Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Persecution of Christians by the Jews

This section strays completely beyond the topic of this article. It does not discuss antisemitism in the NT at all.

Some Christian polemicists have justified and generated hostility to Jews on the basis of an alleged hostility by Judeans (Jews) towards early Christians.

This is not a demonstration of hostility towards the Jews in the New Testament. The whole section is about how the NT data was subsequently used. The section needs to be deleted or moved to another article.Sbmackay (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sbmackay. The norm is not to alter a phrase proposed, and queried, and subject to talk page discussion until some consensus emerges. It has only constrained me to return to a page where, apparently, my right to edit is being challenged. When the wikilawyering temper cools, I may actually return to fix it. The lead should summarize the article, but the article doesn't really exist except on tolerance. I suggest if you wish to work it, to help others supply secondary sources that interpret all of the biblical passages that now are quoted from primary sources, and which, as such, violate WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH, unlike the lead.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I think the lead is fine as is. I take it that wasn't a response to the concerns about this section though? Sbmackay (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I wrote a long lead, summarizing the headpoints,with 8 new sources all from scholarly works on anti-semitism specializing in the early period, which contains more material. It won't go up until I see other editors actually improving the article instead of mugwumping on the sidelines with a megaphone barking policy orders. I don't run to anybody's beck and call, particularly if they themselves do not actually pitch in. Particularly if I see no signs of any actual understanding of the topic.

The accusation I engage in WP:NOR, which is repeated ad nauseam may have tactical value in ensuring either that I desist from editing here, since it is waved robotically at everything I write, while giving administrative overseers the impression that the praetorian is sedulously committed to ensuring the highest standards on wiki, particularly on pages that have yet to be written to minimum standards of accuracy and WP:NPOV. As it stands this page scants scholarship of the first water in order to fudge an extremely simplified, unhistorical picture of originative Christian sin against another people, and not to edit it in order to remove the partisan image is to complacently acquiesce in the conveniently engineered travesty. But since WP:NOR is being erroneously applied, and is like a spanner in the works, keeping the page stillborn, I'll refrain from editing until the abuse stops. But the lead needs expansion, because the three lines, so far, do not connect. However this is a rough draft, without the references, that you might find useful

The presence of antisemitism in the New Testament is a debated topic in biblical scholarship, though there is a growing trend to prefer the term Anti-Judaism to anti-Semitism. Most authorities concur that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in Israel. As it grew into a direct competitor with Judaism, anti-Judaic sentiments strengthened, and 'the Jews' were accused of deicide, which grounded Christian anti-Judaism in theological polemic as opposed to pagan antisemitism. The New Testament, being a patchwork of texts from different milieux, does not allow us however to speak of a unitary attitude at this time. Some speak of 'Jewish anti-Jewishness' for the earliest period. The nuances of controversy betwen Christian and non-Christian Jews were lost once the Gospels were preached in the expanding environment of the conversion of Gentiles, and once the New Testament became canonical, and the Church secured a foothold within the Roman Empire, it was interpreted in ways that was to contribute strongly towards the growth of antisemitism.

Every line here is drawn directly from major authorities on the period, in all of whose works and articles the issue of anti-Semitism is raised and contextualized. The lead, in this rough draft, follows the substance of contemporary academic research.

Jayjg. Since you have chosen to be a myrmidon, and not a worker bee, i.e., you don't fix the text, but ride shotgun on it, I'm sure you will appreciate that I think it futile to actually improve the text under an arrangement which, formally, improvises a 'master-slave' (Hegel) arrangement of the division of labour. The praetorian guard waving the rulebook ritually produces an image that may impress administrators who know nothing of the subject, but it is, I consider, simply a mannerism for the lazy and exudes an air of bureaucratic rigour when all you get, as often in offices under poor middle order management, is an explosion of redtape to impress the upper echelon.

Waving eye-catching WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH flags everywhere looks great, gives pals the impression someone is working overtime, ever on vigilant guard to protect Wikipedia from vagrant assaults on quality by the irresponsible hacks and amateurs that assail it, but you do not, apparently, understand the subject, and therefore cannot identify correctly the distinction between original research and the close paraphrase, source by source, of the state of the art in a discipline. The hostility to using Saldarini for example. What Saldarini says is said by a dozen authors, all in the context of analysing the cultural ambiance in which anti-Judaism and subsequently anti-Semitism arose. In every text I have used, anti-semitism is discussed. What you are endeavouring to do is to diminish, undercut, undermine the use of this meme, which mentions the Jewish context which you appear not to want to be included, by arguing that, in culling in close paraphrase, point by point, what several authorities on the subject of antisemitism/anti-Judaism and the New Testament argue, I am engaging in original research or synthesis.

I've reexamined this everytime you raise the ritual cry. And my conclusion is that you probably are convinced this is what I am doing, and your conviction is founded on the fact that you have no grounding in the scholarship, and therefore anyone who, familiar with that scholarship and its methods, provides a précis of its contents, is synthesizing it as an independent researcher, pushing his own POV. But since you don't know that Paul was active, and wrote a third of the NT before the Gospels, since you think the letters of the gospels are books, since you cannot recognize that Saldarini's point is a meme repeated in most books and articles on the early formation of anti-'Jewish' sentiments (Jewish underclass and provincial hostility to the Jerusalem temple authorities=infra-Jewish sectarian animosity=Roman destruction of the Temple=blaming among the defeated=reciprocal hostility which, with the ascendency of the Church, gradually turned the deicide meme, as it merged with pagan antisemitism, into an instrument of anti-semitism to destroy or contain the emergent rabbinical opposition, by which time with Chrysostom and others, etc.), you think that I am pushing some peculiar personal interpretation on events, when I am simply doing what all committed wikiworkers are supposed to do, lining up the chief points in reliable sources, and presenting the evidence of what scholarship on a topic says.

Until you show some actual knowledge of the subject by actually editing to the topic, and not supervising against editors, proving to your peers, not imaginary subordinates, that you have acquired a reasonably informed, knowledgeable understanding of the topic therefore, any further endeavour on my part to improve the lacunose laughable caricature of an article we have is clearly pointless. The problem here is that you have not taken the trouble to read the scholarship and therefore, not knowing anything about it, tend to misread anything you see done, as original research. So, by all means, show me and other editors that you can actually work the page, and bring it in line with what contemporary scholarship is writing, and you will find collaborative assistance in the task. If you think, on the other hand, that you're more comfortable just sitting on the fence like a mugwump, playing arbiter, not very elegantly, in a game whose rules you have not mastered, by peeping alternatively at a game of tennis and complaining that the play doesn't make sense in the guidebook on bowling you have on hand, then you're welcome to the scenario. But while I enjoy performances of the theatre of the absurd, my talents are not in acting. Cheers (I'm sure you will duly note some infraction in the rules on my part here, but clarity requires frankness) Nishidani (talk) 08:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved this section here because it does not contribute at all to the topic of Antisemitism in the New Testament.Sbmackay (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Persecution of Christians by the Jews

Main article: Persecution of Christians in the New Testament

Some Christian polemicists have justified and generated hostility to Jews on the basis of an alleged hostility by Judeans (Jews) towards early Christians. After Jesus' death, the New Testament portrays Jewish religious authorities in Jerusalem as hostile to Jesus' followers, and as occasionally using force against them . Stephen is executed by stoning (Acts 7:58). Before his conversion, Saul (who later became better known as Paul of Tarsus) puts followers of Jesus in prison; (Acts 8:3 Galatians 1:13–14 1 Timothy 1:13) after his conversion, Saul is whipped at various times by Jewish authorities, (2 Corinthians 11:24) and is accused by Jewish authorities before Roman courts. (e.g., Acts 25:6–7)

However, opposition from Gentiles is also cited repeatedly. (2 Corinthians 11:26 Acts 16:19 19:23ff) More generally, there are widespread references in the New Testament to suffering experienced by Jesus' followers at the hands of others. (Romans 8:35; 1 Corinthians 4:11ff; Galatians 3:4; 2 Thessalonians 1:5; Hebrews 10:32; 1 Peter 4:16; Revelation 20:4)

According to James Everett Seaver,

“ Much of Christian hatred toward the Jews was based on the popular misconception... that the Jews had been the active persecutors of Christians for many centuries. Juster, Parkes, and Williams have ably shown the fallacy of this idea concerning Jewish persecution of Christians during the first three centuries. It remains to discover whether there is any basis for the claim, often voiced in the writings of the church fathers, that the Jews were actively persecuting Christians during the crucial fourth century, thus inviting Christian hatred and retaliation.

