing in popularity in academic circles, especially among Johannine scholars. Since the statement only claims that it is a growing position among Biblical scholars, its inclusion is NPOV. Stephen C. Carlson

What do you mean by "iconoclastic"?? Here's a much more scholarly treatment of anti-semitism in the Gospel of John; read the section with the subheading "the Jews" for different ways John uses the phrase. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/CBA_Seminar/townsend.htm. Briefly, he points out that we might use the phrase "the French" to refer to all the French people ("the French appreciate good wine"), to just the French government ("The French are negotiating with the Russians"), the French judiciary ("The French just tried and convicted another criminal"), or even people outside of France but of French decent ("The French Canadians want to continue using the French language). Thus, "Jews" may have been used in different ways in different contexts, even by the same New Testament author. Wesley

On a somewhat related note, the article now reads that the classical Christian view is that these verses condemn the entire Jewish people as well as the religion of Judaism. Saying that Christianity has condemned the entire people makes it sound like a racial bias. Historically, Christianity has always or almost always welcomed Jewish converts, and the New Testament also speaks favorably of Jews who followed Jesus or became Christians. Wesley

Christianity has taught that the Jewish people are wrong not to accept Jesus as their messiah. This isn't a racial claim in any way. It is a theological claim. The New Testament doesn't say that the Jews are wrong because of their race or genetics; it says that they are wrong because they have the wrong beliefs. RK

Thanks for clearing up the position in the article :) Martin

We are touching on a complicated issue that we have touchec on before. The main problem is that most of the language we have to describe and analyze the past is anacronistic. During the Roman empire, people -- Jews and Christians included -- thought and talked about "relgion" and "race" in very different ways than we do today. I believe that it is anacronistic to claim that early Christians were racists. But I think it is also wrong (misleading, oversimplifying) to claim that because Christians welcome Jewish converts to Christianity, therefore Christians have nothing against "the Jewish People." This is because as soon as a Jew converts to Christianity, s/he ceases to be a Jew. Using today's terms, one could say that Christianity is not genecidal but is ethnocidal, in that it wishes people (pagans and Jews) to cease from those things that define them as a "People." Slrubenstein

Ethnocide? I looked for definitions, and came up with this page, [1], which lists six different sub-meanings. Is that how you're using the word? onelook.com doesn't list it, iritatingly... :-/ Martin

The link looks reasonable. Norman Whitten in his 1976 book Sacha Runa says,

The concept of ethnocide is taken from genocide, and refers to the process of exterminating the total lifeway of a people or nation, but in the ethnocidal process many of the people themselves are allowed to continue living.

I think in fact the international law/UN definition of genocide actually includes what Whitten was talking about as a form of genocide. But international law aside, most people think of genocide as mass murder. And the point is that you can kill a "People" (meaning, some ethnic group with a clear identity) without killing any actual people. SOme people used to call this "acculturation" but most anthropologists, at least, abandoned that term long ago because it described an objective (a-political, value-free) process that implied more what Jews today call "assimilation" (which may even inovlve a degree of choice or volunteerism). So in this sense "acculturation" may be a useful word, but in most anthropology it was used to describe what was happening to recent immigrants and American Indians in the late 19th early 20th century when it was clear that the US government had an explicit policy of whiping out different identities -- so the process cannot be described in apolitical terms. Now, I admit that what is going on with Christianity is a little more complex, since Christians also have adapted some Jewish things (well, like the Bible). But my point is simply this: Christianity believes everyon should convert to Christianity. If that happens, there weill be no more Jews. Slrubenstein

So, what exactly is a Jew again? Our current wikipedia definition says that to be a Jew one must only be born of a Jewish mother; no particular beliefs are required, and some Jews expand the definition to include anyone with at least one Jewish parent. RK confirmed this definition not long ago on this discussion page, confirming that a Jew is still a Jew even after converting to Christianity or Buddhism, although no longer a member of the Jewish community. (If I recall his words correctly.) I've thought for a while that definition was too simplistic; does it need to be revisited in the Jew or Judaism article? Or perhaps some distinction needs to be made between being a Jew and being part of the Jewish community? Can a Jew become an atheist and remain part of the Jewish community? Wesley 20:50 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, a Jew can become an atheist and still be a Jew; a Jew can cease believing in God or can stop obeying Jewish law and still be a Jew. But every major Jewish group that I know of considers conversion to another religion to be, effectively, a renunciation of one's Jewishness. Maybe RK can correct me or add to this... Slrubenstein

What about the Law of Return? Could you use that to determine what is a Jew today? If you want to get technical, the Christians were Jews, they were a sect within Judaism until after the New Testament was written. I cannot recall the general time it became it's own distinct religion, but I know it's related to after the second Destruction. Narnibird 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I was going to try and refute that, but then I remembered that this is wikipedia! :)

Seriously, I think this is a fascinating point of view, and it's entirely proper to have it in the article. Who thinks this? Is it any particular branch? Orthodox Judaism? Reconstructionist Judiasm? Deconstructionist Judaism? The Quakers, the fakirs, or the candlestick makers? Names, please... :) Martin

Okay, I see I have not been clear and either I -- or you -- should rewrite what I recently put in the article. I have never heard any Jew call the Christian attitude "ethnocide." I do know that most Jews I know, once they fully understand the Christian attitude (there is only one truth, everyone should become Christina) are just apalled and do see it as an attack on the Jewish people and on themselves personally. The question is, how to articulate this sense of a "collective" attack? As RK noted it really is not genocide. But can we label it anything? I am proposing labeling it ethnocide; I certainly think it is a comparable to ethnocide. But I am not claiming that many Jews use this term, I am just trying to find a scholarly label to characterize their view... Slrubenstein

Well, if it's a response to christian views of religious pluralism, rather than specifically to the way Jews are portrayed in the New Testament, I'm not sure it should go here. Martin

hmmmm. Well, it isn't a response to christian views of religious pluralism. It is in part a response to the Christian claim that Christianity replaces Judaism (which is made in the NT), and in part a response to Christian prosyletizing activities, which is also in the NT. I do see you point, that this article is about how Jews are portrayed, and you may be right. I'd just ask you to think about this: isn't one of the points that Jews are portrayed as "wrong," meaning, wrong in their rejection of Jesus and wrong in their interpretation of the Bible? Jews interpret this portrayal not just as a rejection of Judaism by Christians (e.g. We Christians do not want to be Jewish, which would be fine), but rather as a rejection of the legitimacy of being Jewish -- no one should be Jewish. I guess this is how I got to ethnocide. The bottom line for me is that even though we all agree that none of these NT claims are "genocidal" they are nevertheless collective threats. What do you think?

---

Oy. Getting too long again. Martin, re your last edit, why is John the Evangelist a Gentile? Graft

Just looked up the "church tradition", and it says Luke was one of the seventy apostles that Christ sent out... which means he was probably a Jew as well. Unless there's other scholarship that says otherwise, of course. Wesley

I thought I'd read that John was considered by some a gentile in the ext. link Wesley gave, but I now can't find it, so I've removed the whole chunk. Martin

---

"these verses are a critique of some Jews, or specific individuals, or some aspects of Judaism at the time of Jesus, but not of all Jews, nor of the Jewish faith in general, nor of any Jews today" (from the article)

"True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today" (nostra aetate)

I'm going to say that these positions are equivalent, because I think they're close enough, and that way it's clearer. Martin

Further, there are around a billion Catholics, and around two billion Christians, which I think makes "which is held by the majority of Christians" inaccurate. So I removed that. The next step is to find the current position of the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Community, which are the next biggest branches. Martin

---

Since this article is now called "Jews in the New Testament", would it be appropriate to include a list of verses that speak favorably of Jews or the Jewish people? There are quite a few of those as well; the article I linked to earlier about the Gospel of John includes a sampling. Wesley

Martin started doing that in the introductory portion. Personally I think the verses critical of Jews are more interesting because of the link to Christian anti-Semitism, and this is what makes them worthy of an encyclopedia article, whereas I don't see a clear purpose in detailing verses that speak favorably of Jews any more than I would see a purpose in detailing verses that mention animals, or consumption of fish, or whatever. Graft

