This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bill the Cat 7 (talk | contribs) at 23:00, 18 December 2009 (Added comment to the "This Article is Terrible" section.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 23:00, 18 December 2009 by Bill the Cat 7 (talk | contribs) (Added comment to the "This Article is Terrible" section.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Religion: Interfaith Unassessed | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 | Christianity B‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Judaism B‑class High‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
see also Talk:Jews in the New Testament/Archive
This Article is Terrible
This article is biased, ridiculous and unencyclopedic. The New Testament was authored by Jews (with the possible exception of "Luke," who MAY have been a Jew, it just wasn't explicitly stated). Jesus (a full-blooded, Torah-observant, Jewish Rabbi) was the most pro-Jewish figure in history, and preached nearly exclusively to the Jews.
This article needs to be renamed and rewritten. It's really a joke. Let's start an article called "21st Century America Hates the Black Man" because Kanye West says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.150.37.124 (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this bit in the text:
- Specifically, some of the books were written by Gentiles, or for a Gentile audience, some time after the events they describe.
Which books is this referring to? I don't think the synoptic gospels qualify. If you believe Acts was written by Paul, who is at least nominally a Jew, that doesn't qualify. Clarification? Graft
- Acts is traditionally ascribed to Luke the Evangelist. I'm not sure which book or books that line might be referring to. Paul was certainly a Jew, a Pharisee who studied under Gamaliel. Incidentally, if the only requirement to be a Jew is that one be born of a Jewish mother, wouldn't Paul or any Jew who adopted the Christian religion still be considered a Jew? Would it make any difference if someone born a Jew decided to become a Buddhist instead? Wesley
- Yes, of course. See the entry on Jew for a discussion of this point. If Paul really was born a Jew, then he remained a Jew after he became a Christian. If a Jew today converts to Christianity, technically they still are Jewish. They are not, however, considered a Jew in good-standing in the Jewish community, nor are they considered a part of the Jewish community, nor are they considered to be practicing Judaism. They are viewed as people of Jewish ethnicity who have since chosen to leave the Jewish community and have joined another people. Such people are always welcome back into the Jewish community if they ever decide to re-adopt Judaism as their religion. RK
- Saulus a Jew? Not in the eyes of contemporary Jews. Saulus was a Herodian and they were not regarded as Jewish. It is this question of Herodian Jewishness which underlay the conflict leading to the First Jewish Revolt and, in my view, to the invention of Pauline, Gentile, Herodian Christianity. It is time to stop repeating the myths and face up to historicity. (Extramural 13:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC))
- Well, if you want to get technical about it, no modern day Jew is in "good standing", since the Jews today perform none of the ritual sacrifices commanded (not "suggested") in the Torah. Of course, since the Temple no longer exists, it's not like they have any choice about it. Therefore, the "Jewish community" has no trustworthiness when claiming others are not "practicing Judaism" when they themselves do not practice Judaism. In other words, there is a difference between modern Jews and "Biblical" Jews. That's my $0.02 at any rate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Here's a source for the interpretation of Ioudaioi as "Judaeans" rather than "Jews": suite101-dot/article.cfm/8061/66071. As you can see, it is an essay by an Orthodox Christian on the subject of Christian anti-semitism, but is not an official statement of the Orthodox Church or any church official. I first found the view either in this article (just found through a web search) or in one very much like it. It sounds to me like a plausible interpretation of some passages, but probably not all. Hope this helps. Wesley
- This still seems to be an iconoclastic claim that only a handful modern day people are suggesting. As far as I have been able to tell, this is not the position of any Christian religious bodies or churches, nor is it a mainstream academic view. It seems to be a modern-day apologetic to ignore the plain meaning of the New Testament. RK
- However, Ioudaioi=Judeans is the view of the Jesus Seminar, which is hardly a pro-Christian apologetic organization, and it is growing in popularity in academic circles, especially among Johannine scholars. Since the statement only claims that it is a growing position among Biblical scholars, its inclusion is NPOV. Stephen C. Carlson