The... examination of the sources for fourth century Jewish history will show that the universal, tenacious, and malicious Jewish hatred of Christianity referred to by the church fathers and countless others has no existence in historical fact. The generalizations of patristic writers in support of the accusation have been wrongly interpreted from the fourth century to the present day. That individual Jews hated and reviled the Christians there can be no doubt, but there is no evidence that the Jews as a class hated and persecuted the Christians as a class during the early years of the fourth century.

• Seaver, James Everett (1952). "The Persecution of the Jews in the Roman Empire (300-428)". Humanistic Studies (No. 30). University of Kansas Publications. {{cite journal}}: |number= has extra text (help)

”

Sbmackay (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the issue here?

Nishidani, no one has ever questioned the fact that the first Christians were jews. This is not the "original research" Jayjg is concerned about. Facts have meaning in the context of arguments. The question is, what is the point of adding this information? Jayjg is concerned that you are using this information in combination with other information to forward your own argument. That is the NOR concern.

Slrubenstein. This has all been discussed above. Technically, for the record, I am not happy with the statement that the first Christians were Jews, for it is a question-begging tautology, conflating sectarian belief (of great variety at the time) and ethnicity (itself at the time a concept in flux) if want to know what I really think.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When you keep piling on quotes that say that the first Christians were jews, you are being dishonest in misrepresenting Jayjg's NOR concerns.

Dishonest? I kept piling on quotations because (a) I was asked insistently to show that Saldarini's point is normative for discussions on Jews/the NT and antisemitism (b) as shown, all wiki pages on early Christianity-Judaism make this point. It is challenged, uniquely, here. When I edit to text, I almost invariably edit with sources. Much of wikipedia is editorial judgement made without sources.

Now, I am stretching to assume good faith on your part that your point that the first Christians were jewish is relevant to this topic. What we need to do is explain how. I have added a sentence to the lead, based on the vaious quotes you have provided i think it explains how scholars - not me, you or Jayjg, but real historians - see the relevance of this fact to antisemitism in the NT. Maybe by providing this context we can satisfy Jayjg's NOR concerns, and move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Review my lead suggestion above, and place your comments/criticisms there. It is provisory, but what I had in mind while making the first edit, which being questioned, has held up further editing.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Nishidani, you have made it clear that there are some scholar who believe that the NT is not anti-Semitic because the authors were Jewish. Fine. We can include this view in the article. But we must present it as a view. That means, any time we quote one of these sources that says that the NT was written by Jews, we have to put the statement in context. We have to povide the whole argument. It is not enough just to toss in the statement "The NT was written by jews." We have to put in, "Tomasino believes that the NT cannot be anti-Semitic because it was written by Jews." Why do you take things out of context? Why do you not add the full story in to the article, that it is Tomasino (or whomever else) who is arguing that the NT cannot be anti-Semitic because it was written by Jews? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Cambridge History of Judaism, cited in note 1, tells us what the most recent scholarly trend is. 'Anti-semitism' is normatively defined as what one group external to Jews feels about Jews. It is not used of what Jews think of Jews, that would be 'Jewish self-hatred' (a silly term) Since all sources admit the obvious, as does Jayjg, that Jesus was a Jew, since most authorities say the early traditions of the church come from within the Jewish world, the point scholars wish to pin down is the history of how infra-Jewish sectarian polemic transformed itself into Gentile hatred of Jews. This is in a huge number of history books, I sketch the steps in my provisory intro. The provisory intro is above. Comment there.Nishidani (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to decide what is anti-Semitic or not, so a dictionary definition of anti-Semitism is irrelevant. All that matters is whether there are reliable secondary sources that identify passages of the NT as anti-Semitic. To quote a definition of anti-Semitism from one source, and then to note that Jesus was a Jew, and then to draw any conclusion about anti-Semitism in the NT, violates NOR Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I just have to WP:ABF (assume bad faith) as you ignore the record, and caricature extensive explanations in order to waste my time. End of exchange. Bye.Nishidani (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'd say you are wasting my time when I try to help you understand our NOR policy. Maybe you should just read it, here is the link: WP:NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I've given him that advice that many times, Slrubenstein, but it doesn't seem to work. By the way, you might want to comment here: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#As per administrative advice on my pageJayjg ^(talk) 22:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Christianity's origins as a Jewish sect

Hi all,

Although I haven't edited this page in a while, I have contributed to it in the past and am also a contributor/creator of Origins of Christianity and Persecution of Christians in the New Testament. I was dismayed to read the long dispute between Nishidani on the one side and Jayjg et al on the other side. I have much respect for Jayjg and Slrubenstein but I think they are wrong on the question of whether Christianity's origins as a Jewish sect is relevant to Antisemitism in the New Testament. IMHO, it is clearly relevant though perhaps a bit difficult to cite because it is such a core assumption that not all authors bother to explicitly mention it and link the two together.

In the section above, Nishidani presents three quotes provided by Nableezy. Although these three quotes argue against the existence of antisemitism in the New Testament, they do provide evidence of the relevance of Christianity's origins as a Jewish sect to the topic. The very nut of the issue is that some scholars argue that the anti-Judaic polemic in the New Testament is the result of sectarian conflict between the Christian Jews and the non-Christian Jews. Others such as the three quotes provided by Nableezy tend to brush away the charges of antisemitism in the New Testament.

Now, anybody who knows anything about Christianity's origins knows that Jesus was a Jew and that Christianity originated as a Jewish sect. No one here disputes that fact. The problem is that we cannot assume that the reader of this article knows what we know about Christianity's origins, much less its "birthing pains" as it separated from mainstream Judaism. I think we need to say explicitly in the lead something along the lines of what is currently there, viz. "Consequently, statements made in the context of debates among Jews over the future of Judaism before the break between Christianity and Judaism, took on new importance in the New Testament as part of a conflict between religions after the break between Christianity and Judaism."

I do agree that the above statement cannot remain in the article unless supported by a citation. I am not sure if that specific assertion can be cited but I think we should work on developing an assertion that can be cited.

What follows is OR so I am not proposing that it be inserted verbatim into the article without support but I think if we research the issue we can find support for it.

My feeling is that we should provide some context into the whole question of Christianity and antisemitism and Christian-Jewish reconciliation. A bit of historiography might also help here. After the Holocaust, many Westerners asked how such "civilized Westerners" could perpetrate such atrocities and looked more closely at antisemitism and its justifications. Naturally, one question that arose was the role of Christianity in fostering antisemitism. This led to self-examination among Christian churches and a re-examination of Christian writings all the way back to the Patristic writings and the New Testament itself. Debate arose as to whether those writings were antisemitic or just focusing on "some Jews". Regardless of the resolution of that debate, the fact remains that some Christians have used the anti-Judaic polemic in the New Testament as the justification for antisemitism. Some Christians still do.

--Richard S (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

(1) The text is a fork and should be merged with Antisemitism in early Christianity. Neither article shows sign of consistent editorial control, drafting and completeness. This article deals with large statements from 2 or 3 minor, if RS, sources. (2) The title should be reconsidered if it is not merged. Antisemitism in the New Testament is a misnomer since it passes off a minority hypothesis as a fact. Anti-semitism did, however, indisputably emerge in early Christianity, hence the other page gets beyond hypotheses to mainstream scholarship's consensus. (3)Persecution of Christians in the New Testament is also deeply problematical.

(4) All of these articles are extremely difficult to write because interpretation is influenced by sectarian suspicion and hostilities that still survive, and tends to inflect the way scholarship itself is harvested by all editors. Editors tend to reflect their own biases according to background. The point is made by Saldarini who (p.215 n.4) cites Kraabel's essay on 'Systematic Distortion in Gentile Interpretations of Evidence for Judaism in the Early Christian period' and Lightstone's 'Christian Anti-Judaism in its Judaic Mirror'.