I think the extensive list of verses should be moved to meta, and linked to as just one of a number of external links we provide giving that sort of in-depth interpretation. I don't see a benefit in keeping it as part of the entry itself - nor would I see a benefit in a list of verses that show a positive light. Martin

The reason for showing a list of verses in a positive light would simply be to give the article some balance. if you have an article called "Jews in the New Testament" and every verse mentioned portrays them negatively, someone unfamiliar with the NT could easily come away with the impression that the NT has nothing but bad things to say about Jews. This is far from the case. On the other hand, I have no problem with just moving all the verses to meta. But I'd like to get input from RK and/or Slrubenstein before doing that. Wesley

I think the verses should go out too, however, I am collecting my notes on the subject. In general, the text should not be a catalogue of "nice verses" vs. "not-nice verses." It should reflect the historical context of when and why the verses were written--for example, no discussion of Matthew (a Jew) is complete without understanding why he, unlike Luke or Mark, kept stressing "their synagogues." Similarly, John 8:44 should also be put in context of why this was written and the history of Jewish-christian relations at the time. For a better example of this, seewhat I did with Christianity and anti-Semitism in the Talk pages. Meanwhile, this arguing back and forth over specific verses hardly contributes to an understanding of what was actually going on that caused the verses to be written. It ends up being just polemics. Sorry, I am at work now. Gimme till tonite. Danny

I want to mention why this entry was created in the first place. It was a supplement to the article on Christianity and anti-Semitism; it was made because many people did not believe that such a lengthy list of anti-Jewish polemics actually existed in the New Testament. Many Wikipedia contributors are, at best, vaguely familiar with the New Testament, and they only know what they are told: That it is a book of love, love, love. People either forget, or never learn, other aspects of the New Testament. Outside of Wikipedia (i.e. in the real world) I have mentioned these verses to people, and in return I was called a liar! Many people won't believe that this facet of the New Testament exists, nor do they understand why Jews today are so uncomfortable with the fact that these verses are still read today as the word of God. RK

It's unrealistic to expect or demand Christians ignore or reject the Gospels. I've read many verses that sound Anti-Semitic. However I've also read other verses in other books of the Bible that come out Anti-Semitic. I just opened up the Old Testament and got Ezekiel 6:11-"Thus says the Lord Clap your hands stamp your feet and cry "Alas!" because of all the abominations of the house of Israel, for which they shall fall by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence." In other prophetic books they refer to Jews as usurers, harlots, etc. The point of a prophet in many religious traditions isn't so much to predict the future as to criticize, sometimes harshly. Muhammed was very harsh on the people of Mecca and yet Mecca remains holy to Muslims. Anyway I can understand how they sound hurtful, but they can be put into a context. Otherwise it's like ripping up the Mona Lisa into a thousand fragments and saying "look this fragment is ugly, it disgusts me." You don't take just one fragment or verse, you take the whole thing and an analyses of it. (Granted I know in some Protestant traditions they do just memorize verses and take their literal meaning rather than relying on analyses)That said it is disgraceful how it has been used against Jewish people throughout the centuries. As for Ezekiel it later talks of forgiveness and coming home from exiles. In Romans 11:1-2 "I ask then has God rejected his people? Of course not! I myself an Israelite, descended from Abraham, of the house of Benjamin. No, God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." Lastly there is almost always a tension between a religion and its offshoot. See the history of the Sikhs, or Buddhism in India, or Protestants to Catholics, or Mormons to Protestants.--T. Anthony 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like an excellent reason for a list of verses to be kept, but they could still be kept at meta and fulfill this function. Martin

That sounds reasonable to me. If we do move these to meta, could we include a link to this from somewhere in relevant articles? RK

Better to link to this article, and have an external link to the meta bit on here, I'd have thought? Martin

weasel words

I added the "weasel words" notice to the top of the article in particular because the Jewish views and Biblical scholarship sections are (at the moment) completely unreferenced, and thus run the risk of reflecting only the views of the wikipedians that wrote them. At another section there is a promise made to "see below" for Christian biblical scholars, but I couldn't find any such scholar mentioned or referenced; perhaps I overlooked it, or perhaps it used to exist and was later edited out without the reference to it being edited. Wesley 05:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Jewish Views.

I find this section interesting, as I've always been taught that Christians are also descendents of the Pharisees! lol. I mean this seriously. Historically, this is accurate, as you will see if you read anything about the second Temple Destruction. Nearly all surviving denominations/sects come from the Pharisees, as the Sadducees and Essenes no longer exist. Shoot, Jesus himself was a Pharisee!

At any rate, the New Testament itself is not considered offensive per say, it's what's been done with it and misinterpreted that's offensive. This article is based on theology and opinion. What I find offensive is not the appearance of Jews in the New Testament (there wouldn't be one without Jews, or at least not much of one), it is the lack of information that's being touted at true in this article. Narnibird 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no clear evidence that Jesus was a Pharisee. The sentence "Nearly all surviving denominations/sects come from the Pharisees, as the Sadducees and Essenes no longer exist." is a non-sequitor. Christianity was a sect that coexisted with Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. So obviously, Christianity survived as well as the Pharisees. Most historical scholarship I know of sees the Pharisees and Christians as presenting distinct and competing visions of the future to Jews after the destruction of the Temple. The followers of the Pharisees formed Rabbinic Judaism and the Christian Jews separated from Judaism to form a new religion, reaching out to non-Jews (see Galatians). Finally, many Jews consider many verses in the NT to be offensive if not anti-Semitic. If you are calling for more secondary sources, okay, but this article does provide sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe what I was thinking at the time is that Christians as we know them today are descendents of the Pharisees. I've learned this from several rabbis, particularly Rabbi Schaalman at Chicago Theological Seminary. I mean, it's clear that whatever sect existed back then under the name "Christianity" is nothing like what exists today, just as whatever "Baptist" (followers of John the Baptizer) sect existed back then is nothing like the Baptists we know today. A simple reading of the Christian Bible will tell us that, and even then, those books were written seven or more decades after Jesus died. Also, "many Jews" are not "all Jews," as I myself am a Jew, and I do not consider "many verses" in the NT to be offensive. I consider what has been done with it to be more offensive than what was written. I consider how it's been translated to be more offensive, than what the actual Greek says. It would be very helpful to include the verses in their original Greek, to explain what, exactly, is antisemitic, or even what verses are being translated to support antisemitism, and whether there are alternate ways to translate them. I'd wager that of all of us, many have never read the NT (among them Lubavitchers and other Hasids), and so they have no contextual basis on which to base judgement of any verses that may be singled out, no? Just things to consider, really. And you are right, this article needs more secondary sources. I think that some of the phrasing is vague and assumptive. 65.33.21.135 (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

"At any rate, the New Testament itself is not considered offensive per say, it's what's been done with it and misinterpreted that's offensive." Clearly, there's some disagreement on that part. At least some Jews, myself included, find many of the verses in the NT anti-semitic, designed to incite violence and division between the Christian and Jewish populations. Let's not act shocked that they were successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.211.178 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you think the NT contains many anti-semitic verses, you ought to try reading the OT!! You know...the part where Jews are described as a "harlot", unfaithful, covenant breakers, stiff-necked, etc. So is the OT now to be considered anti-semitic too, designed to incite violence? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

JNT?