- What do you mean by "iconoclastic"?? Here's a much more scholarly treatment of anti-semitism in the Gospel of John; read the section with the subheading "the Jews" for different ways John uses the phrase. http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/research/cjl/CBA_Seminar/townsend.htm. Briefly, he points out that we might use the phrase "the French" to refer to all the French people ("the French appreciate good wine"), to just the French government ("The French are negotiating with the Russians"), the French judiciary ("The French just tried and convicted another criminal"), or even people outside of France but of French decent ("The French Canadians want to continue using the French language). Thus, "Jews" may have been used in different ways in different contexts, even by the same New Testament author. Wesley
- On a somewhat related note, the article now reads that the classical Christian view is that these verses condemn the entire Jewish people as well as the religion of Judaism. Saying that Christianity has condemned the entire people makes it sound like a racial bias. Historically, Christianity has always or almost always welcomed Jewish converts, and the New Testament also speaks favorably of Jews who followed Jesus or became Christians. Wesley
- Christianity has taught that the Jewish people are wrong not to accept Jesus as their messiah. This isn't a racial claim in any way. It is a theological claim. The New Testament doesn't say that the Jews are wrong because of their race or genetics; it says that they are wrong because they have the wrong beliefs. RK
- Thanks for clearing up the position in the article :) Martin
- We are touching on a complicated issue that we have touchec on before. The main problem is that most of the language we have to describe and analyze the past is anacronistic. During the Roman empire, people -- Jews and Christians included -- thought and talked about "relgion" and "race" in very different ways than we do today. I believe that it is anacronistic to claim that early Christians were racists. But I think it is also wrong (misleading, oversimplifying) to claim that because Christians welcome Jewish converts to Christianity, therefore Christians have nothing against "the Jewish People." This is because as soon as a Jew converts to Christianity, s/he ceases to be a Jew. Using today's terms, one could say that Christianity is not genecidal but is ethnocidal, in that it wishes people (pagans and Jews) to cease from those things that define them as a "People." Slrubenstein
- The link looks reasonable. Norman Whitten in his 1976 book Sacha Runa says,
- The concept of ethnocide is taken from genocide, and refers to the process of exterminating the total lifeway of a people or nation, but in the ethnocidal process many of the people themselves are allowed to continue living.
- I think in fact the international law/UN definition of genocide actually includes what Whitten was talking about as a form of genocide. But international law aside, most people think of genocide as mass murder. And the point is that you can kill a "People" (meaning, some ethnic group with a clear identity) without killing any actual people. SOme people used to call this "acculturation" but most anthropologists, at least, abandoned that term long ago because it described an objective (a-political, value-free) process that implied more what Jews today call "assimilation" (which may even inovlve a degree of choice or volunteerism). So in this sense "acculturation" may be a useful word, but in most anthropology it was used to describe what was happening to recent immigrants and American Indians in the late 19th early 20th century when it was clear that the US government had an explicit policy of whiping out different identities -- so the process cannot be described in apolitical terms. Now, I admit that what is going on with Christianity is a little more complex, since Christians also have adapted some Jewish things (well, like the Bible). But my point is simply this: Christianity believes everyon should convert to Christianity. If that happens, there weill be no more Jews. Slrubenstein
- The link looks reasonable. Norman Whitten in his 1976 book Sacha Runa says,
- So, what exactly is a Jew again? Our current wikipedia definition says that to be a Jew one must only be born of a Jewish mother; no particular beliefs are required, and some Jews expand the definition to include anyone with at least one Jewish parent. RK confirmed this definition not long ago on this discussion page, confirming that a Jew is still a Jew even after converting to Christianity or Buddhism, although no longer a member of the Jewish community. (If I recall his words correctly.) I've thought for a while that definition was too simplistic; does it need to be revisited in the Jew or Judaism article? Or perhaps some distinction needs to be made between being a Jew and being part of the Jewish community? Can a Jew become an atheist and remain part of the Jewish community? Wesley 20:50 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes, a Jew can become an atheist and still be a Jew; a Jew can cease believing in God or can stop obeying Jewish law and still be a Jew. But every major Jewish group that I know of considers conversion to another religion to be, effectively, a renunciation of one's Jewishness. Maybe RK can correct me or add to this... Slrubenstein