I have provided a provisory lead, which I copy from above. Obviously it needs to be polished, and rounded off with the minority view that some maintain ‘antisemitism’ was there from the beginning. It runs

The presence of antisemitism in the New Testament is a debated topic in biblical scholarship, though there is a growing trend to prefer the term Anti-Judaism to anti-Semitism. Most authorities concur that Christianity began as a Jewish sect in Israel. As it grew into a direct competitor with Judaism, anti-Judaic sentiments strengthened, and 'the Jews' were accused of deicide, which grounded Christian anti-Judaism in theological polemic as opposed to pagan antisemitism. The New Testament, being a patchwork of texts from different milieux, does not allow us however to speak of a unitary attitude at this time. Some speak of 'Jewish anti-Jewishness' for the earliest period. The nuances of controversy between Christian and non-Christian Jews were lost as the Gospels were preached in the expanding environment of the conversion of Gentiles, and once the New Testament became canonical, and the Church secured a foothold within the Roman Empire, it was interpreted in ways that were to contribute strongly towards the growth of (Christian) antisemitism.

(12 sources)

If it is agreed this is in the right direction, I will provide the sources for anyone who expresses a willingness to actually write the article, rather than ride shotgun over it word by word. The aim of editing is to draft, improve and add flesh to the bones of a skeleton, not quibble about the teeth and the intermaxillary bone. One can squabble at a feast, not over crumbs. Nishidani (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me illustrate why all quotations from the NT need to be filtrated through secondary sources

We read

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.

Only in the fifth century did this verse receive an anti-Semitic interpretation in conjunction with social hatred of Jews' (Saldarini, citing Rengstof)

That Christianity had a long and intense history of anti-Semitism is obvious. But we are speaking of 'anti-Semitism' in the New Testament, when what you have in the NT is mostly anti-Judean (priestly class) polemics by dissident or deviant heterodox Jews or sectarian followers, gentiles or otherwise, of the same. The overlap of Christians and Jews topologically in the Ist-2nd century is remarkable, the two imbricate very neatly, with the single exception of those areas where rabbinic authority was strong. The article needs to distinguish quite clearly between the two, and make it clear that the anti-semitic uses of the NT are a historical development. The title itself is silly, since it is an anachronism: it should be New Testament sources of Antisemitism. Nishidani (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we are hitting a semantic issue but one that may help us work through conflict. We do n9t know who the authors of the Gospels were and therefore it is hard to accues any specific individual or anti-Semitism. I think most historians agree thant anti_jewish/anti-Smitic verses were added to the Gospels or emphasized during theperiod of early Christiantiy (first few hundred years) so yes, there may be some explcitly anti-Semitic sentences in a Gospel alongside of non-anti-Semitic material. John is a sepcial case meriting separate discussion. Now comes the question of interpretation. I would aruge that no book exists excpet as interpreted and that Gospels have long been read as anti-Semitic. to me this is what "anti-Semitism in the new Testament" means. Does it mean was it written exclusively and specifically to be antisemitic? Who knows? But who knows what is was written to mean. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Just briefly for it is late here. In saying: 'We do not know who the authors of the Gospels were and therefore it is hard to accues any specific individual or anti-Semitism,' are you referring to their individual identities, or to their ethno-religious background and context? Are you suggesting that we do not know whether or not the NT, with its thorough line by line allusiveness to the Tanakh doesn't come out of the Jewish society of Ist century Palestine? Nishidani (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant exactly what I wrote. You can keep talking to yourself if you want to, or you can respond to what I actually wrote, it is your call. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about ancient documents, hence the Antisemitism 'in' the New Testament not Antisemitism 'and' the New Testament. It is not an article about how those documents were subsequently used. The interpretation of ancient documents involves certain complexities relating to use of vocab, and relationship to social scenario which will easily elude the casual reader. We wouldn't accept a casual reader of Plato to jump on Wikipedia espouse opinions about his writings, and I suggest neither should we on what is often a very technical discussion about the use of key Greek words, and the historical origins of early Christianity.

Can I encourage anyone involved in this article to take the time to read J.G. Dunn's chapter 'The Question of Anti-Semitism in the New Testament Writings of the Period.' in Jews and Christians: the parting of the ways, A.D. 70 to 135. He discusses the approach of various mainstream scholars, and well as offering his own explanation of the biblical data.

Can I also just add as an example, that the statement about John's Gospel is misinformed. John narrates the crucifixion story very similarly to Matthew/Mark/Luke, but uses the terminology 'Ioudaios' to refer to the crowd. It's important also to note that the term 'Ioudaios' wasn't necessarily a blanket statement which referred to all Israelites in the first century, but often could had more specific meanings.Sbmackay (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

No, you are completely wrong on this. It is precisely John, of all four Gospel writers, who uses the word Ιουδαίος in a new acceptation, i.e. with a strong coloration of ethnic enmity. He is the latest of the 4, and this particular turn in his usage marks him off from the other three, and shows that infra-Jewish conflict, sectarian hostilities within Judaism, had by his time or in the area where he lived spilled over into a wider Gentile/Jewish framework. I can supply authorities if you doubt this.Nishidani (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

"The Fourth Evangelist is still operating within a context of intra-Jewish factional dispute, although the boundaries and definitions themselves are part of that dispute. It is clear beyond doubt that once the Fourth Gospel is removed from that context, and the constraints of that context, it was all too easily read as an anti-Jewish polemic and became a tool of anti-semitism. But it is highly questionable whether the Fourth Evangelist himself can fairly be indicted for either anti-Judaism or anti-semitism." - J.G.Dunn Sbmackay (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. This:

"Does it mean was it written exclusively and specifically to be antisemitic? Who knows? But who knows what is was written to mean."

...is simply a method of sidelining discussion.Sbmackay (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

There are numerous sources on John's use of Ioudaios which analyse it as marking a Wende or fatal turn towards what was to become anti-Semitism. I'll cite one because this is no place evidently for a serious discussion of the problems the page scratches at.

'The author of the Fourth Gospel had no such Judaeophile sentiments. The term, Ioudaioi, originally applying perhaps to Judaeans, but by the time of the redaction of the work at the end of the first century incorporating all the evangelist's 'unconverted' fellow countrymen, i.e. the near totality of the Jewish people, acquired ominous overtones. In John's account of the life of Jesus, the Jews are a blood.-thirsty gang who seek to kill Jesus from the outset and do not desist until they have succeeded in their deadly plan' (and in this John differs from Mark, Luke and Matthew) Gèza Vermes, The Religion of Jesus the Jew, SCM Press 1993 p.213

Many sources reflect, not a long term coolly lucid examination of the data, with a cautious weighing up of probabilities, but rather a partisan defence of one's ethnic world's cultural and political interests or a sectarian justification of a sacred text because one's own faith holds it dear. It's a universal problem. All of these pages are sourced to writers who have interests in twisting or weighing the evidence one way or another. Catholics to tone down the anti-Judaism, Protestants idem, modern Ebonites to whinge about the betrayal of Jesus by both Judaism and Christianity, Jewish polemicists for other reasons. So if you are a true believer, the first thing you should do is read more of the literature that attacks, with philological precision, your own natural prejudices. That's why I tend to respect Vermes's view more than others. He was Jewish, had his identity robbed, was hidden and raised as a Catholic, became a priest, and then delved deep into the roots of Christianity, and rediscovered his Judaism, reembracing the faith of his fathers without renouncing the virtues of his acquired religion, as he refurbished an acutely refreshing interpretation of Christianity. But such people are rare, and certainly not present on wikipedia.Nishidani (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That there is some bias present in NT scholarship I can accept. However, that is no reason to write off all Christian scholarship and only allow certain scholars who apparently don't have any cultural or political interests, as if that could be the case. Everyone has interests. Currently though, the article simply does not cover the range of discussion present in the literature. Sbmackay (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it hurt to notice that the word for Jew in Greek means someone from the tribe of Judah? If the New Testament is to be considered "anti-jewish", no one has the gall to call is anti-israelite.--207.191.211.248 (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Antisemitism in the New Testament

The subject of antisemitism is extremely important and should be looked into. The New Testament does not advocate violence in any manner towards anyone, Jewish or non Jewish. The Holocaust was not caused by the New Testament. This historical event was caused by Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime, not the Bible. I do not find any mainstream Christian community that advocates that Hitler or the Nazis were Christians. There is only one instance in the New Testament of a Jewish leader, Sosthenes, being beaten by Greeks in Corinth. The Roman leader Gallio was mad at the Jewish people in the area for what he perceived as settling Jewish disputes. The beating was done by the Greeks on their own initiative. Paul the Apostle, who was there, was not allowed to speak and pushed out of the court room before Sosthenes was beaten. It was done to only one person, not the entire Jewish community, however, that does not justify that Sosthenes should have been beaten. The Bible records this event without any comment, rather, just in a factual manner. {Cmguy777 (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)}

