666:, the famous Christians that I cited used passages from the New Testament to justify their anti-Semitic views. Even today, militant Evangelical Christians often times claim that Jews are of the "synagogue of Satan". It happens to be a fact that the New Testament has anti-Semitic passages. This article cites scholars that make that claim, but it doesn't take a scholar to see that. I think your problem is that you are extremely biased. It doesn't matter that Jesus and his original apostles and disciples were Jews. What matters is that the New Testament has anti-Semitic passages. This article was written to provide knowledge, not to make accusations against the New Testament or Christianity. And you cannot merely cite the Bible to counter claims that you feel uncomfortable with. Rather, you would need to quote a scholar, I believe, who cites a passage in the Bible (or research) to express a different point of view. Also, making another reference to what you wrote on your talk page, the website Got Questions is not a reliable source, in my opinion. Please study this article:
100:. This distinction is itself arbitrary (the people who produced this literature, canonical or not, didn't recognize the distinction, and it was only decided centuries later based on grounds that by and large had nothing to do with the Jews), non-NPOV (the distinction between the New Testament and early Christian literature outside the New Testament is one favored by conservative Christians, but generally not by non-Christians and Christians who teach in secular academic institutions like Yale and the University of North Carolina), and somewhat awkward (a lot of the antisemitism in non-canonical literature is derived from the Gospel of Matthew, whereas the Gospel of John and the Letter to the Hebrews have nothing to do with Matthew, so splitting them up along these lines creates problems).
690:: i.e., all of the problematic (anti-Semitic) quotations from the New Testament should be removed from the article so that no one knows what they are; any problematic quotations should be dismissed as "being taken out of context"; throw in lots of footnotes from solely Christian theologians; eliminate any non-Christian research or commentary; and then edit war until the critical editors give up. Q. Which came first, the anti-Gentile nature of the Talmud, or the anti-Semitic nature of the New Testament? A. Check your chronology.
31:
230:(I forget which one, and it's bed time so I can't check now, but it was likely the first), in which he states that restricting any study to canonical texts can be made only on theological and not historical grounds, on the theological belief that the New Testament texts are somehow in-and-of-themselves more authoritative than extra-canonical texts. This is a Christian POV, and is not inline with NPOV.
596:
anti-Semitic passages are not really anti-Semitic, please provide them. I think that tag that you placed is a major overreaction that proves who has the bias here. I believe you should have brought your concerns to the talk page without the tag first, and placed it only if no one decided to discuss the matter.
573:, who wrote that the synagogue was "worse than a brothel and a drinking shop; it was a den of scoundrels, the repair of wild beasts, a temple of demons, the refuge of brigands and debauchees, and the cavern of devils, a criminal assembly of the assassins of Christ." Also, Martin Luther, in his treatise
717:
There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." So I am removing those tags, which are
647:
HI! I'm going to avoid the semantics and say that the issue here is not whether 'famous
Christians' espoused antisemitism but whether 'The New Testament' does. Further, your notion of the New Testament being antisemitic falls apart when you remember that Yeshua and His Talmidim were Yehudim. That it
589:
for? I believe it shows more bias on your part. We do not know what happened during the crucifixion of Jesus. Muslims say it never happened. Rather, we know what happened according to the stories in the
Gospels. Outside of the Gospels we have no independent proof of anything that occurred during the
233:
Anyway, I don't frankly see why I should sit here and be insulted like this; nothing in your above comment is anything false assumptions of my ignorance of this subject, and ironically shows that you yourself are not that familiar with the formation of the canon. You appear to have some awareness of
515:
Anyway, if your interested, I highly recommend Ehrman/Pleše's book. Their discussion of "the Pilate Cycle" is especially interesting (these works certainly don't fall under "the Church
Fathers" -- they mostly appear to post-date the Church Fathers). Odd that I came to this article over a month ago
502:
Actually rewatching the Ehrman lectures, though, reminded me of another issue: the current article's focus on "the New
Testament" presumably means "the original New Testament" or "the canonical New Testament (in some particular church)", but this does not clarify whether relatively early but still