- What about the Law of Return? Could you use that to determine what is a Jew today? If you want to get technical, the Christians were Jews, they were a sect within Judaism until after the New Testament was written. I cannot recall the general time it became it's own distinct religion, but I know it's related to after the second Destruction. Narnibird 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- I was going to try and refute that, but then I remembered that this is wikipedia! :)
- Seriously, I think this is a fascinating point of view, and it's entirely proper to have it in the article. Who thinks this? Is it any particular branch? Orthodox Judaism? Reconstructionist Judiasm? Deconstructionist Judaism? The Quakers, the fakirs, or the candlestick makers? Names, please... :) Martin
- Okay, I see I have not been clear and either I -- or you -- should rewrite what I recently put in the article. I have never heard any Jew call the Christian attitude "ethnocide." I do know that most Jews I know, once they fully understand the Christian attitude (there is only one truth, everyone should become Christina) are just apalled and do see it as an attack on the Jewish people and on themselves personally. The question is, how to articulate this sense of a "collective" attack? As RK noted it really is not genocide. But can we label it anything? I am proposing labeling it ethnocide; I certainly think it is a comparable to ethnocide. But I am not claiming that many Jews use this term, I am just trying to find a scholarly label to characterize their view... Slrubenstein
- Well, if it's a response to christian views of religious pluralism, rather than specifically to the way Jews are portrayed in the New Testament, I'm not sure it should go here. Martin
- hmmmm. Well, it isn't a response to christian views of religious pluralism. It is in part a response to the Christian claim that Christianity replaces Judaism (which is made in the NT), and in part a response to Christian prosyletizing activities, which is also in the NT. I do see you point, that this article is about how Jews are portrayed, and you may be right. I'd just ask you to think about this: isn't one of the points that Jews are portrayed as "wrong," meaning, wrong in their rejection of Jesus and wrong in their interpretation of the Bible? Jews interpret this portrayal not just as a rejection of Judaism by Christians (e.g. We Christians do not want to be Jewish, which would be fine), but rather as a rejection of the legitimacy of being Jewish -- no one should be Jewish. I guess this is how I got to ethnocide. The bottom line for me is that even though we all agree that none of these NT claims are "genocidal" they are nevertheless collective threats. What do you think?
Oy. Getting too long again. Martin, re your last edit, why is John the Evangelist a Gentile? Graft
- Just looked up the "church tradition", and it says Luke was one of the seventy apostles that Christ sent out... which means he was probably a Jew as well. Unless there's other scholarship that says otherwise, of course. Wesley
- I thought I'd read that John was considered by some a gentile in the ext. link Wesley gave, but I now can't find it, so I've removed the whole chunk. Martin
- "these verses are a critique of some Jews, or specific individuals, or some aspects of Judaism at the time of Jesus, but not of all Jews, nor of the Jewish faith in general, nor of any Jews today" (from the article)
- "True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today" (nostra aetate)
I'm going to say that these positions are equivalent, because I think they're close enough, and that way it's clearer. Martin
Further, there are around a billion Catholics, and around two billion Christians, which I think makes "which is held by the majority of Christians" inaccurate. So I removed that. The next step is to find the current position of the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Community, which are the next biggest branches. Martin
Since this article is now called "Jews in the New Testament", would it be appropriate to include a list of verses that speak favorably of Jews or the Jewish people? There are quite a few of those as well; the article I linked to earlier about the Gospel of John includes a sampling. Wesley
- Martin started doing that in the introductory portion. Personally I think the verses critical of Jews are more interesting because of the link to Christian anti-Semitism, and this is what makes them worthy of an encyclopedia article, whereas I don't see a clear purpose in detailing verses that speak favorably of Jews any more than I would see a purpose in detailing verses that mention animals, or consumption of fish, or whatever. Graft
- I think the extensive list of verses should be moved to meta, and linked to as just one of a number of external links we provide giving that sort of in-depth interpretation. I don't see a benefit in keeping it as part of the entry itself - nor would I see a benefit in a list of verses that show a positive light. Martin