I would go even further. Antisemitism is a modern concept like race and gender. It is an idea that comes from ethnic nationalism that developed out of the Romantics in the 18th century, took form in the 19th, and made it's death throes (at least in the West) in the early 20th century. Therefore, this topic is absolutely ridiculous as this idea didn't even exist; it is pure revisionism. Frankly, it is exactly the type of perversion of antisemitism as a tool to assault other cultural viewpoints that "true" anti-Semites purport to claim people of Jewish descent are typically at fault when interacting with the "Other," at least from the Jewish perspective. What is clear about the New Testament is that by the time of its writing Christians believed themselves to have been persecuted by "mainstream" Jews starting from the origin of their religion and continuing at least to the time of the writing. It is common knowledge that Christianity is a sub-set of Judaism or at least a branch of Judaism much in the same way perhaps that Pentecostals, Morons, and other Christian groups are considered today in their relation with Catholicism- a very extreme and in many ways blasphemous version of it. Consequentially, simply because they are different from on another people come up with ideas to fill the chasm, much like conspiracy theories do. This is what is happening with this issue. Because Christians and Jews are different, religiously, and because there was significant tension from the beginning, ergo, it must be antisemitism...can you here my laughter. Just because people are different doesn't mean that one or the other is at "fault." It is called the beautiful idea of diversity. In fact, if historical evidence is taken into account, it is actually Anti-Christian behavior of Jews that was the initial "criminal" element here (antisemitism is a criminal idea). If the New Testament furthers a bias regarding what is known to have happened between the early Christians and Jews of the time, it was a difference of degree and not kind which antisemitism would be. You would expect this from one side writing about the other. This is normal and understood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.30.226.124 (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

re: "Jewish-Christian conflict in the New Testament"

This section starts by stating:

"Competition for converts and other factors led to an intensification of Jewish-Christian conflict towards the end of the first century"

Normal English usage would suggest this sentence means the competition was a two way street. At no point in their history have Jews ever sought converts. To the contrary, if a Gentile approaches a rabbi requesting conversion, the rabbi is obligated to turn the would be convert away three times, so that no conversion occurs as a result of an emotional upset or reaction.

Hmp49 (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)hmp49

Wrong. If you don't agree with Josephus and Philo and rabbinical texts, then read a survey of them on the well-known fact of conversion to Judaism, in a scholar like Louis Feldman's 'Judaism and Hellenism Reconsidered' (2006) pp.205ff. Jewish soup kitchens, and community care so that no one of their communion suffered starvation, played a key role. The numbers converted after the return from the Babylonian exile were huge.Nishidani (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Articles current state

The articles direction is mostly steered by a tone set by an A. Roy Eckardt. While he may blame the second world war holocaust on Christian writings, that is not a view universally shared. There should be a more inclusive balance in the article for other views. Tagged. Basileias (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Your statement shows a WP:POV problem unless you intended to write something else. You wrote, "The articles direction is mostly steered by a tone set by an A. Roy Eckardt." That shows contempt for a very celebrated scholar. [1]. How many other A. Roy Eckardts are you aware of? Or was that a typo? Dontreader (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, it's almost as if the article is about him, really poor lede. Raquel Baranow (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The article should be improved. Some claims are unsourced. Other views from scholars can be included. However, I think trying to claim that the New Testament is not anti-Semitic is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole. All you have to do is read the New Testament. A. Roy Eckardt was an eminent Christian scholar. If you disagree with him then maybe we could mention a rabbi, such as Eliezer Berkovits, who wrote this statement. The truth cannot be suppressed on Wikipedia. There are many more scholars that could be added to the article who believe the New Testament is anti-Semitic, some of which agree that it caused the Holocaust. Dontreader (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"A. Roy Eckardt" is the article lead. I copied what the opening lead used. Basileias (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The article is crap, takes one scholar as bible, and ignores a huge range of contemporary scholarship. Statements above like:'claim that the New Testament is not anti-Semitic is like trying to force a square peg into a round hole' only signify obtuseness and nescience. The New Testament was predominantly composed by Jews and circulated in Jewish communities. Judaism at that time had no rabbinical codification of the kind that informed Judaism for the following millennia, and Christianity became a sectarian heresy within Judaism, before breaking completely with it. Anti-Semitism as now understood, hatred of Jews by non-Jews, was not, as opposed to ethnocentrism, characteristic of that world, except perhaps for the peculiar circumstances in Egypt. At most one can argue that later anti-Semitism grew out of key elements in some parts of the New Testament where hostility to Judaeans (non diasporic Jews) was strong. The article needs a thorough overhaul, which it will never get because it is so pathetic that its only function is to get at Christianity, which is okay by me, as a pagan, but only if you can get your fucking data straight and consonant with contemporary scholarly opinions.Nishidani (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Jesus was not antisemitic, he was anti-establishment, anti Judaism. I think the lede should have some "antisemitic" quotes or a summary of the quotes. Raquel Baranow (talk) 16:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Almost nothing can be said with iron-cast certainty about historical figures embedded this far back in the past. One speaks of probabilities, that he was a Jew is certain, that he was not opposed to Judaism is also obvious, since Judaism as we know it didn't exist then,- we have a highly diversified range of opinions and sects and the school of Jerusalem, and only after 70 CE did one start to get a drive towards uniformity. No quotes direct from the NT are valid unless titrated through the filters of modern scholarship, which invariably deals with conflicting interpretations of each passage. Not to do this is to engage in WP:OR from primary sources.Nishidani (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, in response to your first comment, if you are a pagan then I really wonder why you get so emotional about this topic, even using profanity. What you said is exactly what I've heard from countless Christians. I've already discussed these matters on the talk page at length long ago, and I won't repeat myself. The reality is that we've got both Jewish and Christian contemporary scholars who claim that the New Testament is anti-Semitic. If it were just the Jews, then things would be very different. There's a list of quotes from Church fathers and other famous Christians, including Martin Luther, on this page. You tell me, did the author of that article misquote those famous Christians, and if not, where did they get their extreme hatred for the Jews from? Dontreader (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

If you take my tone as 'emotional', you never grew up in my sort of neighbourhood. Martin Luther King, like the majority of Christians,was not a scholar of antiquity and the New Testament's cultural environment. Quotes from patristics are notoriously unreliable, being written from 1 to 5 centuries after the NT, and often misreading it, for the attitudes to Jews as a whole in documents written between 60 CE to 180 CE. That's just 2 loose misunderstandings in your latest remark. Anything on this is pure hypothesis, and the article would have to be read as a description of what dozens of scholars who work on this consider, not just one or two names in the field. You will get apologists denying anti-Semitism, and those who attribute it to the NT, and the latter are not in the majority I think. That the NT has an anti-Judaic strain, at times close to Judaeophobia, is obvious. It is also obvious that there is a great conceptual danger in attributing to what were Jewish sectarian writings what we now perceive as anti-Semitism.