What is Jews in the New Testament/JNT? Subpages like this are normally uncommon, and this one is completely orphaned. Was it a sandbox? Can it be deleted? Thanks.--Andrew c 03:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am guessing it was an experiment at rewriting this. I certainly think it should have another title e.g. "the representation of Jews in the NT" or "Depictions of Jews in the NT." Slrubenstein | Talk 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I moved the text to a subpage in the page creator's user space User:Stevertigo/JNT. I have notified the user, and marked the subpage in the mainspace for speedy.--Andrew c 14:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pharisees

Narnibird deleted a statement that most Jews today see themselves as heirs to the Pharisees. This sentence is very much to the point and deleting it is hardly the "minor" edito narnibird said it was, it is deleting important content. Many non-Jews believe that Jesus was critical not of "Judaism" as such but of the Pharisees. The Jewish view of how the NT presents Jews and Judaism is seriously distorted unless it includes an explanation of the identification of Jews today with Pharaseism. Narnibird: do not delete valuable content without discussing it, and do not identify your deletion as minor. Perhaps you are ignorant of the very long discussions that went into writing that section. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

--Wow, I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I was accessing my Wikipedia account at work, and it's very probable that someone accessed it without my knowledge. I just found this through a google search. I do find it humorous how people immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm an ignorant. Regardless of the fact that I didn't make this edit, I'm anything but ignorant. I've got more education and languages under my belt than most people will attain in a lifetime. By the way, I'd hardly call the above discussion "very long." It's clear you haven't been in any philosophical discussions, if you think something contained in one page is "very long." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.21.135 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

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

--Richard 08:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Another Windbagpedia poor quality article. Wikipedia is consigning itself to the dustbin of history

If ever there was an experiment that has failed, this is it. If you are going to spout nonsense, at least stop monopolizing the Internet. --Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Remove

I think as mentioned above, this article is truly very stupid. The New Testament was entirely written by Jews, so you might as well title it "Antisemitism found in Jewish Literature". There may be a few crazy conspiracy theorists out there who would claim otherwise, but the Gospel of Matthew explicitly states Jesus is a direct descendant of Abraham. This article defies common sense, although I don't doubt someone can create a good argument to back up this stupid theory. This article is either Anti-Christian POV, or some Antisemitic "Christian" POV, but either way, this belongs on uncyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.182.237 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Luke was not Jewish. Also, while the earliest versions of the other Gospels may have been written by Jews, they were likely revised by non-Jewish Christians later. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, this article should be renamed to Antisemitism in the NT as seen by those on the political left and/or anti-Christian bigots. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ask a Jew

Since there seems to be a lot of "Well, according to the Jews I know" in this talk page, it might be prudent to actually have some Jewish people get involved with the discussion. So, if you have any questions about the, or a, Jewish standpoint, feel free to ask. I may not be entitled to speak for all Jews, or a section of Jews, or even a minority of Jews, but I'm a lot more entitled than gentiles are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.211.178 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the Old Testament

There is a good deal of antisemitism that may be derived from the Old Testament. For instance, there are various passages in the older wrtitings where God and the Prophets curse the Israelites for their alleged infidelity to his Word. ADM (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Um... so what's your point? It would be a Christian interpretation to suggest that these passages from the Old Testament were intended to indicate an end to the covenant by cursing the Israelites forever. The point being made in this article is that there is specific anti-Judaic polemic (call it anti-Semitism if you will) in the New Testament that is intended to differentiate between the (good) Christians and the (evil) Jews. If you wish to discuss the way that Christians have mined the Old Testament for indications that the covenant would be changed by the ministry of Jesus Christ, I think that discussion belongs in another article. Perhaps in Christianity and antisemitism. --Richard (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that Christians, and the New Testament, can make valid criticisms of early Jewish antagonism against both JC and Christians WITHOUT being antisemitic. Also, although the Abrahamic covenant has (thankfully) no end, the Mosaic covenant does (for Christians, this "end" has already happened; for Jews, it is still in the future). And you don't have to mine the OT for that--here is the reference:

“Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the Lord. (Jeremiah 31:31-32)

A more interesting thing to consider, however, is that most if not all criticisms accusations of "Christian antisemitism" is from people on the political left. Conservative Christians, Jews and rabbis rarely, if ever, make such claims. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Judas Kiss

The Jewish Museum, Berlin has a plaque that reads:

In the New Testament, the apostle Judas is blamed for betraying Jesus (Matthew 26:15,49; Luke 22:3-6, 47-50). Judas receives 30 pieces of silver in exchange for identifying Jesus with a kiss. Based on this story, treachery and betrayal were often attributed to all Jews, past or present. This prejudice helped prepare the ground for modern anti-Semitism in the 19th century. The German expressions "Judas Wage" and "Judas kiss" continue to be used colloquially, even though most people are unaware of their anti-Jewish etymology.

It is worth mentioning this in the article. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how that is relevant, since the NT text is in no way saying that because one Jew betrays another Jew, that that somehow means that treachery and betrayal can somehow be attributed to all Jews. It is not only irrational, it is not supported by the NT text. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Rosemary Ruether

Reworded characterization of RR as "fringe, leftist". This is an accurate representation, based on the Wiki article on her: Rosemary Ruether. She is also a conspiracy theorist regarding 9/11. Nobody can come away from the wiki article about her and claim she is in the "mainstream". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Why the need to characterize? At any rate, characterizations such as this must be sourced, under WP:BLP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? Because WP:BLP violation removed. Read her viewpoints (from the wiki article on her): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Radford_Ruether#Viewpoints. Also, the characterizations have now been sourced. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to learn to keep your own opinions of people out of articles and even discussions. Calling someone a "nut job", even on a talk page, is a violation of WP:BLP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You need to find reliable sources that makes the specific claims you are asserting, and even then the description is inappropriate for this article. If you persist in these WP:BLP violations you will be blocked. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I removed it (actually, you removed it; seems like we are editing this page at the same time). Note however, that my edits of the article itself are NOT personal opinions; they are well sourced. I also added another one, in her own words. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like an edit war has just begun. I'll be restoring my well-sourced edits soon, but I think we are now at the point where we require arbitration/mediation by Wikipedia since you are deleting acceptable sources and then falsely claiming that I didn't source my edits. Are you willing to participate in a mediation Jayjg? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Rosemary Ruether 2

I added two "citation needed" flags in the opening paragraph. Also, I would also like to request the someone cite what the level of acceptance is to such views (both pro and con), per Fringe_theories#Notability_versus_acceptance. That is:

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community.

I am fairly knowledgeable about mainstream New Testament (NT) scholarship, but I've never heard of anyone claiming that the entire NT is antisemtic. Certain passages/verses? Sure. But the entire NT??? It appears to me to be a fringe position. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Translation of Matthew 27:25

In this article, the crowd's response is translated "His blood be on us and on our children". In the original Greek, the verb "be" does not appear. The sentence actually reads "His blood on us and on our children". If I understand the style of New Testament Greek correctly, the deletion of the verb "to be" is a Semiticism. I'm not sure if it's clear which form of the verb "to be" has been deleted. Some translations insert "be", as in your article, but others insert the present tense "is" or the future tense "shall be". I think the ambiguity of this sentence should be pointed out and discussed. Do the various possible translations change the meaning at all?

"authors of the New Testament were predominantly Jewish"

The following material has been inserted in the lede:

The [[Christianity in the 1st century|first Christians]] and authors of the [[New Testament]] were predominantly Jewish. Indeed, most authorities concur that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in Israel.<ref>Anthony J.Saldarini, ppMatthew's Christian-Jewish Community,' University of Chicago Press< 1994 p.18.</ref>

Does the source given in the citation actually mention anything about antisemitism? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Why would it need to? — goethean ॐ 16:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Because linking it with antisemitism is otherwise original research. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I linked to WP:NOR in my comment above. As it stands, it appears to be a counter-argument invented by a Wikipedia editor; we need to rely on the arguments made by reliable sources, rather than those we can think up on our own. This article is about Antisemitism in the New Testament, not the ethnic origins of the New Testament authors, so sources will need to explicitly discuss Antisemitism. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Well here we go again, wikilawyering to a purpose, i.e. to keep the prejudices of the page intact. The simply answer is yes.n.16 p.228. I suppose we shall on this principle go and remove note 2 and 13 to cite just a few, from the Holocaust page, because the Oxford dictionary is not concerned directly with the Holocaust, and the gloss on the Greek origin of the word is not sourced to a book directly dealing with the Holocaust.

Just for your information Gordon, 'the term Christian is extremely rare in the New Testament, it occurs only three times, and never, for example, in Matthew. And it is never used by the evangelists. The term in the NT is exclusively used by outsiders of believers in Christ, a large number of whom were Jewish. If you want a decent page, write a decent lead which clarifies the fact that a large part of the academic community regards much of the evidence in these texts as a witness to sectarian polemics within Judaism before and after 70 A.D. I've got no horse in the race since I'm not religious. But the page is a shocking piece of contrived smearing written by a retroactive reading, in the light of the Holocaust, of the period, and should actually be deleted. The word 'Jews' in Matthew, to cite just one example (as opposed to John)has been often argued to refer to the urban elite, and is used by a Jew of that priestly caste.