- The reason for showing a list of verses in a positive light would simply be to give the article some balance. if you have an article called "Jews in the New Testament" and every verse mentioned portrays them negatively, someone unfamiliar with the NT could easily come away with the impression that the NT has nothing but bad things to say about Jews. This is far from the case. On the other hand, I have no problem with just moving all the verses to meta. But I'd like to get input from RK and/or Slrubenstein before doing that. Wesley
I think the verses should go out too, however, I am collecting my notes on the subject. In general, the text should not be a catalogue of "nice verses" vs. "not-nice verses." It should reflect the historical context of when and why the verses were written--for example, no discussion of Matthew (a Jew) is complete without understanding why he, unlike Luke or Mark, kept stressing "their synagogues." Similarly, John 8:44 should also be put in context of why this was written and the history of Jewish-christian relations at the time. For a better example of this, seewhat I did with Christianity and anti-Semitism in the Talk pages. Meanwhile, this arguing back and forth over specific verses hardly contributes to an understanding of what was actually going on that caused the verses to be written. It ends up being just polemics. Sorry, I am at work now. Gimme till tonite. Danny
I want to mention why this entry was created in the first place. It was a supplement to the article on Christianity and anti-Semitism; it was made because many people did not believe that such a lengthy list of anti-Jewish polemics actually existed in the New Testament. Many Misplaced Pages contributors are, at best, vaguely familiar with the New Testament, and they only know what they are told: That it is a book of love, love, love. People either forget, or never learn, other aspects of the New Testament. Outside of Misplaced Pages (i.e. in the real world) I have mentioned these verses to people, and in return I was called a liar! Many people won't believe that this facet of the New Testament exists, nor do they understand why Jews today are so uncomfortable with the fact that these verses are still read today as the word of God. RK
- It's unrealistic to expect or demand Christians ignore or reject the Gospels. I've read many verses that sound Anti-Semitic. However I've also read other verses in other books of the Bible that come out Anti-Semitic. I just opened up the Old Testament and got Ezekiel 6:11-"Thus says the Lord Clap your hands stamp your feet and cry "Alas!" because of all the abominations of the house of Israel, for which they shall fall by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence." In other prophetic books they refer to Jews as usurers, harlots, etc. The point of a prophet in many religious traditions isn't so much to predict the future as to criticize, sometimes harshly. Muhammed was very harsh on the people of Mecca and yet Mecca remains holy to Muslims. Anyway I can understand how they sound hurtful, but they can be put into a context. Otherwise it's like ripping up the Mona Lisa into a thousand fragments and saying "look this fragment is ugly, it disgusts me." You don't take just one fragment or verse, you take the whole thing and an analyses of it. (Granted I know in some Protestant traditions they do just memorize verses and take their literal meaning rather than relying on analyses)That said it is disgraceful how it has been used against Jewish people throughout the centuries. As for Ezekiel it later talks of forgiveness and coming home from exiles. In Romans 11:1-2 "I ask then has God rejected his people? Of course not! I myself an Israelite, descended from Abraham, of the house of Benjamin. No, God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew." Lastly there is almost always a tension between a religion and its offshoot. See the history of the Sikhs, or Buddhism in India, or Protestants to Catholics, or Mormons to Protestants.--T. Anthony 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
- That sounds like an excellent reason for a list of verses to be kept, but they could still be kept at meta and fulfill this function. Martin
- That sounds reasonable to me. If we do move these to meta, could we include a link to this from somewhere in relevant articles? RK
- Better to link to this article, and have an external link to the meta bit on here, I'd have thought? Martin
weasel words
I added the "weasel words" notice to the top of the article in particular because the Jewish views and Biblical scholarship sections are (at the moment) completely unreferenced, and thus run the risk of reflecting only the views of the wikipedians that wrote them. At another section there is a promise made to "see below" for Christian biblical scholars, but I couldn't find any such scholar mentioned or referenced; perhaps I overlooked it, or perhaps it used to exist and was later edited out without the reference to it being edited. Wesley 05:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Jewish Views.
I find this section interesting, as I've always been taught that Christians are also descendents of the Pharisees! lol. I mean this seriously. Historically, this is accurate, as you will see if you read anything about the second Temple Destruction. Nearly all surviving denominations/sects come from the Pharisees, as the Sadducees and Essenes no longer exist. Shoot, Jesus himself was a Pharisee!