'It obviously makes little sense to speak of Christian anti-Semitism in the earliest stages of the new religion, since the belief in Jesus Christ was at first held within a Jewish sectarian movement . .Anti-Judaism is hence perceived as inherent to Christianity, while antisemitism would represent an attitude of a rather different nature, appearing later, and elsewhere.(Ora Limor, Guy Stroumsa, Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics Between Christians and Jews, Mohr Siebeck 1996 p.5

Antisemitism is paranoid devilry conjured out of the air by sociopaths and seeded in cultures, and has its conceptual roots here, undoubtedly. But, suspend one's post-Holocaust understandings, and try to grasp how things were read, in what contexts, 2,000 years ago in a Semito-Hellenic-Roman setting is a very different kettle of fish. The language of polemics and prayer at that time arose from complex sectarian interactions, most of which has been lost to the wastage of time. Those sections of the Gospels some latch on as proof of 'anti-Semitism' were written in all probability contemporaneously with or after the Birkat haMinim, for example, which called for the blotting out of dissidents like the early Christians from the face of the earth, and represented a prayerfully murderous phobia for heretics within and without the fold. Antisemitism exists independently of who Jews are. You don't need to know a Jew to be an anti-Semite. Indeed, not knowing Jews is characteristic of anti-Semitic fantasiers. Anti-Judaism to the contrary, originally, emerged within the bosom of Jewish controversies, in interlocution, and not as some pathological projective fantasy of the kind we associate with modern anti-Semites and anti-Semitism. Nishidani (talk) 19:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Update and sources

Hello all. When I posted "Articles current state," it was to voice my concerns and my reasons for placing the tags into the article I entered. This is a complex subject and it was not to spark a fuss. But I think responses do reflect there are other scholarly views on this topic and they are not reflected. I plan to examine some of the sources for wording that has been entered. I may start removing some material but I am going to do it in small increments. I will post my reason and if someone disagrees my removals will be easy to revert. I will not be doing any broad sweeping changes without a consensus, and if material seems uncomfortable but it properly source then it should without question stay. I hope this makes sense. Basileias (talk) 02:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you should remove content unless you are sure that some claims are not supported by the sources mentioned. For example, there's a list of 10 concerns raised by Rabbi Michael J. Cook. In my opinion those claims are not ideally sourced, but I suppose the source is source 6, since it's a book he wrote. Books are fine as sources on Wikipedia, as you know. There's always the risk that someone might add a claim and use a book as a source, and the claim is not in the book. In fact, I think the claim that Luther began to hate the Jews after a shattering bout of diarrhea after eating with some Jews was created right here on Wikipedia as a hoax using that tactic, and at least one person wrote a book later using that false information. But anyway, I don't think we should assume that book sources are wrong. And these books might be available at a library nearby, just in case you want to be 100% sure about the claims matching what's in the books. So again, I don't think it's a good idea to remove information. I'd rather see "citation needed" tags instead, if necessary. Then I can react to that, and tell you on the talk page to remove the claim if I can't find a way to back it with a reliable source.

I think it's better to add other scholarly points of view for balance, not to remove the existing views except in the cases that I just explained, although I'm not even sure that any material is not sourced.

Also, while you made some valid points, I just don't see how we can escape the fact that guys like John Chrysostom, Martin Luther, and others, got upset with Jews for some reason or another, and then they cited New Testament passages to justify hating the Jews. I think that's not something we can dispute. Stuff like the Jews are "the synagogue of Satan", "children of the devil", "hostile to everyone", "the wrath of God has come upon them to the limit" (for opposing conversion efforts), etc. are just some examples that we can find in the New Testament. You seem to be saying that Luther and the others (countless others, really) were not scholars, that they were uninformed, that they took passages out of context unwittingly, or something along those lines, but that argument backfires, in my opinion. I believe it's saying that God messed up, making His inspired Word unclear enough to cause Christians to hate and kill Jews. I do believe you are claiming that God is not perfect then. He sent His Son, Jesus, to the world, but God was unable to inspire the people who wrote about him in the gospels and in the other NT books, leading to massacres and cruel treatment of His own people due to misunderstandings? It should't take a scholar to understand the "God News". Of course the OT has confusing passages, too, but I don't think His people were killed because of them. God inspired men to write the New Testament so that only scholars would comprehend it? That doesn't seem plausible to me. Are you saying that Luther was incompetent? That people trust(ed) him for the interpretation of Scripture for no good reason? That his followers were all deceived because Luther wasn't a scholar? Lutheranism would therefore be categorically false in that case, since Luther was not a scholar and had no clue what the Scriptures meant. The same would apply to Calvin and countless others. God wrote a New Testament that common people could not understand? Or are you going to conveniently say that it was only the allegedly anti-Semitic parts that they misunderstood? It was a bad thing then for people to read the Bible on their own, as Protestantism encourages?

I think your argument makes matters too complicated. That maniac called John Chrysostom did some good things but he went all over the place giving incendiary sermons against the Jews. That's well documented. You can't say that his writings have been misunderstood because they were written long ago, if that was your claim. That would be a fringe theory. Apologists say that his inflammatory style was something from his time, and that we shouldn't take it at face value, but there's no doubt that he hated the Jews with great intensity, even if his style had some form of exaggeration, and he cited the New Testament to validate his claims, and he built upon that foundation to adorn his comments. I'm not a Jew but his writings make me want to vomit. I think he was worse than Luther. But Luther, too, examined the New Testament and found ammunition against the Jews in it once he failed to convert them. Who can deny it? Yet you want to say that the New Testament is not anti-Semitic because Luther and others were not educated enough to understand the context of incendiary passages that we find in it? I'm just asking you. Look, it's 2016 and I still get called terrible things by some Christians when I debate them online, and they cite NT passages to attack me. They often assume I'm a Jew, and boy do I pay a price for that. I'm talking about the Evangelical Christians, not all Christians (I don't get that hatred from Catholics, for example), but to me it's a truth as big as a cathedral that the NT is anti-Semitic. Some people react badly when they read this article, and I've had to revert many edits, but my advice to them is to do more research. Dontreader (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

'to me it's a truth as big as a cathedral that the NT is anti-Semitic.' Of you have an absolute certainty about the 'real/truthful' solution to an obscure and intricately complex question disputed by scholarship, then you shouldn't be editing this article. 99% of modern Christians have no useful knowledge about these issues, and the Christianities of the modern world have very little in common from the Christianities of the Ist century CE.Nishidani (talk) 07:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I know I wrote a long comment, but you did not address the main points. I'm opposed to deletion of material unless there's proof that it's unsourced. I would rather see material added instead to support other views, for the sake of neutrality. I argued against what you said about Luther and others. I think your solution creates a huge problem because you seem to be implying that only scholars can understand the Word of God. In fact, what you wrote seems to indicate that even the Roman Catholic Church was incompetent when it came to understanding the Word of God. After all, you appear to indicate that Church fathers got it wrong when they cited passages to justify their hatred for the Jews. Only scholars understand the New Testament?

This is the truth: for nearly 2,000 years there have been prominent and common Christians who have used New Testament passages to justify anti-Semitism throughout the centuries, to this day. There's no way around it, except for forcing square pegs into round circles. I'm fine with you finding scholars who do that, and you can put their apologetic views into the article. But I won't deny obvious facts. Will you deny, for example, that the New Testament was to some degree responsible for Christians in Europe burning thousands of Jews alive during the Black Plague? Look, I don't have a POV issue at all with this topic. I can edit the article effectively. The ones who shouldn't come close to it are, for example, editors who think there's no contradiction between the way Judas the traitor died in the gospels, and how he died in Acts. Those are the people that try to force square pegs into round circles. Well, let me clarify: that's just my humble opinion. Dontreader (talk) 07:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

'you seem to be implying that only scholars can understand the Word of God.'

Nope. Scholars try and figure out what, in this case, small Aramaic/Greek speaking Jewish communities were actually saying in rewriting their traditions concerning a figure called Christ. The best scholars readily admit that there is no certainty as to what any one passage in an ancient text would have actually meant to a contemporary listedner of those times: there are only probabilities, weighted for likelihood for how a Jewish sect, speaking a semitic language, and living under a foreign imperial power, would have taken those words. God has nothing to do with it: this is history, not theology. True believers are required, according to the prevailing orthodoxies of their respective churches, to interpret the text line-by-line in given ways that have little to do with how scholarship works or evaluates the same material. A scholar worth his salt must suspend belief, in interpreting Aramaic-based Greek texts: a believer must oonfirm his confessional truths in reading the same matter. You are speaking in terms of a confirmation of a personal certainty, not out of curiosity for the range of interpretations available to make sense of these documents. The Greek NT, to a Greek speaker, is a very strange document, whose queerness you'll never see if you just read a modern translation. As to your historical point, Jews and Christians regularly slaughtered each other for several centuries, both using Biblical precedent, the former the Tanakh, the latter the NT. By your argument, the Old Testament as written by Jews is responsible for the Holocaust, since it gave theological warrant for genocide. So drop it. This article is not about what Christians today think, but about what scholars consider an ancient set of communities probably thought 2,000 years ago.Nishidani (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

For whatever reasons, you seem to believe you know better than the scholars cited in this article, both Christian and Jewish, who claim that the New Testament is anti-Semitic. Perhaps you are an eminent scholar yourself. In any case, please refrain from removing material unless it's clearly unsourced and no sources can be found. Feel free to add sourced scholarly material instead, supporting your views, unless someone else has any objections. Thank you. Dontreader (talk) 08:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