Nishidani (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have provided the quotation which I paraphrased, and which was challenged. I have marked throughout the text a request that the numerous WP:NOR violations, where other wiki articles are paraphrased as sources, and primary sources are adduced which should properly be refracted through secondary sources ('The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose,' as Shakespeare reminds us, and the text is bedevilled by some editor(s) who have just quoted from the OT and NT to construct the argument, when nearly all of these quotations are subject to critical controversy.

If anyone wishes to actually write the page according to authoritative secondary sources, they should begin consider starting by familiarizing themselves with the following

• (1) Douglas R. A. Hare The Theme of Jewish Persecution of Christians in the Gospel According to St Matthew, Cambridge University Press, (1967) 2005
• (2) Marvin R. Wilson Our father Abraham: Jewish roots of the Christian faith, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1989
• (3) Miriam S. Taylor Anti-Judaism and early Christian identity: a critique of the scholarly consensus, BRILL 1995
• (4) Paula Fredriksen, Augustine and the Jews: a Christian defense of Jews and Judaism, Doubleday, 2008
• (5)Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community,'UChicago Press 1994

The literature is vast, and far more complex and nuanced that this pathetic caricature would allow. So go to it.Nishidani (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The quotation nowhere mentions antisemitism, though, which was the policy-based concern raised above. Can you include the part of the quotation that mentions antisemitism? Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The claim that discussion of anti-Semitism in the NT has mostly to do with the Holocaut can be made only by someone who hs so ignorant of the history of Jewish-Christian relations that one can only wonder what they are doing editing (rather than learning from) this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted you because, unlike Jayjg, who has queried this point after 6 months of editing the page in which he found nothing wrong with it, judging by the record, you simply elided it, as if the discussion were irrelevant. That is impolite, rude. Secondly, you have misread. The sources used on the page, the few of them there, are post-Holocaust sources, reading the NT in terms of the Holocaust (what's Goldhagen doing there). There is indeed a long literature on Christian antisemitism and the NT predating that, a literature completely ignored by this page which cites only poor second hand sources, while ignoring major scholarly research over the past 20 years.

There is nothing to learn from the article, except that those who have edited it so far do not know the subject. I still haven't any explanation from you longtermers as to what all of the citations from primary sources are doing in here, the whole page is a WP:NOR violation. But as I said to Jayjg on my page, I'm too busy following the Argentine-Mexico game analysis on TV to reply to any queries you might like to make.

Please don't revert until the discussion is made, and please check the page's history. No one questioned the legitimacy or WP:OR character of the lead ‘Although Christianity was originally a Jewish sect, a number of Christian scholars.’ until I provided a source for it. Instead of accepting the source addition, my right to edit the page, or my knowledge of the subject is questioned. Is this the way you guys do things round here?Nishidani (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I clarified with wording from an RS this sentence in the lead

'The first Christians and authors of the New Testament were predominantly Jewish.'

A variation of this phrase was introduced on June the 2nd last year. It has been there on an off in some form or another for a year therefore. Jayjg edited the textm, as did jpgordon several times since December, and neither has questioned or touched the point made in the lead. Jayjg indeed, when I provided a note in response to the clear request for a source, protested my presence on the page.

• December- Jayjg does not touch this as he edits on the 20th Dec

• JP Gordon does not touch this as he edits the same day.

• 19th December Jayjg edits, and does not question this

• Jayjg edits, and does not question this 17th December

• Gordon edits this and does not question this 13th DecemberNishidani (talk) 21:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

So the question is, why no one here at this moment appears to have found objections to the concept in the old phrasing: 'Although Christianity was originally a Jewish sect,' yet does so all of a sudden when I join the page to source it to the scholarly literature? Why does my close paraphrase of the idea, from a book which then footnotes the anti-semitic issue in the relevant chapter, evoke this hostility?Nishidani (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought the question was "is this particular material in keeping with Wikipedia's policies regarding original research". I'm not sure what my removing an obvious piece of synthesis and an unnecessary (and possibly BLP-violating) characterization has to do with that question. Why are you personalizing this? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have some problem with 'personalizing' things, then take it up with Jayjg, who objected directly on my page to my editing here, despite my background in classical Greek, and familiarity with both Biblical scholarship and the history of anti-Semitism. It's he who personalized the issue.

I was asked if my source referred also to anti-Semitism, and replied by supplying one of several page references. So I fulfilled the initial requirement and you still speak of 'an obvious piece of synthesis'. If it was obvious, then why did you never notice its obviousness and apply policy for six months?

So it is up to you to justify your holding hostage a simple edit which notes a commonplace of biblical scholarship, and which is noted in histories of anti-semitism. See, since I have it at my elbow, Yves Chevalier, L'Antisémitisme Cerf, Paris 1988 p.210 Nishidani (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what all this history of this page, or history of what various editors didn't do on this page has to do with the question at hand. Please provide a relevant source and quote tying this claim directly to the topic of this article, Antisemitism in the New Testament. Not a quote from one page in a book that says nothing about antisemitism, and a mention of a footnote 200 pages later that apparently mentions antisemitism. I don't care which book it's from, just a relevant source and quote. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already satisfied your request, since I have provided a source which deals with Matthew and the construal of his text as antisemitism, Saldarini. The other two sources mention the Christian Jews as part of extended discussion of anti-semitism, or more properly anti-Judaism. Your refusal to accept that a book discussing in a detailed footnote the construal that Matthew is antisemitic fits your personal criteria of appropriateness is your problem, not mine. I didn't make it up (WP:NOR) that is what Saldarini says by way of contextualizing why the language of Matthew, though lending itself to anti-semitic readings, comes from, in his view, a person anchored well within the Jewish community of his day. Nishidani (talk) 12:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to satisfy a request until one actually does so. You have indeed suggested that Saldarini has a relevant footnote in his book on the topic of the article, but have yet to cite it in the article or quote it here, despite at least a half dozen requests that you do so. Instead you've just quoted general material about the origins of Christianity, which have no clear direct relationship with the topic of this article, Antisemitism in the New Testament - and whose citations, in fact, do not even mention Antisemitism or the New Testament. Have we finally reached the point where you will quote this footnote, which may actually be relevant? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually you haven't been reading. I quoted Saldarini's passage, to satisfy your request. Saldarini's remark about proto-Christians being Jewish occurs in the same book, close to the discussion of Matthew's 'anti-Judaic' passages. Saldarini notes this fact as a preface to why one has to read these passages in context, as infra-Jewish polemics. You refuse to allow this. Apparently, you want to page just to list how antisemitic the NT is. Go ahead. I doubt no one will read the page, since not even those editing it seem to.Nishidani (talk) 13:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you admitted in a later comment that you never actually did quote it, perhaps you'd like to retract or strike out your comment above. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Biblical Scholarship

I've moved this section to the talk page. For three years it has had no references, let alone actual biblical scholarship.

Biblical scholarship

Most of the verses in question are attributed not to Jesus but to the authors of the New Testament. Jesus' disciples, Paul, and the first Christians were Jews, including most of the authors of the New Testament. By the time the New Testament was finished Christians had already begun to view themselves as a separate religion.

Judaism itself was also undergoing significant change following the destruction of the Second Temple and the end of sacrifices, see also Council of Jamnia. During the time the New Testament was written, a number of Christians shifted their emphasis from seeking Jewish converts to seeking Gentile converts. Many Biblical scholars observe that different books appear to be aimed at different audiences, and suggest that the intended audience may have influenced the writers. For example, see 1 Cor 9:20–23.

Some commentators say that much of the New Testament was written for a non-Jewish audience, some time after the events they describe. Scholars of textual criticism have suggested that some things that were said or done, which may have been clear in meaning to Jewish contemporaries, would not have been quite as clear to the later Gentile authors or readers. Some further suggest that these later Gospels were a selective account that interpreted Jesus' life so that it would be less threatening to the Roman authorities and more friendly to Gentiles.

New Testament authors may have displayed religious or theological prejudice against Jews who remained followers of Judaism rather than become Christians, particularly since Jews claimed to be the heirs to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob's covenant with God; heirs to the covenant of Sinai; and followers of the sacred scriptures — the very sources of Christian legitimacy. Once Christianity established itself as a new religion, Christians were no longer of particular interest to the Jewish leadership. But as long as Jews claimed to be following the same Bible that Christians believed prophesied Jesus's messianic status, they necessarily threatened Christian claims. Moreover, the fact that Jews did not recognize Jesus as the Jewish Messiah (see also Rejection of Jesus) was an implicit threat to the legitimacy of Christianity and something that Christians felt the need to explain with apologetics, as Paul did in Acts 26:2. (See also New Covenant)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbmackay (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re Jayjg's edit summary

Jayjg (talk | contribs) (re-tagging. Don't remove again until non-OR source and relevant quote provided.