At any rate, the New Testament itself is not considered offensive per say, it's what's been done with it and misinterpreted that's offensive. This article is based on theology and opinion. What I find offensive is not the appearance of Jews in the New Testament (there wouldn't be one without Jews, or at least not much of one), it is the lack of information that's being touted at true in this article. Narnibird 18:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
- There is no clear evidence that Jesus was a Pharisee. The sentence "Nearly all surviving denominations/sects come from the Pharisees, as the Sadducees and Essenes no longer exist." is a non-sequitor. Christianity was a sect that coexisted with Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. So obviously, Christianity survived as well as the Pharisees. Most historical scholarship I know of sees the Pharisees and Christians as presenting distinct and competing visions of the future to Jews after the destruction of the Temple. The followers of the Pharisees formed Rabbinic Judaism and the Christian Jews separated from Judaism to form a new religion, reaching out to non-Jews (see Galatians). Finally, many Jews consider many verses in the NT to be offensive if not anti-Semitic. If you are calling for more secondary sources, okay, but this article does provide sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I believe what I was thinking at the time is that Christians as we know them today are descendents of the Pharisees. I've learned this from several rabbis, particularly Rabbi Schaalman at Chicago Theological Seminary. I mean, it's clear that whatever sect existed back then under the name "Christianity" is nothing like what exists today, just as whatever "Baptist" (followers of John the Baptizer) sect existed back then is nothing like the Baptists we know today. A simple reading of the Christian Bible will tell us that, and even then, those books were written seven or more decades after Jesus died. Also, "many Jews" are not "all Jews," as I myself am a Jew, and I do not consider "many verses" in the NT to be offensive. I consider what has been done with it to be more offensive than what was written. I consider how it's been translated to be more offensive, than what the actual Greek says. It would be very helpful to include the verses in their original Greek, to explain what, exactly, is antisemitic, or even what verses are being translated to support antisemitism, and whether there are alternate ways to translate them. I'd wager that of all of us, many have never read the NT (among them Lubavitchers and other Hasids), and so they have no contextual basis on which to base judgement of any verses that may be singled out, no? Just things to consider, really. And you are right, this article needs more secondary sources. I think that some of the phrasing is vague and assumptive. 65.33.21.135 (talk) 23:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
- "At any rate, the New Testament itself is not considered offensive per say, it's what's been done with it and misinterpreted that's offensive." Clearly, there's some disagreement on that part. At least some Jews, myself included, find many of the verses in the NT anti-semitic, designed to incite violence and division between the Christian and Jewish populations. Let's not act shocked that they were successful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.211.178 (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you think the NT contains many anti-semitic verses, you ought to try reading the OT!! You know...the part where Jews are described as a "harlot", unfaithful, covenant breakers, stiff-necked, etc. So is the OT now to be considered anti-semitic too, designed to incite violence? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
JNT?
What is Jews in the New Testament/JNT? Subpages like this are normally uncommon, and this one is completely orphaned. Was it a sandbox? Can it be deleted? Thanks.--Andrew c 03:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am guessing it was an experiment at rewriting this. I certainly think it should have another title e.g. "the representation of Jews in the NT" or "Depictions of Jews in the NT." Slrubenstein | Talk 10:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I moved the text to a subpage in the page creator's user space User:Stevertigo/JNT. I have notified the user, and marked the subpage in the mainspace for speedy.--Andrew c 14:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Pharisees
Narnibird deleted a statement that most Jews today see themselves as heirs to the Pharisees. This sentence is very much to the point and deleting it is hardly the "minor" edito narnibird said it was, it is deleting important content. Many non-Jews believe that Jesus was critical not of "Judaism" as such but of the Pharisees. The Jewish view of how the NT presents Jews and Judaism is seriously distorted unless it includes an explanation of the identification of Jews today with Pharaseism. Narnibird: do not delete valuable content without discussing it, and do not identify your deletion as minor. Perhaps you are ignorant of the very long discussions that went into writing that section. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
--Wow, I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I was accessing my Misplaced Pages account at work, and it's very probable that someone accessed it without my knowledge. I just found this through a google search. I do find it humorous how people immediately jump to the conclusion that I'm an ignorant. Regardless of the fact that I didn't make this edit, I'm anything but ignorant. I've got more education and languages under my belt than most people will attain in a lifetime. By the way, I'd hardly call the above discussion "very long." It's clear you haven't been in any philosophical discussions, if you think something contained in one page is "very long." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.33.21.135 (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposed move
Why isn't this article titled Anti-semitism in the New Testament? Seems to me that is what the article is really about. Or, if you don't like that title, how about Anti-Jewish polemic in the New Testament?