I know that the handful of scholars "cherrypicked" for this article are used to blot out or understate the complexities of the thesis (certain Jews didn't kill a Christian; if they had a hand in the killing of Christ, it would have been perfectly consonant with certain traditions, like the attempt on the life of Moses, or the massacre attriubuted to Eliyah of 450 Israelite prophets of Baal, or Paul's participation in the murder of (St.)Stephen, Whatever enmities arose were inter-Jewish at that time). I don't presume to know better than other scholars: I know that they disagree, and thatJewish scholars can dismiss the equation of the NT and anti-Semitism, just as Christian scholars can assert it. There is no evidence that editors of this page have anything other than a google-clipped knowledge of a few texts that underline the proposition in the title. I regard the article as an editing disaster, and leave it to aficionados of its mess to fix it since they made it.Nishidani (talk) 12:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

One thing has to go out immediately. The phrase ἡ συναγωγή τοῦ Σατανᾶ 'synagogue of Satan' does not refer to Jews, but people pretending to be Jews, as Laqueur, had he been familiar with the topic, should have known.Nishidani (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind a wikipedia editor is supposed to judge a source based on reliability WP:RS, not whether we agree with it, or what we perceive they should have known. To do the latter we are falling into WP:OR. Basileias (talk) 13:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

We don't allow the retention of sources that get the issues wrong, and in any case this was source falsification, aside for the fact that Laqueur is not an optimal source for this. He errs notably on ancient material - he got a quotation from the Qur'an wrong in another context. He's a specialist on modern history, even if he never got a degree in anything.Nishidani (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's not up to you to decide which scholars are competent and which ones are not. I will restore what you removed per WP:STATUSQUO. That material is properly sourced, and I can add another source that basically says the same thing [2]. You really sound desperate by saying that Walter Laqueur made a mistake somewhere and therefore his work cannot be used as a source. You will get nowhere with that attitude, judging the competence of notable writers just because they wrote things you disagree with. You are totally in the Christian apologist camp despite your claim that you're a pagan, which only an idiot would believe at this point. If you want to show neutrality then don't erase sourced claims. Add other points of view instead. How many times do I have to say that??? If you keep on deleting material and making the article what you want it to be, I will come back in a month and revert everything you did if someone else hasn't done it before me. I can always invoke WP:STATUSQUO. In the meantime, I have more important things to do. Dontreader (talk) 18:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Since you evidently know nothing about that period of history, the scholarship on Revelations, you are not in a position to argue. You'd do well to read up on the subject before editing further, esp. since you claim to know the truth. I've read several books by both Walter Laqueur and Sandar Gilman . the later particularly is a brilliant scholar of Jewishness in the 19th-early 20th century, while Walter is RS, even if highly ideological, for the modern period. Neither has competence in this subject. When you deal with ancient history, or specialized elements of history, you must cite what contemporary scholarship thinks about the subject, not some hearsay from people who have no direct mastery of the topics. I don't belong to any 'camp' except as an anonymous scout for bullshit sightings, a version of Train spotting, and I don't care who purveys rubbish, ethnically, religiously, or otherwise. If you want to know about the history of a religion, you do not ask Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists or Jains, you read what scholars, of any background, who have mastered the literature in the original languages say of it in discussion with their peers. I'm wasting my time here, so feel free to screw up the article further with your religious fixations.Nishidani (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Basileias, what Nishidani did was a mess. All sorts of typos, problems with sources (one source is a Biblical passage in Greek, which is useless). Other claims are not supported clearly. I say the initial assertion should stay, and that Nishidani should counter that argument under it, but doing it correctly, without all those typos and sourcing problems. He can say, "However..." and present different views. Something along those lines. Would you agree to that? And what about a warning against his behavior in the edit summary per WP:CIVIL? Dontreader (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Nishidani, Dontreader, I do not know if you want me involved in your engagement, but I suggest moving the material (Revelation) out of the article and onto the talk page, and counter back and forth here. That way its easier for me (us) to decide on sources and wording. This topic is of interest to me but I want to go slow with it for two reasons. One, my time is not in abundance. Two, while there is no wiki policy for being sensitive to a reading audience, I am sure that would help with finding additional material for the article. Basileias (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Typos are fixable. The Greek text is not a source for the article. It is the text of the quote translated in the main text in English and is in a footnote. Since you don't even recognize this simple fact, what are you doing here? You even introduced as a source something written by a biblethumping creationist, John F. MacArthur, with no competence in the matter, too busy scrawling stuff to study the subject.Nishidani (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

You should be able to edit the article without many typos and other writing deficiencies. Use a draft first and check it carefully. We can't have that mess in a Wikipedia article that others will read. And look, inline citations are supposed to back a claim, but you created an inline citation (not a footnote), which literally looks Greek to me. That's a bad mistake. Plus other claims are not clearly sourced. You are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia articles are written. Propose your changes here and then we can decide what to do. And don't attack me in edit summaries. You are unfamiliar with way too many Wikipedia policies. And as I said, until consensus is reached on a contentious matter, WP:STATUSQUO rules. That's why it was created. Otherwise edit wars would break out too often, leading to blocks. Dontreader (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

And why do you have a problem with John F. MacArthur? He's a celebrated Evangelical Christian author. If you think his views don't count then you really have a massive WP:POV problem or a serious lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. Dontreader (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Basileias, as you can see, the Book of Revelation section has been around for a long time. I don't feel comfortable with taking out that content, especially since I wasn't the one who put it in the article (I merely added a couple of sources over the past few hours after noticing that Nishidani was trying to get rid of it). If you feel like it should be removed for improvement, I will let you be in charge of that, and I would be fine with that decision, although other page watchers might jump in, so that's why I'll let you make that edit instead of doing it myself. However, in my opinion there's nothing wrong with keeping that information in the article while more information is added to that section (first on the talk page, and then into the article once we agree that it has been done properly). I strongly believe that what's in that section can simply be followed by "However", or something similar, as I said earlier to you. What I'm radically opposed to is any effort to try to make the claims in that section look "wrong". Nishidani might think those claims are wrong, but that doesn't make them wrong. He has a huge bias problem. He objected to my latest contribution taken from a book written by a very famous Evangelical Christian with advanced theological studies. Nishidani cannot decide to reject viewpoints so arbitrarily. Besides, if you read that page that I used, you'll notice something interesting: MacArthur cites a passage from Romans to make the case that the "synagogue of Satan" does indeed apply to the Jewish people. That's informative. It might be inconvenient for Nishidani's agenda (he claims that the "synagogue of Satan" quote is not about the Jews), but he's got to deal with it. MacArthur made a strong case for that interpretation. So, again, I believe other interpretations can be added after the two sentences we have there, without changing the original sentences. I think "Jews appear to be called a synagogue of Satan." is perfect. It's an allegation only. If the claim was that "Jews are called a synagogue of Satan." then I would see a problem. What we have there makes it easy for anyone to add differing views without trying to destroy the claims made in that section. Those are valid statements supported by logical thinking in the sources. They are not "wrong". If different views are added using reliable sources (first on the talk page), then great. Thanks for your generosity. Dontreader (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It might be a point to ask for a third opinion, or other involvement. I have tagged the article POV now. Basileias (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

