Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Move to Antisemitism in early Christian literature?

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.

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 Antisemitism in non-canonical early Christian literature. 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).

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 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.

Opinions?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC) (edited 07:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC))

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 Da Vinci Code 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 Antisemitism in non-canonical early Christian literature (or maybe Antisemitism in the Apostolic Fathers) and then discussion a merge of the two articles. StAnselm (talk) 08:39, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

many of the early Christian writers were quite clear that they didn't think their writing was canonical Yes, and many of them that are not in the modern canon clearly did think their writings were authoritative (they attributed them to Jesus' own apostles), and none 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 was decided centuries later -- the first list of the 27 books in the modern canon comes from Athanasius of Alexandria in 367 (see here), over three hundred years after the writings of Paul and probably around two hundred years after 2 Peter; Codex Sinaiticus 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 Martin 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 lists. 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. The Da Vinci Code is in error in its claim that the second- and third-century gnostic gospels were in serious competition with the four canonical gospels, but this relates only to the gospels; "The Revelation of John", "Hebrews" and several other epistles were not universally accepted in the "canon" until much later. Anyway, it's certainly not POV to restrict an article's scope to the NT is contradicted by Ehrman in the opening of one of these lectures (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.

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 The Da Vinci Code'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 do.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I offended you. You're right - I should not have mentioned the Da Vinci Code. StAnselm (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Just so it's clear, I "thanked" 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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

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 I've been thinking a lot lately about the "Pilate Cycle". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Marcion of Sinope was denouced by all of early Christianity. He would be more like Antisemitism in early non-Christian literature, or just Antisemitism in second-century literature. tahc ^chat 18:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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" wherein all non-Marcionites who call themselves Christians are Christians, and all Marcionites who equally call themselves Christians are not 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" 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).

"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. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose move 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 Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Prospectus lists sections of the Anti-Semitism article in the Brill/Eerdmans Encyclopedia of Christianity 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 Anti-Judaism in early Christianity (with which it presumably might have a fair amount of overlap) and other articles. Alternately, Antisemitism in patristics is currently a redirect to Patristics linked to in the Christianity and antisemitism article, and if that title is acceptable it could easily host a spinout article. John Carter (talk) 19:02, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

just create a new article

If you think there is citations for it, just create Antisemitism in the Apostolic Fathers or the the broader Antisemitism in early Christian literature. There are plenty of reasons to not merge the two (and maybe some to merge) but that will be easier to deal with after you create the aricle for this class of documents, etc. This is similar to idea that StAnselm stated above. tahc ^chat 16:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

All I see on topic now is currently located at Christian antisemitism#Church Fathers. Of course the current Antisemitism and the New Testament article is already quite long. tahc ^chat 16:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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 The Apocryphal Gospels 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 precise definition).

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 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.

As an unrelated aside, piping the first of the above links was apparently a bad idea; Antisemitism in patristics has existed for some time, but it redirects to an article that (at present, anyway) barely even mentions Judaism.

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 for a different reason, but then found myself randomly coming back because of an entirely separate issue on the Pontius Pilate's wife article (which is currently a GA, but fails to mention the antisemitism of Pilate/Procla cult anywhere).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

POV

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.

This edit 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 seem 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: [1] and [2] (that second page is from a book written by Walter Laqueur). On that page, Laqueur makes a reference to John Chrysostom, 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 On the Jews and Their Lies 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 Revelation.

And what was this edit 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 crucifixion, so the article had it right, and I will therefore revert that edit, too.

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 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. Dontreader (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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 [3]; Amulo, Archbishop of Lyons [4]; Agobard [5]; Saint Jerome [6]; St. Gregory of Nyssa [7], and many more. Dontreader (talk) 04:12, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

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 is anti-rabbinic is a different story. Nerms1995 (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Nerms1995, 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: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The article should follow the same outline and POV as the article for the Talmud: 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. 192.40.24.4 (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)Shandafurdie

Tags on article

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.[8], 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:

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 not intended to sit on articles as permanent "badges of shame".Smeat75 (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Responsibility for the Holocaust

Should Responsibility for the Holocaust be included in this article? Editor2020 (talk) 01:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I think so. Smeat75 (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

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.

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? --Willthewanderer (talk) 02:21, 21 March 2020 (UTC)