Well I've already supplied one. That you regard Saldarini's quote as an OR source is your problem, not mine.

Still, would you prefer this?

‘Christianity had started as a Jewish sect, and even when Christians separated from Judaism and created their own Christian religions, their reliance on Jewish beliefs and practices remained enormous.?

Quite happy to oblige with more. So explain what your problem is, because your interpretation of WP:NOR here seems quite bizarre.Nishidani (talk) 04:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The topic of this article is "Antisemitism in the New Testament". I asked (above) for a quote from the source, to prove that it actually mentioned antisemitism, and therefore was not a synthesis or original research. No qualifying quote was provided. Regarding the source above, how is the material on that page relevant to the topic "Antisemitism in the New Testament"?

Tell me what is wrong with it? It fits the bill.Nishidani (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It mentions neither Antisemitism nor the New Testament. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What does the page (or book) actually say about the topic? The quote itself does not appear to mention either Antisemitism or the New Testament. I'm sure you can find plenty of sources saying Christianity started as a Jewish sect. But the topic of this article is not The origins of Christianity; rather, it is Antisemitism in the New Testament. How is the fact that Christianity started as a Jewish sect relevant to the topic of this article? Please find a reliable source which makes the connection. Not a Wikipedia editor who makes the connection, but a Reliable Source that makes the connection. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could no oblige me by stopping the repeated nudges and hints that I am engaged in making connections as an editor which are not in texts. You haven't proved it, never have, and the insinuation only reads to me as if you dislike my coming to any page with a background knowledge of the banal details of the subject matter, and take my references to the obvious common knowledge as violations of WP:NOR. Those who actually know the subject should see quite clearly that I am reflecting what sources say, and can demonstrate this on request. So either prove your fixation or keep your peace. It's an insinuation that has no substance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nishidani (talk • contribs)

Could you provide me with a source that actually directly connects the statements you've inserted with the topic of the article? Wikipedia readers are unable to "see quite clearly that [you are] reflecting what sources say", and so far you have been entirely unable to "demonstrate this on request". So either prove the connection, or remove the original research. Your insertion is an insinuation that has no verifiable source. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

'statements you've inserted': You appeared to be confused. I added one statement, line cited to Saldarini, which says something similar, but which is precisely sourced, unlike the earlier remark. The earlier line to me looked questionable, which is why I support your query on it. Who do you refer to in 'Wikipedia readers? 3 people of tens of thousands of editors? Thirdly, cite the policy specifically. Just making mechanical links suits no purpose other than contriving a potempkin display, impressive to vagrant eyes, but unintelligible in terms of actual editing cruxes.Nishidani (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide the readers with a source that actually directly connects the statement you've inserted with the topic of the article? Quoting WP:NOR, "To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented". Jayjg ^(talk) 06:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg. You are forgetting yourself. I gave a source. You challenged it with the precise words. 'Does the source given in the citation actually mention anything about antisemitism?'

As you require 'This article is about Antisemitism in the New Testament, not the ethnic origins of the New Testament authors, so sources will need to explicitly discuss Antisemitism.'

I supplied you, from Saldarini, the source in question one of his references to anti-Semitism.here. I.e. note 16 p.228 of the same book. Saldarini discusses antisemitism explicitly on that page. So your requirement was answered.

No, apparently not. You still keep harping. I have cited from a book on the new Testament, that in the chapter dealing with Jewish Christian tensions takes note of anti-Semitism, and you find that this is inadequate still. You want a 'qualifying quote' now? Is this something new, or is it just that you want a quote from Saldarini showing that he mentions in this context 'anti-Semitism' because you don't trust my word? In what way do you wish me to waste more of my time on the obvious?Nishidani (talk) 05:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, as you may have forgotten, I've already explained that a quotation from one page, and a source in a footnote 200 pages later, is not really a "quote" in the sense required by WP:V. "note 16 p.228" is not the source you've inserted into the citation in the lede, so it doesn't appear to be particularly relevant. Please provide a quotation that actually supports the material in question, in relation the topic of the article, Antisemitism in the New Testament. The quotations you have so far provided mention neither Antisemitism nor the New Testament. Is "note 16 p.228" your actual source? Please quote it then; what does it say? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Um Jayjg, perhaps you are not familiar with academic books, but notes are often appended at the end of the books. So you can have a discussion in chapter 1 of a book and then the footnote a few hundred pages afterwards. Nishidani (talk) 05:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Great. Is this footnote relevant to the line you've inserted? How so? Also, what exactly does it say? Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

BY the way, are you saying that no page in wikipedia on any topic should contain a background section? Just curious.Nishidani (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand your question, since

a) we're discussing material you've inserted in the lead, not "a background section", and

b) in any event I've said nothing whatsoever on that topic. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Quibbling. All books on Antisemitism must deal with Christianity's originative text, the New Testament, where hostilities are articulated. Most books of New Testament scholarship deal with these hostilities. A large number of them mention antisemitism.

Yes, you've said nothing about background. But, it's a polite request, does the article need a background section?

And I don't understand why you are struggling to stop this page using information to be found, as I will keep introducing, in a very large number of books specifically on the history of antisemitism and Christianity. Could I remind you again, the NT is the foundational text of Christianity. Nishidani (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Insisting on compliance with WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH is not "quibbling", it's a fundamental requirement of Wikipedia articles. So far you've provided three sources, and three quotations, not one of which mentions either Antisemitism or the New Testament. They're all reasonable sources for an article on The origins of Christianity, but do not appear to have any obvious relationship to this article. Now, do you have any sources that actually directly and explicitly tie the material to the topic of this article? Also, as has been asked several times, is "note 16 p.228" your actual source? Please quote it then; what does it say? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree thoroughly. But nothing I have added to the page violates either principal. Your suggesting that I am doing this is, precisely, quibbling. A very large number of sources can and if necessary will be adduced, dealing directly with Antisemitism and the New Testament, that mention the fact you object to on these grounds. So the only relevant question is, why, as distinct from standard academic treatments of anti-Semitism that mention the NT, do you keep citing WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH to keep the mainstream topos off the page?Nishidani (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

As none of the quotations actually mention either Antisemitism or the New Testament, how do we know they are directly related to the topic of the article? That is "the only relevant question" here. Please answer it. And if "a very large number of sources can and if necessary will be adduced, dealing directly with Antisemitism and the New Testament", then why do you not produce these sources instead? Also, as has been asked several times, is "note 16 p.228" your actual source? Please quote it then; what does it say? Jayjg ^(talk) 06:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, Jayjg. The quotations do not have to mention 'Antisemitism', the book does have to deal with it.

none of the quotations actually mention either Antisemitism or the New Testament.

They don't have to. The quotations are from books that deal in both Antisemitism and pristine Christianity (which is what the NT is).

You are trying to shift the goalposts.

Your original query, to repeat, was:

Does the source given in the citation actually mention anything about antisemitism?

That's all you required. The source, Saldarini, mentions antisemitism, and in the context of discussing specifically the verses in Matthew that are most frequently adduced (as they are on this page) as 'antiSemitic'.

So I answered your original objection. That you now raise a quibble is your problem, not mine.