--Richard 08:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Another Windbagpedia poor quality article. Misplaced Pages is consigning itself to the dustbin of history
If ever there was an experiment that has failed, this is it. If you are going to spout nonsense, at least stop monopolizing the Internet. --Jacob Davidson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.68.95.65 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Proposed Remove
I think as mentioned above, this article is truly very stupid. The New Testament was entirely written by Jews, so you might as well title it "Antisemitism found in Jewish Literature". There may be a few crazy conspiracy theorists out there who would claim otherwise, but the Gospel of Matthew explicitly states Jesus is a direct descendant of Abraham. This article defies common sense, although I don't doubt someone can create a good argument to back up this stupid theory. This article is either Anti-Christian POV, or some Antisemitic "Christian" POV, but either way, this belongs on uncyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.234.182.237 (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Luke was not Jewish. Also, while the earliest versions of the other Gospels may have been written by Jews, they were likely revised by non-Jewish Christians later. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
At the very least, this article should be renamed to Antisemitism in the NT as seen by those on the political left and/or anti-Christian bigots. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Translation of Matthew 27:25
In this article, the crowd's response is translated "His blood be on us and on our children". In the original Greek, the verb "be" does not appear. The sentence actually reads "His blood on us and on our children". If I understand the style of New Testament Greek correctly, the deletion of the verb "to be" is a Semiticism. I'm not sure if it's clear which form of the verb "to be" has been deleted. Some translations insert "be", as in your article, but others insert the present tense "is" or the future tense "shall be". I think the ambiguity of this sentence should be pointed out and discussed. Do the various possible translations change the meaning at all?
Ask a Jew
Since there seems to be a lot of "Well, according to the Jews I know" in this talk page, it might be prudent to actually have some Jewish people get involved with the discussion. So, if you have any questions about the, or a, Jewish standpoint, feel free to ask. I may not be entitled to speak for all Jews, or a section of Jews, or even a minority of Jews, but I'm a lot more entitled than gentiles are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.211.178 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Antisemitism in the Old Testament
There is a good deal of antisemitism that may be derived from the Old Testament. For instance, there are various passages in the older wrtitings where God and the Prophets curse the Israelites for their alleged infidelity to his Word. ADM (talk) 05:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Um... so what's your point? It would be a Christian interpretation to suggest that these passages from the Old Testament were intended to indicate an end to the covenant by cursing the Israelites forever. The point being made in this article is that there is specific anti-Judaic polemic (call it anti-Semitism if you will) in the New Testament that is intended to differentiate between the (good) Christians and the (evil) Jews. If you wish to discuss the way that Christians have mined the Old Testament for indications that the covenant would be changed by the ministry of Jesus Christ, I think that discussion belongs in another article. Perhaps in Christianity and antisemitism. --Richard (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think the point is that Christians, and the New Testament, can make valid criticisms of early Jewish antagonism against both JC and Christians WITHOUT being antisemitic. Also, although the Abrahamic covenant has (thankfully) no end, the Mosaic covenant does (for Christians, this "end" has already happened; for Jews, it is still in the future). And you don't have to mine the OT for that--here is the reference:
- “Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord, “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah. It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt. For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the Lord. (Jeremiah 31:31-32)
- A more interesting thing to consider, however, is that most if not all
criticismsaccusations of "Christian antisemitism" is from people on the political left. Conservative Christians, Jews and rabbis rarely, if ever, make such claims. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- A more interesting thing to consider, however, is that most if not all
Judas Kiss
The Jewish Museum, Berlin has a plaque that reads:
In the New Testament, the apostle Judas is blamed for betraying Jesus (Matthew 26:15,49; Luke 22:3-6, 47-50). Judas receives 30 pieces of silver in exchange for identifying Jesus with a kiss. Based on this story, treachery and betrayal were often attributed to all Jews, past or present. This prejudice helped prepare the ground for modern anti-Semitism in the 19th century. The German expressions "Judas Wage" and "Judas kiss" continue to be used colloquially, even though most people are unaware of their anti-Jewish etymology.
It is worth mentioning this in the article. 78.105.234.140 (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- I don't see how that is relevant, since the NT text is in no way saying that because one Jew betrays another Jew, that that somehow means that treachery and betrayal can somehow be attributed to all Jews. It is not only irrational, it is not supported by the NT text. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Rosemary Ruether
Reworded characterization of RR as "fringe, leftist". This is an accurate representation, based on the Wiki article on her: Rosemary Ruether. She is also a conspiracy theorist regarding 9/11. Nobody can come away from the wiki article about her and claim she is in the "mainstream". Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why the need to characterize? At any rate, characterizations such as this must be sourced, under WP:BLP. --jpgordon 16:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Why? Because she is a nut job. Read her viewpoints (from the wiki article on her): http://en.wikipedia.org/Rosemary_Radford_Ruether#Viewpoints. Also, the characterizations have now been sourced. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)