• Frankly I have no intention of negotiating with Dontreader here. It's a waste of time. To give just a short handful of a score of reasons:
• The editor above is so incompetent that he cannot fix the numerous problems tagged on the article, nor detect the numerous blatant idiocies on this page for what they are. E.g. he never touches the fact that we have an hilarious confusion between John’s Gospel with Revelations, which is ascribed to John of Patmos, a different author from whoever wrote (several people) The Gospel of John. You see this in the placing of material, poorly sourced, regarding the Gospel of John under Revelations as though the commentary reflected an analysis of the latter.
• I took out Walter Laqueur because he is not an area specialist required for a contested interpretation like this context, and in stating ‘In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 Jews appear to be called a synagogue of Satan.’ Is a complete misconstruction. Jews are not explicitly spoken of there. Both texts speak of people ‘who claim to be Jews though they are not’/’ the slander of those who say they are Jews and are not.’ So Laqueur’s language is particularly misleading. Whether they are Jews or not, and if so, what kind of Jew is not known with any degree of certainty.
• 1 restored it in my second edit, which both retained Donbtreader’s stuff, and elaborated in considerable detail on what competent specialists say. I even retained a source that fails RS since the gent John F. MacArthur , concerned is a fundamentalist pastor in a California Church with no scholarly credentials, who is not cited in the relevant academic secondary literature.
• So when Dontreader reverted this addition twice, once saying that these were radical changes and poorly sourced (!!!) and that I needed a consensus to add material to the page (WP:OWN), he was acting in bad faith, since no one needs a consensus to add new material from optimal scholarly sources to a page, and all of the material he wished to maintain for the status quo had been retained. These were blind reverts.
• John F. MacArthur is a Calvinist fundamentalist, not a scholar. He is a pastor at Grace Community Church (California) and if he thinks the world was created 5,000 years ago on the strength of the Bible, then he is automatically not the kind of source one uses for a modern encycloipedic topic like this.
• citational problems. Macarthur’s page no. is not given, making verification impossible
• Moshe Lazar’s paper ‘The Lamb and the Scapegoat: The Dehumanization of Jews in Medieval Propaganda is ascribed to the editors Sander Gilman and Steven Katz (eds.) Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis New York University Press pp.38-79
• I will restore what he removed in due course, because he gave no serious policy based reason for its removal other than WP:STATUSQUO which is not an excuse to block the development of a notoriously dumb article, but rather a pretext for obstructive and reportably obstructive editing by someone with a sense of proprietorial title to this stuff.Nishidani (talk) 14:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Basileias, please do whatever you think is best. You saw that we had agreed to let Nishidani post contentious material on the talk page, and to polish it before it was added to the article, especially since he wasn't even able to copy-paste a quote without typos, and he made a mess with the references as well. But he preferred instead to have things his own way, completely ignoring the spirit of building consensus. He clearly wants to fight, not to edit constructively. He has a history of edit warring and has been blocked five times. I refuse to waste one more minute on this troublemaker and risk getting blocked. His most recent rant is further proof of massive POV. As I said, please do whatever you believe is best. I'm leaving. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Dontreader, we are probably past a third opinion and outside comment. I have entered a request for dispute resolution. If he has been blocked and disciplined in the past, do stay involved but let us work through the proper process for this. While Bold, revert, discuss is acceptable, this is more edit warring.

• Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Antisemitism_and_the_New_Testament.23Update_and_sources

Basileias (talk)

Quite properly closed. As I noted above, Dontreader stated that he knew the truth regarding this issue. As soon as an editor declares a privileged inside knowledge of the real truth, in the face of the complex nuanced world of scholarship, which admits to the tenuousness of our grasp of a mainly unreported reality it strives to comprehend by inferences from numerous texts, I knew, quite rationally, that to argue with him was pointless. I don't know the truth, and neither do the best sources, and that is how I edit this page: I give the varieties of informed opinion. A second point you ignore is that I have been aware of, and edited this page, since 2010. I added 13,000 kb (22 edits)to the page, many of them reverted by people who just argued without doing anything in terms of bringing relevant sources. Dontreader made 19 edits, mostly reverts, with three or four minor and poorly sourced additions. (b) You think I don't engage in dialogue. 24% of the contributions on this talk page come from me (107 edits), and only 17 from Dontreader, mostly either asserting his right to choose what can be said and want can't be said, and asking an older editor like myself to gain his consent before I add new material. That is farcical and intolerably presumptuous, and my harsh language is to be understood in that light.Nishidani (talk) 22:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

But you are refusing to work with anybody. Basileias (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I see no sign of anyone else showing a willingness to work here. I have here, and on the article, added or will shortly add, a dozen academic sources, and have scores more at hand if asked for, and not a peep from anyone. Just etiquette and remonstrations. I've been reading on the subject for over a half a century, and all I see here is one or two folks who think an obscure handful of minor fundamentalist pastors in evangelical churches in the USA, trace of whose brilliant insights finds no echo in the scholarly literature (google their names in google books), cited as guides to an intricate subject they appear to know nothing of. This ain't a provincial sunday school exercise in bible thumping: it's an exercise in the art of comprehensive encyclopedic review.Nishidani (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Where have I shown a single statement where I am 'not willing to work with anyone here?' and where have I quoted a fundamentalist pastor? Where have I brought in bible thumping? Basileias (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Basileias, thanks for your efforts. I saw your message when that discussion had already been closed, unfortunately. Since then, I decided to read the new version of the article carefully, and I won't complain. I think he worked hard in a sincere manner, and I can't find that he removed material (correct me if I'm wrong, please). That's all I was asking for: to freely add sourced material without deleting material, but he decided to create a toxic environment, which I think is something he needs in his life. Some people nearly die if they are not fighting against others. They are addicted to anger. Nishidani is the type of person that makes many editors retire from Wikipedia. He justifies his profanity and hostility by telling me, "you never grew up in my sort of neighbourhood." Well, if he can't understand civility then he shouldn't be here. I would ask him to explain why the section about First Epistle to the Thessalonians, which was entirely my creation, is a poorly sourced addition, but he is incapable of admitting any wrongdoing.

I stand by my claim that the New Testament has many anti-Semitic passages. It's a historical fact that many Church fathers, Martin Luther, and other prominent Christians, have cited passages from the New Testament to justify anti-Semitic behavior for nearly two millennia. And it's what many scholars claim as well (some of which are cited in this article). To state that the Christian church didn't (and doesn't) understand the book upon which it was founded (the Christian Bible), is intellectually dishonest and ridiculous, in my opinion. It would be like telling Muslim leaders that they don't understand their own holy scriptures, and that instead the truth is known only by modern scholars. However, it's true, for example, that probably the Gospel according to John was written with the term "the Jews" because his audience was most likely unfamiliar with Pharisees and Sudducees, but that issue was already covered in the Later commentary section. I said that I welcomed other points of view to explain perceived anti-Semitism in the NT. However, the bigger picture is clear to me (and to many scholars). Here we have a religion that is based on the principle that a man (who is the Christ and God Himself) died for our sins on a cross. And who demanded his execution? The Jews. Therefore, Christianity is intrinsically anti-Semitic, and the very core principle of Christianity got countless Jews killed and treated in other cruel manners. Jews became known as unrepentant "Christ killers" and "God killers", who would refuse to convert to Christianity, and they suffered terribly for that reason for very many centuries. Anyway, I have taken this page off of my watchlist, and I hope not to encounter Nishidani ever again. Dontreader (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

No issues with your primary points. But some of the information seems to have taken some liberties with the sources. I will point some of that out shortly. Basileias (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

"It's not a fucking nursery for tender kiddies... Nishidani"

Yes, editors are trying to be sensitive with this subject matter, but Wikipedia admins are apparently allowing this kind of uncheck behavior in this article and around this subject matter. "It's not a fucking nursery for tender kiddies... Nishidani"

Final clarification

• The Jewish Book of Joshua is a warrant for what we now call genocide, enlisting Israelites to this end.
• The Christian New Testament has many passages which later generations drew on to justify the hatred of Jews that fed into genocidal anti-semitism.
• At the time Revelations and John's Gospel was written Amoraim like Simeon bar Yochai, a disciple of Akiva, on the Jewish side of the Jewish-Christian divine wrote ’Kill the non-Jew, even the best among them!’(Soferim (Talmud) 15:10). Akiva himself wrote that (Yer. Sanh. 28a)if anyone within the fold so much as dared to read 'foreign' books like Ben Sira, namely Ecclesiasticus which became canonical for Christians, they would thereby lose their right to life in the beyond.
• The Islamic tradition likewise has things like Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them (idolaters) wherever you find them.'