498:
and the third of the above-linked Ehrman lectures) deal primarily with material later than the
Apostolic Fathers (although in the lecture Ehrman has a bit to say about Barnabas), though, so I prefer "early Christian literature" (which I take to be roughly pre-500, but I'm sure scholars have a more
368:
Christians. The title "Antisemitism in early non-Christian literature" would also be non-neutral ("non-Christian literature" is not an identifiable body of literature that is widely studied, so the only reason one would think to call an article that would be to create some non-NPOV "pro-Christian"
359:
That view doesn't seem to be shared by scholars. Several times in the above-linked trilogy of lectures, Ehrman states that there were thriving
Marcionite communities for centuries after Marcion; the only way you could harmonize your view with Ehrman's is by creating a definition of "Christianity"
103:
Furthermore, while the current title is tilted in favour of a certain conservative
Christian theological stance, it also naturally and inappropriately gives the impression that canonical NT texts are all anti-semitic or somehow "more" anti-semitic than other early Christian texts. I am sure many
614:
Here are more references to the Jews being the "synagogue of Satan" according to famous
Christians. I'm including these examples since you edited that part of the article, as if the reference made in the book of Revelation was not interpreted in that manner by many Christians: Pope Gregory VII
595:
If you think that the New
Testament is not anti-Semitic despite the overwhelming evidence, or that pro-Semitic passages can be added, please mention them here if you have reliable sources that support that theory. Similarly, if you have reliable scholarly sources that indicate that the alleged
130:
There's so many misconceptions in this proposal that it makes me dizzy. The distinction between canonical and non-canonical is hardly arbitary, and many of the early
Christian writers were quite clear that they didn't think their writing was canonical. "Decided centuries later" is a mistake of
238:
s view of the subject, and also know that it is "wrong" in the view of the majority of scholars, but are not sure how exactly it is wrong. I would like you to retract your insults, and refrain from talking down to people about subjects you (wrongly) assume you know better than they
616:
199:
That this claim is a mistake "of Da Vinci Code proportions" is an error apparently originating in your (false) equation of the four gospels with the New Testament, and your insinuating that I am somehow influenced by a fictional novel I have never read is somewhat offensive.
628:
372:"Antisemitism in second-century literature" is an interesting idea, but it is actually irrelevant to my above proposal, as it would exist or not regardless of whether this article is merged into a larger discussion of antisemitism in early Christian literature.
814:
section? His father is Jewish and he is speaking from a Jewish point of view. It seems a bit strange to me to be giving any weight at all to a (presumably) Jew who wants to alter canonical Christian texts in such a manner as to serve the interests of Judaism.
503:
non-viable textual corruptions are included or not; even if they fall under "the New Testament", they certainly are not covered in "the Apostolic Fathers", but "early Christian literature" would likely allow such discussion. So I think I'll go with that title.
619:
625:
622:
790:
The article begins with one person's extremely bold claim, there is also no commentary or critique of the 'ten anti semitic themes' of the New testament. How could we restructure this article so that it's far more balanced and neutral in approach
104:
Christians would be bothered by an article specifically talking about the text that their religious community takes as sacred as being anti-semitic, so expanding the scope of the article to discuss non-canonical material would solve this concern.
283:
StAnselm for the above. I've accepted the apology and it's cool now. I actually think they might have a point in relation to my proposal, that creating a separate article on the broader topic would be better. A merge discussion can happen later.
135:
proportions. "New Testament" is obviously a highly recognised category, and it's certainly not POV to restrict an article's scope to the NT. Finally, the the scope of the article were to be broadened, perhaps the first step would be to create
579:
refers to the synagogue as an "incorrigible whore and an evil slut". Therefore, it would be naive to think that these references to the synagogue as an evil place have nothing to do with the "synagogue of Satan" mentioned twice in
770:
The introduction has been turned into an analysis of analysis- and does not reflect the contents and substance of the article. Can we move the views of individuals to the relevant sections of the article or use them as citation?