Note 16 p.228 is an extended note, one of several, explicating the Matthew 27:25 which is most often mentioned as 'anti-Semitic'. I'd have no problem in copying it out. It is lengthy and gives the history of that passage (as I have already noted) in anti-Semitic polemics, none of which date to the period in question. But I won't do so until you assure me I am not wasting my time, since your shifting the goalposts and hairsplitting are doing precisely that. I say this because most of my material faces the question of specific texts in the New Testament, but doesn't necessarily uses the words 'New Testament'. They mention the Synoptic Gospels, or Matthew, or Luke, or Mark or John (i.e. texts in the New Testament. Outsiders might find this difficult to understand, but 'Wikipedia readers' generally don't have trouble in linking the two, as mathematicians don't have problem understanding that a class can have subsets, and reference to a subset assumes knowledge of the class. By the criteria you have set forth, only if the words 'New Testament' are used when talking of anti-Semitism, is this evidence acceptable. Nishidani (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, the criteria here are those required by WP:NOR, which is that all material must be directly related to the subject of the article. The New Testament is not "pristine Christianity", it is a series of books written by many authors between the years 65 and 150CE. Please show how this material you've entered in the lede regarding the origins of Christianity is directly related to the topic of this article, Antisemitism in the New Testament. So far none of the three quotations you've provided in the citations have mentioned either Antisemitism or the New Testament - nor, for that matter, do they mention any of the books found in the New Testament - so there's no indication that they are directly related to the topic of Antisemitism in the New Testament, as required by the No Original Research policy. If a quotation, for example, explicitly discussed Antisemitism in the book of Matthew, that would be good enough, since Matthew is one of the books of the New Testament. But a source that simply notes that Christianity began as a Jewish sect has no obvious direct relationship to Antisemitism in the New Testament. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

You're patently wrong, since it occurs in a chapter dealing with hostilities between Christian Jews and Jews, which he then annotates by discussing the interpretations of Matthew that view his texts as anti-semitic. Do you want an article written, or are we to frig about with this pettifogging for some months?Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

If you actually have any material that discusses "interpretations of Matthew that view his texts as anti-semitic", that would be great. So far, however, you have not provided any, but instead have introduced a context-free statement about the origins of Christianity. It would be helpful if you removed this material that does not appear to have any direct relevance to this article topic, and instead introduced material that directly discusses "interpretations of Matthew that view his texts as anti-semitic". Jayjg ^(talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Saldarini, as quoted on this page discusses 'interpretations of Matthew that view his texts as anti-semitic'. See my transcription of p.228 n.16. Please read replies to your queries, before pretending they have not been answered.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd. And my apologies, a search does not reveal it. Must have been lost when typed out earlier today in another window which I closed.

Later anti-Semitic Christian writings have read the verse as a permanent condemnation of the whole Jewish people. This verse has a long history in anti-Semitic literature and has been used as the primary justification for accusing Jews of the murder of Jesus and of deicide. These charges have been a stimulus for many persecutions. K.H.Renstorf, "Das Neue Testament und die nachapostolische Zeiut," in I.Rengstorf and K.von Kortzfleischm, eds.Kirche und Synagogue. Handbuch zur Geschichte von Christen und Juden,Stuttgart, Klett, 1968, 33-34, notesd that only in the fifth century did this verse receive an anti-Semitic interpretation in conjunction with social hatred of Jews.'etc. Saldarini, p.228 n-16 relates to the long discussion on chapter 2 on Matthew's people, Jews and emnity.

Apologies for the oversight. That should give you all enough clues as to how to work this page properly.Nishidani (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a fine quote; however, it nowhere supports the actual text you inserted, which was "Indeed, most authorities concur that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in Israel." That's a problem. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg. There is no WP:NOR in my edits. Repetition is not an argument. The fact that you effectively say the NT is a series of books written after 65, when a large part of the NT was written before that date, gives me no confidence that you have the foggiest notion of what you are talking about. Paul the Jew's conversion is traditionally dated to 36 A.D. Conventionally most of his epistles, which form a large part of the NT date to the 50s.Nishidani (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, while Paul's epistles were indeed written earlier, we're mostly talking about the gospels and other books of the New Testament here, which are generally dated from 65CE onwards. More importantly, though, if you want to avoid further WP:NOR, then all you must do is provide material that is directly related to the topic at hand, Antisemitism in the New Testament. It would be great if you could start doing that. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 12:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be much obliged if you refrain from using the 'royal plural' and the present tense to describe what you would like to be discussed in the future, as opposed to what we have been discussing, which is the New Testament you insisted I find sources about several times. Then you dated the NT to pst-65. You did not mention the Gospels, which make up about 415 pages of the standard Greek recension. By my count Paul's epistles, recounting the way he turned Judaism into a pro-Roman faith for gentiles from 36 AD onwards, run to 250 pages, (370 odd if you include the Acts of the Apostles, which is basically Pauline propaganda), ie., a third of the NT Greek text (ed.Bruce Metzger, Allen Wikgren et al, United Bible Societies, 1968) is 'Pauline', almost as long as the Synoptic Gospels, and predating them by around 2 decades, certainly before 65 AD. The rest, and it is an important point, does not consist of 'books'. If you open any edition of the NT you will see that while 'Acts' is a book (spliced from two), the rest are short epistles, none of which, or together, constitute a book. Just to ensure we know what we are talking about.Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that are directly related to the topic of this article, Antisemitism in the New Testament? If so, we would all very much like to see them. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is all distraction from the key point.

NB’The term “anti-Semitism,” used in influential earlier studies, has now been replaced in the scholarly literature by the more nuanced term “anti-Judaism” in order to distinguish ancient historic phenomena from the recent horrors of the Holocaust.' Peter Richardson, ‘The Beginnings of Christian Anti-Judaism, 70-C.235,' in William David Davies, Steven T. Katz, Louis Finkelstein (eds) The Cambridge History of Judaism, vol.4:The late Roman-Rabbinic period, 2005 Cambridge UP ch.10 pp.244-258, p.244.

I.e. the title itself is in desuetude in the most up-to-date scholarly literature precisely because it anachronistically conflates 'anti-semitism' with infra-Jewish sectarian and early Christian polemics with the Jews. Nishidani (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. pettifogging has its limits. In the related articles we read.

Christianity and antisemitism

Although the first Christians were Jewish, anti-Judaic attitudes started to develop before the end of the first century (Lead)

Anti-Judaism

Christianity commenced its existence in the 1st century as a sect within Judaism, so-called Jewish Christianity. It was seen as such by the early Christians, as well as Jews in general.

History of antisemitism

Although the majority of the New Testament was written by Jews who became followers of Jesus

These are articles that are far more worked than this slipshod excuse for a text. In all three the point is made which you refuse to accept on an extreme hairsplitting grounds in this fork Antisemitism in the New Testament, which is a subset of those articles. What on earth are you doing then just here? You have edited all three of those articles, and never raised any objection to precisely the same content there. You raised an objection here, and. guarda il caso, this is the only one of the three pages I happened to edit. And have the hide to accuse me of stalking you. Nishidani (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed an argument that passages later taken to be strictly anti-Semitic in the new Testament started as statements in the context of a feud among Jewish thinkers. I would have no objection to including this in the article if it were done carefully and properly. Bt carefully, I mean not just making insinuations in the lead that are neither here nor there, but rather spelling out the argument with some specificity, which leads to "properly" meaning Daniel boyarin argued that the following versus by Paul originally meant x although they came to mean y by the third century, or whatever - you get my point, real specifics. Nishidani, if you really just want to make the article more encyclopedic, I can't imagine you would take issue with this request, in fact, i would think you would embrace it as if it were your own. Jayjg is not hairsplitting, he is making a reasonable request, that you find sources lby reliable historians or NT scholars that explain how a verse that it anti-Semitic meant something else when first written. Is this too much to ask? If you are really right, and you sure seem to be fanatical in your belief you are right, it should not be that hard to find good historians who say just this. I believe this article wouldbe stronger if any such work were cited and explained in this article. I actually think you do the article damge by ignoring this body of scholarship. So what if the author of Mark were Jewish? Do you think Jews are incapable of saying anti-Semitic things? You seem to think that just by saying early Christians were jews you have made some contribution to this article. Guess what. You have not. Guess what. If you want to you have to do a little more research. If you do you may be able to piece together a complicated, interesting, and enlightening argument made by scholars (Jewish as well as Christian). That would actually be an improvement to the article. But untilo you decide to improve the article, your efforts to weaken it will be reverted. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:57, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I mean not just making insinuations in the lead that are neither here nor there, but rather spelling out the argument with some specificity, which leads to "properly" meaning Daniel boyarin argued that the following versus by Paul originally meant x although they came to mean y by the third century, or whatever - you get my point, real specifics

What is 'insinuating' about the historical generalization made in an incomplete lead, anchored to a fine secondary source, that will help readers down page contextualize the numerous remarks and references indicating that the origins of anti-Judaism lie in the infra-sectarian Jewish world from which Christianity grew. This is not about only Judaism, it is about another faith, and a large body of scholarship from one side of the equation, (but not only). So one drops one's partisan guardedness, or interests in pushing a slant, and simply works the page according to sources.