This kind of religious violence is in the three Abrahamic faiths, giving divine warrant to indiscriminate murder of other religious/ethnic groups. Given the fact that, as a pagan trained in classical languages, I see wikipedia articles on these sensitive issues being twisted indiscriminately by partisans from Jewish, Christian and Islamic backgrounds, trying to get at the others, my practice is to go to the original sources, examine the modern scholarship on their interpretation, and disentangle the contemporary slipshod citation of these authoritative texts for ethnic or religious oneupmanship. No one self-identifying with any of these groups will find me giving reflex support or reflex objections to anything they edit in. All they get will get from me is an examination of the relevant sources in the light of what competent area experts now argue. That's all I have to say here on this meta-issue. And now to editing.Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe Jewish, Christian and Islamic contributors are all partisans. Basileias (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Nor do I. Of course they aren't. Many of our most acute and fairest editors are devout in any one of the three faiths, like my wife.Nishidani (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

On tagging

Drive by tagging is not acceptable, at least in my book, except when the problems indicated are clear for any editor to see independently. In the present case, what's required is, for the editor responsible for the tag, to bullet-list specific details or reasons so that other editors can address concerns that are only vaguely and generically implied. As for the lead being long, this is a delicate argument over which much controversy and confusion exists. Terms are not clear to the average reader that are distinguished in scholarship. Secondly, just to properly do the Gospels, one will find extensive additions necessary. It's not the lead that's long, it's the itsy bitsy section writing that is short on details. If I can't be given a clear outline of the details implied by the tags within a week, I'll remove them.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I have outlined my reasons. I will be putting them back when you do remove them. There is barely anything in the article that represents scholars like Amy-Jill Levine or other views. Basileias (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you kindly link me to where those reasons are stated? While you've been complaining in one liners for 2 days, I've doubled the article's size and added 21 scholarly sources, and you've added tags. If you have something, edit it in. No one's stopping you. There's a lot of stuff to do. by Goldhagen's account 450 passages in just the Synoptic Gospels and Acts are anti-Semitic. Evidently they all need to be listed, though I won't do it.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional off topic points in the article, pagan hostility, anti-Semitism in Egypt, Christian Jewish relations and quoting Tovia Singer is like quoting an Evangelical minister. Some of the martierial leads to this article falling somewhat into a Coatrack. Basileias (talk) 21:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

It's 90% coatrack. But on pagan hostility, anti-Semitism in Egypt, Christian Jewish relations, you are wrong. The texts specifically dealing with the New Testament and anti-Semitism use all of those concepts while discussing the subject. You can't even understand the topic without understanding what Christian Jewish relations actually meant 30 -125 CE, as every text I have read affirms.Nishidani (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully differ. There were no Jewish-Christian relations 30 CE and not for some time after (post edit, they did later turn hostile with Jewish Christians starting to be marginalized). Historically, all original Christians were from the Jewish communities. While I can appreciate and acknowledge you read a lot of material, it has not been comprehensive. I go slow with these subjects and careful with the material. I have not even had a chance to get started because of the back and forth you and other editors have been engaged in, because I felt my efforts would just further muddy the water. Basileias (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Um, do I have to explain everything? 30 is a rough date for the mission of Jesus, the Jesus movement within Judaism, Christian is one who follows Christ in that early period, and if these later redacted accounts carry some grain of contemporary witness, there was a rift from the outset between the Christ sectarians and the Judaean priesthood in Jerusalem, a rift characterized certainly, if not by events surrounding the crucifixion, then certainly 3 years later with St-Stephen's stoning. I use the phrase in this historic context. As to lack of comprehensive reading, you may be correct. But guessing how much I read from 3 or 4 preliminary edits to a few sections of this page over 2 days as if I'd arrived at the limit of my resources, is a tad excessive. Let's just edit. Nishidani (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I am going to retract an earlier statement of mine. I am going to outline my reasons for the tags in another post for the record. I realize now the current talk page is too hard to follow for any newcomers. My knowledge on this is also not complete. No ones probably is, which was why I asked for ideas proposed on the talk page originally. Basileias (talk) 10:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't worry about the tags. I've thought about this overnight and think they can stay up till we have sorted out more of the text. They were due some days ago because the article was disgraceful. I tried to begin to fix it 6 years ago, and only found huge hostility that wasted humongous amounts of time in talk page argufying and policy hairsplitting. So I gave up. So by all means feel free to ignore this, and just edit, and if you think there's a problem, notify the talk page (I hope that doesn't sound condescending).Nishidani (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

There are a few other scholars and writers I think should be considered. Some are in my bulleted list I just shared. I will start there. Basileias (talk) 11:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Current tags

• Part of the current version was built through Tendentious editing, no one single editor is at fault. There is too much reverting and this discourages involvement because someone's hours of work may be removed.

Agreed.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Editor's are greeted with suspicion and there are little good faith assumptions.

AgreedNishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Article contains Coatracking. Another editor mentioned it is 90% coatrack.

It was 90% some days ago. By volume that is now under a drastic weight reduction programme.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• The lead could be summarized and other information migrated into the article.

Given the scrappy body of the article, a lead was required to define what the article was doing. This I have tried to supply. Once all sections of the article are written to some measure of comprehensiveness, then one should revisit the lead so that it will better reflect the WP:LEDE summary style. Before, there was nothing to summarize, and the lead was non-existent.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Other information in the article; pagan hostility, anti-Semitism in Egypt, Christian Jewish relations; there is already articles for these topics.

Almost no wiki articles on this area of history, unless Pico and a few others have brought it up to GA/FA status, is comprehensive, nor reliable. Articles should be drafted from sources, with total regard to the state of other wiki articles related to the topic, in order to guarantee nothing is taken at face value and copypasted to another.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Little information added about the NT writings origin is from Jewish authors.

So far we have Avner Falk, Louis Feldman, Guy Stroumsa, Peter Schäfer, Abel Mordechai Bibliowicz, Moshe Lazar Jeremy Cohen, Walter Laqueur, David Cymet, Sander Gilman, Steven T. Katz and Mark Riebling. In these articles, one should keep an eye on what Christian denomination the authors come from, because its their literature, and confirmation bias or defensiveness is a problem. I don't think this is a problem for Jewish scholars in the New Testament field. Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Not all scholarly view is represented.

They never are in any Wikipedia article I have read. The scholarship on just this topic is immense, with perhaps a thousand scholars having written on it over this century.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• If context is needed, Raymond Brown has proposed ideas around early Judaism and the differences within Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity. This could provide insights into what Christian Jewish relations meant. Again, just a summary here. There are other articles with similar material and suggest other articles not contradict each other.

My view is that all pre-modern history is reconstructed by inferences from scant materials, and intrinsically hypothetical. One has no privileged insight, but only theories, whose utility for wiki articles is based on the consensus they gain by peer-review from scholars specializing in that field.Raymond E. Brown is definitely a good source. Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• An undue weight is given to older scholarship; newer views suggest looking at the new testament through a first century context of the culture and time period. Amy Jill Levine would be an example of this.

Almost all of the 25 sources I have introduced come from the last 25 years of scholarly research.

• What Anti-Semitism could mean from a NT context as in the 1st century time period, but we should not contradict other articles; anti-rabbinic Judaism, etc.

Again, Wikipedia articles are written independently of one another, in various states of disorganization and dishevelment, so we cannot take any one as a benchmark to measure the others. There was far more disunity in 1 BCE-2 CE century Jewish and Jewish Christian culture than what abstract words like Christianity and Rabbinical Judaism suggest. Both movements radically trimmed dissent from their ranks, and huge amounts of literature that was dissonant with their respective orthodoxies disappeared. What scholars do is reconstruct those dissonant voices. Even the Gospels and subsidiary epistles etc. are infra-conflicted, as they represent different Jewish Christian communities. Unity was a fiction imposed after centralized control was established over interpretation.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• The premise is started with the NT is Anti-Semitic; Daniel Harrington for example states Anti-Semitic presents a terminology problem because the term is created in the 19th century and judgements are being made while ignoring the first century context of NT writings.

I concur. If the premise for the start is what is in doubt, or problematical, then that is procedurally inappropriate.Nishidani (talk) 13:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

This should summarize some points. Basileias (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri

Thanks for your coming to help here. Just one point. Quite correct to mark for secondary citation any use of primary sources. But with regard to Matthew, synoptic gospels don't quite 'copy' each other in the sense we understand that (plagiarism). They all drew on a common source (Quelle) or sources, which formed the basis for their distinct recensions. Mark is first and Matthew and Luke draw on him or his source, but for complex reasons I can't explain here, it is not a matter of 'copying'.Nishidani (talk) 13:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Some sources

• René Girard,'Is There Anti-Semitism in the Gospels?,' in Biblical Interpretation, Volume 1, Issue 3, 1993 pp.339–352 I can't access this, but it is often cited, and looks like a general overview of the topic of the kind we lack. If anyone can get it and use it, or otherwise email me a copy . . .Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)