174:
of the New Testament authors thought their own writings were "canonical" (the only time NT texts are even called "scripture" is in 2 Peter, where the letters of Paul are called thus). The exact content of the New Testament canon
398:
based primarily on the fact that the New Testament, as perhaps the primary religious text of Christianity, probably has received and deserves separate attention from other Christian texts or groups. However, I note that the
307:
Also, I'm not just talking about the Apostolic Fathers. I'm talking about gnostic texts, Marcion ... actually, why I came to this article today (different from why I came here two months ago, mind you) is because
196:
But you can see when you look at all these different codices, different canon lists, from a century later in the 400s, two centuries later in the 500s, three centuries later in the 600s, you still get different
554:
shows your own bias. It is totally fair to write "In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 Jews appear to be called a synagogue of Satan." The article was not stating that the Jews are called that way, only that they
714:, the guideline for use of the "neutrality" tag says "This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
93:
A much better encyclopedia article could undoubtedly be structured under this title as there is a lot of non-canonical material that is just as if not more anti-Semitic than anything in the NT.
96:
As long as this article exists under the current title, the only way we could cover this is by having one article with the current title and a separate article with the laughably wordy title
407:
for antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the modern period, so I can see no particular objection to a separate article, provided it can reasonably fit in between the extant articles on
711:
Multiple tags have been sitting at the top of the article page for more than two years now. I do not see any effort being put into resolving whatever issues there may have been.
559:
to be called that way, which is true. I will undo that edit based on the following pages from online books which I found immediately when I performed a Google Books search:
767:
Could we arrange the article so that the topic is the focus, rather than commentators themselves. There should be an overview based on the substance of the new testament.
369:
counterweight to articles like this one) and it would be inaccurate (Marcion is not "early" among "non-Christian literature" -- the Epic of Gilgamesh is millennia older).
69:
64:
59:
547:
This article is biased towards the position that the New Testament is anti-Semitic. The sentences that do not put forward that position are too few and far between.
191:
dates from not long before, contains others (such as the Epistle of Barnabas, a famously anti-Jewish work that should definitely be discussed in this context). Per
400:
494:
That ... actually makes a degree of sense. I'll start working on it shortly, if no one else does. The sources I have checked (mainly Ehrman/Pleše's
47:
17:
667:
137:
97:
192:
184:
477:
408:
691:
339:
212:
to the gospels; "The Revelation of John", "Hebrews" and several other epistles were not universally accepted in the "canon" until
448:
86:
343:
531:
381:
321:
293:
266:
250:
150:
118:
141:
420:
796:
309:
575:
444:
412:
38:
776:
512:
has existed for some time, but it redirects to an article that (at present, anyway) barely even mentions Judaism.
516:
for a different reason, but then found myself randomly coming back because of an entirely separate issue on the
824:
800:
780:
761:
746:
727:
699:
679:
657:
639:
605:
536:
488:
467:
432:
386:
354:
326:
298:
274:
255:
180:
158:
123:
459:
you create the aricle for this class of documents, etc. This is similar to idea that StAnselm stated above.
187:), over three hundred years after the writings of Paul and probably around two hundred years after 2 Peter;
792:
517:
473:
695:
520:
article (which is currently a GA, but fails to mention the antisemitism of Pilate/Procla cult anywhere).
428:
164:
many of the early Christian writers were quite clear that they didn't think their writing was canonical
772:
742:
675:
635:
601:
663:
649:
653:
528:
378:
318:
290:
270:
247:
154:
115:
411:(with which it presumably might have a fair amount of overlap) and other articles. Alternately,
820:
757:
723:
335:
563:
560:
424:
188:
170:
think their writings were authoritative (they attributed them to Jesus' own apostles), and
738:
671:
631:
597:
570:
280:
205:
179:
decided centuries later -- the first list of the 27 books in the modern canon comes from
260:
I'm sorry I offended you. You're right - I should not have mentioned the Da Vinci Code.