If you reread the above thread closely you will appreciate that your call to spell out the argument with some specificity è la Boyarin is exactly what I am about, since the lines in Matthew,

In the story of the crucifixion, meanwhile, Jews prompt Jesus' execution and say "His blood be on us, and on our children" Matthew 27:25.

are, I noted, only used in an anti-Semitic sense in the 5th century, according to several scholars.

You seem to think that just by saying early Christians were jews you have made some contribution to this article. Guess what. You have not. Guess what. . . . But untilo you decide to improve the article, your efforts to weaken it will be reverted.

Well nice to see you manage to (a) sneer at an attempt to improve a woeful page you edit. (b) assume that I am satisfied with my first edit, when I could have redrafted half the page in half the time required to answer this groupthink syndicate of suspicious pettifoggers that has stopped me at the outset (c) and you finish with a threat to revert whatever I do, unless you personally can detect in me a decision 'to improve the article', which, on looking back, you yourself haven't done. (d) which in turn sounds distinctly like a case of WP:OWN

So cut the bitching and do some research and editing to the body of the work, rather than wasting time on futile trivialities. You note Boyarin. Go ahead and show us what you can do in terms of specific details. We've exhausted the stand-off's range of arguments, and it is pointless to throw weight in here with idle threats.Nishidani (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, we're discussing this article, and all we're looking for is proper sourcing for the argument you are making. You think the fact that Christianity was originally a Jewish sect is somehow relevant to the discussion of Antisemitism in the New Testament? That's fine. All you need to do is actually find reliable sources that make that argument. WP:NOR demands that one prove that the material one inserts is directly related to the topic at hand, so please comply with the simple requirements of the policy. Not all this lengthy obfuscation and pettifogging on the Talk: page, about who did or didn't make which edits to the article in the past, or what various other Wikipedia articles say, or various other material found in various uncited and unquoted footnotes that allegedly actually discuss the topic of this article. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll believe that 'we're discussing' when I see signs that you, jpgordon, and slrubenstein actually are engaged in reading widely in the relevant literature of Ist century Christian New testament antijudaist polemics, providing reliable sources, replacing the primary sources which are all WP:NOR abuses (just up your alley), with secondary sources that comment on those citations, etc. When I see you actually doing something on behalf of the article, rather flushed hectic with efforts to shoo off someone ready to put it on a scholarly footing, then I've take it as a sign that I can, as I cannot now, AGF. By the way, look up pettifogging. It doesn't mean 'discursive rambling'. I means nitpicking with quillets, cavils and the like to wrest an advantage. I don't do that. Nishidani (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for the directly related sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Latest WP:NOR

The lede now has the following text in it:

The discussion is complex due to early Christianity and the New Testament emerging from within a Jewish context.<ref>Anthony J.Saldarini, ''Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community,'' University of Chicago Press< 1994 p.18:'Most agree that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the land of Israel'.</ref><ref>>Gavin I. Langmuir, ''Toward a Definition of Antisemitism,'' University of California Press, 1996, p.7:'Christianity had started as a Jewish sect, and even when Christians separated from Judaism and created their own Christian religions, their reliance on Jewish beliefs and practices remained enormous.'</ref><ref>John G. Gager, ''Origins of anti-semitism: attitudes toward Judaism in pagan and Christian antiquity,'' Oxford University Press US, 1985 pp.113-14: ‘Judaism was the dominant force in the world of early Christianity. While at one level this is simply a truism, its various implications have not always been fully appreciated. The very earliest groups of those who confessed Jesus as the Christ (Messiah) are now generally seen and studied as religious movements within Judaism. They observed the Mosaic commandments; they worshipped in the Jerusalem temple; and they saw in Jesus the long-anticipated prophet, teacher, and messiah, . .as is usual with reformist or revitalizing movements, these early followers of Jesus generated considerable controversy within the various circles or parties of Palestinian Judaism. This was no more true of the Jesus movement than it was of other Jewish sects of the time – the covenanter of Qumran, the Zealots, and the Pharisees, to name but the most prominent . .while we must treat the early Jesus movement in Palestine as intra-Jewish/phenomenon in every respect, we cannot ignore its peculiar character as a minority movement under sharp attack on a variety of social and religious grounds. In time, however, and for a variety of reasons, certain Christian groups began to define themselves in opposition to Judaism, while insisting that they had replaced historical Judaism as the true Israel.

Where on earth do any of these sources even mention the "discussion" regarding Antisemitism in the New Testament, much less assert that the "discussion" is "complex" for whatever reason? To quote WP:SYNTH:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.

This is almost a classic example of that; a series of sources that nowhere mention the topic of Antisemitism in the New Testament, much less its "complexity", being combined to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of them. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I did not combine material from multiple sources. I adduced multiple sources to substantiate what one source said, closely paraphrased, because you queried that source, which handles, I repeat, the question of antisemitism in a New Testament context, and therefore fits the bill for an article on Antisemitism and the New Testament. So stop screwing up the rules. You asked for evidence, which works out to multiple sources saying the same thing, I provided them, and now you say I am making a synthesis, when the intext remark is sourced to only one. Laughable.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Which one of these sources discusses the topic of Antisemitism in the New Testament, or refers to its "complexity"? Please quote them doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:22, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jayjg, the facts which the references discuss, (i.e. early Christianity as a religious movement within Judaism.') demonstrate that the issue is complex. The complexity comes from the fact that we are talking about an emerging historical phenomenon where the lines are blurry between Christianity/the NT and Jews/Judaism. Just read anything scholarly on the subject and you'll see the issue is complex. Those responsible for the sentence obviously felt it unnecessary to spell that out step-by-step, and saw the obvious implications of the data. There is nothing particularly controversial or unwarranted about that.Sbmackay (talk) 12:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sbmackay, it does no good to allude to other sources and citations which are not present here. None of the sources used in this article actually mention the conclusions that have been attributed to them. If a source doesn't "spell [things] out step-by-step", or state the "obvious implications of the data", then Wikipedia editors are not allowed to do so on their behalf. WP:SYNTH could not be more clear:

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research.

Where do any of these sources explicitly state that "The discussion is complex due to early Christianity and the New Testament emerging from within a Jewish context."? Jayjg ^(talk) 13:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you want another quote, that links explicitly, 'early Christianity', the New Testament, emerging from within a Jewish context, as the background of anti-Judaic (antisemitism) sentiments. I withhold most of what I have, because I get the impression that people provoke one just so they can get them to supply, typed out, useful quotes they are too lazy to look up.

'In part, such antipathy for Jews and Judaism as appears in the gospels can be called – in Father Bruce Vawter’s apt phrase – “Jewish anti-Jewishness” rather than anti-Semitism, and interpreted- as Paul Winter suggested- as a “defensive” rather than “aggressive” attitude born of fear of provoking Roman antagonism and suspicion. It also reflects Jewish hostility toward the emerging Christian communities because they denied the law and thus ceased to be “Jewish”. Jewish persecution of Christians – which Paul engaged in and then was a target of- undoubtedly existed. One manifestation of it was the portion added, around 80, to the synagogal liturgy invoking divine wrath on the minim (meaning a miscellany of heretics, informers, apostates, but also Christians).h and hate from antiquity to the present.’ Marvin Perry, Frederick M. Schweitzer Antisemitism: myth and hate from antiquity to the present, Palgrave Macmillan, 2002 pp.26-7

There you have it all, a history of antisemitism, early Christianity, the Gospels, the Christian communities emerging from their Jewish roots, and finding hostility, which they in turn directed against their sectarian brethren, all synthesized by a secondary source (I don't think much of) with an impeccable imprint. Happy? Or disappointed? Whatever, use it for the page, which in my absence, you have a certain obligation now to edit.Nishidani (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Um Jayjg,. Instead of struggling to keep me from editing a poor article. You are waging a herculean battle on one line which reflects a widespread scholarly consensus on the contextualization of anti-Judaic polemics in the NT, could you show some interest in actually contributing to the content of the article? Nishidani (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, I'm just trying to keep people from inserting quite obvious WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH into this article. You can't build a solid house on a rotten foundation. Instead of "waging a herculean battle" to keep this policy-violating "one line" in the article lede, why not provide directly relevant material that actually complies with policy? If the material actually "reflects a widespread scholarly consensus on the contextualization of anti-Judaic polemics in the NT", then you should be able to easily provide sources that actually directly make those points, rather than spending thousands of words here trying to avoid doing so. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:13, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't improve this article for the simple fact that you sit on top of it and force me to waste a day over three words, as is your custom. I came to edit. You're in here just supervising. You admit now the article has a roptten foundation'. But I've checked back, and can discern not one edit where you show any intention of propping up the foundations with a bit of sound stumping.