566:
506:
As an unrelated aside, piping the first of the above links was apparently a bad idea;
590:
crucifixion, so the article had it right, and I will therefore revert that edit, too.
523:
373:
313:
285:
261:
242:
145:
132:
110:
816:
753:
719:
423:
article, and if that title is acceptable it could easily host a spinout article.
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
416:
227:
224:
221:
208:
were in serious competition with the four canonical gospels, but this relates
455:
merge the two (and maybe some to merge) but that will be easier to deal with
482:
461:
348:
364:
Christians, and all Marcionites who equally call themselves Christians are
686:
The article should follow the same outline and POV as the article for the
737:
Should Responsibility for the Holocaust be included in this article?
687:
403:
lists sections of the Anti-Semitism article in the Brill/Eerdmans
338:
was denouced by all of early Christianity. He would be more like
718:
not intended to sit on articles as permanent "badges of shame".
218:
it's certainly not POV to restrict an article's scope to the NT
166:
Yes, and many of them that are not in the modern canon clearly
712:
25:
204:
is in error in its claim that the second- and third-century
360:
wherein all non-Marcionites who call themselves Christians
138:
Antisemitism in non-canonical early Christian literature
98:
Antisemitism in non-canonical early Christian literature
586:
551:
508:
443:
If you think there is citations for it, just create
144:) and then discussion a merge of the two articles.
472:All I see on topic now is currently located at
569:). On that page, Laqueur makes a reference to
340:Antisemitism in early non-Christian literature
401:Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus
8:
565:(that second page is from a book written by
220:is contradicted by Ehrman in the opening of
449:Antisemitism in early Christian literature
87:Antisemitism in early Christian literature
344:Antisemitism in second-century literature
648:is anti-rabbinic is a different story.
18:Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament
668:Knowledge:Identifying reliable sources
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
474:Christian antisemitism#Church Fathers
445:Antisemitism in the Apostolic Fathers
142:Antisemitism in the Apostolic Fathers
7:
126:(edited 07:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC))
478:Antisemitism and the New Testament
409:Anti-Judaism in early Christianity
24:
451:. There are plenty of reasons to
733:Responsibility for the Holocaust
29:
793:Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy
480:article is already quite long.
310:I've been thinking a lot lately
1:
618:; Amulo, Archbishop of Lyons
421:Christianity and antisemitism
680:00:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
658:23:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
405:Encyclopedia of Christianity
700:22:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
640:04:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
606:00:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
415:is currently a redirect to
840:
810:Why is his opinion in the
781:02:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
762:12:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
747:01:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
728:22:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
576:On the Jews and Their Lies
509:Antisemitism in patristics
413:Antisemitism in patristics
312:about the "Pilate Cycle".
825:17:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
786:Change article formatting
537:13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
489:16:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
468:16:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
439:just create a new article
433:19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
387:13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
355:18:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
327:14:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
299:13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
275:18:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
256:13:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
159:08:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
124:07:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
801:03:18, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
476:. Of course the current
181:Athanasius of Alexandria
627:; St. Gregory of Nyssa
496:The Apocryphal Gospels
279:Just so it's clear, I
518:Pontius Pilate's wife
42:of past discussions.
499:precise definition).
812:Christian Responses
447:or the the broader
236:The Da Vinci Code'
630:, and many more.
534:
419:linked to in the
384:
336:Marcion of Sinope
324:
296:
253:
202:The Da Vinci Code
121:
82:
81:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
831:
806:Daniel Goldhagen
527:
511:
377:
317:
289:
246:
189:Codex Sinaiticus
114:
78:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
839:
838:
834:
833:
832:
830:
829:
828:
808:
788:
773:Willthewanderer
735:
709:
707:Tags on article
624:; Saint Jerome
571:John Chrysostom
545:
507:
441:
216:later. Anyway,
206:gnostic gospels
91:
74:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
837:
835:
807:
804:
787:
784:
765:
764:
734:
731:
708:
705:
704:
703:
683:
682:
645:
644:
643:
642:
609:
608:
592:
591:
582:
581:
567:Walter Laqueur
544:
541:
540:
539:
521:
513:
504:
500:
440:
437:
436:
435:
392:
391:
390:
389:
370:
332:
331:
330:
329:
305:
304:
303:
302:
301:
240:
231:
90:
83:
80:
79:
72:
67:
62:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
836:
827:
826:
822:
818:
813:
805:
803:
802:
798:
794:
785:
783:
782:
778:
774:
768:
763:
759:
755:
751:
750:
749:
748:
744:
740:
732:
730:
729:
725:
721:
715:
713:
706:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
684:
681:
677:
673:
669:
665:
662:
661:
660:
659:
655:
651:
641:
637:
633:
629:
626:
623:
620:
617:
613:
612:
611:
610:
607:
603:
599:
594:
593:
588:
585:And what was
584:
583:
578:
577:
572:
568:
564:
561:
558:
553:
550:
549:
548:
542:
538:
533:
530:
525:
522:
519:
514:
510:
505:
501:
497:
493:
492:
491:
490:
487:
485:
484:
479:
475:
470:
469:
466:
464:
463:
458:
454:
450:
446:
438:
434:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
397:
394:
393:
388:
383:
380:
375:
371:
367:
363:
358:
357:
356:
353:
351:
350:
345:
341:
337:
334:
333:
328:
323:
320:
315:
311:
306:
300:
295:
292:
287:
282:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
265:
264:
259:
258:
257:
252:
249:
244:
241:
237:
232:
229:
226:
223:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
173:
169:
165:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
149:
148:
143:
139:
134:
133:Da Vinci Code
129:
128:
127:
125:
120:
117:
112:
108:
105:
101:
99:
94:
88:
84:
77:
73:
71:
68:
66:
63:
61:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
811:
809:
789:
769:
766:
752:I think so.
736:
716:
710:
702:Shandafurdie
646:
574:
556:
546:
495:
486:
481:
471:
465:
460:
456:
452:
442:
404:
395:
365:
361:
352:
347:
262:
235:
217:
213:
209:
201:
195:
183:in 367 (see
176:
171:
167:
163:
146:
109:
106:
102:
95:
92:
75:
43:
37:
692:192.40.24.4
580:Revelation.
425:John Carter
396:Oppose move
36:This is an
739:Editor2020
672:Dontreader
670:. Thanks.
632:Dontreader
621:; Agobard
598:Dontreader
417:Patristics
342:, or just
140:(or maybe
107:Opinions?
664:Nerms1995
650:Nerms1995
587:this edit
552:This edit
524:Hijiri 88
374:Hijiri 88
314:Hijiri 88
286:Hijiri 88
281:"thanked"
243:Hijiri 88
111:Hijiri 88
76:Archive 4
70:Archive 3
65:Archive 2
60:Archive 1
228:lectures
85:Move to
817:Tempes1
754:Smeat75
720:Smeat75
39:archive
688:Talmud
267:Anselm
222:one of
197:lists.
193:Martin
151:Anselm
457:after
225:these
16:<
821:talk
797:talk
777:talk
758:talk
743:talk
724:talk
696:talk
676:talk
654:talk
636:talk
602:talk
562:and
557:seem
483:tahc
462:tahc
429:talk
349:tahc
271:talk
214:much
210:only
185:here
172:none
155:talk
543:POV
453:not
366:not
362:are
239:do.
177:was
168:did
823:)
799:)
779:)
771:--
760:)
745:)
726:)
698:)
678:)
656:)
638:)
604:)
535:)
532:やや
431:)
385:)
382:やや
346:.
325:)
322:やや
297:)
294:やや
273:)
263:St
254:)
251:やや
157:)
147:St
122:)
119:やや
819:(
795:(
775:(
756:(
741:(
722:(
694:(
674:(
652:(
634:(
600:(
529:聖
526:(
427:(
379:聖
376:(
319:聖
316:(
291:聖
288:(
269:(
248:聖
245:(
153:(
116:聖
113:(
89:?
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.