This whole gambit has been an extended farce of wikilawyering. You repeat accusations. I make extended explanations, adduce sources, and then you in turn, with Slrubenstein, then take me to task for soapboxing, your term for anyone who responds to queries by explaining at length why they edit the way they do, with RS, not just, as we have primary sources and editorializing by cranks, which is smeared all over this page.

You have not made your case, indeed, everything you do seems aimed at one single thing: to repress from an article on Antisemitism in the New Testament any snippet of the huge contemporary scholarly literature that alludes to, mentions, contextualizes this subject within Judeo-Christian polemics. By all means pettifogg and wikilawyer yourself to exhaustion. You are wrong, you are not editing to improve the article, and your edits to this article, judging from the record, are those of someone riding shotgun on a rundown coach, shooting at anyone who gets near, even if they happen to have the mechanical skills and tools to fix that wobbly wheel and the broken axle in the mud. I have one qualification you lack, a thorough grounding in classical Greek and hermeneutics of texts like the New Testament. No, not wanted here. Well stick it. I'll sit back, read several books, and watch the massive improvements to the page that you and a few others seem eager to now address. Nishidani (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Please provide material directly related to the topic of this article, Antisemitism in the New Testament. The three sources you inserted in the lede are not relevant; indeed, as pointed out, they mention neither Antisemitism nor the New Testament. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I've requested comment from neutral outsiders at the WikiProject Religion page. This is the content

(1) Christianity and antisemitism (edited by Jayjg)

Although the first Christians were Jewish, anti-Judaic attitudes started to develop before the end of the first century (Lead)

(2) Anti-Judaism (edited by Jayjg)

Christianity commenced its existence in the 1st century as a sect within Judaism, so-called Jewish Christianity. It was seen as such by the early Christians, as well as Jews in general.

(3) History of antisemitism (edited by Jayjg)

Although the majority of the New Testament was written by Jews who became followers of Jesus

(4) Antisemitism in early Christianity (not edited by Jayjg)

Debates between the Early Christians - who at first understood themselves as a movement within Judaism, not as a separate religion - and other Jews,

(5) Antisemitism in the New Testament (edited by Jayjg)

Most authorities concur that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in Israel.(reference-Anthony J.Saldarini, Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community, University of Chicago Press, 1994 p.18:'Most agree that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in the land of Israel'.)

Of the 4 pages he edits, Jayjg had opposed inclusion of this platitude only on this page, when I registered the fact. I noted this incongruency in behaviour above, but Jayjg has not replied to this specific point.Nishidani (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

"Of the 4 pages he edits"? Despite the rather odd focus on what I personally apparently haven't done in other articles (one of which I've edited only once since July 2007, one of which I haven't edited since January 2007, a third which I haven't edited since August 2005, and a fourth which I've never edited at all), this is (or should be) an issue of Original Research in this article, and one that has also been pointed out by other editors on this Talk page. Nishidani, I haven't bothered mentioning this recently, because I was rather tired of reminding you of it, but from now on comment on content, not on the contributor. This Talk: page is for discussing the content of this article only. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Since you appear not to know the topic, what you do not know you brand as original research, and wave a WP:NOR flag my way. It's that simple. Read the sources, and get back to the page. You are blocking content, which I have extensively discussed, and you do not, that is why I am constrained at times to ask why you object to this edit, made by myself. And as to commenting on editors, you did that in making accusations about my motivations in editing this page, speaking of harassment, from day one. Nishidani (talk) 12:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not on the contributor. This Talk: page is for discussing the content of this article only. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sources from the NOR page, provided by Nableezy

Three sources on that page may be germane to the article (I think this however needs to be merged with one of the many articles on Early Christianity and Judaism). I've copied them editorum in usum (A. E. Housman) here, from Nableezy's contribution to the WP:NOR page discussion.

• Limor, Ora; Stroumsa, Guy (1996), Contra Iudaeos: ancient and medieval polemics between Christians and Jews, Mohr Siebeck, pp. 4–5, ISBN 9783161464829

  Understandably, many scholars have often sought to avoid speaking of Christian antisemitism while dealing with early Christian literature such as the Patristic texts and, a fortiori, the New Testament. It obviously makes little sense to speak of Christian antisemitism in the earliest stages of the new religion, since the belief in Jesus Christ was at first held within a Jewish sectarian movement.

• Craig Evans, cited in Ladres, J. Shawn; Berenbaum, Michael (2004), After the passion is gone: American religious consequences, Rowman Altamira, p. 221, ISBN 9780759108158

  It is surprising how many fail to perceive the oddness of the assumption that the New Testament and early Christianity were anti-Semitic. Should it not strike us as hard to explain how a first-century Jewish sect, centered around a revered Jewish teacher thought to be Israel's Messiah, God's Son, and the fulfillment of Israel's scriptures, within one generation of its founding could mutate into an anti-Jewish, perhaps even anti-Semitic, movement? Surely this is improbable. I suspect that scholars have unconsciously and uncritically read the New Testament through the eyes of a patristic church, which, sad to say, did give vent to anti-Semitic expressions.

• Tomasino, Anthony (2003), Judaism before Jesus: the ideas and events that shaped the New Testament world, InterVarsity Press, p. 164, ISBN 9780830827305

  The New Testament also presents its facts from a particular point of view. Modern writers frequently accuse the Gospels of being anti-Semitic, painting a hate-filled distortion of Judaism in the time of Jesus. Someone might get that impression as they read some of the strong rhetoric in the Gospel accounts. But such charges fail to consider the context in which Christianity arose. The New Testament authors were themselves Jewish, and they directed their criticisms not against Judaism in general but against the leaders and the groups with whom they clashed most fiercely.

Once consequence is that Nableezy has found a text by an authority which supports the second part of the statement:

The first Christians and authors of the New Testament were predominantly Jewish.

I.e.

'The New Testament authors were themselves Jewish.'(Anthony Tomasino, Judaism before Jesus: the ideas and events that shaped the New Testament world, Intervarsity Press, 2003 p.164

However here editorial discretion comes in, something I haven't seen discussed on wikipedia. You can google even very good sources and find backing in a formulation for a very good ideas. In controversial topics, particularly, care must be taken, because the sources themselves reflect interests of two distinct groups of believers, or people identifying with one of those two groups.We have a historiographies of interpretation precisely on this point, from Harnack's influential attempt to cut Christianity off from Judaism to assert a liberal Protestant vision compatible wioth modernity as he saw it. Jewish scholars reacting to this, and endeavouring to resist the assimilationist forces that pressured Jews to become 'modern' Christians, likewise stressed the distinctiveness of Judaism. We have these meta-scholarly biases still in place in much secondary literature, though the tide is turning.

Anyone familiar with the nitty gritty of academic debates on the questions here will recognize that this quote from Tomasino, although it hails from an excellent authority, overlooks a good deal of specialist argument holding that, in particular, 'Luke' (actually a handle for the final author of a text he overwrote and adjusted to a Pauline bias with a distinctly different perspective than the first drafter) and John may be Gentiles converted to Judaism. Even Matthew's credentials as Jew have been challenged in the not too distant past. So, if one stumbles across wording one likes, it doesn't necessarily mean one should rush in to justify one's text. One should, with some scruple, weigh it up against the more nuanced debates of the general scholarly literature, and proceed with discretion.

In hindsight therefore, that 'predominantly' takes on a different slant. It does not exclude that some of the 11 authors may have been, as quite a few scholars have argued over the last century, Gentiles converted to Judaic Christianity. Just a note for future editors.Nishidani (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)